The Nuremberg Trials: History and Legacy

The Nuremberg Trials: History and Legacy
Instructor: Steve Greenhouse

The Nuremberg Trials (briefly)
The Trials were conducted under the auspicious of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) organized by the four WWII allies. The charter of the IMT is known as the London Charter. 22 Nazi leaders and various Nazi organizations were accused and judged of waging wars of aggression (2 counts), “traditional” war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The first meeting of the IMT was held in Berlin on October 18, The trial preliminaries then shifted to the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg on November 14. The actual trials began there on November 22 and concluded on August 31, 1946, a duration of nine months. Twelve subsequent trials held at Nuremberg tried an additional 184 high ranking Nazis. These were held before U.S. military courts (not the IMT) also at the Palace of Justice.

References “The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials,” Telford Taylor, (Member of the prosecution staff for the trial of the major war criminals (1st trial) and Chief Prosecutor/Counsel for the ensuing trials), 1992. “The Nuremberg Legacy,” Norbert Ehrenfreund, 2007. “The Nuremberg Interviews, Leon N. Goldensohn, (Court- appointed psychiatrist for the trials), 2004. “Inside the Third Reich,” Albert Speer, 1970. “Hitler's Children,” 2012, documentary movie. “Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust,” Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1996. “Evil: An Investigation,” Lance Morrow, 2004. “The Sunflower,” Simon Wiesenthal, 1976, 1996. Robert H. Jackson Center, website. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, website. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, website. Meet the Defendants/Univ. of Missouri, website. Wikipedia.

Relevant OLLI Courses “A Century of Genocide,” Paul Murad, (particularly) The Holocaust (Session 2), George Pick, Winter “Evil, A Liberal Religious Perspective,” Anya Sammler-Michael, Spring 2014. “World War II: Its Origins, Course and Consequences,” Bill Reader, Spring 2014.

Course Outline Introduction History of the Nuremberg Trials
Background to the Crimes Why Nuremberg? Legal Absolutism vs Natural Law History of the Nuremberg Trials The Ideas of Nuremberg History of Rules or Laws of War Preparation for the Trials The IMT or London Charter Issues and Controversy The Indictment The Nazi Organizations The Prosecutors, Judges and Defense Counsel The Defendants Testimony Psychiatric Evaluations The Individual Charges, Verdicts and Sentences The Subsequent Nuremberg Trials

Course Outline (cont’d)
Legacy of Nuremberg Nuremberg Trials Firsts The Nuremberg Principles Nuremberg as a Precedent for Other Trials Major Points of the Legacy

Introduction and Background

Introduction What this course is not about (excepting background):
History of the Third Reich Battles of WWII The Holocaust

The Indictment – 4 Counts
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: To engage in a conspiracy to commit crimes against peace (largely to conduct wars of aggression). To commit crimes against peace (largely to conduct wars of aggression). To commit “traditional” war crimes. To commit crimes against humanity/civilization (crimes against racial, ethnic and religious minorities including what later became known as the Holocaust*). *The term was first used by historians in the 1950’s although there is a reference to it in 1942.

Background to the 4 Counts: Overview of the Crimes
Counts 1 and 2: Waging Wars of Aggression (1:30-9:37): [Annexation of Austria; Munich Pact; Invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark (note the term defendants)] _id=51b1a27f f9-bc52- 6fd6ec5a8be9&clip_id=&media_type=mp4 Count 3: War Crimes: (Read) Taylor, p. 253 Count 4: Crimes Against Humanity (9:57): [Includes Nazi footage entered as evidence, some court proceedings] _id=21fa7c0d-9a1a-42c9-85c8- 60d &clip_id=&media_type=flv

Introduction (cont’d)
Why Nuremberg? In the American zone The Palace of Justice was available The Nuremberg laws The Nuremberg rallies

. Nuremberg Germany before WWII Germany after WWII

The Palace of Justice being repaired for the Nuremberg Trials.

1935 chart from Nazi Germany used to explain the Nuremberg Laws.

Nuremberg Nazi Party rally, 1936

Legal Absolutism vs Natural Law
Legal absolutists have generally maintained that the trials were invalid because they were not based on existing (at the time of the crimes) international law and for other reasons. Pragmatic natural law theorists rejected this position and insisted that the trials were necessary because civilization had to protect itself in the face of such unprecedented and barbaric criminality. These two approaches continue to be debated and they are relevant to such contemporary issues as the validity of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In 1945, all philosophical and legal objections to the Nuremberg trials were overruled and the trials went forward. The natural law advocates prevailed.

Legal Absolutists Objections to Nuremberg Procedures
Ex post facto law Victor’s justice Superior’s orders* Prosecutors were guilty of some of the same crimes (tu quoque)** (Read) Jackson notes: Criticism Taylor, p.191: “Shawcross' opening - why aggressive war not ex post facto” “ The Rifleman’s Dilemma,” Morrow – superior’s orders, tu quoque *The court refused to allow this as a defense, but compromised by allowing it as a mitigating factor when sentencing. **Never a valid defense.

History of the Nuremberg Trials

The Ideas of Nuremberg The ideas that led to the Nuremberg Trials were largely developed by a group of New York lawyers during late 1944 and early 1945, most notably: Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War Murray C. Bernays, a War Department lawyer William C. Chanler, a War Department lawyer Samuel Rosenman, the first official White House Counsel Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and last but not least, President Franklin D. Roosevelt The decision of Stimson to forgo military courts-martial and establish an international court to try the leading Nazi officials was critical in establishing the International Military Tribunal (IMT) which was the framework for Nuremberg. Ordinary courts and trials are based on the statutes of sovereign nations: The IMT was established by four nations: The U.S., England, The U.S.S.R. and France. The laws by which the IMT were to be bound were not the laws of these or any other nations including Germany. For the rules or laws of war, the IMT looked first at precedents for and existing international “laws of war,” violations of which are called “war crimes.”

History of Rules or Laws of War
After the Thirty Years War ( ), soldiering became a profession and rules governing the conduct of occupying troops were born, requiring respect for civilian inhabitants: Early rules were not thought of as “international law,” only regional military regulations. War was a relation only between states, not individuals. Fighting was between soldiers not soldiers and citizens. Rules for the taking and care of prisoners developed in the late 18th century. These early rules were not codified until the U.S. Civil War when Francis Lieber, a German immigrant who lost sons in the Civil War, prevailed upon Henry W. Halleck, military advisor to Lincoln, to: Propose a code of regulations which became in May 1863, “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field” or General Orders No. 100. The “Lieber Code” became the official army pronouncement on laws of land warfare for over half a century. It dealt with prisoners, the rights of noncombatants, partisans, spies and the use of poisons.

History of Rules or Laws of War (cont’d)
General Orders No. 100 was replaced by “The Law of Land Warfare” which, updated, is still in force. It states that the laws of war are part of the U.S. Code and are enforceable by both soldiers and civilians and by military or international tribunals. At Geneva in 1864, twelve European nations signed the first Red Cross convention for the treatment of the wounded in the field. At The Hague in 1899, a convention was signed by the U.S., 19 European nations and others based on the Lieber Code and dealt with POWs and relations between occupying troops and noncombatant civilians. Other conventions signed in 1899 at The Hague dealt with expanding bullets, gas warfare and projectiles launched from balloons. A second Hague Convention in 1907, similar in content to the first, was signed by over 40 nations. Such was the state of the laws of land warfare in 1914 when WWI began; the laws of war contained nothing on aerial warfare then in its infancy. Neither were the means of enforcement or penalties for violating the laws of land warfare specified in 1914.

Over the past centuries of maritime warfare, many customs and rules had been adopted, some as treaties: In 1907, the Hague Convention adopted eight new conventions on such matters as converting merchant ships into warships, mine laying and coastal bombardment. Violation could lead to reprisals or claims for compensation, but no criminal prosecutions. Nothing to this point placed any limits in the rights of sovereign nations to make war. But the Hague Conventions had raised public concern with “war crimes” throughout the course and aftermath of WWI.

Clearly Germany and its ally Turkey had broken the spirit if not the letter of the existing laws of war during WWI. Germany by violating the neutrality of Belgium, the U-boat sinkings of British ships and many other hostile acts; Turkey by its massacre of Armenians.* There were many calls for international war crimes trials especially for the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. England favored them, the U.S. opposed, France wanted reparations not trials. Confrontation then gave way to compromise, embodied in several articles of the Treaty of Versailles, signed in June 1919: The Kaiser and leading Germans were to be tried before a military tribunal, not for war crimes, but for “violating international morality and treaties.” But, the charges were vague and had no roots in (codified) international legal doctrine. There were no international trials; this occasion for expanding the international laws of war foundered because of American opposition. Germany was allowed, however, to conduct its own trials. The Treaty did impose stringent penalties on Germany including war reparations and the ceding of territory to injured countries. The resentment caused by these penalties amongst Germans was no small factor leading to WWII. *In May 1925, a joint Allied declaration denounced the Turkish actions as “crimes against humanity and civilization,” but this concept was outside the scope of treaties or recognized legal doctrine.

This resulted in a series of trials of 45 individuals, fingered by the Allies, before the German Supreme Court in Leipzig: The results were mostly acquittals with a few relatively short prison sentences handed out. The Turkish slaughter of Armenians was likewise a whitewash with two officials convicted, one of whom was executed. This was before the term “genocide” was coined, but it surely was; an estimated million Armenians were killed. After the carnage of WWI, public interest in war crimes, limitation of armaments and multinational treaty enforcement was rekindled: The first success was the 1925 Geneva Protocol which prohibited the use of poison gas: The U.S. did not ratify the treaty until 1975 and, then, with reservations. The London Treaty of 1930 placed limitations on naval armaments including submarines: By the time WWII began it had been accepted by 48 countries including Germany and all other major powers.

No prohibitions or treaties against aerial warfare were ever enacted. Many were resigned to believing future wars between the great powers would result in urban infernos produced by bombers. The 1928 Treaty of Paris and the Kellogg-Briand Pact signed by 15 nations on August 27, 1928 sought to outlaw war itself: The Pact was ultimately accepted by 44 nations including all the Great Powers (including Germany) except the Soviet Union. It did not condemn resorting to war in self-defense, but opinions differed sharply on whether it made launching an aggressive war a crime. When WWII ended in 1945 the codified and generally accepted rules of war were not substantially different* from those embodied in the Hague (1899,1907) and Geneva conventions (1929, which basically added detail to previous conventions): However, before the war ended public and official attitudes toward the laws of war had undergone a sea change. This change led to preparations for trial(s) of prominent leaders of the Third Reich. *Except for the use of poison gas and submarine warfare.

Preparation for the Trials (Organization of the Court)
As the Big Three Allies learned of the magnitude of the Nazi atrocities during the war, the leaders, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at various times all considered summary execution as the most appropriate response to these crimes. The first suggestion for a trial of prominent leaders of “the criminal Hitlerite government” was made by Soviet foreign minister V. Molotov in October This led to the Moscow Declaration on November 1, 1943 which stated the war criminals would be returned to the location of their crimes and “judged on the spot.” It did not specify whether a trial or summary execution would take place. It was otherwise vague on exactly what should take place. Churchill argued to his cabinet on November 10, 1943 that a short list of Nazi criminals should be drawn up and their summary execution should be considered. If there was to be a trial, it would be only for the purpose of identifying these “outlaws.”

The Big Three leaders at Yalta: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

Preparation for the Trials (cont’d) (Organization of the Court)
Later, at the Tehran Conference held between November 28 and December 1, 1943, Stalin suggested fifty thousand Nazi leaders be rounded up and liquidated. Churchill was taken aback. Roosevelt responded that 49,000 would be sufficient, but if Churchill had agreed it may well have happened although Stalin later said he had been joking. On Jan. 11, 1944, the first meeting of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) was held, but it was weak politically. The Big Three would have to proceed on their own. On September 5,1944, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., U.S. Treasury Secretary proposed mass executions for the Nazi leadership and German industrial might be leveled and the country converted to a huge farm. Henry Stimson, Secretary of War vehemently disagreed, but Roosevelt appeared to side with Morgenthau. At the Quebec Conference held August 11-24, 1944, both Roosevelt and Churchill had stated trials were inappropriate for these “arch-criminals” favoring executions instead. In October 1944, Churchill expressed surprise that Stalin now favored trials. The Soviets eventually convinced the other two Allies to have trials; the question was where and under what rules. In the summer of 1943 the Soviets had, in fact, begun carrying out their own trials for Nazis captured in their own territory.

Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
advocated summary executions and destroying Germany’s industrial base. Political borders of post-World War II Germany (1949). West Germany is shown in Blue, East Germany is shown in Red, The Saar protectorate under French economic control is shown in Green. The Ruhr Area, the industrial engine of West Germany, is shown in brown as it was under the control of the International Authority for the Ruhr. Pre-war German territory east of the Oder-Neisse line is shown in Gray, as it was assigned/annexed to Poland and the Soviet Union. West Berlin is shown in Yellow as it was formally under occupation by the Allies until 1990.

The Morgenthau Plan

Henry L. Stimson, 45th and 54th Secretary of War. He finally convinced
Roosevelt and then Truman to abandon the Morgenthau Plan and have trials.

Murray Bernays was an ex-Army Colonel and then a War Department lawyer who proved to be an influential figure in the planning for the trial of “European war criminals.” He was the first to introduce the ideas of charges of conspiracy and indicting the principal Nazi organizations such as the SS and Gestapo. At the Yalta Conference held February 7-12, 1945, Stalin again emphasized he wanted trials. Stimson finally but later convinced Roosevelt of the wisdom of this position. President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945 and Harry Truman became U.S. President. He accepted the view that trials were the way to go. On May 2, 1945, President Truman appointed Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court as representative of the U.S. and Chief of Counsel in preparing and prosecuting the leaders of the European Axis Powers for war crimes. On May 3, 1945, the American plan for doing so was presented to a meeting of the Big Three foreign ministers, joined by France, meeting in San Francisco.

US Army Colonel Murray C
US Army Colonel Murray C. Bernays persuaded War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. He was the first to introduce the ideas of charges of conspiracy and indicting the principal Nazi organizations such as the SS and Gestapo.

President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945 and Harry Truman became the 33rd U.S. President.

On June 26, 1945, four delegations (American, British, Soviet and French) to the “International Conference on Military Trials” met in London. By August 8, they had worked out a charter for the trials. They agreed that: The defendants would have certain* rights of self defense They would be assumed innocent until proven guilty Some of the accused might even be found not guilty and set free There would be four counts for which the accused could be indicted: (see detailed later) To engage in a conspiracy or common plan To commit crimes against peace To commit war crimes. To commit crimes against humanity *Defendants would have no “5th amendment rights,” they would have to testify and answer all questions. There would be no right of appeal.

The first two counts were the most problematic: Conspiracy was a charge unheard of in Continental European jurisprudence. It was pushed by the U.S. because it made it possible to consider crimes committed before September 1, (invasion of Poland). The Soviets and French objected and an agreement was reached to make it apply only to Count #2. The defense was to argue during the trials that the Third Reich leadership was too chaotic and disorganized for a conspiracy to be viable. The second count, crimes against peace, really meant waging aggressive war, such as the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. This was something new in the history of the laws of war, but it was allowed to stay in.

On July 7, 1945: (1) A Draft of Agreement and Charter was adopted; (2) a Soviet proposal that the court be named the “International Military Tribunal (IMT)” was accepted; (3) its duties and powers to be embodied in a “Charter” (called the London Charter). The IMT or London Charter was adopted on August 8, 1945. The Big Three, meeting at the Potsdam Conference (Berlin), agreed on August 1 to go ahead with quadripartite trials and to publish the first list of defendants before September 1. The first meeting of the IMT was held in Berlin on October 18, The trial preliminaries then shifted to the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg on November 14. The actual trials began there on November 22 and concluded on August 31, 1946, a duration of nine months.

Clement Attlee, Harry Truman and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, circa 28 July-1 August Attlee had replaced Churchill as British P.M. on 26 July as the result of the Labour Party’s election victory over Churchill's Conservatives.

The court met in 403 open sessions, heard 166 witnesses and reviewed thousands of affidavits and hundreds of thousands of documents. The automatic simultaneous translation into four languages (a kluge of an IBM machine with wires everywhere) was the first ever attempted in a courtroom setting. The published (also in four languages) transcripts and only a portion of the documents entered as evidence required 42 large volumes.

The IMT or London Charter (Selected Articles)
I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL Article 1. In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis. Article 2. The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place. Article 3. Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its members of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate. Article 4 (a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum. (b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during the trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside. (c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal. Article 5. In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter. II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in 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; (c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. Article 9. At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. After the receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard. Article 10. In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned. Article 11. Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization. Article 12. The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence. Article 13. The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS Article 14. Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals. The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes: (a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff, (b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, (c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, (d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompany documents with the Tribunal, (e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have the power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended. The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him. Article 15. The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties: (a) investigation, collection and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence, (b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof, (c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of all Defendants, (d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial, (e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned them, (f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial. It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by the Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its assent. IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS Article 16. In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial. (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him. (c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands. (d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel. (e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution. V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL Article 17. The Tribunal shall have the power (a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them (b) to interrogate any Defendant, (c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material, (d) to administer oaths to witnesses, (e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission. Article 18. The Tribunal shall (a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the cases raised by the charges, (b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause reasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever, (c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. Article 20. The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof. Article 21. 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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. Article 22. The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide. Article 23. One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him. The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant's request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal. Article 24. The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course: (a) The Indictment shall be read in court. (b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not guilty.'' (c) The prosecution shall make an opening statement. (d) The Tribunal shall ask the prosecution and the defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. (e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense. (f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any defendant, at any time. (g) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may crossexamine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. (h) The Defense shall address the court. (i) The Prosecution shall address the court. (j) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. (k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. Article 25. All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of the justice and public opinion. VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Article 26. The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review. Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just. Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. Article 29. In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice. VII. EXPENSES Article 30. The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council of Germany. The IMT or London Charter (Selected Articles) ARTICLE 1 In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereafter called "the Tribunal") for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis. ARTICLE 2 The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place.... ARTICLE 6 The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes against Peace: (see later) (b) War Crimes: (see later) (c) Crimes against Humanity: (see later) Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. (see later) ARTICLE 7 The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

The IMT or London Charter (cont’d)
I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL Article 1. In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis. Article 2. The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place. Article 3. Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its members of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate. Article 4 (a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum. (b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during the trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside. (c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal. Article 5. In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter. II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in 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; (c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. Article 9. At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. After the receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard. Article 10. In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned. Article 11. Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization. Article 12. The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence. Article 13. The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS Article 14. Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals. The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes: (a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff, (b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, (c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, (d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompany documents with the Tribunal, (e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have the power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended. The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him. Article 15. The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties: (a) investigation, collection and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence, (b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof, (c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of all Defendants, (d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial, (e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned them, (f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial. It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by the Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its assent. IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS Article 16. In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial. (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him. (c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands. (d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel. (e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution. V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL Article 17. The Tribunal shall have the power (a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them (b) to interrogate any Defendant, (c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material, (d) to administer oaths to witnesses, (e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission. Article 18. The Tribunal shall (a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the cases raised by the charges, (b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause reasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever, (c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. Article 20. The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof. Article 21. 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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. Article 22. The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide. Article 23. One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him. The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant's request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal. Article 24. The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course: (a) The Indictment shall be read in court. (b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not guilty.'' (c) The prosecution shall make an opening statement. (d) The Tribunal shall ask the prosecution and the defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. (e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense. (f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any defendant, at any time. (g) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may crossexamine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. (h) The Defense shall address the court. (i) The Prosecution shall address the court. (j) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. (k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. Article 25. All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of the justice and public opinion. VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Article 26. The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review. Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just. Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. Article 29. In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice. VII. EXPENSES Article 30. The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council of Germany. The IMT or London Charter (cont’d) ARTICLE 8 The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determine that justice so requires. ARTICLE 9 At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. After receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the Prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard. ARTICLE 10 In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military, or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned. ARTICLE 11 Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military, or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization.... ARTICLE 13 The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall- not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.

I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL Article 1. In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis. Article 2. The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place. Article 3. Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its members of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate. Article 4 (a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum. (b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during the trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside. (c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal. Article 5. In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter. II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in 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; (c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. Article 9. At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. After the receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard. Article 10. In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned. Article 11. Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization. Article 12. The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence. Article 13. The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS Article 14. Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals. The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes: (a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff, (b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, (c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, (d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompany documents with the Tribunal, (e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have the power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended. The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him. Article 15. The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties: (a) investigation, collection and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence, (b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof, (c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of all Defendants, (d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial, (e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned them, (f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial. It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by the Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its assent. IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS Article 16. In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial. (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him. (c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands. (d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel. (e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution. V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL Article 17. The Tribunal shall have the power (a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them (b) to interrogate any Defendant, (c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material, (d) to administer oaths to witnesses, (e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission. Article 18. The Tribunal shall (a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the cases raised by the charges, (b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause reasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever, (c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. Article 20. The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof. Article 21. 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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. Article 22. The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide. Article 23. One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him. The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant's request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal. Article 24. The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course: (a) The Indictment shall be read in court. (b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not guilty.'' (c) The prosecution shall make an opening statement. (d) The Tribunal shall ask the prosecution and the defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. (e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense. (f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any defendant, at any time. (g) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may crossexamine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. (h) The Defense shall address the court. (i) The Prosecution shall address the court. (j) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. (k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. Article 25. All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of the justice and public opinion. VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Article 26. The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review. Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just. Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. Article 29. In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice. VII. EXPENSES Article 30. The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council of Germany. The IMT or London Charter (cont’d) ARTICLE 14 Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals. The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes: (a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff, (b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, (c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, (d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the Tribunal, (e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended. The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him.... ARTICLE 16 In order to ensure fair trial for the defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the defendant at a reasonable time before the Trial. (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a defendant he shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him. (c) A preliminary examination of a defendant and his trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the defendant understands. (d) A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of counsel. (e) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution....

I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL Article 1. In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis. Article 2. The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place. Article 3. Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its members of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate. Article 4 (a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum. (b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during the trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside. (c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal. Article 5. In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter. II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in 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; (c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. Article 9. At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. After the receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard. Article 10. In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned. Article 11. Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization. Article 12. The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence. Article 13. The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS Article 14. Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals. The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes: (a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff, (b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, (c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, (d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompany documents with the Tribunal, (e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have the power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended. The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him. Article 15. The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties: (a) investigation, collection and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence, (b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof, (c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of all Defendants, (d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial, (e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned them, (f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial. It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by the Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its assent. IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS Article 16. In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial. (b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him. (c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands. (d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel. (e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution. V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL Article 17. The Tribunal shall have the power (a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them (b) to interrogate any Defendant, (c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material, (d) to administer oaths to witnesses, (e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission. Article 18. The Tribunal shall (a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the cases raised by the charges, (b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause reasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever, (c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. Article 19. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. Article 20. The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof. Article 21. 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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. Article 22. The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide. Article 23. One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him. The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant's request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal. Article 24. The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course: (a) The Indictment shall be read in court. (b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not guilty.'' (c) The prosecution shall make an opening statement. (d) The Tribunal shall ask the prosecution and the defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. (e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense. (f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any defendant, at any time. (g) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may crossexamine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. (h) The Defense shall address the court. (i) The Prosecution shall address the court. (j) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. (k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. Article 25. All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of the justice and public opinion. VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE Article 26. The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review. Article 27. The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just. Article 28. In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. Article 29. In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice. VII. EXPENSES Article 30. The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council of Germany. The IMT or London Charter (cont’d) ARTICLE 18 The Tribunal shall: (a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges, (b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever, (c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any defendant or his counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. ARTICLE 19 The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.... ARTICLE 26 The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review. ARTICLE 27 The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a defendant on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just.

