many Germans were sentenced to hang, then that was changed to life in jail, then changed to release from prison.[ or different grades of punishment ]...this sounds very unfair....who was responsible for the light punishments?
Circumstances. The Bundeswehr had to be created and the war criminals had to be converted into honorable officers. Overnight. That's the sad truth.
so who gave the word/ok for the changes?? are you saying they swept 'it' under the rug, to promote peace/well being/hope/etc in Germany? .ty for your reply
would you say, percentage wise, there were as many war crimes committed by the Allies vs Germany?? I'm not talking the lowly soldier/civilian who shoots a couple of prsoners, but higher ups--Colonel and above who knew and/or participated?? I've not read about many ''death squads''/einsatzgruppen types in the Allies..I know this is a large subject area....doesn't seem like the Allies had many ''large'' atrocities/etc as did the Germans....much thanks for everyone's replies...by Allies, I really mean USA , Britain, and France....very enjoyable and informing reading to me
The only case that I know of where an allied soldier was convicted of war crimes (killing POWs) and got his sentence changed was a sargent who was given a lengthy prison term. This was "commuted" after a time to front line service which he did not survive. So was this a lesser sentence?
You're welcome Bronk. In my humble opinion the decision was pragmatic: by punishing criminals you gain nothing. Using Nazis to guard the Iron curtain was both cheaper and more efficient.
There are some CTs accusing the Allies of war crimes but don't take them seriously. Alleged "war crimes" are just attempt to slander the Allied struggle for the just case. Some sporadic spontaneous injustices might have happened but are negligible compared to systematic deliberate, premeditated, well planned and organized crimes carried out by the Axis forces - with complete consent of their population. Our conscience is clean.
After the major players were dealt with, a certain fatigue set in with the prolonged proceedings. Further as noted the political realities of the period meant accommodations were made, whether they were needed is a debatable point, it is however human nature to seek the least complicated solution to a untidy problem. (the exception being of course the US Congress)
you state and answer my question better than I...very good...that's exactly what I mean <>''deliberate, premeditated, well planned and organized crime''
yes, the old politics deal...I would think the Russians and Brits would have none of that, considering the bombings/atrocities they endured...again, much thanks to all replies..very, very informing to me
I'll just add few disgraceful examples of facultative bearing of western courts toward the worst of the worst. Hermann Reinecke, man personally responsible for death of 3 million soviet POWs ,initially he got a life imprisonment but was pardoned in 1954. Bach Zalewski, man among other things responsible of genocidal and sadistic anti partisan operations and punitive expeditions in rear areas of east front and other parts of Europe and leveling of Warsaw together with extermination of better part of it's population. This man was free until 1958 when he was sentenced because he killed the SA officer in night of the long knives, in 1961 he got 10 extra years for some other murders in Germany in '30s. His genocide in the east or in Poland wasn't even mentioned. If these guys fared like this it's imaginable what happened to more common nazi criminals who had decency to keep their handwork to the east..Little or nothing.
Why would people like him be pardoned? did they have a "lack of evidence" which seems to be a primary reason as to why they don't prosecute people like him.
