I've found out I have 10 days to get an essay done I totally forgot about. Great situation, eh? Not least when all the books have been taken out of the fucking Library for over the xmas holidays.
Awesome.
Anyway, this is my question, and it's something I spoke to with TDR on Teamspeak a few times. If anyone has any input on it, that'd be great. Academic sources would be even better. I have about 10 Academic Journal Articles and 3 books - one from the Library and two from BitTorrent (that stuff has saved me when I have to do work, I cannot stress it enough).
So without further-a-do, here is the question:
Explore the contention that the war crimes trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo raised awkward questions about the conduct of the Allies during the War
So far I have found plenty of critics who commented on the firebombing of Dresden and the dropping of the 2 Atomic Bombs on Japan - but my main question is why were the War Victors never punished for acts which clearly broke International laws? My first answer would be because they came up with the damned things, and knew legal loopholes (ie. no laws against Atomic weapons as they were not considered at that time of the war etc).
Also dresden was not a Military City. if anything, all it hosted, Military-wise, was a communication line from the Eastern front.
So, what are your thoughts, &T?
Comments
From the U.S. Library of Congress.
The International Military Tribunal consisted of officers from the armed forces of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Therefore their purpose was to find those 24 leading Nazi's guilty after a fair trial. They were not convened or appointed for the purpose of investigating war crimes, charging those with evidence against them, or hearing that evidence at trial. The same can be applied to the more than 100 additional defendants, representing many sectors of German society, were tried before the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals in a series of 12 trials known as “Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings.
It is important to note that all of this was "mandated" before the existence of the U.N. The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. These decisions were ultimately arrived by the agreement and authority of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin and not by international diplomacy. Now as to why the U.N. never perused the U.S., GB, and the C.C.C.P.. (not to mention China or Japan) who are the big boys in the U.N.? The United Nations Security Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members. Do you really think that England, Russia, China, and the U.S. are going to sit as permanent members on the most influential council in the U.N. and allow themselves to be put on trial for war crimes as the victors?
With this and the mention in my Dissertation, I think TDR has beaten all of my Tutors. Shame - he should get their pay packet.
I would go so far as to say the US was practically its own "third" side of the war, outside of "axis and allies". Not necessarily a good one.
I was told about Google Scholar but not had much luck with it. Spent ages in the Library today before I went stir-crazy and found some good books on "Victor's Justice". That is my main thesis in this essay.