Atomic bombs use-a war crime?

Your whole argument is based on a flimsy knowledge of international law and international system and on a amateurish confusion between national law and its functioning principles and the context of international law in the interwar period.
I also cannot understand your audacity in radically saying those international treaties have NO relevance, when leading jurists do think they are relevant.
To put it short you argue that at the time of unleashing the wars of aggression the hitlerites were not aware of that being an international crime. When pointing to you the pacts signed by numerous countries (some by Germany too) which clearly criminalised aggressive war, you fall back saying that it was a crime to launch aggressive war, but there was no punishment. So again, the hitlerites are home and dry. Following your line of argument, there is no other conclusion but that the hitlerites, launching aggressive wars in which tens of millions died couldnt and shouldnt have been tried because that was a crime with no established punishment in international law.
However, even in that case, the countries affected by the crimes of the hitlerites unable to trial them several times in their national courts and convict them 3 or 4 times for the same crimes, pooled together and decided to trial them TOGETHER. Which makes it an act of international law backed by valid international principles of the past decade.

Punishments existed for aggressive war. Sanctions and even war. read the Protocol for the Settlement of Inernational Disputes.
As the war started, a number of countries sharing the principles in those "irrelevant" treaties banned together in resisting the aggression. Also, they decided to build a better system which can punish aggresive war effectively.

take care

You think that "Your whole argument is based on a flimsy knowledge of international law and international system and on a amateurish confusion between national law and its functioning principles and the context of international law in the interwar period" and I believe the same about what you say .
It seems to be a confusion somewhere in the terms we use.
Ar we talking only about the war of aggresion? It was not the only thing brought up at Nurenberg, but let us stop to this crime not to make a to big area of dispute.

What is that thing you call "international crime"? Can you back this notion with same sources to clarify? If you talk about The League of Nations Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes you should check

http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/pcij-jurisdiction.htm

to see that for The Haga Court "The Statute provided that only States or members of the League of Nations could be parties in cases before the Court. This defines the jurisdiction ratione personale. Private persons, whether natural or corporate could not to appear as parties before the Court, including sovereign rulers, ex-sovereigns, public bodies and officials and generally all persons other than under the Statute."

For exemple your other document source the Saavedra Lamas Treaty states: "ARTICLE III
In case of noncompliance, by any state engaged in a dispute, with the obligations contained in the foregoing articles, the contracting states undertake to make every effort for the maintenance of peace. To that end they will adopt in their character as neutrals a common and solidary attitude; they will exercise the political, juridical, or economic means authorized by international law; they will bring the influence of public opinion to bear, but will in no case resort to intervention, either diplomatic or armed; subject to the attitude that may be incumbent on them by virtue of other collective treaties to which such states are signatories."
I gave this example depite that only american countries were part of it.

"To put it short you argue that at the time of unleashing the wars of aggression the hitlerites were not aware of that being an international crime." Can you please point me where I said that they did not know what they did?

"So again, the hitlerites(?) are home and dry." Only if you believe that the way things were done was the only possible way. I believe that many things went wrong and could and should have been better done. Even our flame war would have been pointless if the trial have been done the right way.

"Following your line of argument, there is no other conclusion but that the hitlerites(?), launching aggressive wars in which tens of millions died couldnt and shouldnt have been tried because that was a crime with no established punishment in international law." Only the germans had the right to trial them for launching an aggresive war as a poor manger of the country.

"However, even in that case, the countries affected by the crimes of the hitlerites unable to trial them several times in their national courts and convict them 3 or 4 times for the same crimes, pooled together and decided to trial them TOGETHER."
If we talk about the war crime of starting a war of aggresion I cannot see that a country had the "right" to do that. Of course, I don't know the penal law of the belligerants, but I never heard of such a crime in any country.

