this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
29 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14256 readers
813 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am watching a BBC doc about the Nuremberg trials. It is overall propagandizing against the concept of trying crimes against humanity at all. Due to, as described, the british position: it'll just be another chance for the defendants to present their position to the world so better to hang them and be done with it.

Q: Agree/disagree with the above? Both in the specific instance, and in general.

It was the first, but not the last, such proceeding. What are we learning from subsequent?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carl@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

In concept: yes we should absolutely do them. It should be the remit of currently-existing society to seek justice, and on the stage of nation states one state committing injustice against the world cannot be resolved except by ad hoc systems like these enforced by the winners of an armed conflict.

In practice: it has mostly been a method by which the powerful countries consolidate their control over the rest of the world and launder their reputation. They say to us: "look at this long list of African and Middle Eastern warlords and all of the atrocities they committed with child soldiers and suicide bombers" while never prosecuting a single westerner for the atrocities they committed with spreadsheets and aerial drones. Milošević gets a trial for his role in the Yugoslav Wars, but nobody was held responsible for the sanctions against Iraq in the 90s which killed an estimated 500,000 children.