1. War Trials
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster; and when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

2. The Holocaust
The Nazis killed over 6 million Jews during World War II, which became known as the Holocaust
The Nazis also killed approximately 6 million Poles, Slavs, and Gypsies as well during the Holocaust.

3. The Allies and the Trials
Winston Churchill did not want a trial
Thought all should be hung
Americans and Russians wanted a trial
Many people were convinced that the individuals responsible had to be tried before an international court and they wanted each person to take personal responsibility for their actions
Many people were convinced that the individuals responsible had to be tried before an international court and they wanted each person to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Winston Churchill argued that the Nazis should be summarily hung. Only after considerable pressure from the Russians and the Americans, did the British change their stand.
Ironic Stalin wanted a trial. In the early 1930’s, Stalin held many “trials” has he was trying to consolidate his power. Most of these people were considered guilty and had to prove their innocence. Most were killed, including some of Russia’s top Generals.
Trials decide questions of law, but what laws had the German’s broken? Some would insist that “all is fair in love and war”

4. The Lieber Code
Compiled by Frances Lieber and given to American soldiers during the Civil War
It detailed how civilians, prisoners of war, and spies were to be treated
Other nations, including Britain, France, and Germany prepared similar manuals
Before Nuremberg, the most famous war crimes trial was at the end of the Civil War. Captain Henry Wirts, a Confederate officer who commanded the prison camp at Andersonville, Georgia. This camp had a reputation for starvation and cruelty that was not equaled until Hitler’s time. Wirts was accused of the deaths of several thousand Yankee prisoners of war. He was tried in a military court, convicted, and hanged.
Wirtz argued he was only obeying the orders of his commander. The evidence supported Wirz’s claims, but the judges convicted him because he followed orders willingly rather than under duress. What is the difference?

5. The Hague/ Geneva Accord
Held in 1907 in Hague, Netherlands
Focused on the rights of civilians and soldiers who have surrendered
The Geneva Accord established how prisoners of war were to be treated and called for the protection of the wounded.

6. Nuremberg Trial
In November 1945, the victors of World War II began the first international war crimes trial.
This was a trial set up to punish those guilty for a wide range of criminal activity carried out in the lead up to, and during the war.

7. “By the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, October 1, 1946, it was established that the highest officials of a government are answerable before the bar of international courts for committing war crimes, crimes against peace, and—in connection with either of these—crimes against humanity.”
Harry S. Truman
Address at the Laying of the Cornerstone of the New U.S. Courts Building for the District of Columbia June 27, #147 Truman Library

8. 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.
The Allies were going to punish anyone who violated international law. They were going to hold accountable not only those who ordered the crimes, but also those who participated in them. This included businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and a number of other people.

9. 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
Aggression is an attack on someone
War crimes- violations of the laws or customs or war. Such violations shall include, but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor for any other purposes of civilian population of or in an occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

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

11. Why Nuremberg?
The location chosen for the trials, Nuremburg in Germany, was significant for it was here that the National Socialist Party, i.e. the Nazi Party, held its annual rallies.
Adolf Hitler had foreseen Nuremburg as the 'party city'. Now many of the leaders of the party were on trial for their lives, just a short distance from the grand arena where they had their rallies.

12. Nuremberg Jail

13. How the trials were set up
Allies formed the International Military Tribunal (IMT) to bring the Nazi leaders to trial
Tribunal is a court of justice
The defendants were made aware of all charges, each was entitled to a lawyer and had the right to plead his own case, offering witnesses and evidence on his behalf.
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”
In 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Research the bombings and decide if they were “war crimes”
How important is it to establish rules of warfare? Does the knowledge that those rules cannot always be implemented affect your response?

14. The Nuremberg Trials Began Nov. 20, 1945 and lasted 10 months
Chief prosecutor was Robert H. Jackson, justice on United States Supreme Court
Opening Statement by Jackson

16. Nuremberg Trials (Major Defendants)
Karl Doentiz- German Admiral (Chosen by Hitler to succeed him as Fuhrer
Hans Frank- Governor-General of Occupied Poland (Jew butcher of Kracow)
Wilhelm Frick- Minister of the Interior
Hans Fritzsche- Head of Radio Division (Propaganda Ministry)
Walther Funk- Minister of Economics
Hermann Goering- Luftwaffe Chief, Director of 4-Year Plan
Rudolf Hoess- Deputy to the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party Leader
Alfred Jodl- Chief of Operations
Ernst Kaltenbrunner- Chief of RSHA and Chief of Security Police
Wilhelm Keitel- Chief of Staff of the German High Command
Konstantin von Neurath- Minister of Foreign Affairs
Franz von Papen- Reich Chancellor prior to Hitler, Vice Chancellor under Hitler, Ambassador to Turkey

17. Nuremberg Trials (Major Defendants 2)
Erich Raeder- Commander in Chief of the German Navy
Joachim von Ribbentrop- Foreign Minister
Alfred Rosenberg- Chief Nazi Philosopher and Reichminister of the Eastern Occupied Territories
Fritz Sauckel- Chief of Slave Labor Recruitment
Hjalmar Schacht- Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics before the War
Baldur von Schirach- Hitler Youth Leader
Arthur Seyss-Inquart- Austrian Chancellor, the Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands
Albert Speer- Reichmaster of Armaments and Munitions
Julius Streicher- Anti-Semitic Editor of Der Sturmer

18. The 21 defendants came from very different backgrounds
The 21 defendants came from very different backgrounds. Some, like Hitler's chosen successor Hermann Goering, were senior politicians - their responsibility in the Holocaust was clear.
Most of them were regarded by the western public as key playmakers in a system that had brought war to Europe and cost the lives of 50 million people.
Defendants .

