NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so in the other NS forum, I had an exchange whereby the person asked the following question:

Since Hitler was never tried, was he innocent?

I replied that, from a legal standpoint, he is presumed innocent, as he was never found guilty. However, from a historical standpoint, history has judged him as very guilty.

He then said that I think Hitler is innocent, since he was never tried.

Rather than arguing what was undoubtedly going to be a very frustrating argument, I decided to make a thread with a poll. Since NS is split in half right now, I made one on each side.

Should we have trials for the dead to prove their guilt/innocence?

Poll coming.

No, cos they can'td defend themselves and most of the witnesses will be dead. And there's no point.

most of the witnesses will be dead.

Not true. Think how many crimes happened last week, or yesterday.

Not true. Think how many crimes happened last week, or yesterday.

I meant the Hitler case specificly, sorry.

Isn't that God's job?

Isn't that God's job?

He got sacked.

He got sacked.

I don't recall getting the memo.

Hard to sack someone who's infallible, but then it's also hard to employ someone who's ineffable (hellish on the paperwork).

Isn't that God's job?

God's dead, baby. God's dead. Vroom. Vroom.

God's dead, baby. God's dead. Vroom. Vroom.

Well at that would explain why he's been fired.


If only they had cast Nietzsche in Pulp Fiction!

Ok, so in the other NS forum, I had an exchange whereby the person asked the following question:

Since Hitler was never tried, was he innocent?

I replied that, from a legal standpoint, he is presumed innocent, as he was never found guilty. However, from a historical standpoint, history has judged him as very guilty.

He then said that I think Hitler is innocent, since he was never tried.

Rather than arguing what was undoubtedly going to be a very frustrating argument, I decided to make a thread with a poll. Since NS is split in half right now, I made one on each side.

Should we have trials for the dead to prove their guilt/innocence?

Poll coming.

By some human created rules, Hitler is innocent. By realitys law, he was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews, plus the soldiers killed in the war.

Should the dead be tried? Why? The verdict will only affect how their memories are treated (and then only vis-a-vis human created law) and not change the reality of anything they may have done one whit.

The Nazi party, the SS, the Gestapo etc. were all deemed a criminal organisation and indicted at the Nuremberg trials. The leaders of those organisations were put on trial and found guilty. I would pretty much say that Hitler, even though he was dead, was on trial and found guilty.

The Nazi party, the SS, the Gestapo etc. were all deemed a criminal organisation and indicted at the Nuremberg trials. The leaders of those organisations were put on trial and found guilty. I would pretty much say that Hitler, even though he was dead, was on trial and found guilty.

Of course he would, but for all we know he could be blameless for the holocuast.

Well I don't know about gov funded trials. But something to get a little better understanding of what was would be nice. I would like to get a better idea of what that bastard George Hurst did.

Well I don't know about gov funded trials. But something to get a little better understanding of what was would be nice. I would like to get a better idea of what that bastard George Hurst did.

The conductor?

The conductor?

Oops. Spelt it wrong. :$ George Hearst, formerly of the Comstock that had the Pinkertons do a lot of his dirty work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hearst

It says the only place he did bad shit was in films.

I posit it should depend on the crime.

I posit it should depend on the crime.

They shouldn't happen at all, what a waste of money it would be.

It says the only place he did bad shit was in films.

Which is why a trial would be in order to see what's what. ...Well at least his nutty great granddaughter did some time (Patty Hearst)

They shouldn't happen at all, what a waste of money it would be.

Death doesn't exime you of guilt. Hitler is still guilty of ordering the death of millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, even in death.

Death doesn't exime you of guilt. Hitler is still guilty of ordering the death of millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, even in death.

So since we're back on topic, what level do you think the crime would have to rise to to be tried posthumously?

Death doesn't exime you of guilt. .
But how can you punnish the dead? Desicrate their remains?
Hitler is still guilty of ordering the death of millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, even in death
You don't know that.

So since we're back on topic, what level do you think the crime would have to rise to to be tried posthumously?

Heineous crimes like genocide, grisly murdering, abuse of children that resulted in said children losing their lives (baby P case in Englad).

Hitler [...] very guilty.

He then said that I think Hitler is innocent, since he was never tried.

Should we have trials for the dead to prove their guilt/innocence?
You are both wrong.

Adolf Hitler is not innocent. He isn't guilty either. Rather, as of now, Adolf Hitler doesn't exist. He can't possibly be guilty or innocent, because these are properties and Adolf Hitler has no properties.

His lack of existence makes the application of legal judgment impossible.

You don't know that.

Do you study history? At all? And you say I don't know anything about the massively recorded death of Jews, the Roma, homosexuals and more Nazi Germany kept? Please RoI.

Do you study history? At all? And you say I don't know anything about the massively recorded death of Jews, the Roma, homosexuals and more Nazi Germany kept? Please RoI.

I'm not that thick, I know it happened (who doesn't?). But none of us know if Hitler had anything to do with it.

I'm not that thick, I know it happened (who doesn't?). But none of us know if Hitler had anything to do with it.

*facepalms*

http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/

In Mein Kampf, there are dozens of passages that vilify and demonize the Jews. A couple of examples suffice.

"Was there any excrement, any shamelessness in any form, above all in cultural life, in which at least one Jew would not have been involved? As soon as one even carefully cut into such an abscess, one found, like maggots in a decaying body, often blinded by the sudden light, a kike.8

If we had at the beginning of, and during the war, subjected 12 or 15,000 of these Hebrew corrupters of the people to poison gas, as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from all strata and occupations had to endure, then millions of victims of the Front would not have been in vain.9"

Please, read this.

But how can you punnish the dead? Desicrate their remains?

Corpse abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_synod) worked for the church. *shrugs*

Corpse abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_synod) worked for the church. *shrugs*

Someone linked that in the other NS forum.

It's one the funniest things I've ever read.

Having trials for the dead would only be a waste of the judiciaries time and resources, which could be better spent on more recent cases. So I say no to that idea.

*facepalms*

http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/



Please, read this.

Just cos he hated them doesn't mean he killed em. You people jump to conclutions to much.

Just cos he hated them doesn't mean he killed em. You people jump to conclutions to much.

He ordered the systematic elimination of Jews at the concentration camps. Does that mean he had nothing to do with their deaths? We're not jumping to conclusions. History has given us the evidence.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-9.html
http://www.kimel.net/why.html

Corpse abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_synod) worked for the church. *shrugs*
That's because they believed in resurrection. In the very literal sense of the dead body digging out and walking the Earth again.

Legal positivism says that the system is the only reliable judge of guilt or innocence, and whatever is says is right because that is how by definition it works.

Platonic idealism says there is always some higher absolute toward which we strive and that human justice should always attempt to approximate eternal justice.

I say there is no way to punish Hitler or make him suffer, so who cares?

Let's find living dictators to humiliate and torment instead, like the rulers of Burma.

Death doesn't exime you of guilt. Hitler is still guilty of ordering the death of millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, even in death.

And if this were proven in a court of law tomorrow, what exactly would we have achieved? Well, since this trial would obviously take place in Germany, some nice camera time of German officials reminding the world that they're not genocidal Nazis any more. Hooray.

Well, at least we'll all finally be able to agree that Hitler was a right ****. Oh wait, pretty much everybody thinks this already. And I'll be damned if a little thing like a judge saying so will change the mind of people who rather like Hitler. I can already hear them crying about how its a sham of a trial.

Which it would be, a total sham. The accused can't defend himself, or face his accusers. The vast majority of the surviving witnesses are dead. Where on Earth you'd find a jury who wouldn't be biased as fuck is beyond me. I mean, how can you get a fair trial before a jury of your peers when every school child in the last 60 years has been hearing about how you're one of the world's greatest monsters?

If we're going to waste time on pointless trials that'll achieve nothing then at least make them entertaining. Put Satan on trial. Or God. Oooooh, Loki.

Where on Earth you'd find a jury who would be biased as fuck is beyond me.

That one's easy! Pretty much anywhere that's ever heard of "Germany."

And if this were proven in a court of law tomorrow, what exactly would we have achieved? Well, since this trial would obviously take place in Germany, some nice camera time of German officials reminding the world that they're not genocidal Nazis any more. Hooray.

Well, at least we'll all finally be able to agree that Hitler was a right ****. Oh wait, pretty much everybody thinks this already. And I'll be damned if a little thing like a judge saying so will change the mind of people who rather like Hitler. I can already hear them crying about how its a sham of a trial.

Which it would be, a total sham. The accused can't defend himself, or face his accusers. The vast majority of the surviving witnesses are dead. Where on Earth you'd find a jury who would be biased as fuck is beyond me. I mean, how can you get a fair trial before a jury of your peers when every school child in the last 60 years has been hearing about how you're one of the world's greatest monsters?

If we're going to waste time on pointless trials that'll achieve nothing then at least make them entertaining. Put Satan on trial. Or God. Oooooh, Loki.

I take it you don't believe trying Hitler for his crimes postumously won't bring closure to those who lost loved ones to the Holocaust, right?

Ok, so in the other NS forum, I had an exchange whereby the person asked the following question:

Since Hitler was never tried, was he innocent?

I replied that, from a legal standpoint, he is presumed innocent, as he was never found guilty. However, from a historical standpoint, history has judged him as very guilty.

He then said that I think Hitler is innocent, since he was never tried.

Rather than arguing what was undoubtedly going to be a very frustrating argument, I decided to make a thread with a poll. Since NS is split in half right now, I made one on each side.

Should we have trials for the dead to prove their guilt/innocence?

Poll coming.

To be perfectly blunt the Nuremberg trials were not fair trials.
They were not conducted by neutral parties to the conflict but instead the victorious occupying powers.
I find he Russian suggest of just shooting the leadership of the nazi party more honest.

He ordered the systematic elimination of Jews at the concentration camps. Does that mean he had nothing to do with their deaths? We're not jumping to conclusions. History has given us the evidence.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-9.html
http://www.kimel.net/why.html

I've not seen any proof.When did he order this? Were you there? Did you here him say ir.