Nuremberg, Germany after the war ended
Nuremberg, Germany after the war ended. Ninety percent of the city was destroyed by Allied bombings from An estimated 20,000 bodies lie beneath the rubble.

The Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.

American guards maintain constant surveillance over the major Nazi war criminals in the prison attached to the Palace of Justice.

A typical jail cell in the Palace of Justice Prison, where the defendants were confined during the International Military Tribunal trial of war criminals at Nuremberg.

Inside of the Palace of Justice, where the Nuremberg Trials took place
Inside of the Palace of Justice, where the Nuremberg Trials took place. The eight judges sit on the left with the court staff below them. Across the courtroom on the right, the defendants in the dock face the judges. The defendants' lawyers sit at tables in front of the dock. The prosecutors' tables are directly behind the lawyers' podium in the center of the photograph. At the rear of the courtroom, visitors sit in the balcony and reporters sit below.

Issues and Controversy
Ex post facto justice Superior’s orders Crimes prior to Sep. 1, 1939 (invasion of Poland) considered? War of aggression was a new charge But considered of utmost importance by the Americans Soviets conducted a war of aggression against Poland as well Anglo-American and continental European law were quite different E.g., cross-examination and rules for discovery The conspiracy charge (#1) Continental European law did not recognize Applies to all counts or only #2? The “organizations” issue Guilt of all members Which organizations?

Issues (cont’d) “more on defendants to follow”
The bankers Schacht was replaced by Funk as Economics Minister and president of the Reichsbank He actively opposed Hitler at some point and was acquitted Funk accepted gold (teeth) taken by the SS from concentration camp corpses and stored them in Reichsbank vaults The admirals Involvement in aggressive war which were mostly land war crimes problematic Raeder knew of Hitler’s plans to wage aggressive war Documented cases of crimes at sea Admiral Nimitz answered defense questionnaire stating U.S. also had fired upon merchant shipping (tu quoque) The propagandists Streicher was publisher of the virulently anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Sturmer. He was found guilty on only one count (#4) and was hanged Fritzsche was a broadcaster of Nazi propaganda in Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry. He was acquitted. The Krupps Gustav or Albiert? Persistent resentment, even hatred, against German militarists and munitions makers making a fair trial problematic Charges against Martin Bormann in absentia

The Indictment The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: To engage in a conspiracy to commit crimes against peace (largely to conduct wars of aggression). To commit crimes against peace (largely to conduct wars of aggression). To commit (traditional) war crimes. To commit crimes against humanity/civilization (crimes against racial, ethnic and religious minorities including what later became known as the Holocaust*). Conviction and sentence imposed based not just on number of counts found guilty on, but degree of complicity and mitigating factors (if any): One guilty count could and did result in death (Streicher). Conviction and sentence imposed by an affirmative vote of at least three members of the Tribunal (out of four)**. Much negotiation and “horse trading” between the members. This was very disturbing to Taylor and others. *The term was first used by historians in the 1950’s although there is a reference to it in 1942. **The Russian judge, Nikitchenko voted every defendant guilty on every count charged.

Count 1: The Common Plan or Conspiracy
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any (?) of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. (Read) Taylor, p. 252: “Taylor on Counts 1 and 2” (Read) Taylor, p. 202: “Himmler speech: Count 1” (Read) “Lebensraum”

Count 2: Crimes Against Peace
The planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.

Count 3: War Crimes Violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of a civilian population of or in 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.

Count 4: Crimes Against Humanity
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. (Read) Taylor, p. 260: “On Count 4” (Read) Taylor, p. 317: “Witness on Auschwitz, defendants’ reaction”

Testimony of Severina S., A Prosecution Witness
Newborn children of Jewish mothers were killed immediately, and infants selected for extermination on their arrival were often thrown into the crematory ovens without prior asphyxiation in the gas chambers. “In the name of all the women of Europe who became mothers in concentration camps,” she demanded, “I would like to ask German mothers, ‘Where are our children now?’”

The Nazi Organizations
From Article 9 of the Charter: “At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization.” These organizations were to be declared "criminal" if found guilty. Members of organizations would be personally incriminated if they had knowledge it was involved in criminal acts, they were members after September 1, 1939 (invasion of Poland), and they had joined voluntarily.

The Nazi Organizations (cont’d)
The indicted organizations were: The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party The Reich Cabinet The General Staff and High Command of the Armed Forces Included Goering, Keitel, Jodl, Doenitz and Raeder The Schutzstaffel (SS): Grew from a small paramilitary unit to a powerful force that served as the Führer's bodyguard, the Nazi Party's "Protection Squadron" and managed to exert as much political influence in the Third Reich as the Wehrmacht. The Waffen SS was its military arm. The Sicherheitsdienst (SD) (Security Service): The intelligence agency of the SS and the Nazi Party. [RED = Found Guilty]

Sturmabteilung (SA): “Brownshirts” or Storm troopers. Functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Superseded by the SS before the war. The Gestapo (Secret State Police) [RED = Found Guilty] Of the indicted organizations the following were found not to be criminal: The Reich Cabinet The General Staff and High Command Sturmabteilung (SA)

The practicality of prosecuting and sentencing every member was problematic to say the least: Some organizations such as the SS had hundreds of thousands of members. Members of the large organizations found to be criminal (SS, SD and Gestapo) were not convicted en masse. They had to be tried on the evidence of their individual guilt: Many were convicted in hundreds of trials held in Germany after Nuremberg as part of the “denazification program” instituted after the war. Some 3.5 million individuals (25% of the population of the American Zone) were designated as “chargeable cases” for trial before denazification tribunals in the American Zone. Many of these were given amnesty without trial. The program involved 540 tribunals, a staff of 22,000 and lasted until the spring of The Leadership Corps members, presumably, were indicted and tried at Nuremberg (IMT or Subsequent).

The Prosecutors Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross (United Kingdom) Assisting Shawcross were Major Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, Sir John Wheeler-Bennett and Mervyn Griffith-Jones Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (United States) Assisting Jackson were the lawyers Telford Taylor, Thomas J. Dodd and a young US Army interpreter named Richard Sonnenfeldt Lieutenant-General Roman Andreyevich Rudenko (Soviet Union) France François de Menthon (France) Later replaced by Auguste Champetier de Ribes

Handling the Charges The British delegation would take primary responsibility for the aggressive war charge. The Soviets would take the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges in Eastern Europe. Likewise, the French would handle these crimes committed in Western Europe. The Americans would take the common plan and conspiracy charge: Jackson viewed this as the most important charge and chaired this committee. It would cover the rise of Nazism pre-WWII, Hitler’s plan to overrun Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the rest of Europe, the Soviet Union, and, finally, the United States. It would be the first count presented to the Tribunal and comprise the overarching narrative of the entire case.

Chief American prosecutor Robert H
Chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson addresses the Nuremberg court on 20 November 1945.

Telford Taylor, Assistant U. S
Telford Taylor, Assistant U.S. Prosecutor and author of “The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials.” Taylor was the Chief Prosecutor for the 12 subsequent Nuremberg trials.

Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief British prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, British Assistant Prosecutor (at lectern, left) and an unknown prosecutor.

The chief Soviet prosecutor, General R.A. Rudenko addresses the court.

The French prosecution table at the International Military Tribunal trial of war criminals at Nuremberg.

Robert H. Jackson, U.S. Chief Prosecutor “considered by many an American hero”
Jackson ( ), from Western New York state, was probably the last prominent U.S. lawyer who did not attend college (he had one year of law school). He served as U.S. Solicitor General from , Attorney General from , then as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from He was the single strongest advocate for many of the ideas and procedures of the Nuremberg Trial: He relied less on the use of witnesses than on the written record. The Nazis were meticulous record keepers and their own documentation was the best evidence against them. Jackson saw Count 4 as subsidiary to aggressive war (Counts 1 and 2): He was convinced Germany's rationale for the Holocaust was to enable it to wage the war. He received much criticism for this opinion. Notes showed Hitler’s plan to gain living space (lebensraum) for the “master race” was another rationale for aggressive war against Europe. He never once advocated the death penalty for any defendant. Four years after Nuremberg it was revealed that he did not believe in the death penalty. Jackson was a fine writer and an eloquent orator. (Read notes)

Criticism of Jackson He made controversial statements including “German people were not guilty.” (Read notes) His cross-exam of Goering was close to a disaster. (Read) Taylor, p. 337 He relied more on written documents than testimony. He complained to judge with defense not present, a serious breach of judicial ethics. He thought Count 4 not as important as Counts 1 and 2. His opposition to the death penalty was revealed four years after the trials ended.

Nuremberg Day 2 Jackson’s Opening Statement (7:14)
Robert H. Jackson Nuremberg Day 2 Jackson’s Opening Statement (7:14)

The Judges Major General Iona Nikitchenko (Soviet main)
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Volchkov (Soviet alternate) Colonel Sir Geoffrey Lawrence (British main), President of the Tribunal Sir Norman Birkett (British alternate) Francis Biddle (American main) John J. Parker (American alternate) Professor Henri Donnedieu de Vabres (French main) Robert Falco (French alternate)

The Nuremberg Tribunal judges (left to right): Henri Donnedieu de Vabres (France), Francis Biddle (USA), Geoffrey Lawrence (Britain), and I.T. Nikitchenko (Soviet Union).

The Defense Counsel The majority of defense attorneys were German lawyers. These included: Georg Fröschmann, Heinz Fritz (Hans Fritzsche), 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 Goering), Walter Ballas (Gustav Krupp), 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 Kranzbuehler, Otto Nelte and Herbert Kraus (several). The main counsels were supported by a total of 70 assistants, clerks and lawyers. The defense counsel witnesses included several men who took part in the war crimes during World War II, such as Rudolph Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz: The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences in subsequent trials. All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were later found guilty on several counts. (Read) Taylor, p. 133: “On defense counsel”

The lawyers for the defense pose before the beginning of the International Military Tribunal trial of war criminals at Nuremberg.

The Defendants

Selecting the Defendants
By Spring 1944, the Brits already had a list of the leading Nazis slated for summary execution. On June 21, 1945 they put forth a list for consideration as defendants at trial. These ten men were selected largely because the were well known to the public: Hermann Goering, Reich Marshal and Commander of the Luftwaffe, Rudolf Hess, Deputy Fuhrer, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Reich Foreign Minister, Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of the Armed Forces High Command, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Chief of the SD and Head of RSHA, Alfred Rosenberg, Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Areas, Hans Frank, Governor-General of Occupied Poland, Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior, Robert Ley, Leader of the German Labor Front, and Julius Streicher, Founder of Der Sturmer, Gauleiter of Franconia

Selecting the Defendants (cont’d)
The Americans then suggested several names be added to the list to achieve better representation of the “economics case,” “military and general staff case,” and “organizations case”: Adolf Hitler (whose death was not established) Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Austrian Chancellor, then Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production, Hjalmar Schacht, Minister of Economics before the War and President of Reichsbank, Walter Funk, Minister of Economics and Schacht’s successor, and Karl Doenitz, Supreme Commander of the Navy and Chancellor after Hitler’s death The British accepted the additions and suggested Baldur von Schirach, Leader of Hitler Youth and Gauleiter of Vienna, be added. However, they thought Doenitz was dubious because they had found little evidence against him and that the German Navy was not as culpable as the Wehrmacht and Air Force.

Martin Bormann, Deputy Fuhrer and Head of the Chancellery, was added, even though it was not known if he was alive. The name of Gustav Krupp, a major industrialist, was added and there was much confusion later when it became known he was senile and near death. His son Alfried would have been a better candidate. On August 23, five more names were added to the list for the same reasons as the previous additions: Erich Raeder, Supreme Commander of the Navy, Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Manpower, Alfred Jodl, Chief of Armed Forces High Command Operations, Franz von Papen, Reich Chancellor prior to Hitler, Vice Chancellor under Hitler, Ambassador to Turkey, and Konstantine von Neurath, Minister of Foreign Affairs, then Reich Protector of Bohemia

The Russians held Raeder in captivity and suggested Hans Fritzsche, Head of the Radio Division in the Propaganda Ministry, be added as well as several Army field commanders: Raeder and Fritzsche remained but the other names were removed because there was no basis for distinguishing them from numerous other top-ranking officers. Fritzsche was not particularly high ranking but was kept perhaps because he represented Goebbels’ (who was dead) Propaganda Ministry. Hitler’s name was removed (his death had been confirmed) and Doenitz remained. On August 29, 1945, the chief prosecutors, in compliance with the Potsdam mandate, announced the final list of 24 war criminals to be tried before the IMT: Bormann was never found but was tried in absentia, Ley committed suicide while waiting for trial, and Gustav Krupp was too ill to be tried.

The defendants at Nuremberg
The defendants at Nuremberg. Front row, from left to right: Hermann Goering, 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 Doenitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Konstantin van Neurath, Hans Fritzsche.

Front row, from left to right: Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel. Back row, from left to right: Karl Doenitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel.

Defendants in the dock

Nuremberg Day 1 Indictments (8:01)
Defendants listening to translated evidence through headphone. Nuremberg Day 1 Indictments (8:01)

Psychiatric Evaluations
Leon N. Goldensohn, an American physician and psychiatrist, became prison psychiatrist at Nuremberg. He examined and conducted lengthy interviews with all of the defendants and took copious notes. He also interviewed the defense and prosecution witnesses. His notes were held on to by his family and not published until 2004, long after he had died. The following are a summary of his interviews with several of the defendants and one defense witness. Caveats: These are my summaries which are condensations of edited versions of Goldensohn’s notes. The defendants probably had an interest in telling the interviewer things that would only help their defense because they could not be sure that what they said would not be used in court (even though Goldensohn assured them otherwise). Some, if not all, of the defendants were notorious liars. Their interviews were often inconsistent with their testimony in court.

Psychiatric Evaluation of Rudolf Hoess (Commandant of Auschwitz, a defense witness)
Hoess was matter-of-fact as he meticulously told the story of how he came to murder millions of people. He was resigned to his fate, he knew he would be hanged. He said he simply was doing what Himmler wanted; the extermination camps were Himmler’s idea which, in turn, was what Hitler wanted. Hoess understood the necessity of it. Eichmann took care of the transportation of the Jews to Auschwitz and the other camps. He admitted that 1,500 Poles were shot before Auschwitz was brought up to speed. Goldensohn asked how many were liquidated in Auschwitz? “I think about 2.5 million.” Were they all Jews? “Yes.” The Zyklon B gas and crematoria made the killings much more efficient than shooting and burying them in mass graves as was the previous method. “After all, two trains per day were arriving, each with 2,000 aboard.” He estimated 20-30% of the healthiest were selected for labor, the rest immediately murdered. All this time ( ), Hoess’ family life was excellent he claimed. They lived adjacent to the camp and his wife first seemed bothered by the news that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, but she soon accepted it. They had five children. He said that he always slept well, no nightmares. Hoess was tried by a Polish military tribunal and hanged in the town of Auschwitz on April 7, 1947. (Read) Taylor, p. 363: “Hoess on obeying orders”

Defendant’s Attitude during Trial
Goering: Took the role of defense ringmaster Sometimes lethargic, but usually attentive and expressive Hess: Inattentive, appeared to be suffering from cramps Keitel and Jodl: Sat straight-shouldered in uniforms stripped of insignia Stiff and impassive, scowling angrily Kaltenbrunner: Repellent and stupid, a scar-faced hulk

Defendant’s Attitude (cont’d)
Frank and Doenitz: Hid behind dark glasses Streicher: Repellent and stupid, a dirty old man Schacht: Visibly angry, held his head high so as to seem above the others Funk: Rolled his eyes and slumped

The Defendants’ I.Q. An intelligence test was administered
Name I.Q. Doenitz, Karl 138 Frank, Hans 130 Frick, Wilhelm 124 Fritzsche, Hans Funk, Walther Goering, Hermann Hess, Rudolf 120 Jodl, Alfred 127 Kaltenbrunner, Ernst 113 Keitel, Wilhelm 129 Neurath, Konstantin von 125 Papen, Franz von 134 Raeder, Erich Ribbentrop, Joachim von Rosenberg, Alfred Sauckel, Fritz 118 Schacht, Hjalmar 143 Schirach, Baldur von Seyss-Inquart, Arthur 141 Speer, Albert 128 Streicher, Julius 106 An intelligence test was administered to the defendants. All were above average, many considerably. Also, a psychiatric examination was made by an American psychiatrist. Hess was considered to be possibly insane.

Examination and Testimony
DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Goering, Hermann Reich Marshal and Luftwaffe (Air Force) Chief; President of Reichstag; Director of "Four Year Plan" "I joined the Party precisely because it was revolutionary, not because of the ideological stuff." (12/11/45)...."The whole conspiracy idea is cockeyed. We had orders to obey the head of state. We weren't a band of criminals meeting in the woods in the dead of night to plan mass murders...The four real conspirators are missing: The Fuhrer, Himmler, Bormann, and Goebbels." (1/5/46)..."This is a political trial by the victors and it will be a good thing when Germany realizes that..." (6/13/46) As Director of the Four Year Plan, Goering bore responsibility for the elimination of Jews from political life and for the destruction and takeover of Jewish businesses and property....He was quoted as saying, "I wish you had killed 200 Jews and not destroyed such valuable property"...He looted art treasures from occupied territories and arranged for use of slave labor.... Goering surrendered to American officers. The officers offered Goering drinks and sang songs with him, but the next day were reprimanded by an outraged Dwight Eisenhower...Goering was the most popular prisoner with the American guards because he seemed to take an interest in their lives....He seemed to wield a great deal of influence with the other defendants, and prison administrators sought to isolate him as much as possible....Goering said, "We don't have much to say about our fate. The forces of history and politics and economics are just to big to steer." (3/9/46) (Read) Taylor, p. 177: “I was #2”

Psychiatric Evaluation of Hermann Goering (Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag and Prime Minister of Prussia) Goering was Hitler’s second in charge. He had tried but failed to dominate the other prisoners and make them follow his line of defense. Goering insisted that everything that they had done was the result of their German patriotism. To defy the court was to protect Germany's reputation and to maintain their loyalty to their dead leader. Goering said “Hitler was reasonable at the beginning but succumbed to bad influences, Goebbels was a liar and self-promoter, Himmler was a fanatic and hard to read, Streicher was stupid.” Goering had a regal bearing, an upper class family and upbringing, and was a patron of the arts – in short, the ultimate “cultured German.” He came off as envious of Goebbels’ access to Hitler and indicated it was Goebbels who turned Hitler into a maniacal anti-Semite. Goering wanted to exclude Jews from German economic life and deport them to Palestine “where they wanted to go anyway,” but not to exterminate them. He denied knowledge of the extermination camps, claimed he thought the camps were used to segregate the Jews from the Germans which became necessary because they were cut off from economic life. The murder of millions of Jews seemed to bother him only because it did not help the war effort and it harmed Germany’s image in the world. He did not approve of the murder of women and children, killing men didn’t seem to bother him. Previously, Jews had been “good Germans.” He took responsibility for many things, but not the exterminations because “I didn’t know of them.” Later in the trials, he became depressed and appeared disinterested in the trial proceedings.

Examination and Testimony (cont’d)
DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Hess, Rudolf Deputy to the Fuhrer and Nazi Party Leader "It is just incomprehensible how those things [atrocities] came about...Every genius has the demon in him. You can't blame him [Hitler]--it is just in him...It is all very tragic. But at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried to do something to end the war." (12/16/45) Jackson called Hess "the engineer tending to the Party machinery." He maintained the organization as a ready and loyal instrument of power. He signed decrees persecuting Jews and was a willing participant in aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. During his detention following his failed putsch, Hitler dictated Mein Kampf to Hess...Hess mysteriously flew to England in 1941 in an attempt to end the war on his own terms. He stayed there until the war ended....Hess suffered from paranoid delusions, apathy, amnesia, and was diagnosed as having a "hysterical personality." Dolibois (9:55)

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Ribbentrop, Joachim von Foreign Minister "We are only living shadows--the remains of a dead era--an era that died with Hitler. Whether a few of us live another 10 or 20 years, it makes no difference." (3/27/46) Rippentrop participated in aggressive plans against Czechoslavakia...He helped plan attacks on Poland and Russia...Ribbentrop played a role in the "Final Solution" when he acted to hasten the deportation of Jews to concentration camps in the East. In prison, Ribbentrop kept asking everyone from doctors to cell guards to barbers for legal advice....Prison pyschiatrist G. M. Gilbert saw Rippentrop as "a confused and demoralized opportunist.".... Ribbentrop's erratic behavior caused his lawyer to complain, "This man is impossible to defend." Keitel, Wilhelm Chief of Staff of the German High Command "We all believed so much in him [Hitler]--and we stand to take all the blame--and the shame! He gave us the orders. He kept saying that it was all his responsibility." (12/25/45)..."I will suffer more agony of conscience and self-reproach in this cell than anybody will ever know." (1/6/46)..."the only thing that is impossible is for me to there [in court] lie like a louse." (4/6/46) Keitel signed orders authorizing the killing of captured commandos and reprisals against the families of Allied volunteers...He drafted the "Night and Fog" decree that authorized the nighttime arrests and secret killings of suspected members of the resistance..He planned attacks on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Holland, and other countries. Keitel's sons were killed in the German attack on the Soviet Union that Keitel helped execute...Keitel, on Hitler's orders, sent two generals to Rommel (who had supported attempts to assassinate Hitler) offering him the the choice of a court-martial or suicide....In prison, Keitel worked on his autobiography....Prison pyschiatrist G. M. Gilbert said Keitel "had no more backbone than a jellyfish." (Read) Taylor, p. 310: “Aggressive war; Keitel, Jodl, Goering” (Read) Taylor, p. 353: “Defense of aggressive war, superior’s orders; Keitel”

Indictments and Judgments
Hess Goering Keitel von Ribbentrop G G G G I I I I G G N N I I I I G G G G I I I I G G G G I I I I Death, Suicide Life in Prison Died in Prison Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Hanged 10/16/46

Goering testifying. Goering found after his suicide.

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Kaltenbrunner, Ernst Chief of RSHA (an organization which includes offices of the Gestapo, the SD, and the Criminal Police) and Chief of Security Police "When I saw the newspaper headline 'GAS CHAMBER EXPERT CAPTURED' and an American lieutenant explained it to me, I was pale in amazement. How can they say such things about me?" (4/11/46)..."I have only done my duty as an intelligence organ, and I refuse to serve as an ersatz for Himmler." Kaltenbrunner and RSHA bear responsibility for "The Final Solution" to the Jewish question--and the 6 million Jews killed by Einsatzgruppen (2 million) and in concentration camps (4 million). Kaltenbrun-ner ordered prisoners in Dachau and other camps liquidated just before the camps would have been liberated by Allies. Kaltenbrunner was described as "a Nazi out of central casting:" six-foot-six, a huge neck, cruel mouth, and a scar across his left cheek...He was shunned by most of the other defendants...His lawyer tried to portray him as a stooge for Himmler, rather than his right-hand man....Kaltenbrunner believed fertile German women had a duty to produce babies, and if their husbands couldn't get them pregnant, other men ought to be given the job. Dolibois (2:40-6:37) Rosenberg, Alfred Chief Nazi Philosopher and Reichminister for the Eastern Occupied Territories "I didn't say that the Jews are inferior. I didn't even maintain they are a race. I merely saw that the mixture of different cultures didn't work." (1/12/46)..."We let 50,000 Jewish intellectuals get across the border. Just as I wanted Lebensraum for Germany, I thought Jews should have a Lebensraum for themselves--outside of Germany." (12/15/45) Rosenberg helped plan attack on Norway....Developed policies of Germanization, exploitation, and extermination of opponents of Nazi rule...His directives provided for the segregation of Jews in Ghettos, facilitating their mass killing. He set quotas of laborers to be sent to the Reich. Rosenberg was born in Estonia and did not move to Germany until he was Rosenberg's book promoting the Nazi philosophy was called The Myth of the Twentieth Century....He arranged the theft of fine art and furniture from Jewish apartments in Paris.

Psychiatric Evaluation of Ernst Kaltenbrunner (Chief of the Reich Security Main Office)
Kaltenbrunner was a gaunt, scar-faced giant of a man. His manner was restrained and soft-spoken belying his reputation in the press of being the ferocious police chief who was the successor to Himmler. He was obsessed with two subjects: the disorganization and haphazard administration of the Reich police organizations (RSHA) and the “false” charge against Germany of waging aggressive war (Count #2). Perhaps, his tedious explanation of the RSHA org chart was an attempt to destroy the prosecution’s conspiracy or common plan charge (Count #1). The organizations comprising first Himmler’s and then Kaltenbrunner’s RSHA were vast, loosely- connected and difficult for even the prosecution to understand. These included the SS and its fighting component, the Waffen SS, the Gestapo, and variously-named police organizations. In all, perhaps a million Germans were under his command. Kaltenbrunner said that in-fighting between Himmler, Heydrich (who was assassinated), Bormann, Mueller and Daluege was constant, all trying to gain Hitler’s favor. “Heydrich was a sadist, Himmler was not but he practiced slave-like obedience to the Fuhrer.” “Germany could not have waged aggressive war, this was proved five times in court.” The only evidence Kaltenbrunner cited was that the Soviets too had invaded Poland and had massed troops on the Hungarian and Rumanian borders, presumably as a prelude to invading Germany. He further claimed America had fired first against German submarines.

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Frank, Hans Governor-General of Nazi-occupied Poland, called the "Jew butcher of Cracow." "Don't let anybody tell you that they had no idea. Everybody sensed there was something horribly wrong with the system." (11/29/45) "Hitler has disgraced Germany for all time! He betrayed and disgraced the people that loved him!...I will be the first to admit my guilt." (4/17/46) "The Jews must be eliminated. Whenever we catch one, it is his end"...."This territory [Poland] is in its entirety the booty of the German Reich"...."I have not been hesitant in declaring that when a German is shot, up to 100 Poles shall be shot too."--from the diary of Hans Frank. In April of 1930, Hitler asked Frank to secretly investigate a rumor that he had Jewish blood. Frank reported back that there was a chance that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish. (Read) Taylor, p. 201: “Frank on the Jews” (Read) Taylor, p. 368: “Frank later on his guilt” Frick, Wilhelm Minister of the Interior "Hitler didn't want to do things my way. I wanted things done legally. After all, I am a lawyer." (4/24/46).... "The mass murders were certainly not thought of as a consequence of the Nuremberg Laws, [though] it may have turned out that way." Frick drafted, signed, and administered laws that abolished opposition parties, and suppressed trade unions and Jews (including the infamous Nuremberg Laws). Frick knew that the insane, aged, and disabled ("useless eaters") were being systematically killed, but did nothing to stop it. Frick claimed not to be an anti-Semite. He said he drafted the Nuremberg Laws for "scientific reasons": to protect the purity of German blood.

Psychiatric Evaluation of Hans Frank (Governor General of Poland and Hitler’s personal lawyer)
Frank was always cordial to Goldensohn and the translator. He had twice attempted suicide since his capture, but had reconciled to Catholicism and was now at peace. His moods alternated between almost hysterical laughter and solemnity. He stated he was guilty as were all the defendants and they were taking on the burden of guilt for all “the most wonderful German people.” Frank denied killing any Jews, but admitted 5 million had been murdered. He denied that Auschwitz was in his zone of responsibility in Poland. He was living with a girlfriend from his youth at the time of his capture. He said his wife was a cold Prussian type who had no interest in sex. They had three children. Frank spoke highly of his mother, but thought his father weak, although he was also a lawyer. He stated that Hitler had little interest in women, and that such disinterest in a man cultivated sadism. He had a plan: in his final words to the court after his verdict was handed down he wanted to present a defense of Hitler. After all, Frank had been his lawyer and “since Hitler wasn’t on trial and since both the prosecution and the defense were blaming everything on him, he needed a defense.” And since a defense of Hitler would be absurd (there was no defense possible), this would be apparent to everyone and it would prevent Hitler from becoming a martyr to the German people. So he claims he would be doing a great favor to the German people whom he loved. Frank was not allowed to carry out his plan.

Indictments and Judgments (cont’d)
Kaltenbrunner Rosenberg Frank Frick N – G G I – I I G G G G I I I I N – G G I – I I N G G G I I I I Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Hanged 10/16/46

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Streicher, Julius Anti-Semitic Editor of Der Sturmer "The Jews are making a mistake if they make a martyr out of me; you will see. I didn't create the problem; it existed for thousands of years." (12/16/45)...."I am the only one in the world who clearly saw the Jewish menace as an historical problem." (11/14/45) Streicher was known as "the number one Jew-baiter." He organized a boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933 and advocated the Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. In 1938 he arranged for demolition of a synagogue in Nuremberg and began to call for annihilation of the Jewish race. Streicher, a vulgar man, was despised by most of his fellow defendants...Streicher collected pornography. He said that he bought it from Jews to show what filth they read.... Sauckel, Fritz Chief of Slave Labor Recruitment "I was given this assignment which I could not refuse--and besides, I did everything possible to treat [the foreign slave laborers] well." (2/23/46) Soon after taking office, Sauckel had the governing authorities in the occupied territories establish compulsory labor service in Germany...His program resulted in the deportation for slave labor of 5 million people, many of whom had to endure cruel working conditions. Sauckel seemed confused during most of the trial....Historian Joseph Persico described Sauckel as "the least imposing figure among the defendants, a little man with a shining dome, sad brown eyes, and a silly mustache patterned after the Fuhrer's." DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES IN THE END

Psychiatric Evaluation of Julius Streicher (Founder of Der Sturmer, Gauleiter of Franconia)
Streicher smiles constantly, the smile between a grimace and a leer. He immediately embarks on his favorite subject, anti-Semitism. He considers himself an expert on Judaism and anti-Semitism. Streicher says he is a Zionist; he believes the Jews should have their own country, that in fact they should have been deported to Madagascar or Palestine rather than having been exterminated. He claims to have had no knowledge of the death camps. He doubts 5 or 6 million were exterminated, “I am sure it was no more than 4.5 million.” He denies Der Sturmer had any role in inciting the Germans to murder Jews. “The aim of the newspaper was to unite Germans and to awaken them against Jewish influence which might ruin our noble culture.” Streicher refers to Chief American Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson as Jacobson (of course, a Jewish name). He considers circumcision to be a Jewish plot to ruin the pure Aryan bloodlines of Germans. Streicher says Christ, a Jew, was born of Mary who was a Jewish whore. He could not reconcile that Christ could be both Jewish and God. Streicher's legacy also established a link between Nazi anti-Semitism and Christianity's historical teaching of contempt of the Jews. In his self-defense, he argued that if he were to be found guilty as accused, Martin Luther ought to be as well. Streicher had been presented with a first edition of the newly reprinted "The Jews and Their Lies," Luther's anti-Jewish tract. He was a man of low/normal intelligence (his 106 IQ is the lowest of the defendants). Goldensohn says Streicher’s maniacal anti-Semitism and obsession with pornography probably serve as outlets for internal sexual conflicts. Streicher says he misses his wife.

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Jodl, Alfred Chief of Operations for the German High Command "The indictment knocked me on the head. First of all, I hand no idea at all about 90 per cent of the accusations in it. The crimes are horrible beyond belief, if they are true. Secondly, I don't see how they can fail to recognize a soldier's obligation to obey orders. That's the code I've live by all my life." (11/1/45) Jodl gave orders for the German army's campaign against Holland, Belgium, Norway, and Poland. He also planned attacks against Greece and Yugoslavia....Jodl was quoted as saying, "Terror attacks against English centers of population ...will paralyze the will of the people to resist." Jodl signed Germany's unconditional surrender on May 7, 1945, ending the war in Europe....He strongly disagreed with many of Hitler's harsh orders: "The order to kill the escaped British fliers--there was absolutely no justification for that. From then on, I knew what kind of a man Hitler was." (4/6/46) DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES IN THE END

Other War Criminals Martin Bormann: He joined the Nazi Party in 1927 and the Schutzstaffel (SS) in He transferred in July 1933 to the office of Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, where he served as chief of staff. Bormann used his position to create an extensive bureaucracy and involve himself in as much of the decision making as possible. He began acting as Hitler's personal secretary in 1935, a post he was officially appointed to in He assumed Rudolf Hess's former duties, with the title of Head of the Party Chancellery. By 1943 he had de facto control over all domestic matters. He was one of the leading proponents of the ongoing persecution of the Christian churches and favored harsh treatment of Jews and Slavs in the areas conquered by Germany during World War II. After Hitler committed suicide, Bormann and others attempted to flee Berlin on 2 May 1945 to avoid capture by the Russians. He committed suicide on a bridge near Lehrter station. The body was buried nearby on 8 May, but was not found and confirmed as genuine until 1972.

Sauckel Bormann Jodl Streicher N N G G G G G G N - G G N - - G I - - I I I I I I I I I I – I I Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Hanged 10/16/46 Death Not Captured

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Papen, Franz von Reich Chancellor prior to Hitler, Vice Chancellor under Hitler, Ambassador to Turkey "I think [Hitler] wanted the best for Germany at the beginning, but he became an unreasoning evil force with the flattery of his followers--Himmler, Goering, Ribbentrop, etc...I tried to persuade him he was wrong in his anti-Jewish policies many a time. He seemed to listen at first, but later on, I had no influence on him." (10/30/45) Von Papen helped consolidate Nazi control in 1933. He strengthened the position of Nazis in Austria to help pave the way for the takeover. He appealed to the Pope to support Hitler. Von Papen remained in office even after learning of political killings and other crimes. While the trial was in progress, Von Papen had many heated exchanges with Goering....Von Papen was a moderating force in the early years of the Nazi regime. In 1934, he gave a speech highly critical of restrictions on individual liberties...Von Papen said, "I've been portrayed as an intriguing devil. But I can prove I have always worked for peace....I am confident in American justice, and am glad to have the truth brought to light through this trial." Seyss-Inquart, Arthur Austrian Chancellor, then Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands "The southern German has the imagination and emotionality to subscribe to a fanatic ideology, but he is ordinarily inhibited from excesses by his natural humaneness. The Prussian does not have the imagination to conceive in terms of abstract racial and political theories, but when he is told to do something, he does it." (4/46) Seyss-Inquart ruthlessly suppressed opposition to the Nazi occupation in the Netherlands. He, in collaboration with the SS, was involved in the shooting or sending opponents of occupation to concentration camps. In Seyss-Inquart's fiefdom of the Netherlands, over 40,000 Dutch were shot as hostages, and another 50,000 died of starvation. In all, 56% of Dutch Jews died during the Nazi occupation....He limped from an injury received in an old mountain-climbing accident.

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Speer, Albert Reichminister of Armaments and Munitions "I would like to sit down and write one final blast about the whole damn Nazi mess and mention names and details and let the German people see once and for all what rotten corruption, hypocrisy, and madness the whole system was based on!-I would spare no one, including myself." (2/46) Speer transmitted to Sauckel estimates of the numbers of slave workers needed, then allocated those workers to various armaments and munitions plants. Speer, an architect, was for years the closest anyone came to being a friend of Hitler. Hitler at one time gave Speer a watercolor of a Gothic church....Speer was the leader of the anti-Goering faction of defendants: those willing to condemn Nazi policies and accept some degree of blame. Neurath, Konstantin von Minister of Foreign Affairs (until 1938), then Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia "Hitler was a liar, of course--that became more and more clear. He simply had no respect for the truth. But nobody recognized it at first...He must have done his conspiring with his little gang of henchmen late at night. Sometimes he would call at 1, 2, or 3 in the morning."(12/15/45) While Neurath was Foreign Minister, Germany "was only breaking one treaty at a time."...While serving as Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, Neurath abolished political parties and trade unions....He knew war crimes were being committed under his authority. At 73, Neurath was the oldest defendant in the Major War Figures Trial. He seemed to be showing signs of incipient senility...When Chamberlain offered to come to Germany to discuss ways of averting war, Neurath urged Hitler to receive him..."I was always against punishment without the possibility of a defense."

Seyss-Inquart von Papen von Neurath Speer I I I I I I - - N N - - N G G G N N G G G G G G Acquitted Death Hanged 10/16/46 20 years Served full term 15 years Served 8

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Schacht, Hjalmar Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics before the War "I have full confidence in the judges, and I am not afraid of the outcome. A few of the defendants are not guilty; most of them are sheer criminals." (10/23/45)..."All I wanted was to build up Germany industrially....The only thing they can accuse me of is breaking the Versailles Treaty." (11/1/45) Schacht was an early supporter of the Nazi Party and supported the appointment of Hitler to the post of Chancellor. Schacht used the facilities of the Reichsbank to facilitate the German rearmament effort and organize the economy for war. Schacht spent 10 months in 1944 in a concentration camp because of suspicion he was plotting against Hitler....Said Schacht of the experience, "I could hear the people being forced to undress and march out to their death--and the shooting in the woods. It was beastly.".....Schacht had the highest IQ of any of the defendants. Funk, Walther Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics during the War "I signed the laws for the aryanization of Jewish property. Whether that makes me legally guilty or not, is another matter. But it makes me morally guilty, there is no doubt about that. I should have listened to my wife at the end. She said we'd be better off dropping the whole minister business and moving into a three-bedroom flat." (7/8/46) Funk agreed with Himmler to receive gold from the SS (including gold teeth and rings taken from those killed in concentration camps) and deposit in the Reichsbank. Funk told subordinates not to ask questions about the shipments. He either knew or should have known the source of the gold received. Funk said, "The only accusation I can make to myself is...that I should have resigned in 1938 when I saw how they robbed and smashed Jewish property." (12/15/45)....Funk was often seen crying during the presentation of prosecution evidence and needed sleeping pills at night.

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Doenitz, Karl German admiral who would eventually command entire Navy. Chosen by Hitler to succeed him as Fuhrer. Negotiated surrender following Hitler's suicide "Politicians brought the Nazis to power and started the war. They are the ones who brought about these disgusting crimes, and now we have to sit there in the dock with them and share the blame!" (5/27/46) On 9/17/42 Doenitz issued the "Laconia Order" to the German submarine fleet. The order forbid rescuing enemy survivors of sunken ships: "Be hard. Remember, the enemy has no regard for women and children when he bombs German cities." Called by Hitler "the Rommel of the Seas"....Said "I would rather eat dirt than have my grandson grow up in the Jewish spirit and faith"...Went on radio after assassination attempt on Hitler to call it "a cowardly attempt at murder." Raeder, Erich Commander in Chief of the German Navy (before Doenitz) "I have no illusion about this trial. Naturally, I will be hanged or shot. I flatter myself to think that I will be shot; at least I will request it. I have no desire to serve a prison sentence at my age." (5/20/46) Raeder advocated attacks by submarines on neutral ships in violation of international law. Raeder was one of two defendants handed over by the Russians, and was put on the list of major war trial defendants at the insistence of the Soviet Union...Raeder retired in He opposed invading Russia, but he attacked Russian submarines six days before the invasion began.

Psychiatric Evaluation of Karl Doenitz (Commander in Chief of the Navy and Hitler’s designated successor) Doenitz was always pleasant, but suspicious. He said he was “busy running the German submarine program and, later, the whole Navy and was not aware of the extermination program; just a sailor doing his job.” Why did Hitler choose him to be his successor? Because he said he was apolitical and would sue for peace. He claimed not to be aware of the exterminations and other atrocities until he heard testimony at the trials. He thought Hitler to be exemplary until he heard this. Doenitz would not say anything negative about his fellow defendants, even Goering, blaming everything on Hitler and Himmler. He seemed very attuned to geographic differences between Germans; he did not like Bavarians or Austrians. He was from the North himself. He did not trust the Russians and predicted the Americans and British would have trouble with them. Doenitz claimed to have had Jewish friends. He denied ordering the shooting of survivors of sunken boats. He claimed to have a good marriage with a married daughter, grandchildren and two sons; both who had joined the Navy and were killed in the war.

Funk Raeder Doenitz Schacht G G G - N G G G N N - - N G G - I I I - I I I I I I - - Acquitted Life in prison Served 11 years 10 years Served full term Life in prison Served 9 years

DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENDANT'S WORDS PROSECUTION POINTS NOTES Schirach, Baldur von Hitler Youth Leader "I had no reason to be anti-Semitic...until someone made me read the American book, ‘The International Jew’ (by Henry Ford), at the impressionable age of 17. You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of German youth...At the age of 18, I met Adolf Hitler. I must admit I was inspired by him...and became one of his staunchest supporters." (10/27/45) Von Schirach subjected German youth to an extensive program of Nazi propaganda....He participated in the deportation of the Jews from Vienna. Schirach began to become disillusioned with Hitler around 1942: "About 1942, I think I first began to notice that Hitler was becoming slightly insane...In 1943 we had a serious quarrel [over the treatment of Jews]. He flew at me in a rage...I fell from grace after that." Fritzsche, Hans Head of the Radio Division, one of twelve departments in Goebbel’s Propaganda Ministry "I have been tricked and trapped by the Himmler murder machine, even when I tried to put a check on it...Let us explain our position to the world, so that at least we won't die under this awful burden of shame." (11/21/45) "I have the feeling I am drowning in filth....I am choking in it."--(2/21/46, after watching film of atrocities). Fritzsche's radio broadcasts (he was a popular commentator) included strong Nazi propaganda. Fritzsche was one of two defendants turned over to the IMT by the Russians.... Fritzsche often appeared on the verge of a breakdown during the trial.

Other War Criminals Gustav Krupp: Major industrialist. C.E.O. of Friedrich Krupp AG 1912–45. Medically unfit for trial; he had been partially paralyzed since 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. 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). Alfried was tried in a separate Nuremberg trial (the Krupp Trial) for slave labor, thereby escaping worse charges and possible execution. Robert Ley: Head of DAF, German Labor Front. Committed suicide on 25 October 1945, while in Nuremberg prison before the trial began. Indicted, but neither acquitted nor found guilty as his trial did not proceed. Dolibois on Ley, Streicher (9:33)

Fritzsche von Schirach Gustav Krupp Ley N – N N N - - G I – I I I - - I Acquitted 20 years Served full term His son, Alfried was tried later Committed suicide before his trial

(Read) Taylor, p. 493: “Jackson’s closing argument” John Doar was, as Assistant Attorney General heading the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, involved in many of the key civil rights and voting rights cases of the 1960s. In November 2008 at the Robert H. Jackson Center, Doar discussed how Justice Jackson's July 26, 1946 closing argument at Nuremberg inspired Doar's own October 1967 closing argument in the so-called "Mississippi Burning" case--the trial of 18 men charged with conspiring to murder civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner--in Meridian, Mississippi: (Read) Taylor, p. 496: “Shawcross’ closing” (Read) Taylor, p. 497: “French closing” (Read) Taylor, p. 499: “Soviet closing” Statements of Nuremberg defendants (Aug. 31, 1946 Trial Day 216) (8:59) Nuremberg Day 218 Judgments (9:31) The President of the Tribunal, Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence:

Summary of Judgments Sentences: Death by hanging 12* Life in prison 3
Prison term<life 4 Acquitted 3 Guilty/Indicted: Count 1 8/22 Count /16 Count /18 Count /18 *Goering committed suicide 2 hours before his scheduled execution. Bormann ‘s remains were not found until 1972; so 10 were actually hanged.

Summary of Judgments (cont’d)
Of the 12 defendants sentenced to death, all were found guilty on Count 4, 11 on Count 3, 7 on 2, and 5 on 1. Of the 7 defendants sentenced to prison, 4 were found guilty on Count 4, 5 each on Counts 3 and 2, and 3 on Count 1. Of the 3 defendants set free, all were found not guilty on all counts charged.

The men condemned at the Nuremberg Trials are hanged in the gym of Nuremberg Prison on October 16, 1946. (Read): Chris Matthews, “The Nazi and the Hangman”

Major Figures Never Tried
Adolf Hitler who committed suicide April 30, 1945 in his Berlin bunker: He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Henrich Himmler who committed suicide May 23, 1945 while in British custody: Hitler appointed him Commander of the Replacement (Home) Army and General Plenipotentiary for the administration of the entire Third Reich. He was one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany and one of the persons most directly responsible for the Holocaust. Josef Mengele who escaped to South America where he lived out his life: He was a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. He was notorious for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers and for performing unscientific and often deadly human experiments on prisoners.

Führer Adolf Hitler (R) and Reichführer Heinrich Himmler.

Josef Mengele (The Angel of Death)
sometime before 1945. Jewish twins kept alive to be used in Mengele's medical experiments. These children were liberated from Auschwitz by the Red Army in January 1945.

Major Figures Never Tried (cont’d)
Joseph Goebbels who committed suicide in Hitler’s Berlin bunker: He was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to As one of Adolf Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers, he was known for his zealous orations and deep and virulent anti-Semitism, which led him to support the extermination of the Jews and to be in strong support of the Final Solution. Shortly after Hitler’s suicide in the Berlin bunker, he had his 5 daughters injected with morphine then forced to ingest cyanide pills, then he and his wife committed suicide by also ingesting cyanide. Reinhard Heydrich who was assassinated by Czech partisans May 27, 1942 and died eight days later: He was a high-ranking German Nazi official during World War II, and one of the main architects of the Holocaust. He was SS-Obergruppenführer (General) and General der Polizei, chief of the Reich Main Security Office (including the Gestapo, Kripo, and SD) and Deputy/Acting Reich-Protector of Bohemia and Moravia (in what is now the Czech Republic). Heydrich chaired the January Wannsee Conference, which formalized plans for the final solution to the Jewish Question.

Reich propaganda minister Goebbels.
The Goebbels family in 1942: (back row) Hildegard, Harald Quandt, Helga; (front row) Helmut, Hedwig, Magda, Heidrun, Joseph and Holdine. He murdered his five daughters before committing suicide.

Reinhard Heydrich ( ) was second in importance to Heinrich Himmler in the Nazi SS organization. Nicknamed "The Blond Beast" by the Nazis, and "Hangman Heydrich" by others, Heydrich had insatiable greed for power and was a cold, calculating manipulator without human compassion who was the leading planner of Hitler's Final Solution in which the Nazis attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.

The 12 Subsequent Nuremberg Trials
On December 20, 1945, the Allied Control Council issued Control Law No.10, establishing the basis for “the prosecution of war criminals and similar offenders.” Each of the occupying authorities was authorized, in its occupation zone, to try persons suspected of committing war crimes. Little uniformity existed: The British did not prosecute crimes against peace (aggressive war). The French prosecuted only crimes committed in France and relied on French law. Little information emerged on trials held in the Soviet zone.

The 12 Subsequent Nuremberg Trials (cont’d)
The Military Governor of the American Zone subsequently enacted ordinance No. 7, establishing military tribunals with the power to try and punish: Each of the tribunals was comprised of three American lawyers, usually past or present members of state judiciaries. The judges were recruited by the War Department. The lead American prosecutor was Telford Taylor. Technically, these cases were heard before U.S. military courts not before the IMT, but were also held at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. The counts of the indictments were different from Nuremberg main.

Case Name Defendants and Charges Trial Dates Verdict The Doctors (or Medical) Case 23 Nazi physicians charged with conducting human experiments on German civilians and nationals of other countries. The experiments ranged from studying the effects of high altitude and malaria to sterilization. Nuremberg: Medical Case No. 1 - Trial of Karl Brandt & others (13:59): Dec. 9, 1946 to Aug 20, 1947 16 defendants convicted (including 7 sentenced to death), 7 acquitted. Milch Case Former German Field Marshall Erhard Milch charged with murder and cruel treatment of POW’s and with participation in experiments dealing with effects of high altitude and freezing. Jan 2, 1947 Apr. 16, 1947 Convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The Justice (or Judges) Nine members of the Reich Ministry of Justice and seven members of the People’s and Special Courts charged with using their power as prosecutors and judges to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity: (This trial inspired the movie Judgment at Nuremberg): Mar. 5, 1947 Dec. 4, 1947 10 defendants convicted, 4 acquitted (one defendant died before verdict and a mistrial was declared in one case). The Pohl/WVHA Oswald Pohl and seventeen other members of the WVHA (Economic and Administrative Office) charged with war crimes against POW’s in concentration camps which WVHA controlled after spring of 1942. Apr. 8, 1947 Nov 3, 1947 15 defendants convicted, 3 acquitted, 3 defendants were sentenced to death, the rest to prison terms.

View of the defendants dock during a session of the Medical Case (Doctors') Trial in Nuremberg.

Two Polish female survivors of medical experimentation at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp arrive in Nuremberg, where they will serve as prosecution witnesses at the Medical Case trial.

Case Name Defendants and Charges Trial Dates Verdict The Flick Case Six members of the Flick Concern, a group of industrial enterprises (including coal mines and steel plants) charged with using slave labor and POW’s, deporting persons for labor in German-occupied territories, and plundering private property- the “Aryanization” of Jewish properties. Apr 19, 1947 to Dec 22, 1947 Three defendants (including Frederich Flick) convicted and sentenced to prison, three acquitted. The I.G. Farben 24 defendants, all in the IG Farben industrial concern, charged with plunder and spoliation of private property in German occupied Territories and other war crimes. Aug 27, 1947 Jul 30, 1948 13 defendants found guilty on one or more charges and sentenced to prison. Hostage Case 12 defendants, officers in the German Armed Forces, charged with murdering thousands of civilians in Greece, Yugoslavia, and Albania, committing acts of devastation in Norway and other countries, drafting orders denying POWs rights, and ordering the slaughter of surrendered troops. Jul 15, 1947 Feb 19, 1948 Eight defendants found guilty and two acquitted. Two other defendants committed suicide before the verdict. RuSHA 14 defendants, officials in the Race and Settlement Office and the Office for Strengthening of Germandom, charged with crimes against humanity relating to murder, deportation, and torture on political, racial, and religious grounds. Oct 20, 1947 Mar 10, 1948 Thirteen defendants or more charges, one defendant acquitted.

Case Name Defendants and Charges Trial Dates Verdict The Einsatzgruppen Case 24 defendants, all members of German mobile killing units, the Einsatzgruppen, charged with the murder of 2 million people of whom 1.3 million were Jews, the rest Romani, mentally ill and Communists; with ill-treatment of POWs and civilians in occupied countries; and with wanton destruction not justified by military necessity. Sept 29, 1947 to Apr 9, 1948 All 24 defendants were found guilty on one or more charges. 14 defendants were sentenced to die, but 10 later had their sentences reduced. Krupp Alfried Krupp and 11 other defendants, all members of the Krupp industrial concern, charged with enslavement and other war crimes, including the plunder of public and private property. Dec 8, 1947 Jul 31, 1948 11 defendants were found guilty on one or more charges and sentenced to jail terms, one defendant acquitted. Alfried got 12 years. Ministries 21 defendants, including three Reich ministers, as well as other members of the Nazi Party hierarchy, charged with waging wars of aggression, violating international treaties, and committing various crimes of war and crimes against humanity. Jan 6, 1948 Apr 13, 1949 19 defendants found guilty on at least one charge and sentenced to terms ranging from 4 to 25 years. High Command Case 13 high German Army officers, charged with ordering the mistreatment and murder of POWs. Dec 30, 1947 Oct 28, 1948 2 defendants were found not guilty, 2 sentenced to life terms, one released for time served, 8 sentenced to various prison terms.

Summary of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials
The Professionals Cases Medical and Justice Cases Defendants were prominent doctors and judges The Military Cases Milch, Hostage and High Command Cases All defendants were general staff officers The Industrialist Cases Flick, IG Farben and Krupp Cases All defendants were top officers of their companies The RuSHA or SS Cases Pohl, RuSHA and Einsatzgruppen Cases All defendants were top administrators or _fuhrer SS men The Ministries Case All defendants were Reich ministers or members of the Nazi Party hierarchy

Trials of Nazis not Held at Nuremberg
There were also British and Polish trials held shortly after the war. America is still trying suspected Nazi war criminals through the Office of Special Investigations, a branch of the US Justice Department. Defendants in major trials not held at Nuremberg have been: Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, was arrested in March and turned over to the Polish authorities. He was sentenced to death by the supreme court in Warsaw and taken back to Auschwitz where he was hanged on April 16, 1947. Adolf Eichmann managed the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps in German-occupied Eastern Europe. He was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina in May and was taken to Israel to stand trial. He was tried for crimes against the Jewish people (as opposed to the Nuremberg crimes against humanity). Eichmann was convicted and sentenced to death on December 15, He was hanged at midnight on June 1, He is the only person ever sentenced to death in Israel.

Trials of Nazis not Held at Nuremberg (cont’d)
Friedrich Jeckeln was an SS-Obergruppenführer who served as an SS and Police Leader in the occupied Soviet Union. Jeckeln was the commanding SS General over one of the largest collection of Einsatzgruppen and was personally responsible for ordering the deaths of over 100,000 Jews, Slavs, Romani, and other "undesirables" of the Third Reich. Jeckeln developed his own methods to kill large numbers of people, which became known as the "Jeckeln System.“ This system was called "sardine packing." It was reported that even some of the experienced Einsatzgruppen killers were horrified by its cruelty. At Rumbula, Jeckeln watched on both days of the massacre as 25,000 people were killed before him. Jeckeln proved to be an effective killer who cared nothing about murdering huge numbers of unarmed and even naked men, women, children, and elderly. He was tried before a Soviet military court in Riga, Latvia (in his zone of operations) from January 26, 1946, to February 3, 1946 and was sentenced to death and hanged at Riga on February 3, 1946 in front of some 4000 spectators.

Adolf Eichmann in 1942. Eichmann on trial in Israel in1961.

Legacy of Nuremberg (12:20)

Nuremberg Trials Firsts
First international war crimes trial in history Caveats Leaders of a defeated nation would receive the benefit of the rule of law and due process and the presumption of innocence Codifying aggressive war as a crime Holding individuals responsible for crimes committed by their government First trials for crimes against humanity First use of automatic simultaneous translation in a courtroom

The Nuremberg Principles
On December 11, 1946, the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted a resolution affirming "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and by the judgment of the Tribunal.” Four years later, the International Law Commission* submitted seven principles to the UN which were to be taken into account in the preparation of a code of crimes against peace and against the security of humankind. The Nuremberg Principles are: 1. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. 2. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. 3. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. *An arm of the General Assembly of the United Nations

The Nuremberg Principles (cont’d)
4. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. 5. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. 6. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: a. Crimes against peace b. War crimes c. Crimes against humanity 7. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle 6 is a crime under international law.

Nuremberg as a Precedent for Other Trials
The Nuremberg procedures and judgments served as a precedent for other trials of war criminals: Tokyo or the IMTFE The Former Yugoslavia Rwanda Sierra Leone East Timor Cambodia Pinochet (Chile) Saddam Hussein (Iraq) My Lai Massacre (Vietnam) But, some of these trials violated the Nuremberg standards, at least in some respects.

Tokyo or the IMT for the Far East
The Tokyo Charter for organizing the trial of the Japanese war leaders resembled the IMT with a few major differences: The courtroom was more elaborate. The judges were from 11 countries including the four represented at Nuremberg. The others were: Australia, Canada, China, India, Netherlands, New Zealand and Philippines. The trial lasted from May1946 to November 1948, two and one-half years or 21 months longer than Nuremberg. The four charges and most of the rules were identical to Nuremberg. Tokyo had one chief prosecutor, Joseph B. Keenan of the U.S.; the trial had a definite American bias.

Tokyo or the IMTFE (cont’d)
General Douglas MacArthur* appointed William Webb of Australia as president of the Tokyo Tribunal. He did not allow Emperor Hirohito to be charged, but Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and 27 other leaders were indicted: Two died during the trial, one was ruled incompetent to stand trial. Seven defendants were hanged including Tojo. 18 were sentenced to prison terms, 16 for life. Six died in prison, the other 12 were released early. Unlike Nuremberg, no one was acquitted. Webb was enraged by MacArthur’s decision not to bring Hirohito to trial. The Tokyo trials received much of the same criticisms as Nuremberg, but the critics were less forgiving. They felt that nothing had been learned from the mistakes of Nuremberg. *Unlike Gen. Eisenhower who did not play an active role at Nuremberg, MacArthur was very much involved in the planning for the IMTFE.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was convened at Ichigaya Court, formerly the Imperial Japanese Army HQ building, in Ichigaya, Tokyo. View of the Tribunal in session: the bench of judges is on the left, the defendants on the right, and the prosecutors in the back.

The Defendants The Judges

The Former Yugoslavia Key participants in the violence that broke out in the Balkans after the Soviet Union broke up were charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY): The UN established this temporary court at The Hague in It was ruled by 11 judges, none from Yugoslavia to avoid the “victors’ justice” criticism heard at Nuremberg. Its mission was to prosecute crimes of genocide and other war crimes. It was the first war crimes tribunal since WWII. Slobodan Milosevic, elected president of Yugoslavia in and considered responsible for much of the violence, was not arrested until 2001:

The Former Yugoslavia (cont’d)
His was the 22nd case heard by the ICTY. He was the first head of state to face criminal charges before an international court (recall, Hitler was dead before Nuremberg and Hirohito was not charged in Tokyo). Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor, felt the world was cheated when Milosevic died while on trial: her goal was to show that even the highest government official can be held accountable for his crimes. He died in his cell from a heart attack under suspicious circumstances, a few months before the verdict was due for his four-year trial. All trials including those of top Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic and recently arrested Gen. Ratko Mladic, are expected to be completed by 2015.

Milosevic on trial at the Yugoslav tribunal.
The ICTY building in The Hague Milosevic on trial Milosevic on trial at the Yugoslav tribunal.

The Former Yugoslavia (cont’d)
Bosnia sued Serbia in the World Court* in 1993 for committing genocide in the Bosnian conflict: The court ruled that genocide did occur; although it was not ordered by the government, it could have stopped the killings. No damages were due. *The World Court, also known as the International Court of Justice, is also located in The Hague. It litigates civil disputes between countries.

Rwanda On November 8, 1994, the UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to prosecute those responsible for the massacre of 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis in 1994 by members of the Hutu tribe, also Rwandans: This was the first time an international court investigated crimes committed entirely within the borders of the requesting nation; Rwanda was not at war with any other country. Genocide which had not been defined at Nuremberg was defined by the Rwandan statute as acts “with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” It is a crime for which convictions are handed down under the aegis of the Nuremberg invention - crimes against humanity.

