Lessons From Nuremberg

[Gerald]

GEORGE ORWELL is usually a footsure guide across political battlegrounds. In late 1943, when the tide had turned in the Allies’ favor, he wrote about postwar trials. Oddly, he advocated Hitler and Mussolini slipping away. His verdict for them would not be death unless the Germans and Italians themselves carried out summary executions (as they eventually did in Mussolini’s case).

He wanted “no martyrizing, no St. Helena business.” Above all, he disdained the idea of a “solemn hypocritical ‘trial of war criminals,’ with all the slow cruel pageantry of the law, which after a lapse of time has so strange a way of focusing a romantic light on the accused and turning a scoundrel into a hero.”

For once Orwell missed his step. The Allies did stage a trial of the Nazi war criminals, at Nuremberg. (My father, Hartley, was the chief British prosecutor.) The trial had flaws. To some it will always seem to be “victors’ justice” and it can be called hypocritical in that the Soviet Union, guilty of many of its own crimes against humanity, was an equal partner with the democratic prosecutors and judges.

But, over all, it succeeded very well. It was solemn, as it should have been, and what Orwell called “the pageantry of the law” was neither cruel nor slow — the trial began in November 1945 (remarkably this was only six months after the German surrender) and was all over by the following October. Would that anything could be done so efficiently today.

Most of the Nazi defendants were found guilty and executed, others were given lesser sentences and some were acquitted. Orwell’s fear that they would later be cast in a romantic light and turned from scoundrels into heroes has not been realized. They are still seen as mass murderers.

Nuremberg not only dispatched justice swiftly, it also created a historical narrative that has survived. Robert H. Jackson, the chief American prosecutor and the driving force behind the trials, told President Harry S. Truman that he had assembled more than five million pages of evidence. The files of the SS alone needed six freight cars to carry them. Subsequently the tribunal published 11 volumes of documents and 20 volumes devoted to the proceedings alone. The eminent British historian Alan Bullock wrote of his excitement at reading through these records: whatever the arguments about justice, “from the point of view of the historian the Nuremberg trials were an absolutely unqualified wonder.” Nuremberg was essential in creating memory and senses of responsibility, in Germany itself and far beyond.

Nuremberg, lest we forget, was a military tribunal with civilian lawyers and it offered far fewer protections to the Nazis in the dock than the military commissions at Guantánamo will give to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his co-defendants in the 9/11 attacks. Military justice worked then and it can work again today.

This is not the place to repeat the fierce disputes over President Obama’s decision last week to prosecute Mr. Mohammed before a military commission instead of a civilian court. What they show above all is that there are no absolute truths; law is argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/op...wcross.html?hp

Note: April 9, 2011

[Gerald]

The description of this set is clearly readable

[Feuer Frei!]

The Nuremberg trials are important for a number of reasons. Out of the trials came such important advances as The Genocide Convention, The Geneva Convention, modern medical ethics, and modern war crime principles. As well as that, it brought two great legal theories into direct conflict. This is big stuff. This was the crime of the past 200 years, and it was the trial as well.
Much can be inferred from the speech given at the opening of the trial of the Major War Criminals.** Robert H Jackson, the lead prosecutor, as proceedings began, gave the following address: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgement of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason.”

Jackson wanted to make it clear that in this action, the Allies were taking the moral high ground.
If we look back at Nuremberg now, it is still with a sense of resolve, that the right thing was done. The Nazi leaders weren’t just walked into the woods to die. This trial began a new age under the rule of law, and demonstrated the moral superiority of the Allied powers over the Axis evil they defeated.
But what law were they tried under? Many of their actions were committed in Germany. A Nazi Germany, with laws written by the very men being tried. Take, for example, the enforced sterilisation of those deemed to be “deficient”. These were sanctioned by a 1933 German law that these men had authored. So what law had they broken? Under what statute could they be tried? Under the laws of their own land, where most of the actions had occurred, none.
However, the trials were not conducted under the laws of Germany. Nor were they tried under the legal systems of any of the victorious Allies. Instead, they were tried under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
The defence lawyers’ first act was to challenge the legitimacy of the court, stating that this was ex post facto law, and not law at all***. This was quickly rebuffed, by referring to Article 3. The challenge to the Charter was referred to the Charter, found to be invalid under the Charter, and struck out under the Charter.
That unimpeachable moral authority isn’t looking so good now, is it?

If this was to be a fair trial, as Jackson argued so passionately at the start of the proceedings, then surely the judges involved would be drawn from the neutral nations? One would expect the bench to occupied by the Swiss, Swedish and Irish judiciary. Surely, this trial could not be fair if the the judiciary were drawn from the ranks of the aggrieved? The judges were all from the victorious Allied nations. Surely, if this trial was fair, all of the other trials at Nuremberg would be conducted under the same charter, along the same lines? In fact, all the other trials were conducted under American law. The doctors, judges, and all the others were not tried under the London Charter. Any problems of the relative jurisdiction being thousands of miles away were ignored, as it was felt that a mature legal system would best take the place of the despoiled German system. There is a strong argument for this approach, despite the obvious difficulty, but it wasn’t felt to be strong enough for the trial of the Major War Criminals.

The Nuremberg trials were meant to begin the healing process, to apply a salve to the world’s wounds. It was also meant to help Germany get back on its feet after it had been corrupted and brought to the brink of destruction. It didn’t really work. German popular opinion quickly pegged it as a show trial, and grew resentful. They felt they had suffered enough, and now that they were being dragged through this by proxy. The criticisms weren’t just limited to the populace of defeated Axis powers. Some contemporary commentators also felt that the stated virtues of the Nuremberg trials were just smokescreens, and that this was an elaborate show trial. One Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court called the trial a fraud, and referred to Jackson’s “High-grade lynching.”
Nuremberg achieved much, and changed our world. It redefined what law was in the modern age, and what it could be used for.
A fact and a shame that the German legal system wasn't up to it to deal with this at that time.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

The Nuremberg trials are important for a number of reasons. Out of the trials came such important advances as The Genocide Convention, The Geneva Convention, modern medical ethics, and modern war crime principles. As well as that, it brought two great legal theories into direct conflict. This is big stuff. This was the crime of the past 200 years, and it was the trial as well.
Much can be inferred from the speech given at the opening of the trial of the Major War Criminals.** Robert H Jackson, the lead prosecutor, as proceedings began, gave the following address: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgement of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason.”

Jackson wanted to make it clear that in this action, the Allies were taking the moral high ground.
If we look back at Nuremberg now, it is still with a sense of resolve, that the right thing was done. The Nazi leaders weren’t just walked into the woods to die. This trial began a new age under the rule of law, and demonstrated the moral superiority of the Allied powers over the Axis evil they defeated.
But what law were they tried under? Many of their actions were committed in Germany. A Nazi Germany, with laws written by the very men being tried. Take, for example, the enforced sterilisation of those deemed to be “deficient”. These were sanctioned by a 1933 German law that these men had authored. So what law had they broken? Under what statute could they be tried? Under the laws of their own land, where most of the actions had occurred, none.
However, the trials were not conducted under the laws of Germany. Nor were they tried under the legal systems of any of the victorious Allies. Instead, they were tried under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
The defence lawyers’ first act was to challenge the legitimacy of the court, stating that this was ex post facto law, and not law at all***. This was quickly rebuffed, by referring to Article 3. The challenge to the Charter was referred to the Charter, found to be invalid under the Charter, and struck out under the Charter.
That unimpeachable moral authority isn’t looking so good now, is it?

If this was to be a fair trial, as Jackson argued so passionately at the start of the proceedings, then surely the judges involved would be drawn from the neutral nations? One would expect the bench to occupied by the Swiss, Swedish and Irish judiciary. Surely, this trial could not be fair if the the judiciary were drawn from the ranks of the aggrieved? The judges were all from the victorious Allied nations. Surely, if this trial was fair, all of the other trials at Nuremberg would be conducted under the same charter, along the same lines? In fact, all the other trials were conducted under American law. The doctors, judges, and all the others were not tried under the London Charter. Any problems of the relative jurisdiction being thousands of miles away were ignored, as it was felt that a mature legal system would best take the place of the despoiled German system. There is a strong argument for this approach, despite the obvious difficulty, but it wasn’t felt to be strong enough for the trial of the Major War Criminals.

The Nuremberg trials were meant to begin the healing process, to apply a salve to the world’s wounds. It was also meant to help Germany get back on its feet after it had been corrupted and brought to the brink of destruction. It didn’t really work. German popular opinion quickly pegged it as a show trial, and grew resentful. They felt they had suffered enough, and now that they were being dragged through this by proxy. The criticisms weren’t just limited to the populace of defeated Axis powers. Some contemporary commentators also felt that the stated virtues of the Nuremberg trials were just smokescreens, and that this was an elaborate show trial. One Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court called the trial a fraud, and referred to Jackson’s “High-grade lynching.”
Nuremberg achieved much, and changed our world. It redefined what law was in the modern age, and what it could be used for.
A fact and a shame that the German legal system wasn't up to it to deal with this at that time.

So true!

[kranz]

From the theoretical point of view I agree with what Feuer Frei has said. It was obviously a breakthrough in the terms of international law.
From the practical point of view it was a typical witch-hunt. This becomes striking when you compare the 22 sentences (David Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle is a good read) and R.Rudenko's reaction to the accusations made against the soviets who, simply speaking, were the German allies up to 1941. I guess I don't have to remind what Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was. Or who helped the Germans to invade Poland.
I would call this trial a major victory of the legal regulations and a great defeat of moral standards.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by kranz

From the theoretical point of view I agree with what Feuer Frei has said. It was obviously a breakthrough in the terms of international law.
From the practical point of view it was a typical witch-hunt. This becomes striking when you compare the 22 sentences (David Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle is a good read) and R.Rudenko's reaction to the accusations made against the soviets who, simply speaking, were the German allies up to 1941. I guess I don't to remind what Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was. Or who helped the Germans to invade Poland.
I would call this trial a major victory of the legal regulations and a great defeat of moral standards.

This links belong here,

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182097