WHY ARE YUROPOORS SO FUCKING STUPID

>Germany tries 93 year old man for war crimes in World War all as a Nazi
>Lets Muslims do what ever they want

Other urls found in this thread:

rense.com/general19/redarmy.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

are you seriously defending nazis you ass?

germany YES

the men are cowards and the women are voting to have their men replaced basically.

Everything the Nazis did in that war, including the Holocaust (assuming it happened), was legal under all applicable laws at the time.

Putting former nazi's on trial is fine. Allocating your law enforcement to finding people who committed crimes over 70 years ago while pic related is happening is not okay. The point of the law is to keep the citizens safe, and then to obtain justice. Not the other way around

hes committed the crimes he deserves the punishment, right?

>no link

The dude is 93. I hope he just says fuck it and gives a closing statement that says "My only regret is that we did not succeed".

>Putting old geezers who did nothing wrong is fine

They can't even walk ffs why the fuck would you jail them.

Theyre already watching the collapse of the nation they fought for happen before their eyes if that isnt bad enough now youre going to throw them in jail so they can die there?

Fuck you

they were legal at the time of the "crime"

>Theyre already watching the collapse of the nation they fought for happen before their eyes if that isnt bad enough now youre going to throw them in jail so they can die there?
Maybe they should've won the war

GERMANY
YUSSS

just because their government failed them dosen't mean the guys on the ground deserve to get fucked

Sure they don't deserve it, but that's what always happens. The government fucks up and the people on the ground pay the price

Pretty shameful imo. That Simon Wiesenthal guy is terrible for getting these old men tried. Justice should be rehabilitative so there's no good reason to charge elderly men for crimes they may have been complicit in seventy years ago

Ok, then why do you say it's OK to put them on trial?

War crimes are war crimes. If he committed them he should be put on trial. If someone kills nine people in one of our countries and the crime goes unsolved for 40 years, should we not punish them when it gets solved? Is there a statute of limitations on war crimes?

Except at the time they didnt violate any laws.

If we prohibit alcohol tomorrow, do we prosecute everyone who ever drank a glass of wine or got drunk?

A murderer could still be at large, capable of killing again. These men are not criminals, but soldiers following orders in a time of war. They're not going to kill anyone so having them serve prison time does nothing but satisfy the vengeful desires of Jews.

Of course not, and they may not have been Illegal in the eyes on Nazi Germany, but they were in the eyes of the world. That's the point of war crimes. War crimes prevent a dictator from being able to do things like exterminate a group of people with no consequences. A good example is Idi Amin
This is a good point, do you punish the enlisted man for following the orders of the officer? This was the big problem they encountered at the Nuremberg trials, "I was only following orders"

This shit is insane. Imagine if in the future, the middle eastern countries united and took down America (use a lot of imagination here).

And then they treated all of our army officers as criminals, hunted them years later when they're close to death, and even went after people who were teenage radio hosts working for our governement (remember that trial)?

Milgram's experiments should show everyone that the old Nazis are not evil criminals. They're typical, boring humans who were part of a nation, working for their nation lawfully.

I think it's a valid defense for the grunts, camp guards and stuff, but not for the bureaucrats and officers and higher-ups who tried to use it

no it wasn't. the holocaust was carried out and justified by a sum of (unchallenged) administration acts but there never was a law legalising the holocaust.

I think that's actually exactly what happened, but don't quote me on it

But how come no Allied generals or officers were put on trail for War Crimes (Like Dresden or Hiroshima, or the Rape of East Prussia or numerous massacres of Wehrmact POWs).

You can't preach about following international laws that existed (even if they weren't recognized by Germany at the time as been stated) when the Allies themselves committed a fuck ton of war crimes (including the Russians, much much more) that they never received any sort of trial for before.

You can justify things like Dresden and Hiroshima in the context of total war. Dresden was their manufacturing center and it had to be destroyed. Showing the Japanese the capabilities of our weapons via Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented a land invasion and subsequent greater loss of life. They were also both acts carried out against countries that had attacks allied civilians as well, which made the decision easier I'm sure.

Any civilian loss of life in the nuclear bombs or Dresden can be chalked up to collateral damage, whereas the massacres in concentration camps were specifically for the purpose of wiping out certain ethnic groups and political enemies. Any massacres of German POW's is of course a war crime and should've been treated as such

>not defending hand having pride in the last heroes your now irrelevant country has
People like you are fucking vile

actually Milgram's experiment was horseshit and he had to repeat it 28 times until he got the result he wanted and even in that one experiment only 54% of people kept pushing the button sometimes only after he tried to talk them into it for an hour straight

Hitler was the law at the time. Hitler said Holocaust.
Ergo, Holocaust was legal.

Had the man refused orders, he would have been hanged for treason.

>You can justify things like Dresden and Hiroshima in the context of total war.
But one could say the same with Germany invading most of it's neighbors. These neutral nations traded resources with the Allies thus had to be taken out. Cutting off the material for war was necessary for a Axis victory.

Or the Early stages of the Battle of Britain. Or Operation Barbarossa entirely was justified due to Germany spy reports of a Soviet invasion of Europe planned for 1942-1943, back in the mid 1930's.

>Showing the Japanese the capabilities of our weapons via Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented a land invasion and subsequent greater loss of life.
That's only theoretical. We only had assumptions on how fanatical the resistance would have been. Even so though, was the long term radiation damage justified too? Or the fact they targetted a civilian sector of Hiroshima? What about Dresden being firebombed to oblivion and civilian sectors being hit indiscriminately.?

