Of course, shooting people in covert ops is not a long term solution. And sure, the first trial is going to drag others behind. A natural consequence that must be addressed, but can't be avoided.
Yes it can be avoided, and WOULD be avoided by not having second lifer responsible for first life deeds.
Else you will have clusterfuck of legal issues in your hands.
Of course you were going to get into crusades and Inquisition, and Spanish Conquest, for that matter. Still, even at the time, those actions were justified under necessity, not liking. Nazis could say the same, but when Nazis came, all that was the past. Seen, done, judged. I seem to recall that the Catholic Church even issued an apology for the Inquisition thing... a few centuries late, though. Besides, those were actions against heathens, Germany took action against everyone. Not sure the crusades are a good analogy. Well, only if we substitute the religion for the racial thing.
And Nazis saw what they did justified under necessity. They saw the groups they acted against as one form or another threat to wellbeing of Germans and western world.
Thus, if we go by that logic, Nazis still walk free if Crusaders do.
As for heathens, Germans acted against Jews (heathens of one sort), Gypsies (thieves and whatnot) and Gays (immoral creatures!). You really should get more familiar with Germany under Nazi regime. It is not quite as black and white as you pretend it to be. They were not cackling evil creatures who ate babies "just for shits and giggles". They had their own twisted logic behind what they did, their own twisted justifications as well.
Just like Crusaders.
And if you want other examples. Are you going to burn Bomber Harris too?
Because it does not require much to see allied area bombing strategy targetting cities, and specially Dresden/Hamburg/Pforzheim firebombing, as warcrime worthy of execution.
Or their counterparts in Japan...
Certainly would have been if he had been on losing side.
As Curtis LeMay said: "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
And if those issues were brought to table today... There would be far more pressure to put also Allied leaders charged.
Yes, this is true. So no one holds the absolute truth (Not even God, as we saw
). But there are basic rights of humanity, which shouldn't be violated. And said rights are agreed upon by majority. There is no absolute truth, but we can take the truth of a large part of the population to hold as truth for the purposes of establishing something to measure others against. It's called democracy, I believe. Not the best system, but as good as they get.
Are you aware that what you consider "unalienable rights" are not, in fact, very unalienable?
Modern world has plethora of different legal systems, laws have great deal of variety.
See, the problem with the Nazis is that they weren't a past civilization or something. There were modern, civilized, Westerners, Christians, etc., etc. That kind of puts them in a club that had some rules agreed upon about how to wage war, how to treat civilian population, some human rights of sorts, etc. They violated all that nonchalantly. They knew what they were doing, they knew it was against all that was thought or should have been thought to them, (Nazism in Germany didn't last long to shape enough generations from the cradle into their thinking), and they didn't care. They wasn't even regretful about it.
And as said, they did what they felt was right. And I would like to remind you again that if you open the door to charging Nazis, you have to be prepared to put Harris on stake and burn him too.
THEY knew what they were doing as well, and yet committed acts which can count as atrocities.
As for how to wage war. You forget that Geneva treaty was not signed and ratified by all parties. For example Soviets.
Western forces were, more or less, treated according to treaties.
Differences between German treatment of western allies and west allies treating germans are not all that far from one another.
No, you are missing my point. The strategy of scaring people into surrender is very old, and is still in effect, actually. The point is being so cruel in victory that people rather surrender and bargain than stand and fight. That's not what I'm saying. What I say is that in that moment of time, those techniques could be used openly and they weren't bad practice or whatever. Everyone was expected to use them. It was standard.
No, it was NOT the standard. Because if it had been, there would not have been shock effect.
Go tell the US Army to sever a few hundred Muslim heads and spread them in Irak, see if they can pull it off with good publicity. Don't think so. For the Mongols, the same would just be a matter of logistics. In their name, their own people wouldn't care, and the defeated ones would hate them, but accepted it as a consequence of war. That's the point, they were out of what was considered expected in their time. You can see the Romans, they did some pretty heavy stuff too. and they were the height of civilization at the time. Their problem was that they saw themselves as the only light of civilization in a barbaric world. Kind of Nazis themselves
Nazis were not seeing themselves as only light, but you actually speak against your argument. If we accept Roman view of the world and necessity, we must accept Nazi one too.
Excusing someone for doing atrocity and condemning someone else for the same is not going to be accepted readily by general public at least in the West. Main point of law is that it is supposed to treat everyone equally.
No infinite wisdom. there comes a time when you need to establish some ground rules, have everyone or a majority agree to play by them, and have everyone else forcefully get into play or separated completely. It's kind of what we had done in history until now. Of course this is inherently unjust, but again, as fair as it gets...
And who forms the majority? Earth folks dictating terms to second lifers? (let's remember that HUGE portion of them have not even heard of Nazis but have their own axes to grind)
Oh that is going to go down well. If you ask Second lifers, response is going to be quite different.
Very good point. they should be a supreme Court somewhere, specially design to take this stuff into consideration.
The invasion of Hell is probably be a catalyst to achieve greater union of countries, the likes of which we have not seen yet, at least when it comes to world level organizations. kind of a Second World War on steroids
And what laws shall that court enforce and which legal system shall it work on? Hague style ICJ? USA refuses.
US style? Rest of the world refuses.
Any other? Large part of world will still refuse.
Invasion of Hell and war for Heaven are unlikely to unite countries in a good way.
While there was chance for that, and some unity did exist, exclusive nature of Yamantau club and it's attempts to sideline UN is working against it.
Only hope I see is re-establishing position of UN fast. Else there will be serious division on Earth. There is Yamantau club and then there is "Union of everyone else". Caesar is going to want to get cushy with latter one, even though underdog they possess sufficient knowledge to help boost New Rome, and are easier to negotiate with as both NR and UEE would see Y-club as primary problem.
Yes, Americans do tend to do that.
what I said earlier was that it would depend on the crimes. Charles Manson, judged by Americans. Stalin, judged by Russians. Hitler, judged by inter-dimensional court. And so forth. It would depend of the scale of the crime committed.
Mmm. But if you put Hitler in inter-dimensional court, you would have to put Staling too. His forces committed atrocities outside borders of their territories (terror attacks on villages in Finland) and treatment of POW at the camps was atrocious.
Of course there is the issue of the evolution of law systems. Alexander would probably not understand why he's being judged by the same things he held to be natural to his station. that is to be taken into consideration, but modern day rules are to be applied. We are talking about a tool to allow us to measure the danger of reinsertion of a certain individual into society, not a mere punishment. As was pointed out earlier, we have jumped the shark regarding punishment already. I'm concerned with the stability of society while accepting a crowd of individuals so different from us now. For that, we need to measure them against modern laws, see which they broke, why (taking their moment in history into consideration) and issue the appropriate corrective sentences. Or death, it would depend.
No way pulling that off. It would be just way too massive undertaking, as what we consider "normal" has been such for very short time.
And then there is issue that this group would not be exactly thrilled with thought of some wankers from future starting to judge them with their fancypants pussyfoot laws...
We also have issues of changes in laws... Punishments, laws and so forth even for existing nations have changed greatly over time.
Judging people by modern standards for things done in past, which at that time may not have been crimes, is going to be problematic.
I think we are drifting a little here. We could carry this on by private messaging if you are interested, perhaps.
Sure. Toss a message to me.
Or have another thread for this discussion so we get outside comments as well.