Nuremberg Trials: Justice for War Crimes

1. “The World contains evil. There will Always be plenty of evil. And there’ll Always be wars. Because human Beings are aggressive animals.”

2. Prelude • In the 1200’s St. Thomas Aquinas defined a “just war” as one fought by a legitimate government for a just cause and with the intention of bringing about good. • Was the battle raged by the Allies a “just war”

3. In 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would you say that the bombs were a case of “ the just war” • How important is it to establish rules of warfare? Does the knowledge that those rules cannot always be implemented affect your response?

4. Statement by Jackson • “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. • To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

5. When this was said, many looked at the two Soviet judges. • The Russians had invaded Poland in 1939 and Finland in 1940and were widely believed to be responsible for the massacre of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. • They were also responsible for the murder of thousands of their own citizens in the 1930s as part of Stalin’s efforts to consolidate his control over the nation.

6. Dresden: February 1945 • RAF conducts massive bombing raid of Dresden • City is hit with a firestorm of incendiary bombs • 35,000 or more killed, mainly civilian • Even Churchill questions bombing used as a method of terror without military objectives • Kurt Vonnegut uses as the setting for his novel “Slaughterhouse Five”

7. Nuremberg • Should leaders of one nation be able to put the leaders of other nations on trial? • Should a person that agitates a group to action be responsible for that action? • Are nations responsible for the care of POW? • Should a soldier always obey orders? Duty over conscience. • Should a person be tried for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time it was broken? • Should citizens be held accountable for the actions of their government?

8. Nuremberg Trial 1945 Why Nuremberg? • Held in the Palace of Justice – site of numerous Nazi rallies. • Symbolic - This is where it started, and this is where it would end. Aerial view of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the International Military Tribunal tried 22 leading German officials for war crimes. Nuremberg, November 1945.

9. Nuremberg Purpose of the Trial: • Leaders of nations that engage in unjustified warfare should be brought to justice. • International Military Tribunal The defendants at Nuremberg. Front row, from left to right: Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walther Funk, Hjalmar Schacht. Back row from left to right: Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Konstantin van Neurath, Hans Fritzsche.

10. Nuremberg What were the charges? • Count One: Conspiracy to Seize Power-overthrow of government. • Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace" Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” 3. Count Three: War Crimes These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor. 4. Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.(genocide) Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the United States at the Nuremberg Trials

11. The Crimes • Crime of conspiracy • Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan, or a conspiracy to commit any of the following crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in executing such a plan.

12. The Crimes • Crimes against peace • Planning, preparing or initiating a war of aggression. • War Crimes • This meant breaking the rules of war. It included killing prisoners or war and destroying homes and property

13. The Crimes • Crimes against humanity • The murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war.

14. A major difference between “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” was that “war crimes” could be committed only during a war, while “crimes against humanity” could be committed before or during a war.”

15. The Prosecution • Used the Nazi’s own records • Tried to show the Nazis planned a war and planned to conquer the world if they could • A crime against peace • A minor part of the prosecution was documents and witnesses of the Holocaust

16. Nuremberg The Evidence: • Cremating, freezing, and torturing human beings. • Intentionally spreading infectious diseases to prisoners. • Shooting women and children. • The most dramatic was showing the film of the atrocities.

17. Jackson himself was amazed not only at the quantity of records available, but also at the incredible detail in those records. • He did not think “men would ever be so foolish as to put in writing some of the things the Germans did.” • See Nazis vs Germans

18. Nuremberg The Defense: • Pleads “not guilty” • Hans Frank: “I say yes we have fought against Jewry, we have fought against them for years. A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased.” • Several key figures not brought to trial: A. Hitler B. Goebbels C. Martin Bormann tried in absentia 4. What could possibly be their arguments? Ernst Kaltenbrummer pleading "not guilty" to the charges against him during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

19. The Defense • Too much evidence to claim the Holocaust didn’t happen • Had to make case on other issues • Said tribunal had no legal authority • Said they were just following orders

20. Defense said that the trial was just a way for the Allies to take revenge and that it was a “show trial” to justify the execution of individual Nazis.

21. A big part of the defense was that it was the government of Nazi Germany that was at fault. • Vehemently denied responsibility for crimes against humanity

22. “That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States… Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities (such as a government or political party) and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can… international law be enforced.

23. Nuremberg Defense Summary : • Only following orders • They would have been killed if they would have disobeyed these orders. • Insanity • Ex Post Facto – charged with crimes that did not exist at the time. Ex. Genocide • War – anything goes. No different than what the U.S. did at Hiroshima, and Britain at Dresden. Herman Goering defendant

24. The judges said that all people are aware of certain basic laws such as the law against murder, the law against enslavement, and the law against extermination.

25. These Nazi leaders had only been following orders. But the judges declared: • “That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States… Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities (such as a government or political party) and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can… international law be enforced.

26. Duty to these human laws comes before duty to any state or nation and a person will not be forgiven for “following orders’ in violation of these laws. • In fact, the higher a person is in military or governmental authority, the greater his or her accountability.

27. The Defense • Used the argument Fuhrer-prinzip • Nazi “leadership principal” • All orders given in Germany were Hitler’s orders and the punishment for not obeying was death. • They claimed that all Nazis were innocent; only Hitler could be held accountable.

28. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The judges stated, “It was also submitted on behalf of most of these defendants that… they were acting under the orders of Hitler…. • That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognized as a defense to such acts of brutality.—

29. Amazingly enough, the laws of the Nazi Germany agreed with this ruling. Article 47 of the German military law stated that “no obedience was due to an order that called for the performance of a crime” • This law applied to the SS as well as the German Army.

30. Death sentences were given to • Martin Borman, the SA Boss, in absentia • Hermann Goering, who managed to poison himself an hour before execution • Ribbentrop • Kaltenbrunner • Rosenberg • Frank • Streicher • Frick • Sauckel • Seyss-Inquart • Jodl • All were hanged

31. Sentences • Martin Bormann • Hitler’s secretary, was tried in absentia, never captured, sentenced to die A body was later found in Berlin and Bormann was pronounced dead by a German court in 1973.

32. Sentences • Hermann Goering- • Highest ranking official, 2nd to Hitler • Commanded the Luftwaffe • Set up the Gestapo • Sentenced to death, but took poison hours before he was to be hung

33. Hermann Goering told a fellow defendant that “you must accept the fact that your life is lost. The only question left is whether you are willing to stand by me and die a martyr’s death. • You should not feel too said, some day the German people will rise against and acknowledge us as heroes, and our cones will be moved to marble caskets, in a national shrine.”

34. Sentences • Jochaim von Ribbentrop • Hitler’s foreign minister • Deported Jews from occupied countries “to the East”

35. Sentences • Julius Streicher • Published Der Stuermer, an antisemitic newspaper • Found guilty of “inciting the population to abuse, maltreat, and slay their fellow citizens.”

36. “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke