It was not a real, honest set of trials. It was a kangaroo court.
There were 3 countries acting as judges: USA, UK, USSR.
Most of the court rules were ultimately determined to be consistent with USSR rules.
Anything based on English common law would have meant they couldn't just do whatever they wanted, so they went with the nasty USSR rules for the kangaroo court.
There was no need for ANY EVIDENCE to be presented in order to find someone guilty of a crime.
Torture to obtain a confession was considered acceptable and valid testimony.
In this meme (I don't know if it is real or fake), notice it is saying that "international law" supercedes ANY government's laws. That is one world government stuff, and should be absolutely REJECTED.
However ...
It is interesting to note that it says that a citizen is prohibited from engaging in combat. It says "on the part of the aggressor," but who "the aggressor" is, is in the eye of the beholder. The greater principle is that combat should be engaged in by military, and not citizens ambushing military.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with that, but it is what the meme is saying.
This puts certain aspects of history into a different (non-mainstream) view.
For example, in WW2, Germany is always considered the villain for "invading" Belgium and the Netherlands -- cuz muh desire to "take over the world."
Well, yes they did, but that is not the full story.
What is ALWAYS left out of that discussion is the fact that Belgium and Netherlands were publicly declared to be neutral in the war (would not get involved), but were secretly helping the UK by allowing them to stash weapons in Belgium/Netherlands for a suprise attack against Germany from a "neutral" territory.
Germany figured this out and beat them to the punch by invading.
While there, they followed the rules of war, but the locals (including many jews who had left Germany for these areas, including Anne Frank's father and their family) were civilians who were attacking Germans who were there to keep the peace (they were not at war with these countries, but were occupying to prevent UK/France from invading Germany).
The local citizens who ambushed the Germans were called "partisans."
Here is a short clip of former German soldiers speaking to a young Dutch woman who claimed her great-uncles had been abducted wrongfully by the Germans and never came back. They ask questions and find out that the men were partisans and that is why they were arrested (and probably sent to a prison for crimes). She had no idea, and doesn't seem to really understand it.
They also explain that they were at war because the USSR (led by jews) was planning on invading Germany and eventually all of Europe. That is what the war was about from THEIR perspective -- something nobody ever mentions.
Be careful with anything Nuremberg.
It was not a real, honest set of trials. It was a kangaroo court.
There were 3 countries acting as judges: USA, UK, USSR.
Most of the court rules were ultimately determined to be consistent with USSR rules.
Anything based on English common law would have meant they couldn't just do whatever they wanted, so they went with the nasty USSR rules for the kangaroo court.
There was no need for ANY EVIDENCE to be presented in order to find someone guilty of a crime.
Torture to obtain a confession was considered acceptable and valid testimony.
In this meme (I don't know if it is real or fake), notice it is saying that "international law" supercedes ANY government's laws. That is one world government stuff, and should be absolutely REJECTED.
However ...
It is interesting to note that it says that a citizen is prohibited from engaging in combat. It says "on the part of the aggressor," but who "the aggressor" is, is in the eye of the beholder. The greater principle is that combat should be engaged in by military, and not citizens ambushing military.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with that, but it is what the meme is saying.
This puts certain aspects of history into a different (non-mainstream) view.
For example, in WW2, Germany is always considered the villain for "invading" Belgium and the Netherlands -- cuz muh desire to "take over the world."
Well, yes they did, but that is not the full story.
What is ALWAYS left out of that discussion is the fact that Belgium and Netherlands were publicly declared to be neutral in the war (would not get involved), but were secretly helping the UK by allowing them to stash weapons in Belgium/Netherlands for a suprise attack against Germany from a "neutral" territory.
Germany figured this out and beat them to the punch by invading.
While there, they followed the rules of war, but the locals (including many jews who had left Germany for these areas, including Anne Frank's father and their family) were civilians who were attacking Germans who were there to keep the peace (they were not at war with these countries, but were occupying to prevent UK/France from invading Germany).
The local citizens who ambushed the Germans were called "partisans."
Here is a short clip of former German soldiers speaking to a young Dutch woman who claimed her great-uncles had been abducted wrongfully by the Germans and never came back. They ask questions and find out that the men were partisans and that is why they were arrested (and probably sent to a prison for crimes). She had no idea, and doesn't seem to really understand it.
They also explain that they were at war because the USSR (led by jews) was planning on invading Germany and eventually all of Europe. That is what the war was about from THEIR perspective -- something nobody ever mentions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJkNZ30WV0
Just about everything taught in our history books about this era is the opposite of the truth.