Nuremberg trials

The Nuremberg trials (German: Nürnberger Prozesse) were a series of military tribunals held after World War II by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of war. The trials were most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, judicial, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany, who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. The trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, and their decisions marked a turning point between classical and contemporary international law.

"International Military Tribunal" redirects here. For the Tokyo trials, see International Military Tribunal for the Far East. For the 1947 Soviet film about the trials, see Nuremberg Trials (film).

Nuremberg trials
Judges' panel
CourtInternational Military Tribunal
DecidedSeptember 30 – October 1, 1946
Case history
Subsequent action(s)See below; twelve German defendants sentenced to death
Court membership
Judges sitting Geoffrey Lawrence (President)
Iona Nikitchenko
Alexander Volchkov
Norman Birkett
Francis Biddle
John J. Parker
Edward Francis Carter
Henri Donnedieu de Vabres
Robert Falco

The first and best known of the trials was that of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). It was described as "the greatest trial in history" by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges present throughout.[1] Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946,[2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich. Primarily treated here is the first trial, conducted by the International Military Tribunal. Further trials of lesser war criminals were conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT), which included the Doctors' trial and the Judges' Trial.

The categorization of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be followed afterward by the United Nations for the development of an international jurisprudence in matters of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression, and led to the creation of the International Criminal Court. For the first time in international law, the Nuremberg indictments also mention genocide (count three, war crimes: "the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.")[3]

Origin
United States Army clerks with evidence collected for the Nuremberg trials
Meeting of the War Crimes Executive Committee, which decided on the arrangements for the trial

A precedent for trying those accused of war crimes had been set at the end of World War I in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials held in May to July 1921 before the Reichsgericht (German Supreme Court) in Leipzig, although these had been on a very limited scale and largely regarded as ineffectual. At the beginning of 1940, the Polish government-in-exile asked the British and French governments to condemn the German invasion of their country. The British initially declined to do so; however, in April 1940, a joint declaration was issued by the British, French, and Polish. Relatively bland because of Anglo-French reservations, it proclaimed the trio's "desire to make a formal and public protest to the conscience of the world against the action of the German government whom they must hold responsible for these crimes which cannot remain unpunished."[4]

Three-and-a-half years later, the stated intention to punish the Germans was much more trenchant. On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States published their "Declaration on German Atrocities in Occupied Europe", which gave a "full warning" that, when the Nazis were defeated, the Allies would "pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth ... so that justice may be done. ... The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by a joint decision of the Government of the Allies."[5] This intention by the Allies to dispense justice was reiterated at the Yalta Conference and at Potsdam in 1945.[6]

British War Cabinet documents, released on 2 January 2006, showed that as early as December 1944 the Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading Nazis if captured. The British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, being dissuaded from this only by talks with US and Soviet leaders later in the war.[7]

The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (left), considered to be the most important surviving official in Nazi Germany.

In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German staff officers. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill, believing them to be serious, denounced the idea of "the cold-blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country" and that he would rather be "taken out in the courtyard and shot" himself than partake in any such action.[8] However, he also stated that war criminals must pay for their crimes and that, under the Moscow Document which he had written, they should be tried at the places where the crimes were committed. Churchill was vigorously opposed to executions "for political purposes."[9][10] According to the minutes of a meeting between Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, on 4 February 1945, at the Livadia Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."[11]

Henry Morgenthau Jr., US Secretary of the Treasury, suggested a plan for the total denazification of Germany;[12] this was known as the Morgenthau Plan. The plan advocated the forced de-industrialisation of Germany and the summary execution of so-called "arch-criminals", i.e. the major war criminals.[13] Roosevelt initially supported this plan, and managed to convince Churchill to support it in a less drastic form. Later, details were leaked in the US generating widespread condemnation by the nation's newspapers and propaganda was published about the plan in Germany. Roosevelt, aware of strong public disapproval, abandoned the plan, but did not adopt an alternative position on the matter. The demise of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with the Nazi leadership. The plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals" was drafted by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave strong approval for a judicial process. After a series of negotiations between Britain, the US, the Soviet Union, and France, details of the trial were worked out. The trials were to commence on 20 November 1945, in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.

Creation of the courts

On 20 April 1942, representatives from the nine countries occupied by Germany met in London to draft the "Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes". At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945), and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers, the United Kingdom, United States, and the Soviet Union, agreed on the format of punishment for those responsible for war crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place on the tribunal. The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, which was agreed upon by the four so-called Great Powers on 8 August 1945, [14] and which restricted the trial to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries".

Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany. Political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which, having sovereign power over Germany, could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on 1 September 1939.

Location
Four flags hanging from the Palace of Justice, 1945

Leipzig and Luxembourg were briefly considered as the location for the trial.[15] The Soviet Union had wanted the trials to take place in Berlin, as the capital city of the 'fascist conspirators',[15] but Nuremberg was chosen as the site for two reasons, the first being decisive:[16]

  1. The Palace of Justice was spacious and largely undamaged (one of the few buildings that had remained largely intact through extensive Allied bombing of Germany), and a large prison was also part of the complex.
  2. Nuremberg was considered the ceremonial birthplace of the Nazi Party. It had hosted the Party's annual propaganda rallies[15] and the Reichstag session that passed the Nuremberg Laws.[16] Thus it was considered a fitting place to mark the Party's symbolic demise.

As a compromise with the Soviets, it was agreed that while the location of the trial would be Nuremberg, Berlin would be the official home of the Tribunal authorities.[17][18][19] It was also agreed that France would become the permanent seat of the IMT[20] and that the first trial (several were planned) would take place in Nuremberg.[17][19]

Most of the accused had previously been detained at Camp Ashcan, a processing station and interrogation center in Luxembourg, and were moved to Nuremberg for the trial.

Participants

Each of the four countries provided one judge and an alternative, as well as a prosecutor.