19. 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
Throughout the trial, the prosecution used the Nazis own records as evidence. 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.”

20. American chief prosecutor Robert Jackson decided to argue his case primarily on the basis of mounds of documents written by the Nazis themselves rather than eyewitness testimony so that the trial could not be accused of relying on biased or tainted testimony. Testimony presented at Nuremberg revealed much of what we know about the Holocaust including the details of the Auschwitz death machinery, the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto, and the estimate of six million Jewish victims.

21. 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
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.
A big part of the defense was that it was the government of Nazi Germany that was at fault. 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. P. 167-The Holocaust and the World of the Jews

22. Goering, Hess, von Ribbentrop, and Keitel in front row

23. Two prisoners in particular came to represent opposite poles in their reaction to the trials and the accusation of massive crimes.
Hermann Goering, the man Hitler chose as his successor in the 1930s and the most flamboyant and ambitious of the party hierarchy, prepared to defend Hitler and the Reich's war policy rather than admit that what had been done was criminal.

24. From the start he was determined to dominate the other prisoners and make them follow his line of defence insisting that everything that they had done was the result of their German patriotism. He told them that to defy the court was to protect Germany's reputation and to maintain their loyalty to their dead leader.
With the start of the trial, Goering assumed at once the informal role as leader and spokesman for the whole cohort of prisoners. He was given the most prominent position in the dock.

25. Lunch for a Prisoner
In mid-February 1946, on the recommendation of the psychologist who monitored prisoner behaviour, Goering was forced to exercise and take his meals on his own.
This led to a decrease in the problems Goering was causing for the prosecution; with his isolation allowing the other prisoners to talk freely to each other and in the courtroom, the united front that Goering wanted soon collapsed.

26. On the other hand Albert Speer, the architect who ran Germany's armaments effort during the war, accepted from the start the collective responsibility of the defendants for the crimes of which they were accused and tried to distance himself from Hitler's presence at the tribunal. Speer freely admitted Hitler had once held him in thrall like all the rest.
At the same time in his interrogations and cross-examinations, he seldom expressed his individual guilt. He succeeded in presenting himself as part of the system, but not a driving force.

27. Speer revealed early in the trial that at the very end of the war he had tried to find a way to assassinate Hitler by pouring poison gas into his underground bunker. The plot was abortive, but it again presented Speer to the prosecution as someone different from the rest of the defendants.
At the end of the trial, even though he had been responsible for the mass exploitation of forced foreign labor, he was given a 20- year sentence.
No doubt Speer benefited from his pose as a technical manager (whose social background was not very different from those who were trying him) and from his willingness to confess responsibility. The extent to which he manipulated his story to win sympathy or genuinely believed that the regime he served was criminal is still open to speculation.

28. The others did not all share Speer’s frankness, any more than they shared Goering's deviance, but for the rest of the trial period the cohort of prisoners divided into small groups rather than presenting a united front.

29. Nuremberg Bench
This is a photo of the Nuremberg judges..

30. Press Room
The defendants were entitled to a legal counsel of their choosing. Over 400 visitors attended the proceedings each day, as well as 325 correspondents representing 23 different countries.

31. The judges delivered their verdict on October 1, 1946
The judges delivered their verdict on October 1, Three of four judges were needed for conviction. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death, among them Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hans Frank, Alfred Rosenberg, and Julius Steicher. They were hanged, cremated in Dachau, and their ashes dropped in the Isar River. Hermann Goering escaped the hangman's noose by committing suicide the night before. The IMT sentenced three defendants to life imprisonment and four to prison terms ranging from 10 to 20 years. It acquitted three of the defendants.

32. Results
Many criminals involved in the Nuremberg Trials were hanged on October 16, 1946, some were sent to prison, or life in prison
Frank Hans was hanged wearing a beatific smile
Hans Fritzsche was acquitted but was later convicted by a German court, then freed
Walther Funk was sentenced to life in prison but was released due to poor health
Hermann Goering committed suicide the day before his scheduled hanging by taking a cyanide pill
Rudolf Hess was sentenced to life in prison but killed himself in 1987
Konstantin von Neurath was sentenced to 15 years in prison but was released due to poor health in 1954 and died 2 years later
Franz von Papen was acquitted
Erich Raeder was sentenced to life in prison but was released 9 years later
Hjalmar Schacht was found not guilty but was later convicted by a German court and sentenced to eight years
Baldur von Schirach was sentenced to 20 years
Albert Speer served a 20-year sentence and later wrote 2 books about his life

33. Results of the Nuremberg Trials
Told the world in great detail about the Holocaust
Established the principle that individuals can’t escape responsibility for their actions by saying they were following orders
Set the standards for judging the actions of nations in the future

34.
Write a paragraph on whether or not you think the punishment was just.