Started By
Message

re: Were the Allies Too Soft on Germany Following WWII? (Trump Related)

Posted on 2/25/17 at 9:29 am to
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 2/25/17 at 9:29 am to
quote:

Churchill was unique among the big 4 while the war crime trials were going on. He did not believe Nazi officers should be hung for following orders. He was afraid it would cause a slippery slope in future wars where the winners could hang the losers using it as a precedent.
Yep. He wasn't openly very vocal about this view, but many others were. Nuremberg was actually relatively controversial in many political circles. Perhaps even more importantly, there were serious legal objections raised. Among them, most of the criminal charges brought at trial were for violations of laws that, strictly speaking, didn't exist at the time they were being violated.

To have mercy on the German people and commit to allowing them to reindustrialize and reintegrate with the west, we had to go hard on the leaders. Kind of excise them like tumors for the betterment of the body.
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
51594 posts
Posted on 2/25/17 at 6:29 pm to
Ironically, Prussia and the allies were pretty damn easy on France after the Napoleonic wars.

Nuremberg and de'nazification were the price Germany paid. Allies weren't going to ignore Germany's internal politics again.

Allies should've invaded Germany at end of WWI instead of stopping in France. It would've prevented the whole Germany didn't lose and was backstabbed meme. Foreign troops on your soil tends to drive home the fact that you lost.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram