The Nuremberg Trials occurred immediately after the WWII. They are further believed to be the first trials ever in the human history to have indicted the whole regime for war crimes. Some of the crimes that were common during the trials were the invasion of other states, the crime against humanity or even the violation of the Treaty of Versailles (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). Most of these crimes contributed to the holocaust that was experienced in Germany where innocents of the victims were deported and executed. The majority of the Holocaust victims were the Jews but other groups included the elderly, physically challenged, the Poles and the Gypsies (Nazi War Crimes Trials: Third Majdanek Trial. n.d.). It can be said that no single trial clearly presents a better understanding of nature and the cause of evil than the Nuremberg trials. The case entailed 12 trials with more than hundred defendants. Nuremberg Trials is simply a general name for the two Nazis trials engaged in the crime during the WWII holocaust (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). The first trial is considered the most famous and took place on November 20, 1945. This trial was referred to as Trial of the Major War Criminals as presented to the International Military Tribunal (Nazi War Crimes Trials: Third Majdanek Trial, n.d.). The trial involved influential leaders in the Nazi Germany. The second trail was meant for all the lesser war criminals, and this was carried out under the control Council Law No. 10, at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals. The opening of the Nuremberg trials took place on November 20th, 1945 and Robert H. Jackson was appointed as the Representative of the US in addition to being the Chief of Council. Robert H. Jackson thoroughly prepared and prosecuted all the war crime charges against humanity as committed by the Nazi leaders (The Belzec Trials, 2017).
The International Military Tribunal was specifically developed to address the unprecedented crime of war against the innocent community in Europe. It was important to have a different court because the offences committed were of greater magnitude and brutal in nature since the victims of the war had no clear rights under the German law. According to Bonn (1963), throughout the Holocaust, the Germany law legitimized massive deportation of innocent people, execution and enslavement. Therefore, it was evident that the victims did not have a significant privilege for fair trial and justice. International Military Tribunal was aimed at trying high-ranking German officials and try organizations where they worked (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). International Military Tribunal was established to be highly legitimate, and all the defendants were given the right to have a due process of the law. The judge used official Nazi reports as gathered from the field by commanders when confronting the defendants with adequate evidence (The Auschwitz Trials: Background & Overview, n.d.). All the defendants had the opportunity to have his charges read and the supported by available evidence. Additionally, the judge had to justify aggressor’s treatment as criminal in war. It was, therefore, necessary to persecute all the guilty parties since the crimes committed were very brutal (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). The crimes committed against humanity were so grave and had never been witnessed across the world; therefore, to recover from the unprecedented evil, the court had the moral obligation to persecute the crime of war. Additionally, it was essential to give these individuals a fair trial irrespective of their actions in the genocide. However, most of the US government people were for executing all the Nazis with necessarily following the due process of the law. Roosevelt and Jackson believed that the defendants had the right to a fair trial (Nazi War Crimes Trials: Third Majdanek Trial, n.d.).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Throughout the WWII, the allies held meetings to focus on the post-treatment of all the involved Nazi leaders. When the war was about to end, President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the war department to come up with a strategic plan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the war. According to Bonn (1963), several suggestions were raised on appropriate ways to handle the individuals behind the war. For instance, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau proposed for the need to adopt an "eye for an eye" revenge approach for the perpetrators. If this method were to be adopted, it would mean to shoot and kill all the Nazi leaders and at the same time banish majority of these leaders to other parts of the world. Another suggestion was raised by Secretary of War Henry Stimson who argued for the need to try all the responsible Nazi leaders on the court. The war crimes that characterized the WWII as conducted by Nazis were all labeled as the war crime by the War Department. Further, it was considered as the waging war of aggression. Around April 1945, some days after the death of Roosevelt, the Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was appointed as the chief prosecutor for the US at a war-crimes trial that was to be conducted in Europe immediately after the war ended (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017).
The International Military Tribunal was established by the four sovereign Allied states including the US, Great Britain, France, and Russia. To facilitate the case trial, it was agreed that only one judge would be appointed in every prosecuting countries and an additional alternative judge to take over the case in the absence of the magistrate. According to Bonn (1963), most of the allied states proposed that the war crimes trial should be conducted in German. By the year 1945, several German cities had well-established courthouses where major war trials could be carried out. Nuremberg was one of the cities with efficient courthouses. This was the site for the majority of Adolf Hitler’s sensational rallies. Additionally, it was at Nuremberg where the Nazis proclaimed Nuremberg laws that stripped the Jews community’s properties and their rights. Studies have shown that the city was 90 percent extensively destroyed; however, the justice’s palace was spared. It was established that the 12 trials entailed approximately one hundred defendants and these were heard by different courts at Nuremberg. Greater attention was directed at the first Nuremberg court trials of the 21 war criminals (Nazi War Crimes Trials: The Dachau Trials, n.d.).
Research has pointed out that majority of the infamous Nazi leaders were charged at the court as a result of the Nuremberg trials. However, it was established that majority of the war criminals managed to escape the trial and punishment through committing suicide (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). For instance, in the year April 30, 1945, Hitler shot and killed himself upon realizing that the Soviet troops had surrounded him about 300 yards and were closely advancing towards him. Additionally, Heinrich Himmler, who was considered as the most powerful man in Nazi Germany and commander of the SS, committed suicide by taking cyanide crystal while under the examination by a British doctor (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). On the other hand, Hermann Goering, who was the leader of the Luftwaffe, also killed himself using poison capsule on the very day that he was to be hanged. In addition to these, Robert Ley who was the leader of labor further killed himself by hanging prior to the trial. Martin Bormann who was Adolf Hitler’s private secretary also managed to disappear before he was brought to justice. However, he was charged in absentia, and the court sentenced him to death. According to Bonn (1963), various accounts have been developed concerning Bormann's death where there are those who believe that he died while attempting to cross the Russian lines and another claim that he committed suicide. By the year, 1973, Bormann was declared dead by a German court. It has been pointed out that majority of the outstanding Axis leaders fell into the Allied hands through surrendering or they were captured (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017).
During the primary trial opening day, it was reported that about 21 indicted war defendants had taken their seats. The trial process, therefore, began with indictment reading and this majorly entailed four counts (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). The count one focused on the “conspiracy to wage aggressive war,” and was aimed at addressing all the criminal acts that were committed before the official beginning of the war. Secondly, Count two was, “waging an aggressive war,” which apparently was aimed at addressing undertaking of war in violation of the international treaties (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). Thirdly is the count three which was, “war crimes," and was aimed at addressing traditional violations of the laws of war, such as killing, mistreatment of prisoners of war or even using outlawed weapons. Lastly is the count four, which focused on the “crimes against humanity,” and was aimed at addressing all offenses committed against the Jews, all the ethnic minorities and the physically and mentally disabled individuals. Other studies have shown that by the year 1945, 21 men were at the dock of Nuremberg courtroom for trial for war crimes. According to Bonn (1963), the majority of these individuals have been established to have represented the "cream of the crop" of the Nazi leadership among them are Herman Goering and Rudolph Hess. Most of these defendants were argued to have been charged with either one or more charges. Some of the specific charges included the killing of about million Jews, aggressive war, brutality and use of slave labor. It was further argued that the judges stood for the primary victors in the war particularly in Europe, Britain, US, France and the Soviet Union.
It has further been argued that the prosecution's case was further divided into two distinct phases. This was aimed at facilitating trials. For instance, the first phase emphasized on the determination of criminality of different components of the Nazi regime (Nazi War Crimes Trials: Third Majdanek Trial, n.d.). On the other hand, the second phase was used to determine and evaluate individual defendants’ guilt. During the trial process, the prosecution first has to present the case that Austrian annexation constituted an aggressive war. Next, the prosecutor proceeded to establish and presenting the same for invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Greece, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. It was pointed out that the second part of the case as presented by the prosecutor focused on the using slave labor and concentration camps by the Nazis (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). It was noting that all the evidence that were introduced by the prosecutor during the trial brought about the significant light on the truth behind the Holocaust horrors. For instance, it has been shown that the US prosecutor Thomas Todd presented a tanned and tattooed human skin as experienced by most of the concentration camp victims. All the lawyers also had the opportunity to present evidence for their defendants. Most of the defendants also were given a chance to put their actions in the most positive way. However, most of these defendants claimed to understand little or even knew nothing about concentration camps. Other defendant stated that concentration camps played a critical role regarding preserving order (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017).
In the year October 1, 1946, these defendants had the chance to file their cases to the courtroom for the last time and waited patiently for the tribunal verdict. All the defendants claimed to be innocent of the war crimes while others were admitting that they were only following orders from above. The decision came out in the year October 1, 1946. Evidently, about 18 defendants got convicted on either one or more accounts established above (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). However, three of them were acquitted since they were not found guilty of the crime. Research has established that about eleven of the defendants were sentenced to death through hanging. Three of them got acquitted while the rest were sentenced to about 10 to 15 years in prison and other got life imprisonment. After the court’s verdict, ten of the leaders got hanged by November 1946. It was reported that one of the leaders sentenced to death killed himself a few minutes before his execution (Takizawa, n.d.). Besides prosecuting the perpetrators of the war, the International Military Tribunal further issued indictments of such Nazi organizations as the SS, the SA and even the High Command of the German Army. However, a major challenge in the provision of justice to the victims of the war emerged where it was not clear what was to be done for the hundreds of thousands of individuals who were members of Nazis organizations. Organizations’ indictment further posed a fundamental legal question focusing on the aspect of the legitimacy of developing a system of guilt by association (History.com Staff, 2010). To understand this concept, the International Military Tribunal had to spend about a month to heat and evaluate the presented testimony related to the organizations. About six of all the existing groups were found guilty among them including the SS, Gestapo, and the Corps of the Political Leaders of the Nazi Party. However, members of these criminal organizations were charged by German denazification courts, despite the fact that none of them punished exclusively on the base of the court convictions. Even though the initial trial had been completed, there were still numerous subsequent trials in Nuremberg for about two years. The trials that were presented before the NMT occurred from December 6, 1946, to April 13, 1949 (Milestones, n.d). It was approximated that about 142 of the 185 defendants were found guilty. In the trial, about 24 individuals were sentenced to death, and 11 of these people were later on sentenced to life imprisonment. About 20 of the people were sentenced to life imprisonment further 98 were given different prison sentences, and 35 of them got exonerated. Additionally, about four of the defendants were removed from the trial because they were critically ill while four of them committed suicide as the trial proceeded. Studies found that three of the trials were compelling as a result of the horrific events that were associated with the crime as presented by the prosecution witness.
According to Bonn (1963), all men got charged with war crimes, genocide and violation of the Treaty of Versailles. However, most of them argued that they had no knowledge of what they had been charged with, but the prosecution had adequate substantiation (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). For instance, Goering stated that he had committed the crime they were in a war. Further, they claimed that Hitler never believed in a just war. Further, they said that they had no choice but to follow Hitler’s orders. They admitted most of the war crimes and atrocities, and there was enough evidence to convict all of them. The prosecutors of the Holocaust events, lawyers and judges were from various parts of the world including from the US, Soviet Union and France (Takizawa, n.d.). There was countless evidence that they could use to prosecute the Nazis. However, it was not possible to deliver justice to all the victims of the war. The Nuremberg Trials brought to book only 21 defendants and six Nazi organizations. Despite the fact that the organization was claimed to be criminal and accused persons convicted it can be said that justice was not adequately served (The Sobibor Trial, n.d). A huge number of the individuals who actively and willingly took part in the genocide apparently evaded justice hence continued to lead a comfortable life in different regions of the world. Nuremberg trial failed to hold into account all the perpetrators of the war. Other researchers have argued that a minority of the planners and the war perpetrators were not charged. Many people took advantage of the Nazi government to amass wealth, commit atrocities such as murder and persecute the Jews. The majority of the perpetrators of the Holocaust successfully escaped justice because they had enough wealth to pay off for the escape routes. There has been the argument put forward related to those individuals who had escaped justice. For instance, it has been argued that there is no need to continue with the search for the Nazis who evaded justice as outlined in the “Passage of Time Argument" (Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, 2017). Based on this evidence, there is no need for further prosecution because most of these criminals are elderly and had committed the crime about 50 years ago. However, these criminals continue to live a free life despite engaging in the most brutal crimes in history. This can be considered as an insult to the victims of the Holocaust. Others believe that these trials were unjust since the whole nation of German got indicted (Polish Law Concerning Trials of War Criminals, n.d).
In conclusion, the trials played a critical role by providing an in-depth documentation of the Nazi crimes. The evidence presented to the courts was horrifying and have continued to shock the world up to date. Further, the trials also exposed defendants and their crimes hence denying all of them the aspect of martyrdom before the German public that they could have attained. Studies have also shown that Nuremberg trials contributed to the development of democracy in Germany. However, despite the huge role and benefits associated with Nuremberg trials, it has not eliminated wars of aggression or prevented genocide because crimes against humanity have continued to be experienced years later after the trials. The Nuremberg Trials has been shown to have lasted for about twelve months because numerous atrocities were to be accounted for. Hess defendants together with Goering were all found to be guilty of the crimes against them hence were sentenced to execution. Moreover, three Nazi organizations were declared criminal, and members brought to justice. It was established by the court that SS had created concentration camps where they conducted massive execution of the innocent victims. It is one of the organizations that had committed the majority of the atrocities and had the largest number of members. The members were either forced to join, and others were drafted; therefore, the court had to exempt most of them from the charges.
Reference
Bonn H. (1963, April 01 ). Five-month ‘ chelmno Trial’ Ends; Six Imprisoned for Killing Jews. Retrieved from http://www.jta.org/1963/04/01/archive/five-month- chelmno -trial-ends-six-imprisoned-for-killing-jews
History.com Staff. (2010). Nuremberg Trials. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials
Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nuremberg
Nazi War Crimes Trials: Third Majdanek Trial. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/WarCrime40.html `
Nazi War Crimes Trials: The Dachau Trials. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Dachautrialtoc.html
Nanking War Crimes Tribunal . (2017). The Nanking Massacre . Retrieved from https://thenankingmassacre.org/2015/07/04/nanking-war-crimes-tribunal/
Polish Law Concerning Trials of War Criminals. United Nations War Crimes Commission, 1948. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/polishlaw.htm
The Sobibor Trial – The Station Master at Treblinka www.HolocaustResearchProject.org . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/sobibortrial.html
Takizawa. K. A., (n.d.). War Stories (5): Judgment at Yokohama (March 10 ― May 9, 1947). Retrieved from http://repo.lib.hosei.ac.jp/bitstream/10114/11140/1/62-1takizawa.pdf
The Belzec Trials – The Station Master at Treblinka www.HolocaustResearchProject.org . (2017). Holocaustresearchproject.org . Retrieved 23 from http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/belzectrials.html
The Auschwitz Trials: Background & Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auschtrial.html