Rwanda (cont’d) The judges came from four uninvolved countries.
The death penalty was prohibited (as in all UN-sponsored tribunals) and the right of appeal granted. Former Rwandan Prime Minister Jean Kambanda was sentenced to life in prison for genocide. Others have received long prison terms including a Roman Catholic priest. The ICTR ended all trial activities in 2008.

An ICTR building in Kigali, Rwanda

Sierra Leone In September 2002, the UN and the government of Sierra Leone jointly established an international tribunal based on the Nuremberg precedents called the “Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)”: Missing from the dock was Charles Taylor the former president of Liberia and the man accused of starting the civil war in Sierra Leone and financing it with proceeds from illegally mined “blood diamonds.” The judges and prosecutors were a mix of local and foreign lawyers. In March 2005, prosecutors charged members of a military junta that killed and maimed thousands of persons in the civil war with war crimes.

Sierra Leone (cont’d) Taylor was finally captured in March 2006, but a decision was made to try him at a special outpost of the SCSL in The Hague. This was done for “security reasons.” On April 26, 2012, Taylor became the first African head of state to be convicted of war crimes and was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. A total of 22 people have been indicted in the SCSL. Proceedings against 21 people have been completed: 11 are serving their sentences, five have finished their sentences, two have been acquitted, and three have died prior to the conclusion of the proceedings against them. Proceedings against one person, Johnny Paul Koroma, are ongoing; he is a fugitive, believed to be deceased.

East Timor The Special Panels of the Dili District Court (also called the East Timor Tribunal) was the hybrid international–East Timorese tribunal that was created in 2000 by the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) to try cases of "serious criminal offenses" - including murder, rape, and torture - which took place in East Timor in 1999: The Special Panels sat from 2000 to 2006. Shortly after the Special Panels was formed, the Serious Crimes Unit was also created by UNTAET to investigate and prosecute the crimes in question: The Special Panels issued indictments for almost 400 people. A major hurdle in trying some of the accused was that they were Indonesian nationals and the government of Indonesia refused to turn them over to East Timor or the UN forces.

East Timor (cont’d) Special Panels held 55 trials involving 88 accused persons: Four persons were acquitted and 84 were convicted, with 24 of the 84 pleading guilty. When the UN ceased funding the Special Panels and the Serious Crimes Unit, there were 514 outstanding cases for which investigations had been conducted, but no indictments issued and 50 cases for which no investigations had yet been conducted: These cases which were not tried include 828 cases of alleged murder, 60 alleged cases of rape, and over 100 cases of alleged torture or other serious violence. The East Timor attempt to do justice has been lacking. The Nuremberg precedent that no one is above the law has been ignored.

Cambodia Thirty years after the killings by the Khmer Rouge, The UN and the Cambodian government set up a joint national and international court to try those responsible still alive. In July 2005, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) was sworn in with 17 Cambodian judges and 13 from other countries. The ECCC will not make the same mistake that Jackson made at Nuremberg; it will not indict the thousands who helped Pol Pot (who is dead) carry out his human devastation: An estimated 1.7 million Cambodians were murdered in the killing fields between 1975 and 1979. Most of the rules and procedures of Nuremberg have been adopted by the ECCC. The charges against the five indictees still living are crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. The ECCC was still conducting trials in 2013.

The tribunal's main building with the court room
Judicial chambers for the ECCC

Pinochet (Chile) Gen. Augusto Pinochet, former dictator of Chile, was granted immunity for life in Chile for crimes committed during his reign. He was arrested in England in 1999 under the legal concept known as “universal jurisdiction,” an outgrowth of Nuremberg. There he was extradited to Spain who wanted to try him for crimes against humanity. His health was failing so he was returned to Chile where he was stripped of his immunity and indicted on human rights charges. He died in 2006 before he could be tried. The British decision to extradite Pinochet to Spain was based on three Nuremberg principles: Not even heads of state are above the law, Genocidal crimes do not require a state of war to be prosecuted, and Spain had jurisdiction to prosecute him even though his crimes occurred in Chile.

Saddam Hussein (Iraq) The Coalition Provisional Authority voted to create the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST), consisting of five Iraqi judges, on 9 December 2003, to try Saddam Hussein and his aides for charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The trial was viewed in some quarters as a kangaroo court or show trial: Amnesty International stated that the trial was unfair. Human Rights Watch noted that Saddam's execution "follows a flawed trial and marks a significant step away from the rule of law in Iraq.” Saddam was captured on 13 December 2003: He remained in custody by United States forces in Baghdad, along with eleven senior Ba'athist officials. Particular attention was paid during the trial to his activities in violent campaigns: Against the Kurds in the north during the Iran–Iraq War, Against the Shiites in the south in 1991 and 1999 to put down revolts, and In Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on 8 July 1982, during the Iran–Iraq War. Saddam asserted in his defense that he had been unlawfully overthrown and was still the President of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein (cont’d)
The first trial began before the IST on 19 October At this trial Saddam and seven other defendants were tried for crimes against humanity with regard to events that took place after the assassination attempt in Dujail by members of the Islamic Dawa Party. A second and separate trial began on 21 August 2006, trying Saddam and six co-defendants for genocide during the Anfal military campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. He may also have been tried in absentia for events dating to the Iran–Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was sentenced to death by hanging. On 26 December, his appeal was rejected and the death sentence upheld: No further appeals were taken and he was ordered executed within 30 days of that date. Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging only four days later. With his death, all other charges against him were dropped. That Saddam was given a trial at all with the presumption of innocence, deeply flawed as it was, was an advance for due process and the Nuremberg legacy. His trial was the first in history against a former head of state for crimes against humanity conducted in his own country by his own people.

Saddam Hussein sits before an Iraqi judge at a courthouse in Baghdad, 1 July 2004.

My Lai Massacre (Vietnam)
The U.S. military tried Lt. William Calley, Cpt. Ernest Medina and others in connection with the massacre of civilians at My Lai in South Vietnam. Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. On November 17, 1970, a court-martial in the United States charged 14 officers, including Major General Samuel W. Koster, the AMERICAL Division's commanding officer, with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of the charges were later dropped. Brigade commander Col. Henderson was the only high ranking commanding officer who stood trial on charges relating to the cover-up of the My Lai massacre; he was acquitted on December 17, 1971.

My Lai Massacre (cont’d)
During the four-month trial, Lt. Calley consistently claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Medina. Despite that, he was sentenced to life in prison on March 29, 1971, after being found guilty of premeditated murder of not less than twenty people. Calley would eventually serve three and one-half years under house arrest. In a separate trial, Cpt. Medina denied giving the orders that led to the massacre, and was acquitted of all charges, effectively negating the prosecution's theory of command responsibility, now referred to as the "Medina standard.” Several months after his acquittal, however, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and had lied to Col. Henderson about the number of civilian deaths. Major General Koster was demoted to Brigadier General and lost his position as Superintendent of West Point.

My Lai Massacre (cont’d)
Most of the enlisted men who were involved in the events at My Lai had already left military service, and were thus legally exempt from prosecution. In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Lieutenant Calley was the only one convicted. There were thirty six other military trials held by the U.S. Army from January until August 1973 for crimes against civilians in Vietnam Some have argued that the outcome of the My Lai courts-martial failed to uphold the laws of war established in the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals: For example, Telford Taylor wrote that legal principles established at the war crimes trials could have been used to prosecute senior American military commanders for failing to prevent atrocities such as the one at My Lai. The U.S. Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in The New York Times as stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders-a rationale that contradicts the standards set at Nuremberg and Tokyo, where following orders was not a defense for committing war crimes.

Major Points of the Legacy
The international human rights movement: the recognition of crimes against humanity. The principle that waging aggressive war and conspiracy to wage aggressive war are crimes. Individual accountability for crimes committed by governments including those committed by national leaders including heads of state. The principle that the leaders of a defeated nation would receive the benefit of the rule of law and due process and the presumption of innocence. The principle that obedience to superiors’ orders is not a defense for war crimes or human rights violations: But, may be considered in mitigation of sentencing.

Major Points of the Legacy (cont’d)
The concept of an international trial with judges and lawyers from several nations overcoming differences in language, custom and legal procedure. The principle of universal jurisdiction: some crimes are so grave that no matter where the crime is committed, any country that captures the perpetrator(s) may subject the individual(s) to a trial and to punishment on behalf of all nations. A written authoritative record that showed how low a civilized nation could sink under a ruthless dictatorship, a lesson that: Paved the way for almost seventy years of peace and democracy in Germany. Prevented martyrdom for Nazi leaders-a real risk if they had been summarily executed. Became an impossible obstacle for Holocaust deniers to overcome.

The establishment of The Nuremberg Code which: Set guidelines for medical research involving human beings and evolved into the medical doctrine of informed consent. Caused changes to the rules of war and to the treatment of prisoners of war. Laid the groundwork for lawsuits against corporations accused of exploitation, abuses and even crimes against humanity in foreign lands such as the use of slave labor. The effect of the trial record in making Americans aware they had responsibilities for protecting western democracy despite: This country’s opposition to the International Criminal Court. The effect of the trial record in raising Americans awareness of the dire consequences of racial prejudice and anti-Semitism.

Nuremberg also greatly influenced domestic trials: The Supreme Court’s rulings on cases involving treatment of suspected terrorists: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004, “enemy combatants had a right to a fair trial.” Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006, “secret military commissions were not authorized by law.” The Supreme Court’s rulings on cases involving racial discrimination and segregation: Jackson was influential in the unanimous 1954 ruling against school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. His vote was one of his last on the court. The way American justice deals with a suspect’s rights: Habeas Corpus, Miranda rights respected. The record of the Nuremberg Trials is the single event that, more than any other, guarantees that the atrocities known as the Holocaust will never be forgotten. One historian wrote, “Nuremberg remains legalism’s greatest moment of glory.”

Nuremberg’s precedents eventually led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC): On July 17, 1998 in Rome, the statute of the ICC was adopted with 120 countries voting in favor. With its headquarters in The Hague,* it was to be the world’s first independent permanent court set up to punish individuals, including heads of state, primarily for crimes against humanity, war crimes and waging wars of aggression*: The ICC also recognized, for the first time, the rights of war crimes victims to seek reparations through the Court for the sufferings inflicted on them, something Nuremberg never did. The U.S. and six other countries voted against the Rome Statute. Two years later, President Clinton signed the treaty, but President Bush withdrew Clinton’s signature and his administration actively attempted to block its progress. Needless to say the Nuremberg legacy has not stopped wars of aggression nor crimes against humanity: The IMT organizers were not so naïve as to believe it would. *The ICC will not have jurisdiction over waging wars of aggression until 2017 at the earliest.

The International Criminal Court
Parties to the ICC Treaty Signed but not ratified Neither signed nor acceded

ICC Investigations Green: Official investigations (Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), Kenya, Libya, Côte d'Ivoire and Mali) Light red: Ongoing preliminary examinations (Afghanistan, Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Nigeria, and South Korea) Dark red: Closed preliminary examinations (Palestine, Iraq, and Venezuela) The Court has received complaints about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries, but, currently, the Prosecutor of the Court has opened investigations into eight situations, all in Africa:

Discussion Topics Considering all you have learned in this course, were the Nuremberg Trials, on balance, legitimate? Recall the objections by legal absolutists: ex post facto, victor’s justice, superior’s orders, tu quoque Did the German people know of the atrocities being perpetrated on their behalf by the Nazi leaders? If so, could they have done anything to stop them? Did America know? Since WWII, has the U.S. committed some of the same crimes that they prosecuted at Nuremberg? If so, could we as citizens have done anything to stop them? What should we do now? Was the way Native Americans were treated a crime against humanity?

The Nuremberg Trials: History and Legacy

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Nuremberg Trials: History and Legacy"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

The Nuremberg Trials: History and Legacy

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Nuremberg Trials: History and Legacy"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback