"Systemic" issues with gas chamber investigations.

[Nessie]

Since Nessie is obviously struggling:

The IMT was an "international" tribunal. USA, UK, France, USSR. It seems to have escaped Nessie's notice that these countries were coincidentally Germany's enemies during the war.

The NMT - American run.

Supreme National Tribunal - Communist Poland (the Poles had also been enemies of Germany, plus add the Soviet/Communist influence)

'Muh West German Trials'
-The Bonn Government was the consequence of Allied occupation and denazification policies. It joined NATO in 1955. There are still American troops there today.
-The trials were the brainchild of a Jewish prosecutor named Fritz Bauer
-At the start of Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, they had several historians from the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte (an institute set up to police the history of the Third Reich era) and give the "historical context" for the trial, i.e., all the findings of the earlier show trials.

Your argument appears to be that when a victor prosecutes the vanquished, that is a "systemic" issue. But more detail is needed. If a victor prosecutes the vanquished for crimes that are proven to have been committed, what are the "systemic" issues? When countries from Norway to Romania also prosecuted their own nationals and nationals from other countries, extradited to be tried for their roles in the Holocaust during the war, how does that fit with the victor prosecuting the vanquished?

The Norwegians purged all the fascists from the government after the war. Whoa, who could have seen that coming? Now I'm really going to have to rethink everything!

There's no way Vidkun Quisling was going to remain in power in Norway after the fall of the Reich.

I am still waiting for you to evidence "systemic issues" with investigations into those who were responsible for and assisted the Nazis with the Holocaust. You appear to have not known that each nation conducted its own investigations, prosecuting its own citizens, and citizens from other countries who had been based there during the war.

There were issues, with Holocaust related trials in Belgium, namely legal jurisdiction, a lack of evidence due to the Nazis destroying documents and the lack of witnesses;

https://www.antwerpcommemorates.be/arch ... to-justice

"By comparison, another group of victims was clearly underexposed, namely that of the Jewish deportees.
While this applied to Belgium as a whole, this was particularly evident in Antwerp.
In several cases involving Flemish SS officers, the military tribunal made very little of their involvement in the deportations. A number of important German leaders were also able to evade judicial proceedings. Erich Holm, the head of the Anti-Jewish section of the Sipo SD in Antwerp, was never arrested, for example. There were several reasons for this. After the war, Belgian legislation was not adapted to the Holocaust. As a result, military tribunals did not have the right legal framework for investigating the persecution of the Jews. During the first years after the war, there was also a lack of basic information about the Holocaust. Due to the low survival rate of deportees, there was also a lack of witnesses. The Germans also destroyed many important archives at the end of the war."

[HansHill]

Since Nessie is obviously struggling:

The IMT was an "international" tribunal. USA, UK, France, USSR. It seems to have escaped Nessie's notice that these countries were coincidentally Germany's enemies during the war.

The NMT - American run.

Supreme National Tribunal - Communist Poland (the Poles had also been enemies of Germany, plus add the Soviet/Communist influence)

'Muh West German Trials'
-The Bonn Government was the consequence of Allied occupation and denazification policies. It joined NATO in 1955. There are still American troops there today.
-The trials were the brainchild of a Jewish prosecutor named Fritz Bauer
-At the start of Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, they had several historians from the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte (an institute set up to police the history of the Third Reich era) and give the "historical context" for the trial, i.e., all the findings of the earlier show trials.

Some further notes on the comically and obviously punitive nature of Nuremberg - from Sean McMeekin:

AT TEHERAN, STALIN and Roosevelt had aligned on the basic approach they would take to Germany after Hitler’s defeat. All of the main belligerents had agreed on the need to disarm the Reich, impose controls to prevent German rearmament, and ban the Nazi party. While the Vozhd had not fully embraced unconditional surrender, and Roosevelt had not signed off on Stalin’s proposal to “dismember” Germany and on Soviet claims on East Prussian territory, the two statesmen had agreed that Germany must be severely punished, setting themselves against what Stalin scoffed at as Churchill’s “desire for a soft peace.” The most dramatic moment came when Stalin had proposed the summary shooting of “50,000 or perhaps 100,000 German officers” after the war to intimidate the German people, prompting Churchill’s objection and Roosevelt’s compromise solution that the Allies might shoot only forty-nine thousand German officers instead. As we saw, Stalin prevented a breach by embracing Churchill and telling him that he was only teasing.

Stalin was not joking, however, about his desire to dismember Germany—or to conduct mass shootings of German officers. We know this because US Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau and his assistant, the Soviet asset Harry Dexter White, specifically referenced “Marshal Stalin’s list of 50,000” from Teheran when they discussed preparing a list of Germans who “ought to be shot” on September 4, 1944, in a planning session for the upcoming inter-Allied conference in Quebec.

"B-b-but Churchill and the Western Allies weren't serious, they were the good guy and would never agree to anything like that with Stalin!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

[Nessie]

Since Nessie is obviously struggling:

The IMT was an "international" tribunal. USA, UK, France, USSR. It seems to have escaped Nessie's notice that these countries were coincidentally Germany's enemies during the war.

The NMT - American run.

Supreme National Tribunal - Communist Poland (the Poles had also been enemies of Germany, plus add the Soviet/Communist influence)

'Muh West German Trials'
-The Bonn Government was the consequence of Allied occupation and denazification policies. It joined NATO in 1955. There are still American troops there today.
-The trials were the brainchild of a Jewish prosecutor named Fritz Bauer
-At the start of Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, they had several historians from the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte (an institute set up to police the history of the Third Reich era) and give the "historical context" for the trial, i.e., all the findings of the earlier show trials.

Some further notes on the comically and obviously punitive nature of Nuremberg - from Sean McMeekin:

AT TEHERAN, STALIN and Roosevelt had aligned on the basic approach they would take to Germany after Hitler’s defeat. All of the main belligerents had agreed on the need to disarm the Reich, impose controls to prevent German rearmament, and ban the Nazi party. While the Vozhd had not fully embraced unconditional surrender, and Roosevelt had not signed off on Stalin’s proposal to “dismember” Germany and on Soviet claims on East Prussian territory, the two statesmen had agreed that Germany must be severely punished, setting themselves against what Stalin scoffed at as Churchill’s “desire for a soft peace.” The most dramatic moment came when Stalin had proposed the summary shooting of “50,000 or perhaps 100,000 German officers” after the war to intimidate the German people, prompting Churchill’s objection and Roosevelt’s compromise solution that the Allies might shoot only forty-nine thousand German officers instead. As we saw, Stalin prevented a breach by embracing Churchill and telling him that he was only teasing.

Stalin was not joking, however, about his desire to dismember Germany—or to conduct mass shootings of German officers. We know this because US Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau and his assistant, the Soviet asset Harry Dexter White, specifically referenced “Marshal Stalin’s list of 50,000” from Teheran when they discussed preparing a list of Germans who “ought to be shot” on September 4, 1944, in a planning session for the upcoming inter-Allied conference in Quebec.

"B-b-but Churchill and the Western Allies weren't serious, they were the good guy and would never agree to anything like that with Stalin!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

That Stalin was proposing a mass murder, that we now know about, is why so-called revisionist claims that it was possible to organise and control a hoax the size of the Holocaust, is so preposterous and unlikely.

Archie's claim about systemic issues, appears to only apply to the IMT. There has been nothing about any other investigation. I am sure he is happy with an American historian exposing a mass murder proposal by Stalin.

[HansHill]

That Stalin was proposing a mass murder, that we now know about, is why so-called revisionist claims that it was possible to organise and control a hoax the size of the Holocaust, is so preposterous and unlikely.

Archie's claim about systemic issues, appears to only apply to the IMT. There has been nothing about any other investigation. I am sure he is happy with an American historian exposing a mass murder proposal by Stalin.

How are you always so wrong about everything. It's pure cinema.

Firstly, Stalin wasn't organizing a "hoax", he was advocating for a genocide (really mass executions but who's counting). Because this was open, and documented, and even discussed producing a list, you analogy falls completely flat.

Secondly, this demonstrates how heads of state, decision makers, and high command would actually talk about and prepare a genocide, and what sort of language and discussions would look and feel like. You have nothing of the sort for the Holocaust and have to revert to your coded language and magic spells nonsense hidden in minutes of meetings and personal diaries

Never change, Nessie.

[Nessie]

That Stalin was proposing a mass murder, that we now know about, is why so-called revisionist claims that it was possible to organise and control a hoax the size of the Holocaust, is so preposterous and unlikely.

Archie's claim about systemic issues, appears to only apply to the IMT. There has been nothing about any other investigation. I am sure he is happy with an American historian exposing a mass murder proposal by Stalin.

How are you always so wrong about everything. It's pure cinema.

Your over confidence in your own ability, is part of your downfall.

Firstly, Stalin wasn't organizing a "hoax", he was advocating for a genocide (really mass executions but who's counting). Because this was open, and documented, and even discussed producing a list, you analogy falls completely flat.

I did not say he was organising a hoax. I said that how his proposal to mass murder German officers, became known to historians and publicly, is evidence that very little can be eternally kept secret, especially something the size of the Holocaust. You rely on your opinion, which is why you are not bothered about the lack of evidence of an organised hoax, such as information leaking out and becoming public. A hoax that did have Stalin's approval, was Katyn and that also ultimately failed. If the proposal had been accepted and German officer mass murdered, you would not start to dispute the evidence of that, and produce a non-history, as you do for the mass murder of Jews.

Secondly, this demonstrates how heads of state, decision makers, and high command would actually talk about and prepare a genocide, and what sort of language and discussions would look and feel like. You have nothing of the sort for the Holocaust and have to revert to your coded language and magic spells nonsense hidden in minutes of meetings and personal diaries

So-called revisionists claim the Nazis used coded language. They make claims such as ausrotten meant resettle in the east and that special treatment at Auschwitz referred to showering/delousing/bomb shelters or corpse stores, or whatever it is you think took place inside the Kremas.

The Einsatzgruppen were more open with their language about mass shootings and executions. Just because Stalin was open with his language to Churchill, does not evidence that his how those who ran AR would also be open.

You make far more mistakes than I do.

[HansHill]

Your over confidence in your own ability, is part of your downfall.

[Nessie]

Hans, have you got any evidence to contribute?

[HansHill]

You're right, i'm finished. I'll rest the Tehran and Percentages Agreement where they are, and allow you and Archie to duke it out.

[Nessie]

You're right, i'm finished. I'll rest the Tehran and Percentages Agreement where they are, and allow you and Archie to duke it out.

Archie has no evidence either. He just claims that there are de facto systemic issues if a victor puts the vanquished on trial. He ignores the need to evidence those issues and that trials, run by the vanquished, agreed that the crime alleged, namely mass murder, had taken place, due to the evidence to prove it had happened.