War Crime Trials + Prosecutions
"I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time. The concept of ex post facto law is not congenial to the Anglo-American viewpoint on law. Before criminal penalties can be imposed there must be fair warning that the conduct which one undertook was criminal."—William O. Douglas, LL.D. (Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the U.S., 1939-1975)
We used to have these trials listed under postwar crimes, but since most visitors don't expect them there, hence had a hard time finding it, we moved it up one notch. If you wonder why we put it there in the first place: because the Allied tribunals and all the trials that followed in their wake were a crass violation of international law and thus a crime by definition. Here are papers bringing that message home.
Mark Weber, of the Institute of Historical Review, discusses the problematic nature of the findings of guilt against the Nazis in the post-WWII Nuremberg war crimes trials.
The kidnapping of Eichmann on May 11, 1960 spawned numerous books and movies but, it was really well short of spectacular. Over 30 Mossad agents were involved with three agents accosting and overpowering the 54-year-old Eichmann as he came home one night late from work. Eichmann had made it easy for the kidnappers. He followed a consistent pattern of taking the same public bus home and was unarmed.
Some "false-flag" attacks are so false, they never even actually happened. The infamous "lie that started World War II" at a transmitting station at Gleiwitz, Germany might be such a case. If so, the elusive "attack" of the night of August 31, 1939 would hardly be the greatest mythical crime pinned on prostrate Germany at Nuremberg after the war.
The Holocaustian establishment, especially the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, has been heavily involved and highly influential in the campaign of war-propaganda against the legitimate government of Syria, imparting spurious credibility and moral force to accusations and characterizations that cannot withstand scrutiny.