"I also cannot understand your audacity in radically saying those international treaties have NO relevance, when leading jurists do think they are relevant."
Well...it's a an old saying that where two jurists meet there are three opinions. My audacity comes from two things: -what other "leading" jurists say
- I dispute legal matters for a leaving so I don't respect much the "leading" jurists
I have to admit that I am by no means a specialist in International Public Law, but thanks to you I'm improving

I think that fear and blind agression brought the Allies together not high moral values that USSR and China did not share with the others.
Anyway we are really offtopic with this debate.

Kosmo, please make use of the [quote] tags when replying. It is easier to follow than the " "

Yes, in my opinion a much better thing then to make up laws. I'm sure that german penal laws were not worse that those of any other country. What you mean by Nazi laws? Do you think that german law did not see the killing of jews or the Comisar Order as murder?

The purpose of a trial is not to punish, but to reestablish the order thru justice.

By "Nazi law" I meant laws coming in to force or modified in Germany during the Nazi period.

But you make a good point here. I just don't know enough about German law to reply. Certainly it would be interesting to know how the "just following orders" defense would have fared under German law. I have read some memoirs from non-Nazi German military officers talking about their concept of duty, and how they felt they could not dishonor the oath they had sworn to Hitler personally.

Is judgment by the victims any more likely to result in justice than judgment by the winners? I doubt it. Your "judicial murder" would be a more likely result. A "true trial" was impossible in occupied Germany. Almost anybody old enough to be in court had some connection to the regime, either as a victim, perpetrator, more-or-less active participant, or close relative of someone who was one of these things.

Agreed. But the prime factor in bringing the Nazis to justice and reestablishing order was the Allied military victory. Any legal proceeding in that environment would be imperfect.

Well first of all Kosmo, I want to say I appreciate you as a debater, and I am glad that new members venture "on the field" with opinions.

I want to reply only to a part of your message and come back later when I have more time.

OK, but why dont you look here:

take care

A very hard task, but a vital one. We should remember that most war criminals of the Nurenberg trials were again put to trial by the germans as a mean to reafirm german suveraignity. In some cases were convicted after the International Court had exonerated them and in some other cases were put to jail again after release from Spandau. I think that most germans loyalty was to Germany, not to Hitler.

And, no, the "just following orders" did not fare well.

Any legal proceeding is imperfect, this does not mean that one can not try, but I agree, Allied victory was a condition for any trial.
I did not invent the wheel, the things we talk about were a matter of much debate in 1945. Of course the tempers were high so mistakes have been made.

He must have had significant support, or he wouldn't have been elected, and wouldn't have remained in power. And loyalty can take many forms: personal devotion, attraction to Nazi ideology, belief that he was the best choice for Germany, chance for personal gain, etc.

Still, I agree. The question is, what did "loyalty to Germany" require someone to do? Oppose Hitler? Or suppport him? And how much of a duty does one have to seek out unpleasant facts?

Thank you Imperialist. I appreciate you too as a debater.
I like very much this forum because I can find good info and hot, but well argumented, debates. And so many play Panzer General 2!

What your quote of the second article of the Saavedra Lamas Treaty states is that the signatory states (all american nations) will "in no case to resort to war". This is not binding to Germany and does not set a precedent for the Nurenberg trial.

Loyalty to Germany meant no doubt different things for different people, but after the war started most decided that loyalty meant to fight the war. As a personal opinion I believe that most romanians hated Ceausescu and his regime, but they would have fight if a war with Hungary started. To fight for a criminal regime is wrong, but to fight against your country makes one a traitor. An issue on which no clear judgements can be made.

I was talking about loyalty to Germany to point that, after the war was lost, most germans were much more interested in the future of Germany then in mourning the nazi leadership. Because the future rested in the hands of the winners they needed to change the allied public perception of Germany. So, they took a lot of care to make those trials serious and to shift the responsabilty for war crimes from all germans to some guilty individuals. And they made a good job at it. In few years from being considered mass murderers they were allowed to rearm, joined NATO and started to create an Europeean Community.

Do you think Sophie Scholl was a traitor ?