Judges sitting in Nuremberg, from left to right: Volchkov, Nikitchenko, Birkett, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Biddle, Parker, Donnedieu de Vabres and Falco

Judges

Chief prosecutors

Assisting Jackson were the lawyers Telford Taylor,[21] William S. Kaplan[22] and Thomas J. Dodd, and Richard Sonnenfeldt, a US Army interpreter. Assisting Shawcross were Major Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and Sir John Wheeler-Bennett. Mervyn Griffith-Jones, who was later to become famous as the chief prosecutor in the Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial, was also on Shawcross's team. Shawcross also recruited a young barrister, Anthony Marreco, who was the son of a friend of his, to help the British team with the heavy workload.

Defence counsel

The vast majority of the defense attorneys were German lawyers.[23] These included Georg Fröschmann, Heinz Fritz (Hans Fritzsche), Otto Kranzbühler (Karl Dönitz), Otto Pannenbecker (Wilhelm Frick), Alfred Thoma (Alfred Rosenberg), Kurt Kauffmann (Ernst Kaltenbrunner), Hans Laternser (general staff and high command), Franz Exner (Alfred Jodl), Alfred Seidl (Hans Frank), Otto Stahmer (Hermann Göring), Walter Ballas (Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach), Hans Flächsner (Albert Speer), Günther von Rohrscheidt (Rudolf Hess), Egon Kubuschok (Franz von Papen), Robert Servatius (Fritz Sauckel), Fritz Sauter (Joachim von Ribbentrop), Walther Funk (Baldur von Schirach), Hanns Marx (Julius Streicher), Otto Nelte (Wilhelm Keitel), and Herbert Kraus/Rudolph Dix (both working for Hjalmar Schacht). The main counsel were supported by a total of 70 assistants, clerks and lawyers.[24] The defense witnesses included several men who took part in war crimes themselves during World War II, such as Rudolf Höss. The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences. All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were found guilty on several counts.[25]

The defendants in the dock, guarded by American Military Police

The trial

The International Military Tribunal was opened on 19 November 1945 in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.[26][27] The first session was presided over by the Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and seven organizations – the leadership of the Nazi party, the Reich Cabinet, the Schutzstaffel (SS), Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the "General Staff and High Command", comprising several categories of senior military officers.[avalon 1] These organizations were to be declared "criminal" if found guilty.

The indictments were for:

  1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
  2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
  3. Participating in war crimes
  4. Crimes against humanity

The 24 accused were, with respect to each charge, either indicted but not convicted (I), indicted and found guilty (G), or not charged (—), as listed below by defendant, charge, and eventual outcome:

Photos Name Count Penalty Notes
1 2 3 4
Martin Bormann I—GG Death (in absentia)Successor to Hess as Nazi Party Secretary. Sentenced to death in absentia.[avalon 2] Remains found in Berlin in 1972 and eventually dated to 2 May 1945 (per Artur Axmann's account); thought to have been killed trying to flee Berlin in the last few days of the war.
Karl Dönitz IGG— 10 years Leader of the Kriegsmarine from 1943, succeeded Raeder. Initiator of the U-boat campaign. Briefly became President of Germany following Hitler's death.[avalon 3] Convicted of carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare in breach of the 1936 Second London Naval Treaty, but was not punished for that charge because the United States committed the same breach.[28] Released 1 October 1956. Died 24 December 1980. Defense attorney: Otto Kranzbühler
Hans Frank I—GG Death Reich Law Leader 1933–45 and Governor-General of the General Government in occupied Poland 1939–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 4] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Wilhelm Frick IGGG Death Hitler's Minister of the Interior 1933–43 and Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1943–45. Co-authored the Nuremberg Race Laws.[avalon 5] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Hans Fritzsche I-II Acquitted Popular radio commentator; head of the news division of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry.[avalon 6] Released early in 1950.[29] Fritzsche had made himself a career within German radio, because his voice was similar to Goebbels's.[30] Died 27 September 1953.
Walther Funk IGGG Life
imprisonment		 Hitler's Minister of Economics; succeeded Schacht as head of the Reichsbank. Released because of ill health on 16 May 1957.[avalon 7] Died 31 May 1960.
Hermann Göring GGGG Death Reichsmarschall, Commander of the Luftwaffe 1935–45, Chief of the 4-Year Plan 1936–45, and original head of the Gestapo before turning it over to the SS in April 1934. Originally the second-highest-ranked member of the Nazi Party and Hitler's designated successor, he fell out of favor with Hitler in April 1945. Highest ranking Nazi official to be tried at Nuremberg.[31] Committed suicide the night before his scheduled execution.[avalon 8]
Rudolf Hess GGII Life
imprisonment		 Hitler's Deputy Führer until he flew to Scotland in 1941 in an attempt to broker peace with the United Kingdom. Had been imprisoned since then. After trial, incarcerated at Spandau Prison, where he committed suicide in 1987.[avalon 9]
Alfred Jodl GGGG Death Wehrmacht Generaloberst, Keitel's subordinate and Chief of the OKW's Operations Division 1938–45. Signed orders for the summary execution of Allied commandos and Soviet commissars [avalon 10] Signed the instruments of surrender on 7 May 1945 in Reims as the representative of Karl Dönitz. Hanged 16 October 1946. Posthumously rehabilitated in 1953, which was later reversed.
Ernst Kaltenbrunner I—GG Death Highest-ranking SS leader to be tried at Nuremberg. Chief of RSHA 1943–45, the Nazi organ comprising the intelligence service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo) and Criminal Police (Kripo) and having overall command over the Einsatzgruppen.[avalon 11] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Wilhelm Keitel GGGG Death Head of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) and de facto defence minister 1938–45. Known for his unquestioning loyalty to Hitler.[32] Signed numerous orders calling for soldiers and political prisoners to be executed. Expressed repentance.[avalon 12] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach I-II No decision Major industrialist. C.E.O. of Friedrich Krupp AG 1912–45. Medically unfit for trial; he had been partially paralyzed since 1941. Due to an error, Gustav, instead of his son Alfried (who ran Krupp for his father during most of the war), was selected for indictment.[33] The prosecutors attempted to substitute his son in the indictment, but the judges rejected this due to proximity to trial. However, the charges against him remained on record in the event he should recover (he died in February 1950).[34] Alfried was tried in a separate Nuremberg trial (the Krupp Trial) for the use of slave labor, thereby escaping worse charges and possible execution.
Robert Ley I-II No decision Head of DAF, German Labour Front. Committed suicide on 25 October 1945, before the trial began. Indicted but neither acquitted nor found guilty as trial did not proceed.
Baron Konstantin von Neurath GGGG 15 years Minister of Foreign Affairs 1932–38, succeeded by Ribbentrop. Later, Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–43. On furlough since 1941, he resigned in 1943 because of a dispute with Hitler. Released (ill health) 6 November 1954[avalon 13] after suffering a heart attack. Died 14 August 1956.
Franz von Papen II—— Acquitted Chancellor of Germany in 1932 and Vice-Chancellor under Hitler in 1933–34. Ambassador to Austria 1934–38 and ambassador to Turkey 1939–44. Although acquitted at Nuremberg, von Papen was reclassified as a war criminal in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labor. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two.[avalon 14]
Erich Raeder GGG— Life imprisonment Commander In Chief of the Kriegsmarine from 1928 until his retirement in 1943, succeeded by Dönitz. Released (ill health) 26 September 1955.[avalon 15] Died 6 November 1960.
Joachim von Ribbentrop GGGG Death Ambassador-Plenipotentiary 1935–36. Ambassador to the United Kingdom 1936–38. Minister of Foreign Affairs 1938–45.[avalon 16] Expressed repentance.[35] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Alfred Rosenberg GGGG Death Racial theory ideologist. Later, Minister of the Eastern Occupied Territories 1941–45.[avalon 17] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Fritz Sauckel IIGG Death Gauleiter of Thuringia 1927–45. Plenipotentiary of the Nazi slave labor program 1942–45.[avalon 18] Hanged 16 October 1946. Defense attorney: Robert Servatius
Dr. Hjalmar Schacht II—— Acquitted Prominent banker and economist. Pre-war president of the Reichsbank 1923–30 & 1933–38 and Economics Minister 1934–37. Admitted to violating the Treaty of Versailles.[avalon 19] Many at Nuremberg alleged that the British had brought about Schacht's acquittal to safeguard German industrialists and financiers; Francis Biddle revealed Geoffrey Lawrence had argued that Schacht, being a "man of character", was nothing like the other "ruffians" on trial.[36] By 1944, he had been imprisoned in a concentration camp by the Nazis, and he was outraged to be put on trial as a major war criminal.[37]
Baldur von Schirach I——G 20 years Head of the Hitlerjugend from 1933–40, Gauleiter of Vienna 1940–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 20] Released 30 September 1966. Died 8 August 1974.
Arthur Seyss-Inquart IGGG Death Instrumental in the Anschluss and briefly Austrian Chancellor 1938. Deputy to Frank in Poland 1939–40. Later, Reichskommissar of the occupied Netherlands 1940–45. Expressed repentance.[avalon 21] Hanged 16 October 1946.
Albert Speer IIGG 20 years Hitler's friend, favorite architect, and Minister of Armaments from 1942 until the end of the war. In this capacity, he was ultimately responsible for the use of slave laborers from the occupied territories in armaments production. Expressed repentance.[avalon 22] Released 1 October 1966. Died 1 September 1981.
Julius Streicher I——G Death Gauleiter of Franconia 1922–40, when he was relieved of authority but allowed by Hitler to keep his official title. Publisher of the anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Stürmer.[avalon 23] Hanged 16 October 1946.

Overview of the trial
Hermann Göring under cross-examination
  • 20 November 1945: The trials begin.
  • 21 November 1945: Robert H. Jackson opens for the prosecution with a speech lasting several hours, leaving an impression on both the court and the public.
  • 26 November 1945: The Hossbach Memorandum (of a conference in which Hitler explained his war plans) is presented.
  • 29 November 1945: The film Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps is screened.[38]
  • 30 November 1945: Witness Erwin von Lahousen testifies that Keitel and von Ribbentrop gave orders for the murder of Poles, Jews, and Russian prisoners of war.
  • 11 December 1945: The film The Nazi Plan is screened, showing long-term planning and preparations for war by the Nazis.
  • 3 January 1946: Witness Otto Ohlendorf, former head of Einsatzgruppe D, admits to the murder of around 90,000 Jews.
  • 3 January 1946: Witness Dieter Wisliceny describes the organization of RSHA Department IV-B-4, in charge of the Final Solution.
  • 7 January 1946: Witness and former SS-Obergruppenführer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski admits to the organized mass murder of Jews and other groups in the Soviet Union.
  • 28 January 1946: Witness Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, member of the French Resistance and concentration camp survivor, testifies on the Holocaust, becoming the first Holocaust survivor to do so.
  • 11–12 February 1946: Witness and former Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, who had been secretly brought to Nuremberg from Soviet captivity, testifies on the question of waging a war of aggression.
  • 14 February 1946: The Soviet prosecutors try to blame the Katyn massacre on the Germans.
  • 19 February 1946: The Soviet film Cruelties of the German-Fascist Intruders, detailing the atrocities in the extermination camps, is screened.
  • 27 February 1946: Witness Abraham Sutzkever testifies on the murder of almost 80,000 Jews in Vilnius by the Germans occupying the city.
  • 8 March 1946: The first witness for the defense testifies – former General Karl Bodenschatz.
  • 13–22 March 1946: Hermann Göring takes the stand.
  • 15 April 1946: Witness Rudolf Höss, former commandant of Auschwitz, confirms that Kaltenbrunner had never been there, but admits to having carried out mass murder.
  • 21 May 1946: Witness Ernst von Weizsäcker explains the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, including its secret protocol detailing the division of Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union.
  • 20 June 1946: Albert Speer takes the stand. He is the only defendant to take personal responsibility for his actions.
  • 29 June 1946: The defense for Martin Bormann testifies.
  • 1–2 July 1946: The court hears six witnesses testifying on the Katyn massacre; the Soviets fail to pin the blame for the event on Germany.
  • 2 July 1946: Admiral Chester W. Nimitz provides written testimony regarding attacks on merchant vessels without warning, admitting that Germany was not alone in these attacks, as the US did the same.
  • 4 July 1946: Final statements for the defense.
  • 26 July 1946: Final statements for the prosecution.
  • 30 July 1946: Start of the trial of the "criminal organizations".
  • 31 August 1946: Last statements by the defendants.
  • 1 September 1946: The court adjourns.
  • 30 September–1 October 1946: The sentencing occurs, taking two days, with the individual sentences read out on the afternoon of 1 October.[39]