I've not seen any proof.When did he order this? Were you there? Did you here him say ir.

Pero qué denso eres, tío, qué denso!:rolleyes:

I take it you don't believe trying Hitler for his crimes postumously won't bring closure to those who lost loved ones to the Holocaust, right?

What closure do they need? Hitler was a murderous dick. everyone knows this. Why do we need a trial to prove such a thing? Furthermore, he can't be tried as he isn't alive to face his accusers. That is a basic right. It's nothing but a waste of time, and might set a horrible precedent. Say this goes through, we'd likely have people devoting their lives to trying dead people for the smallest stuff, like petty theft or something. I mean, should I be able to exhume a body from the 1200s, and put it on trial for adultery, because I read a journal passage where said person was writing down lustful thoughts? Ridiculous. How about we put Cain on trial for what he did to Able? Adam and Eve need the closure.:rolleyes:

Pero qué denso eres, tío, qué denso!:rolleyes:

Did you call me dence? I hate it when you answer in spanish. :mad:

I take it you don't believe trying Hitler for his crimes postumously won't bring closure to those who lost loved ones to the Holocaust, right?

If they'll get closure from a phony trial of no real legal value they can buy suits and hold one themselves.

If they'll get closure from a phony trial of no real legal value they can buy suits and hold one themselves.

Right. We feel differently about this issue.

Right. We feel differently about this issue.

We?

We?

Iffy feels a certain way and I feel another. Hence, we.

Right. We feel differently about this issue.

We?

Nanatsu and I. Obviously. :rolleyes:

Iffy feels a certain way and I feel another. Hence, we.

Oh, ffs_. I thought... nevermind.

Nanatsu and I. Obviously. :rolleyes:

Alright, I'm thick- I know.

Alright, I'm thick- I know.

Dude, I'm younger than you but I'm still smarter.

Dude, I'm younger than you but I'm still smarter.

So? What difference does age make? What do I care if you are smarter than me?

So? What difference does age make? What do I care if you are smarter than me?

Nothing, no need to get worked up about it.

So? What difference does age make? What do I care if you are smarter than me?

You're giving me a headache.:(

Nothing, no need to get worked up about it.

Fuck. I'm sorry, I'm just mega-stressed atm, don't take it personally.

Fuck. I'm sorry, I'm just mega-stressed atm, don't take it personally.

It's okay, don't worry about it.

I think we should also tax the dead, allow them to stand in elections, and to marry.

I think we should also tax the dead, allow them to stand in elections, and to marry.

Hey, dead girls don't say "no".:tongue:

I think we should also tax the dead, allow them to stand in elections, and to marry.

I call marrying Marilyn Monroe

Hey, dead girls don't say "no".:tongue:

what about mostly dead girls ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrYNaaYSjs

Should we have trials for the dead to prove their guilt/innocence?

No, it would be a pointless exercise that only served to waste time and resources. When a person dies, he falls outside the scope of the legal system, and that's the way it ought to be.

what about mostly dead girls ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrYNaaYSjs

Considering the subject, I think I'll refrain from clicking that link. There are some things I just don't want to know.

Considering the subject, I think I'll refrain from clicking that link. There are some things I just don't want to know.

The link is safe trust me.

Considering the subject, I think I'll refrain from clicking that link. There are some things I just don't want to know.

It's safe.

OK I looked. Funny.

OK I looked. Funny.


what sort of person did you take me for ???

what sort of person did you take me for ???

Someone I met on the internet. Not all of whom are exactly trustworthy.

Someone I met on the internet. Not all of whom are exactly trustworthy.

This isn't 4chan.

This isn't 4chan.

Which is why I am here, not there.

This isn't 4chan.
This is even worse.

Holy shit! Hitler is dead? :eek:

Stalin will be pleased.

Holy shit! Hitler is dead? :eek:

Stalin will be pleased.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news so I will try and break this to you gently, Stalin hasn't been feeling to good lately himself.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news so I will try and break this to you gently, Stalin hasn't been feeling to good lately himself.

I bet Leon Trotsky, that loathsome leader of the fascist and counter-revolutionary Third International, has tried to poison him again. Mind, he's been quiet himself of late. I wonder what our great Queen Victoria thinks about these crazy developments in the East.

I bet Leon Trotsky, that loathsome leader of the fascist and counter-revolutionary Third International has tried to poison him again. Mind, he's been quiet himself of late.

He's quite picky these days.

Someone I met on the internet. Not all of whom are exactly trustworthy.

yeah but linking necrophiliac videos is a bit much for here.

yeah but linking necrophiliac videos is a bit much for here.

I save those for 4chan. :p

Holy shit! Hitler is dead? :eek:

Stalin will be pleased.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news so I will try and break this to you gently, Stalin hasn't been feeling to good lately himself.

LMAO. Thank you.:D

yeah but linking necrophiliac videos is a bit much for here.

You're kidding, right? If it weren't for NSG I would never have seen tubgirl or goatse (and the latter has been posted recently). See, Even NSG has its dark side.