>Any civilian loss of life in the nuclear bombs or Dresden can be chalked up to collateral damage
But they in fact targeted civilian centers. They knew where they were and yet they completely ignored the layouts of the city.
>whereas the massacres in concentration camps were specifically for the purpose of wiping out certain ethnic groups and political enemies.
Do you not even know of the Rape of East Prussia happend? Or the genocides in Silesia.
rense.com/general19/redarmy.htm
That was a genocide if I've ever heard of one. Yet not 1 Soviet general or officer or soldier was put on trial for genocides charges. I would consider that a way of wiping out an ethnic group in Prussia and Silesia. Whether it was a revenge act or not.

That's what the facial expression in OP's pic seems to be conveying

Jesus Christ.
You are the worst kind of American hypocrite.

>"DOING TERRIBLE THINGS IN WAR IS BAD! Unless we do them. Then it's okay. Because we're America! That means we're the main protagonist of planet Earth!"

Either it's okay to charge the WWII era nazi and also charge a bunch of American WWII vets, or it's not okay to charge either.

The point of these trials is to keep the holocaust and the evil of the Nazis within the public sphere.

You ever notice how the German flag transitions from powerful strong colors to the weak yellow it is now?

Maybe they shouldn't have started the war in the first place.

>But one could say the same with Germany invading most of it's neighbors.
No one called those war crimes though. It was a formal invasion and subsequent declaration of war by England, France, etc
>was the long term radiation damage justified too?
No one had any idea what nuclear fallout was. The radiation was an unforseen externality.
>That's only theoretical. We only had assumptions on how fanatical the resistance would have been
On Okianawa the natives were hurling themselves off cliffs to avoid American capture. They fought until literally the last person was dead. You can call it a theory, but it's a theory in the same way gravity is a theory: all but proven
>firebombed to oblivion and civilian sectors being hit indiscriminately.?
That's the collateral damage I was referring to. In total war those things happen. No one executed Germans for civilian deaths during their invasion of Poland or France. Collateral damage happens
>That was a genocide if I've ever heard of one. Yet not 1 Soviet general or officer or soldier was put on trial for genocides charges. I would consider that a way of wiping out an ethnic group in Prussia and Silesia. Whether it was a revenge act or not.
Yeah of course it's a war crime. I'm very surprised that the beacon of humanitarianism that is Russia didn't so much as reprimand the commissars responsible
You completely missed the point you fucking retard. People who fought on the front lines were never put on trial. People who partook in the execution of noncombatants for the sole purpose of wiping out an ethnicity or political ideology were put on trial

Do you even read books, murica?

Oh and regarding the genocide by soviets, even if it was an act of revenge it's still a war crime

look the jews wanted "justice" for the 6 gorrilion. every one found out the old tin foil was fact. the red cross smuggled out nazis at the end of WW2 and took them to argentina

some of hitlers extended family got killed when their identity was released. they didnt do anything. they werent even alive during WW2

but the jews dont care. so they demanded the west take rapfugees since they knew most of the actual nazis had died years ago. now the west has rapfugees and in europe they fear what will happen if the EU supports israel so the jews jewed themselves

War is a crime.
>checkmate

(((Yuropoors)))* this isn't our fault, or Germany's fault, thanks to the (((Allies))) that fought for the international Jew and banking establishment, against the nationalist [majority] Christian )))Axis((( forces who were being dehumanized by Jewish propoganda, now Germany is occupied by Jews, the (((EU))) and (((UN))) are trying to create a (((global government))) while ethnically cleansing the whites and hiding the truth via "anti semitism" and holocaust lies. Thanks America, Britain, France, Canada, etc. for betraying the white race and subsequently all other races, for the Jews to gain control of everyone and subvert everything.

Dont do the crime if ya cant do the time old faggot. Get ready grandpa Tyrone and Muhammad are finna stretch that ol saggy asshole more than it already is ;)

> Defending Nazis.

This is Sup Forums, there's regular national socialist threads. Are you blind and dumb or something?

>You completely missed the point you fucking retard.

No. I didn't.
The man wasn't a high ranking officer. All he did was collect fucking valuables and write down names.
Had he refused, he would have been branded a traitor and given a traitors death.

Are you saying that you'd allow your own life to end out of some moral obligation to not take part in the deaths of others who are going to die anyway when someone else immediately takes your place?
You don't join the Nazis thinking they're going to make things amazing in Germany, and then abandon ship when they start doing awful things. They won't allow you to do it.
Pretty sure you're the retard here. Only the mentally challenged can't understand self preservation, even at the cost of others.

>Jews
>European

When will Hillary et al stand trial?

>The man wasn't a high ranking officer. All he did was collect fucking valuables and write down names.
Then he shouldn't be on trial. The discussion was about whether or not people who participated in the actual killing of the ethnic and political groups in concentration camps should be on trial right now, 40+ years after the fact

dumb fuck

>When will Hillary et al stand trial?
Probably never but that doesn't mean she shouldn't

Daily reminder that the allies came up with "Yamashita Standard" after WW2, to punish military commanders and officers who never committed any wrong-doings.

Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was sentenced to death by allied justice for acts he never ordered or had any knowledge of - but carried out by rogue and stray element of the lower ranks.

It was such a novel concept they had to give it a name.

If the same standard had been imposed on the allies, more than half of their commanders would have been sentenced to death.