The accusers were successful in unveiling the background of developments leading to the outbreak of World War II, which cost around 50 million lives in Europe alone,[40] as well as the extent of the atrocities committed in the name of the Hitler regime. Twelve of the accused were sentenced to death, seven received prison sentences (ranging from 10 years to life sentence), three were acquitted, and two were not charged.[41]

Executions
Main article: Nuremberg executions
The body of Hermann Göring, Oct. 16, 1946

The death sentences were carried out on 16 October 1946 by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop. The U.S. Army denied claims that the drop length was too short, which may cause the condemned to die slowly from strangulation instead of quickly from a broken neck,[42] but evidence remains that some of the condemned men choked in agony for 14 to 28 minutes.[43][44] The executioner was John C. Woods.[45] The executions took place in the gymnasium of the court building (demolished in 1983).[46]

Although the rumor has long persisted that the bodies were taken to Dachau and burned there, they were incinerated in a crematorium in Munich, and the ashes scattered over the river Isar.[47] The French judges suggested that the military condemned (Göring, Keitel, and Jodl) be shot by a firing squad, as is standard for military courts-martial, but this was opposed by Biddle and the Soviet judges, who argued that the military officers had violated their military ethos and were not worthy of the more dignified death by shooting. The prisoners sentenced to incarceration were transferred to Spandau Prison in 1947.

Of the 12 defendants sentenced to death by hanging, two were not hanged: Martin Bormann was convicted in absentia (he had, unknown to the Allies, died while trying to escape from Berlin in May 1945), and Hermann Göring committed suicide the night before the execution. The remaining 10 defendants sentenced to death were hanged.

Nuremberg principles

The definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines document which was created as a result of the trial. The medical experiments conducted by German doctors and prosecuted in the so-called Doctors' Trial led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code to control the future trials involving human subjects, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

Of the indicted organizations the following were found not to be criminal:

  • Reichsregierung
  • "The General Staff and High Command" was found not to comprise a group or organization as defined by Article 9 of the London Charter 14 Members of the High Command were tried as Criminals at the high command trial case 12 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings

The American authorities conducted subsequent Nuremberg Trials in their occupied zone.

Other trials conducted after the first Nuremberg trial include the following:

American role in the trial
Chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson addresses the Nuremberg court. 20 November 1945.

While Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of Britain was the judge who was chosen to serve as the president of the court, arguably, the most prominent of the judges at the trial was his American counterpart, Francis Biddle.[48] Before the trial, Biddle had been Attorney General of the United States but had been asked to resign by Truman earlier in 1945.[49]

Some accounts argue that Truman had appointed Biddle as the main American judge for the trial as an apology for asking for his resignation.[49] Ironically, Biddle was known during his time as Attorney General for opposing the idea of prosecuting Nazi leaders for crimes committed before the beginning of the war, even sending out a memorandum on 5 January 1945 on the subject.[50] The note also expressed Biddle's opinion that instead of proceeding with the original plan for prosecuting entire organizations, there should simply be more trials that would prosecute specific offenders.[50]

Biddle soon changed his mind, as he approved a modified version of the plan on 21 January 1945, likely due to time constraints, since the trial would be one of the main issues which were to be discussed at Yalta.[51] At trial, the Nuremberg tribunal ruled that any member of an organization convicted of war crimes, such as the SS or Gestapo, who had joined after 1939 would be considered a war criminal.[52] Biddle managed to convince the other judges to make an exemption for any member who was drafted or had no knowledge of the crimes being committed by these organizations.[49]

Justice Robert H. Jackson played an important role in not only the trial itself but also in the creation of the International Military Tribunal, as he led the American delegation to London that, in the summer of 1945, argued in favor of prosecuting the Nazi leadership as a criminal conspiracy.[53] According to Airey Neave, Jackson was also the one behind the prosecution's decision to include membership in any of the six criminal organizations in the indictments at the trial, though the IMT rejected this because it was wholly without precedent in either international law or the domestic laws of any of the Allies.[54] Jackson also attempted to have Alfried Krupp be tried in place of his father, Gustav and even suggested that Alfried volunteer be tried in his father's place.[55] Both proposals were rejected by the IMT, particularly by Lawrence and Biddle, and some sources indicate that this resulted in Jackson being viewed unfavorably by the latter.[55]

Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor for the United States. There was an immense amount of evidence backing the prosecutors' case, especially since meticulous records of the Nazis' actions had been kept. There were records taken in by the prosecutors that had signatures from specific Nazis signing for everything from stationery supplies to Zyklon B gas, which was used to kill the inmates of the death camps. Thomas Dodd showed a series of pictures to the courtroom after reading through the documents of crimes committed by the defendants. The showing consisted of pictures displaying the atrocities performed by the defendants. The pictures had been gathered when the inmates were liberated from the concentration camps.[56]

Henry F. Gerecke, a Lutheran pastor, and Sixtus O'Connor, a Roman Catholic priest, were sent to minister to the Nazi defendants.[57] Photographs of the trial were taken by a team of about a dozen US Army still photographers, under the direction of chief photographer Ray D'Addario.[58]

Legacy
Courtroom 600 in June 2016 showing contemporary configuration

The Tribunal is celebrated for establishing that "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."[59] The creation of the IMT was followed by trials of lesser Nazi officials and the trials of Nazi doctors, who performed experiments on people in prison camps. It served as the model for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East which tried Japanese officials for crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. It also served as the model for the Eichmann trial and present-day courts at The Hague, for trying crimes committed during the Balkan wars of the early 1990s, and at Arusha, for trying the people responsible for the genocide in Rwanda.

The Nuremberg trials had a great influence on the development of international criminal law. The Conclusions of the Nuremberg trials served as models for:

  • The Genocide Convention, 1948.
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
  • The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
  • The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
  • The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

The International Law Commission, acting on the request of the United Nations General Assembly, produced in 1950 the report Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II[60]). See Nuremberg Principles.

The influence of the tribunal can also be seen in the proposals for a permanent international criminal court, and the drafting of international criminal codes, later prepared by the International Law Commission.

Tourists can visit courtroom 600 on days when no trial is on. A permanent exhibition has been dedicated to the trials.[61]

Establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court

The Nuremberg trials initiated a movement for the prompt establishment of a permanent international criminal court, eventually leading over fifty years later to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This movement was brought about because, during the trials, there were conflicting court methods between the German court system and the U.S. court system. The crime of conspiracy was unheard of in the civil law systems of the Continent. Therefore, the German defense found it unfair to charge the defendants with conspiracy to commit crimes, while the judges from common-law countries were used to doing so.[62]

It [IMT] was the first successful international criminal court, and has since played a pivotal role in the development of international criminal law and international institutions.[63]

Criticism
You'll see. A few years from now the lawyers of the world will condemn this trial. You can't have a trial without law.[64]

 —Joachim von Ribbentrop
20 November 1945

Critics of the Nuremberg trials argued that the charges against the defendants were only defined as "crimes" after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid, and thus seen as a form of "victor's justice".[65][66]

As Michael Biddiss observed in a 1995 edition of History Today, "the Nuremberg Trial continues to haunt us. ... It is a question also of the weaknesses and strengths of the proceedings themselves."[67][68][69]

Quincy Wright, writing eighteen months after the conclusion of the IMT, explained the opposition to the Tribunal thus:

The assumptions underlying the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal are far removed from the positivistic assumptions which greatly influenced the thought of international jurists in the nineteenth century. Consequently, the activities of those institutions have frequently been vigorously criticized by positivistic jurists ... [who] have asked: How can principles enunciated by the Nuremberg Tribunal, to take it as an example, be of legal value until most of the states have agreed to a tribunal with jurisdiction to enforce those principles? How could the Nuremberg Tribunal have obtained jurisdiction to find Germany guilty of aggression, when Germany had not consented to the Tribunal? How could the law, first explicitly accepted in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, have bound the defendants in the trial when they committed the acts for which they were indicted years earlier?[70]

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud.[71] "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg, ... I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas", Stone wrote.[71]

Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."[72][73]

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."[74]

U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals, such as those at I.G. Farben.[75]

Robert A. Taft, a US Senate Majority Leader from Ohio and son of William Howard Taft, criticized the Nuremberg Trials for trying Nazi war criminals under ex post facto laws, which resulted in his failure to secure the Republican nomination for President in 1948.[76]

Several Germans who agreed with the idea of punishment for war crimes admitted trepidation concerning the trials. A contemporary German jurist said:

That the defendants at Nuremberg were held responsible, condemned and punished, will seem to most of us initially as a kind of historical justice. However, no one who takes the question of guilt seriously, above all no responsibly thoughtful jurist, will be content with this sensibility nor should they be allowed to be. Justice is not served when the guilty parties are punished in any old way, even if this seems appropriate concerning their measure of guilt. Justice is only served when the guilty are punished in a way that carefully and conscientiously considers their criminal errors according to the provisions of valid law under the jurisdiction of a legally appointed judge.[77]

The validity of the court has been questioned on several grounds:

  • The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:

    The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.

  • The defendants were not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges.
    • A. L. Goodhart, Professor at Oxford, opposed the view that, because the judges were appointed by the victors, the Tribunal was not impartial and could not be regarded as a court in the true sense. He wrote:

      Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Wright has pointed out, the same principle applies to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens'."[78]

  • One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop, included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939 proposed the partition of Poland between the Germans and the Soviets (which was subsequently executed in September 1939); however, Soviet leaders were not tried for being part of the same conspiracy.[79] Moreover, Allied Powers Britain and the Soviet Union were not tried for preparing and conducting the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (1941) and the Winter War (1939–1940), respectively.
  • In 1915, the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging, for the first time, another government (the Sublime Porte) of committing "a crime against humanity". However, it was not until the phrase was further developed in the London Charter that it had a specific meaning. As the London Charter definition of what constituted a crime against humanity was unknown when many of the crimes were committed, it could be argued to be a retroactive law, in violation of the principles of the prohibition of ex post facto laws and the general principle of penal law nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.[avalon 24]
  • Though the ICTY later held it to be "flawed in principle",[80] the tu quoque argument, adduced by German defendants, was admitted as a valid defense during the trials, and the admirals Dönitz and Raeder were not punished for waging unrestricted submarine warfare.[80]
  • The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged or found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[81] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.[82]
  • Freda Utley, in her 1949 book The High Cost of Vengeance,[83] charged the court with, amongst other things, double standards. She pointed to the Allied use of civilian forced labor, and deliberate starvation of civilians[84][85] in the occupied territories. She also noted that General Rudenko, the chief Soviet prosecutor became commandant of Sachsenhausen concentration camp after the trials. After the fall of East Germany, the bodies of 12,500 Soviet-era victims were uncovered at the camp, mainly "children, adolescents and elderly people".[86]
  • Luise, the wife of Alfred Jodl, attached herself to her husband's defense team. Subsequently, interviewed by Gitta Sereny, researching her biography of Albert Speer, Luise alleged that in many instances the Allied prosecution made charges against Jodl based on documents that they refused to share with the defense. Jodl nevertheless proved some of the charges made against him were untrue, such as the charge that he helped Hitler gain control of Germany in 1933. He was in one instance aided by a GI clerk who chose to give Luise a document showing that the execution of a group of British commandos in Norway had been legitimate. The GI warned Luise that if she did not copy it immediately she would never see it again.[87]
  • The main Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938, where he, among other things, sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev.[88] According to the declassified Soviet archives, 681,692 people arrested for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes" were shot in 1937 and 1938 alone–an average of over 900 executions a day.[89]
  • The Tribunal itself strongly disputed that the London Charter was ex post facto law, pointing to existing international agreements signed by Germany that made aggressive war and certain wartime actions unlawful, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.[avalon 25] In an editorial at the time The Economist, a British weekly newspaper, criticised the hypocrisy of both Britain and France for supporting the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations over its unprovoked attack against Finland in 1939 and for six years later cooperating with the USSR as a respected equal at Nuremberg. It also criticized the allies for their double standard at the Nuremberg Trials: "nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies' justice. ... Among crimes against humanity stands the offense of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead 'not guilty' on this count? Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent? ... The nations sitting in judgment have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered."[90]

Legitimacy
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (at lectern, left) and an unknown prosecutor

One criticism that was made of the IMT was that some treaties were not binding on the Axis powers because they were not signatories. This was addressed in the judgment relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity,[avalon 26] which contains an expansion of customary law: "the [Hague] Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which is thus recognized to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter."

Introduction of extempore simultaneous interpretation
Interpreters' section at the trial

The Nuremberg Trials employed four official languages: English, French, German and Russian. To address the complex linguistic issues that clouded over the proceedings, interpretation and translation departments had to be established. However, it was feared that consecutive interpretation would slow down the proceedings significantly. What is therefore unique in both the Nuremberg tribunals and history of the interpretation profession was the introduction of an entirely new technique, extempore simultaneous interpretation. This technique of interpretation requires the interpreter to listen to a speaker in a source (or passive) language and orally translate that speech into another language in real-time, that is, simultaneously, through headsets and microphones. Interpreters were split into four sections, one for each official language, with three interpreters per section working from the other three languages into the fourth (their mother tongue). For instance, the English booth consisted of three interpreters, one working from German into English, one working from French, and one from Russian, etc. Defendants who did not speak any of the four official languages were provided with consecutive court interpreters. Some of the languages heard over the course of the proceedings included Yiddish, Hungarian, Czech, Ukrainian, and Polish.

The equipment used to establish this system was provided by IBM and included an elaborate setup of cables that were hooked up to headsets and single earphones directly from the four interpreting booths (often referred to as "the aquarium"). Four channels existed for each working language, as well as a root channel for the proceedings without interpretation. The switching of channels was controlled by a setup at each table in which the listener merely had to turn a dial to switch between languages. People tripping over the floor-laid cables often led to the headsets getting disconnected, with several hours at a time sometimes being taken to repair the problem and continue with the trials.

Interpreters were recruited and examined by the respective countries in which the official languages were spoken: the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, as well as in special cases Belgium and the Netherlands. Many were former translators, army personnel, and linguists, some were experienced consecutive interpreters,[91] others were ordinary individuals and even recent secondary school-graduates who led international lives in multilingual environments. It was and still is believed, that the qualities that made the best interpreters were not just a perfect understanding of two or more languages, but more importantly a broad sense of culture, encyclopedic knowledge, inquisitiveness, as well as a naturally calm disposition.

Interpreting Device

With the simultaneous technique being extremely new, interpreters practically trained themselves, but many could not handle the pressure or the psychological strain. Many often had to be replaced, many returned to the translation department, and many left. Serious doubts were given as to whether interpretation provided a fair trial for the defendants, particularly because of fears of mistranslation and errors made on transcripts. The translation department had to also deal with the overwhelming problem of being understaffed and overburdened with an influx of documents that could not be kept up with. More often than not, interpreters were stuck in a session without having proper documents in front of them and were relied upon to do sight translation or double translation of texts, causing further problems and extensive criticism. Other problems that arose included complaints from lawyers and other legal professionals about questioning and cross-examination. Legal professionals were most often appalled at the slower speed at which they had to conduct their tasks because of the extended time required for interpreters to render an interpretation properly. Additionally, several interpreters protested the idea of using vulgar language, especially if it referred to Jews or the conditions of the Nazi concentration camps. Bilingual/trilingual members who attended the trials picked up quickly on this aspect of character and were equally quick to file complaints.

Yet, despite the extensive trial and error, without the interpretation system the trials would not have been possible and in turn, revolutionized the way multilingual issues were addressed in tribunals and conferences. A number of the interpreters following the trials were immediately recruited into the newly formed United Nations, while others returned to their ordinary lives, pursued other careers, or worked freelance. Outside the boundaries of the trials, many interpreters continued their positions on weekends interpreting for dinners, private meetings between judges, and excursions between delegates. Others worked as investigators or editors or aided the translation department when they could, often using it as an opportunity to sharpen their skills and to correct poor interpretations on transcripts before they were available for public record.

For further reference, a book titled The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial, written by interpreter Francesca Gaiba was published by the University of Ottawa Press in 1998.

Today, all major international organizations, as well as any conference or government that uses more than one official language, uses extempore simultaneous interpretation. Notable bodies include the Parliament of Kosovo with three official languages, the Parliament of Canada with two official languages, the Parliament of South Africa with eleven official languages, the European Union with twenty-four official languages, and the United Nations with six official working languages.

gollark: What? No.
gollark: As far as I know it's because the electrons can accelerate for longer before colliding with something.
gollark: ++tel init_webhook
gollark: Oh, someone must have hijacked the webhook somehow.
gollark: ++tel graph

