Talk:Nuremberg Defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

1 Merge of nuremberg defense
2 Eichmann
3 Keitel and Jodl
4 Command responsibility

[edit] Merge of nuremberg defense

Peersonally, I am against this move, since the nuremberg defense is, as far as I am aware, the legal term for this form of defense. The aformentioned article is also more international in it's tone as it currently stands. Rather, the merge should be in the opposite direction, making "Just following orders" a redirect to the nuremberg defense. LinaMishima 00:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eichmann

Adolf Eichmann, Wilhelm Keitel, and other Nazis tried at Nuremburg unsuccessfully used the defense during their trials.

This should be rephrased; Eichmann did not stand trial at Nuremberg, but in Israel in the 60's. I'll try to think of something. Naphra 21:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keitel and Jodl

Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, and other Nazis

Rephrased this, neither Keitel nor Jodl were Nazis (their Nazi sympathies notwithstanding). Naphra 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Command responsibility

Reading Command responsibility and Nuremberg Defense side-by-side is confusing, not because they are so contradicting, but because neither really effectively called attention to the moral conflict. Each article should have a secion explaining the conflict in doctrines, and how this conflict is resolved in practice (ie, the scope of each etc). And if I'm really confused and there isn't actually conflict between the two ideas, this should also be made explicit enough to be understandable by a non-expert (like me!) --gwc 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the article Victor's justice then. that should clear up any confusion that you may have. (nope, i am not cynical at all. ;)) --161.50.48.2 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)