Been reading the Nuremberg Trials records, my review based on the materials available

 Whenever I have time, I do a lot of reading. And since I'm a very boring person who likes reading tomes with small print about historical information, I decided to take up a pretty gargantuan reading project recently, the collected documentation and arguments of the prosecution of the Nuremberg Trials:

https://archive.org/details/nazi-conspiracy-and-aggression-1/Nazi%20Conspiracy%20and%20Aggression%201/

First off, I have to say this is a very, very weighty read. The first two volumes alone are over 1100+ pages long, filled with absurd amounts of cross-referencing, and are detailed to extremes that it is obvious they wanted the record to stand the test of time in its comprehension.

As to the subject of my currently reading project (which is still ongoing), I just want to summarize a few highlights of my historical observations.

VOLUME I - This is a broad overview of the prosecution case as a whole against the defunct-Third Reich and its surviving members. In it, they critically analyze every aspect of the war Nazi Germany waged, the legal excuses given for the conflict by the German side, and break down all aspects of those excuses where they did not wash when held to the light of legal scrutiny. They also firmly established something notable, namely that as opposed to trying the defendants for crimes based on the law made up ex post facto, as the German defendants tried to claim, they instead would base their legal case on existing covenants, treaties, and other legally binding international laws that had been in force and were still in force up to that time.

Not only did this include commonly accepted legal precedents between all the countries involved on what constituted crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as legally defined, this volume also refers extensively to arms limitations, treaties, nonaggression pacts, and other legal documents which Germany (in either Imperial, Weimar, or Nazi phases or all) was a signatory and thus legally bound to and had violated. This volume carefully establishes the international legal case and the intention of the prosecutors to try the surviving Nazi collaborators as agents of the defunct State that had committed innumerable barbarities.

VOLUME II - This further gives background to the case set out by the prosecutors, specifically how they dealt with criminals as groups (like the Gestapo, SD, Schutzstaffel, Wehrmacht) and as individuals in these groups chiefly responsible for the criminal acts of the groups.

Another precedent they based this on was existing law, including ironically even that of German law, against criminal conspiracy and groups established for the sole purpose of illegal acts and/or pursuing lawful ends by illegal means. In this, the main thrust of their argument was that Nazi Germany had been led by a group of outlaws against their own people and the world in a massive criminal enterprise to murder, steal, and destroy people, property, and civil rights, both domestically and internationally.

It also includes detailed information on the defendants, their actions, their responsibilities, their clear knowledge, aid, and assistance to their own acts or those done in concert with others, and extensively cross-references surviving documents from the German archives as well as any other records provided by all the available participants of the Allies and the defeated Axis.

VOLUMES III through VIII contain excerpts and transcripts of all documents, interrogations, dictations, letters, orders, briefs, and other records that were used in the building of the case as established in the first two volumes.

Two supplemental documents are appended. These supplemental contain the rules of the tribunal the preceding volumes were written for, transcripts of all commentary uttered for the purpose of the proceedings, evidence samples, and all the commentary as was relevant to arguments of prosecution and defense not already covered in the preceding volumes.

The final document contains the opinions and judgments rendered in the case, including the sentences of the accused and any dissents on the acquittal of certain defendants and other issues of conflict by the presiding judges and counsel.

Now, for some personal opinions

Having read the first two volumes thus far, and large portions of the excerpts and transcripts, I have no doubt this was a reasonably fair trial based on actual evidence and firmly placed within the premise of law, not feelings nor revenge. I am also convinced the defendants had as much ability to profess their innocence (or contritely and willingly admit their guilt) as the prosecution had to making their case. Having also read on the sentences and dissents, I find them, based on what was available at the time, to be based on reason and careful legal deliberation.

About the only objection I have is that of how leinent Albert Speer's sentence based on the indictment was, even at the time. It was obvious even by a casual reading of the known facts he shared as much guilt as any of the other high ranking officials in Hitler's inner circle, and while he managed to evade the truth and receive a leinent sentence based on careful selection of the truth mixed with evasion of facts that could have implicated him more deeply, that it was not even credible then the level of ignorance he professed as to the scope of the Judeaiocide, and he should have swung from the gibbet alongside the others for whom had earned death sentences.

Why "Pride" is patronizing and insulting to the LGBT

Now, this is going to be a politics post. Yes, I'm Christian, but before you read further, I'm not going to bring that up here except to say Christianity says pride goeth before a fall, and politically, you'll see why that is relevant as you read on.

These days, corporations, social media, and anyone afraid of being canceled or harassed by the LGBT crowd (these days the last letter in particular) will immediately throw up a rainbow flag and simp for the LGBT, no matter how relevant or irrelevant it may be to their product or service, just to virtue signal.

However, I just want to clarify why this is a patronizing practice that needs to stop.

1. The sane LGBT (yes, they exist)  just wants to fit into society. The original Pride parades had members of this community marching in normal clothing to show they could be members of their society without sticking out like a sore thumb, they just wanted to not be spit on for what they did in their own bedrooms. Modern-day "Pride" totally misses this point by a mile, and you'd be forgiven for thinking Pride means wearing gimp suits in public and juggling dildos in front of children given the current day version.

The morality aside, if you want to make the LGBT look vile and depraved, modern-day "Pride" is doing a great job.

2. "Pride" is such low-hanging fruit in any country where you won't be killed or imprisoned for showing it if you are LGBT. Anyone from a country where such things remain capital crimes is not impressed and despite how woke the virtue signaling corporations want to be where they risk nothing save the respect of potential customers, they have found doing so in countries with no respect for such things is a great way to be canceled and even getting literally lynched. It's hypocrisy incarnate they run screaming from showing rainbow flags where they risk everything yet think showing it where they risk very little makes them virtuous.

Really, it makes them cowards.

3. Another reason this is politically asinine is because the LGBT originally wanted to be seen as more than a token political sop. They wanted to let people know they were just like everyone else, they just were attracted to non-heterosexual partners. These days, with so many made-up genders and sexualities and trying to destroy any distinction of a gender binary (to the point of telling people to deny their eyes, ears, brain, conscience, etc), this is becoming a farce. If there are no meaningful differences between sexuality, gender, and it all is one big slurry of whatever is politically convenient, it's pointless. Those who stand for everything stand for nothing. 

4. Politically, all the LGBT "Pride" is doing is disgusting those who already had something against it, disenchanting those who realize reducing it to a political cudgel is long-term unwise, offending the more reasonable supporters who hate being patronized, and just radicalizing the segment of that community that is considered the hedonistic "fringe". It's like the bizarro world "alt-right" in practice and is just further widening the already massive split in society by saying if they are not slavishly supported, you're Hitler. Even passive tolerance is being called bigoted these days, when that was and should be the beau ideal for any group that claims persecution.

If such was wrong to enforce segregation, then it's wrong to do the reverse.

5. Finally, this is just a plea for sanity. Politically speaking, whatever one wants to do in the privacy of their own bedroom and whom they are attracted to are their business, so long as the parties can legally and morally consent. In that sense, one should be proud to have the choice to do so. That said, trying to force others to be proud and pretending you are by all the "Pride" virtue signaling is just going to have the opposite effect long-term, and to those with so much Pride, consider this a warning from someone who considers themselves politically moderate that your "Pride" will be your downfall.