See also
Germans read newspaper about the trial

References

Notes
  1. Marrus 1997, p. 563.
  2. Harris 2006, p. 106.
  3. "The trial of German major war criminals : proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg Germany". avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
  4. Kochavi 1998, pp. 7–8.
  5. Heller 2011, page 9. According to Marrus 1997, page 563, Roosevelt had already written to Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress, in July 1942, saying: "The American people not only sympathize with all victims of Nazi crimes but will hold the perpetrators of these crimes to strict accountability in a day of reckoning which will surely come."
  6. Wright 1946, p. 74.
  7. "Shooting top Nazis? The Nuremberg option wasn't apple pie either". The Guardian. 26 October 2012. Archived from the original on 11 September 2013. Retrieved 21 April 2013.
  8. Senarclens 1988, pp. pp. 19–20.
  9. Crossland, John (1 January 2006). "Churchill: execute Hitler without trial". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 11 March 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  10. Tehran Conference: Tripartite Dinner Meeting Archived 2006-06-29 at the Wayback Machine, 29 November 1943, Soviet Embassy, 8:30 PM
  11. United States Department of State Archived 2011-04-30 at the Wayback Machine Foreign relations of the United States. Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945. p. 571.
  12. "The original memorandum from 1944, signed by Morgenthau". Fdrlibrary.marist.edu. 27 May 2004. Archived from the original on 29 April 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  13. "The original Morgenthau memorandum from 1944". Fdrlibrary.marist.edu. 27 May 2004. Archived from the original on 29 April 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  14. Lawrence 1947, p. 151.
  15. Overy 2001, pp. 19–20.
  16. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 32 pp.
  17. Heydecker, Joe J.; Leeb, Johannes (1979). Der Nürnberger Prozeß (in German). Köln: Kiepenheuer und Witsch. p. 97.
  18. Minutes of 2nd meeting of BWCE and the Representatives of the USA. Kew, London: Lord Chancellor's Office, Public Record Office. 21 June 1945.
  19. Rough Notes Meeting with Russians. Kew, London: Lord Chancellor's Office, Public Record Office. 29 June 1945.
  20. Overy 2001, p. 15.
  21. Severo, Richard (24 May 1998). "Telford Taylor, Who Prosecuted Top Nazis At the Nuremberg War Trials, Is Dead at 90". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 16 February 2017. Retrieved 15 February 2017.
  22. "Lawyer William S. Kaplan, 76, prosecutor at Nuremberg trials". 25 March 1986. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 7 January 2015. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. Davidson 1997, p. 30–1.
  24. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 67–69 pp.
  25. Ehrenfreund, Norbert. The Nuremberg Legacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.
  26. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 78 pp.
  27. Summary of the indictment in Department of State Bulletin, October 21, 1945, p. 595
  28. President of the Reich for 23 days after Adolf Hitler's suicide.[avalon 3]
  29. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 46 pp.
  30. William L. Shierer "The Rise and Fall of the third reich", Nuremberg-chapter of part IV
  31. Evans 2008, p. 509, 724.
  32. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 40 pp.
  33. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 47 pp.
  34. Clapham, Andrew (2003). "Issues of complexity, complicity and complementarity: from the Nuremberg Trials to the dawn of the International Criminal". In Philippe Sands (ed.). From Nuremberg to the Hague: the future of international criminal justice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82991-7. The tribunal's eventual decision was that Gustav Krupp could not be tried because of his condition but that 'the charges against him in the Indictment should be retained for trial thereafter if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit'.
  35. "God protect Germany. God have mercy on my soul. My final wish is that Germany should recover her unity and that, for the sake of peace, there should be an understanding between East and West. I wish peace to the world. Last and Near-Last Words of the Famous, Infamous and Those In-Between By Joseph W. Lewis Jr. M.D., and after saying this he whispered to the chaplain, "I'll see you again"Andrus, Burton C., I Was the Nuremberg Jailor, New York
    Coward-McCann, 1969, p. 195.
  36. Bower 1995, p. 347.
  37. William L Shierer "the Rise and Fall of the third Reich", part IV, Nuremberg-chapter
  38. Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps is available for free download at the Internet Archive
  39. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 78–84 pp.
  40. David W. Del Testa, Florence Lemoine, John Strickland (2003). Government leaders, military rulers, and political activists. Greenwood Publishing Group. p.83. ISBN 1-57356-153-3
  41. "Germany – The Nuremberg Trials Archived 2016-04-06 at the Wayback Machine". Library of Congress Country Studies.
  42. War Crimes: Night without Dawn. Archived 2009-11-02 at the Wayback Machine Time Magazine Monday 28 October 1946
  43. Shnayerson, Robert (October 1996). "Judgment at Nuremberg" (PDF). Smithsonian Magazine. pp. 124–141. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 April 2011. The trial removed 11 of the most despicable Nazis from life itself. In the early morning hours of Wednesday, October 16, 1946, ten men died in the courthouse gymnasium in a botched hanging that left some strangled to death for as long as 25 minutes.
  44. "The Trial of the Century– and of All Time, part two". Flagpole Magazine. 17 July 2002. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2 March 2009. the experienced Army hangman, Master Sgt. John C. Woods, botched the execution. A number of the hanged Nazis died, not quickly from a broken neck as intended, but agonizingly from slow strangulation. Ribbentrop and Sauckel each took 14 minutes to choke to death, while Keitel, whose death was the most painful, struggled for 28 minutes at the end of the rope before expiring.
  45. Colonel French L. MacLean, The Fifth Field: The Story of the 96 American Soldiers Sentenced to Death and Executed in Europe and North Africa in World War II (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2013), ISBN 9780764345777.
  46. Henkel (ed.), Matthias (2011), Memoriam Nuernberger Prozesse, exhibition catalogue (German), Nuremberg: Museen der Stadt NuernbergCS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link), 87 pp.
  47. Overy 2001, p. 205.
  48. Persico 2000, p. 111.
  49. Persico 2000, p. 62.
  50. Smith 1977, p. 33.
  51. Smith 1977, p. 34.
  52. Persico 2000, p. 396.
  53. Neave 1978, p. 24.
  54. Neave 1978, pp. 339–40.
  55. Neave 1978, p. 297.
  56. Roland, Paul. The Nuremberg Trials. London: Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2012. Print.
  57. Service, Kimberly Winston Religion News (24 August 2014). "The Strange Story Of The American Pastor Who Ministered To Nazis". Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
  58. Hevesi, Dennis (16 February 2011). "Raymond D'Addario, Photographer of Nazis, Dies at 90". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 March 2019.
  59. Heller 2011, p. 3.
  60. "Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950". legal.un.org. Archived from the original on 16 October 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
  61. "Visitor Information – Memorium Nuremberg Trials". Archived from the original on 27 November 2015. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  62. Ehrenfreund, Norbert (2007), The Nuremberg Legacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  63. Fichtelberg 2009, p. 5.
  64. Gilbert 1995, p. 36.
  65. Zolo 2009.
  66. See, e.g., statement of Professor Nicholls of St. Antony's College, Oxford, that "[t]he Nuremberg trials have not had a very good press. They are often depicted as a form of victor's justice in which people were tried for crimes that did not exist in law when they committed them, such as conspiring to start a war." Prof. Anthony Nicholls, University of Oxford Archived 2009-01-01 at the Wayback Machine
  67. Biddiss 1995.
  68. See, e.g., BBC Article for BBC by Prof. Richard Overy Archived 2009-02-16 at the Wayback Machine ("[T]hat the war crimes trials... were expressions of a legally dubious 'victors' justice' was [a point raised by]... senior [Allied] legal experts who doubted the legality of the whole process... There was no precedent. No other civilian government had ever been put on trial by the authorities of other states ... What the Allied powers had in mind was a tribunal that would make the waging of aggressive war, the violation of sovereignty, and the perpetration of what came to be known in 1945 as 'crimes against humanity' internationally recognized offenses. Unfortunately, these had not previously been defined as crimes in international law, which left the Allies in the legally dubious position of having to execute retrospective justice – to punish actions that were not regarded as crimes at the time they were committed.")
  69. See Paper of Jonathan Graubart, San Diego State University, Political Science Department, published online Graubart Article Archived 2011-04-30 at the Wayback Machine, referring to the ex post facto nature of the charges.
  70. Wright 1948, pp. 405–7.
  71. Mason 1968, p. 716.
  72. Luban 1994, pp. 360–361.
  73. "The Legacy of Nuremberg". PBS Online/WGBH. 1 March 2006. Archived from the original on 29 September 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  74. 'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr., and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif.: 1983)
  75. Ambruster, Howard Watson (1947). Treason's Peace. Beechhurst Press.
  76. Kennedy, John Fitzgerald; Sorensen, Ted (1955). Profiles in Courage. Harper & Brothers. ISBN 978-0-06-095544-1.
  77. 'The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, 1963–1965: Genocide, History, and the Limits of the Law' by Devin O. Pendas, Boston College, Massachusetts. (ISBN 978-0-521-12798-1)
  78. A. L. Goodhart, "The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials", Juridical Review, April 1946.
  79. Bauer, Eddy The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II Volume 22 New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation 1972 page 3071.
  80. Yee, Sienho (1 January 2004). "The Tu Quoque Argument as a Defence to International Crimes, Prosecution or Punishment". Chinese Journal of International Law. Oxford University Press in association with the Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing, and Wuhan University Institute of International Law, Wuhan, China. 3 (1): 87–134. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cjilaw.a000519. ISSN 1746-9937. Archived from the original on 4 September 2015. Retrieved 24 August 2014. ... in the light of the similar conduct of the British Admiralty and the United States Navy, the tribunal did not impose any punishment on the Admirals for these violations; they were punished for other violations only [p. 103] ... the tu quoque argument received recognition at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg [p. 117] ... the [ICTY] Trial Chamber argued that 'the tu quoque argument is flawed in principle ... [p. 119]
  81. "German Defense Team Clobbers Soviet Claims". Nizkor.org. 26 August 1995. Archived from the original on 9 March 2009. Retrieved 4 April 2009.
  82. BBC News story: Russia to release massacre files, 16 December 2004 online Archived 2008-12-16 at the Wayback Machine
  83. "The Nuremberg Judgments". Fredautley.com. Archived from the original on 20 January 2013. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  84. Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II
  85. Davidson 1999, p. 85. US military personnel and their wives were under strict orders to destroy or otherwise render inedible their leftover surplus to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians.
  86. "Germans Find Mass Graves at an Ex-Soviet Camp Archived 2009-02-23 at the Wayback Machine". The New York Times, 24 September 1992
  87. Sereny 1995, p. 578.
  88. Encyclopedia Krugosvet (in Russian)
  89. Abbott Gleason (2009). A Companion to Russian History. Wiley-Blackwell. p.373. ISBN 1-4051-3560-3
  90. 'The Nuremberg Judgment' editorial, The Economist (London), 5 October 1946, p. 532.; see also: J. McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg, pp. 67, 173–174, 380, 414 f.
  91. Francesca., Gaiba (1998). The origins of simultaneous interpretation : the Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa [Ont.]: Ottawa University Press. pp. 40–50. ISBN 0776604570. OCLC 144080321.

Citations

Avalon Project

These citations refer to documents at "The International Military Tribunal for Germany". The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy. Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library.

  1. "Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Indictment: Appendix B". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
  2. "Bormann judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  3. "Dönitz judgement". Archived from the original on 10 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  4. "Frank judgement". Archived from the original on 20 May 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  5. "Frick judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  6. "Fritzsche judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  7. "Funk judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  8. "Goering judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  9. "Hess judgement". Archived from the original on 25 November 2015. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  10. "Jodl judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  11. "Kaltenbrunner judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  12. "Keitel judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  13. "Von Neurath judgement". Archived from the original on 10 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  14. "Von Papen judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  15. "Raeder judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  16. "Von Ribbentrop judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  17. "Rosenberg judgement". Archived from the original on 2 February 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  18. "Sauckel judgement". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  19. "Schacht judgement". Archived from the original on 2 February 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2009.
  20. "Von Schirach judgement". Archived from the original on 20 August 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2009.
  21. "Seyss-Inquart judgement". Archived from the original on 2 February 2009. Retrieved 12 January 2009.
  22. "Speer judgement". Archived from the original on 25 January 2009. Retrieved 12 January 2009.
  23. "Streicher judgement". Archived from the original on 3 February 2009. Retrieved 12 January 2009.
  24. "Motion adopted by all defense counsel". The Avalon Project: Nuremberg Trial Proceedings volume 1. Lillian Goldman Law Library. 19 November 1945. Archived from the original on 1 December 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2011.
  25. "International Military Tribunal, Judgment of the International Military Tribunal (1946)". Archived from the original on 7 January 2015.
  26. "The trial of German major war criminals : proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany". Archived from the original on 17 August 2014. Retrieved 6 October 2016.

Bibliography
See also: Nuremberg Trials bibliography

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.