Nuremberg Trials - Victors Revenge?

[Hanny]

Alfred Jodel was aquited by a German court several years after he was hanged at Nurnberg. So no, history has shown this too be a kangeroo
court.

Or we can use real history.

That denazificationn court of 1953 found him not guilty on counts 3 and 4 he was convicted of at Nuremeburg, it found him guilty of counts 1 and 2. This entire court rulling was revoked by the German Government in Sept of 1953 and Jodel remains guilty on all 4 counts.

Nazi revisionism is the theme of this thread.

[Kissaki]

Nazi revisionism is the theme of this thread.

How so? I don't think anyone has ever denied that the Nuremberg trials were simply the victor's excuse to hang enemy leaders. A similar trial would have taken place against Allied leaders had Hitler won. The main count of the trials (crimes against humanity) was especially made for the trials, and didn't exist before. The only provisions which already existed were the Geneva convention, and it wasn't until 1949 that the Geneva convention was amended to forbid retaliation against civilian populations.

It is also worth noting that while eg. Dönitz was convicted of war crimes, Nimitz spoke in his defence saying the German uboat service didn't do anything the US submarine service didn't do, and that in fact US submariners were more heavy-handed against enemy civilians than the German uboat service was.

It seems that "revisionism" is being thrown out in order to browbeat anyone straying from convention -- in this case a bit odd, as the idea presented in the OP is neither new nor particularly controversial. Apparently some people have the knee-jerk reaction along the line of, "so you mean they didn't deserve it?" But that's missing the point. The issue is not whether the convicted criminals had it coming or not, but whether or not it was more or less a show trial. Just because it was a show trial, however, doesn't mean that justice wasn't served by it. Bad people can be subjected to show trials, too.

As for "Nazi" revisionism, that's an interesting neologism. Is it revisionism pertaining to the nazies, or is it an adjective describing the revisionism? Either is incorrect. To suggest that the Nuremberg trials were mostly for show is not revising anything, and if it were revisionism, it would be Allied revisionism, not nazi revisionism. And why this fear of revisionism? I never understood that. Without revisionism, history is dead. Not only is revisionism inevitable, but history needs to be revised constantly in order to keep up with the times: should our history books today portray the Napoleonic wars with a 19th century perspective? Likewise, if we discover new information, should we discard it because it's revisionistic?

Revisionism is good when the only agenda is updating historical knowledge. Revisionism is bad when it has an agenda beyond this, ie. you start out with the conclusion and look for facts to support it. This kind of revisionism is indeed bad, but no worse than historical stasis for the same reason: the notion that current historical knowledge is the Truth with capital T is just as dangerous, for the exact same reason: you'll discard any and all information incongruent with the conclusion you've started out with. As Sherlock Holmes would say, you'd be shaping facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.