7 ms·

The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respect

The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respective nations' legal frameworks, the victorious allies could really not see eye to eye on what was a fair measure of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated, and the tribunal had to reach sentences and conclusions that were politically and diplomatically acceptable for the US, UK, France, and the USSR (not to mention a dozen or more other nations relying on the four victorious major powers in the immediate aftermath of the war).

dmix 3y ago
Are there any good documentaries or books that dig into this without getting to academic?
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 3y ago
  Eichmann in My Hands by Peter Malkin
  - sbenji 3y ago
    Eichmann was not prosecuted until 1961. This prosecution was in Israel.
- eschulz 3y ago
  I'd be very curious to see what people recommend since I think it's very important to consider how the victors behaved at the end of the war. I studied some details about Nuremberg while in law school, from an Anglo American legal point of view, and then I spent a lot of time on wikipedia learning the historical background of the individuals involved.
- amsully 3y ago
  I've posted a top level comment as I felt it was worth it, but the last surviving prosecutor passed away April 2023 and wrote multiple inspiring works on the topic. Lookup Ben Ferencz' 'Parting Words' . While the book doesn't spend its entire time on the trial, it discusses the difficulties of holding people accountable for war crimes (even today).
- Animats 3y ago
  The movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961) is the classic summary. It's a docu-drama, but reasonably accurate. All the big stars of the day, from Spencer Tracy to Judy Garland. William Shatner has a minor role.
- billfruit 3y ago
  The Final Reckoning: Nuremburg Diaries by Boris Polevoi provides a Soviet perspective. Also it is full of courtroom art/sketches from the proceedings.
sillywalk 3y ago
Not to mention all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts, and they all were racing to collect Nazi/Japanese scientists.
- rajin444 3y ago
  Weren't they in the process of committing some as these trials were ongoing? I don't think there's a reliable number, but certainly 6 figure and likely 7 figure death tolls for ethnic Germans due to postwar resettlements etc.
  - boppo1 3y ago
    This sounds sorta lost-cause-y. 1,000,000 civilians killed in postwar orchestrations?
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      Yes an awful lot of civilians died after the war for numerous reasons. People rarely talk about it.
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      11 millions were killed and 25 millions were starved to death by Soviets prior to the war. ("Svoboda" Oct 04 1941 [0]). 0: http://web.archive.org/web/20160709210523/https://www.svoboda-news.com/arxiv/pdf/1941/Svoboda-1941-229.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20160709210523/https://www.svobod...
  - hef19898 3y ago
    [flagged]
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts The Soviets for sure, but are you really arguing that the US and UK (and Empire) were operating on the same industrial level? Incidents that come to mind for me would include the Bengal famine, and it was terrible, but it wasn't the systematic and controlled killing at which the Soviets and Nazis became so expert. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
parabyl 3y ago
These sorts of ordeals (not that there have been many of them) truly fascinate me - especially with regard to the decisions on 'appropriate' retributive justice. As a student growing up in South Africa we were often asked to compare the objectives and results of the Nuremburg trials alongside the Truth and Reconciliation Comission at the fall of Apartheid. The TRC allowed those accused (on both sides), to come forward and provide an honest recounting of their crimes to the court and family of the victim, and receive amnesty in return. Especially given that I'm of a generation born near the end of Apartheid, we grew up with the "badge of honour" mentality around the TRC. But almost 30 years later, many of the victims of these crimes are left feeling like the perpetrators got off scott-free, for an often half-recounting of the event and not much more. It's not uncommon to hear references to Nuremburg when discussing the more henoius crimes described - for example, a doctor performing the sorts of acts those at Nuremburg were tried for, who was recently discovered to be a family GP in one of the Nation's capitals, quietly continuing his life. However, it's not an opinion I would say is particularly strong in those who have it, nor too commonly discussed - but it's an interesting weighing up of "an appropriate justice which would please all participants was difficult, or impossible to decide", versus "it's incredible that the participants and organisers were able to come to a decision that did what it said on the box, mostly". I was particularly interested to see suggestions of a TRC (based on South Africa's own) introduced to deal with the after-effects of the 'Troubles' in Ireland, England and Northern Ireland - and it appeared to be a strong "NO" from all sides, which I found fascinating as it did not seem driven only by a need for appropriate retributive justice, but rather (in my opinon) seemed driven by the belief that we have the ability to draw finer lines as a group, and need not polarize our decisions between harsh, message-sending retribution and amnesty for participation. All that being said I couldn't tell you which pick given the choice, but it certainly feels hopeful reflecting on just how much care in group decision making and inclusive participation has been displayed in the past in such events.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sgt101 3y ago
  I think that one of the concerns about a TRC in NI is/was that both sides saw the future opportunity for justice within the existing or likely to exist legal framework. A TRC would have nullified that and many people felt that the state actors (in particular) should not be allowed to evade potential accountability.
vkou 3y ago
And yet, all the sentences were laughably short. Organizing the worst mass slaughter in human history got most of its architects and functionaries less time than driving a getaway car for a convenience store robbery in Florida would. And then most of them were paroled less than half way through their sentences.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  People who plead guilty and pledged loyalty to the new government were given light sentences. People who plead innocent were executed. The results could hardly be called inexplicable.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 3y ago
    Incorrect. Most of them weren't even tried. And of those that were, most of the ones who fought the charges weren't convicted, or were convicted of far lesser charges. Only a few got death sentences. ... For instance, the industrialists that bankrolled the Nazis, ran their factories with slave labour, and made posion gas for exterminating Jews and other victims of fascism got 2 to 7 years, with most of them being acquitted. Of the four death sentences handed out in the SS trials, only one was actually carried out. None of them, including the people who got life sentences actually served more than 10 years! If this is victor's justice, the victors did a shit job of actually punishing the losers.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      Thats not incorrect. The idea that people working for companies making basic supplies are guilty of murder for what their own government did with said supplies without their knowledge is so absurd that by your own admission they were not even tried. But that makes the trials of people who were fair? How about you directly enumerate the rights they were or were not afforded to determine if their trials were fair.
sorokod 3y ago
"So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated" Could you give some examples?
- lostlogin 3y ago
  It's not exactly what you are asking, but the tribunal wasn't even internally consistent. Look at Albert Speer. He wasn't executed and was about as high in the Nazi organisation as one could rise. Uniquely, he accepted (some) responsibility but other than that, the ruling is not very consistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer
  - sorokod 3y ago
    Thanks, for reference, the list of defendents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defendants_at_the_International_Military_Tribunal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defendants_at_the_In...
- kashunstva 3y ago
  Where it suited the U.S. Cold War objectives, they turned a blind eye to certain individuals, notably scientists. Hoping to deprive the Soviets of scientific expertise in rocket design and various topics related to nuclear weapons, the U.S. created an extra-judicial pathway that bypassed prosecution for some. SS Sturmbannführer Wehrner von Braun almost certainly knew of forced labour used in the V2 program but rose to prominence in NASA with no reckoning of his past. The book “Operation Paperclip” delved into this and other examples.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >SS Sturmbannführer Wehrner von Braun almost certainly knew of forced labour used in the V2 program but rose to prominence in NASA with no reckoning of his past. And the US knew of the slave labor used by Belgium in Congo to extract uranium for the nuclear weapons program which killed dozens to hundreds of Congolese but for some reason we never talk about that as it's always "hey, don't look over there, look at the evil Nazis instead".
tdba 3y ago
One of the main points against the validity of the Trials is that some of the most high profile defendants confessed to things that were either not true or greatly exaggerated versions of the truth. E.g. Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, confessed to having murdered three million people there, whereas in reality the number could not have been much more than 1 million.

dmix 3y ago

Are there any good documentaries or books that dig into this without getting to academic?

0xdeadbeefbabe 3y ago
Eichmann in My Hands by Peter Malkin
- sbenji 3y ago
  Eichmann was not prosecuted until 1961. This prosecution was in Israel.
eschulz 3y ago
I'd be very curious to see what people recommend since I think it's very important to consider how the victors behaved at the end of the war. I studied some details about Nuremberg while in law school, from an Anglo American legal point of view, and then I spent a lot of time on wikipedia learning the historical background of the individuals involved.
amsully 3y ago
I've posted a top level comment as I felt it was worth it, but the last surviving prosecutor passed away April 2023 and wrote multiple inspiring works on the topic. Lookup Ben Ferencz' 'Parting Words' . While the book doesn't spend its entire time on the trial, it discusses the difficulties of holding people accountable for war crimes (even today).
Animats 3y ago
The movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961) is the classic summary. It's a docu-drama, but reasonably accurate. All the big stars of the day, from Spencer Tracy to Judy Garland. William Shatner has a minor role.
billfruit 3y ago
The Final Reckoning: Nuremburg Diaries by Boris Polevoi provides a Soviet perspective. Also it is full of courtroom art/sketches from the proceedings.

sillywalk 3y ago

Not to mention all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts, and they all were racing to collect Nazi/Japanese scientists.

rajin444 3y ago
Weren't they in the process of committing some as these trials were ongoing? I don't think there's a reliable number, but certainly 6 figure and likely 7 figure death tolls for ethnic Germans due to postwar resettlements etc.
- boppo1 3y ago
  This sounds sorta lost-cause-y. 1,000,000 civilians killed in postwar orchestrations?
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Yes an awful lot of civilians died after the war for numerous reasons. People rarely talk about it.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    11 millions were killed and 25 millions were starved to death by Soviets prior to the war. ("Svoboda" Oct 04 1941 [0]). 0: http://web.archive.org/web/20160709210523/https://www.svoboda-news.com/arxiv/pdf/1941/Svoboda-1941-229.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20160709210523/https://www.svobod...
- hef19898 3y ago
  [flagged]
lostlogin 3y ago
> all the major powers had committed similar atrocities in their own pasts The Soviets for sure, but are you really arguing that the US and UK (and Empire) were operating on the same industrial level? Incidents that come to mind for me would include the Bengal famine, and it was terrible, but it wasn't the systematic and controlled killing at which the Soviets and Nazis became so expert. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

parabyl 3y ago

These sorts of ordeals (not that there have been many of them) truly fascinate me - especially with regard to the decisions on 'appropriate' retributive justice. As a student growing up in South Africa we were often asked to compare the objectives and results of the Nuremburg trials alongside the Truth and Reconciliation Comission at the fall of Apartheid. The TRC allowed those accused (on both sides), to come forward and provide an honest recounting of their crimes to the court and family of the victim, and receive amnesty in return. Especially given that I'm of a generation born near the end of Apartheid, we grew up with the "badge of honour" mentality around the TRC. But almost 30 years later, many of the victims of these crimes are left feeling like the perpetrators got off scott-free, for an often half-recounting of the event and not much more. It's not uncommon to hear references to Nuremburg when discussing the more henoius crimes described - for example, a doctor performing the sorts of acts those at Nuremburg were tried for, who was recently discovered to be a family GP in one of the Nation's capitals, quietly continuing his life. However, it's not an opinion I would say is particularly strong in those who have it, nor too commonly discussed - but it's an interesting weighing up of "an appropriate justice which would please all participants was difficult, or impossible to decide", versus "it's incredible that the participants and organisers were able to come to a decision that did what it said on the box, mostly". I was particularly interested to see suggestions of a TRC (based on South Africa's own) introduced to deal with the after-effects of the 'Troubles' in Ireland, England and Northern Ireland - and it appeared to be a strong "NO" from all sides, which I found fascinating as it did not seem driven only by a need for appropriate retributive justice, but rather (in my opinon) seemed driven by the belief that we have the ability to draw finer lines as a group, and need not polarize our decisions between harsh, message-sending retribution and amnesty for participation. All that being said I couldn't tell you which pick given the choice, but it certainly feels hopeful reflecting on just how much care in group decision making and inclusive participation has been displayed in the past in such events.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sgt101 3y ago
I think that one of the concerns about a TRC in NI is/was that both sides saw the future opportunity for justice within the existing or likely to exist legal framework. A TRC would have nullified that and many people felt that the state actors (in particular) should not be allowed to evade potential accountability.

vkou 3y ago

And yet, all the sentences were laughably short. Organizing the worst mass slaughter in human history got most of its architects and functionaries less time than driving a getaway car for a convenience store robbery in Florida would. And then most of them were paroled less than half way through their sentences.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
People who plead guilty and pledged loyalty to the new government were given light sentences. People who plead innocent were executed. The results could hardly be called inexplicable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 3y ago
  Incorrect. Most of them weren't even tried. And of those that were, most of the ones who fought the charges weren't convicted, or were convicted of far lesser charges. Only a few got death sentences. ... For instance, the industrialists that bankrolled the Nazis, ran their factories with slave labour, and made posion gas for exterminating Jews and other victims of fascism got 2 to 7 years, with most of them being acquitted. Of the four death sentences handed out in the SS trials, only one was actually carried out. None of them, including the people who got life sentences actually served more than 10 years! If this is victor's justice, the victors did a shit job of actually punishing the losers.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Thats not incorrect. The idea that people working for companies making basic supplies are guilty of murder for what their own government did with said supplies without their knowledge is so absurd that by your own admission they were not even tried. But that makes the trials of people who were fair? How about you directly enumerate the rights they were or were not afforded to determine if their trials were fair.

sorokod 3y ago

"So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated" Could you give some examples?

lostlogin 3y ago
It's not exactly what you are asking, but the tribunal wasn't even internally consistent. Look at Albert Speer. He wasn't executed and was about as high in the Nazi organisation as one could rise. Uniquely, he accepted (some) responsibility but other than that, the ruling is not very consistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer
- sorokod 3y ago
  Thanks, for reference, the list of defendents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defendants_at_the_International_Military_Tribunal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defendants_at_the_In...
kashunstva 3y ago
Where it suited the U.S. Cold War objectives, they turned a blind eye to certain individuals, notably scientists. Hoping to deprive the Soviets of scientific expertise in rocket design and various topics related to nuclear weapons, the U.S. created an extra-judicial pathway that bypassed prosecution for some. SS Sturmbannführer Wehrner von Braun almost certainly knew of forced labour used in the V2 program but rose to prominence in NASA with no reckoning of his past. The book “Operation Paperclip” delved into this and other examples.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >SS Sturmbannführer Wehrner von Braun almost certainly knew of forced labour used in the V2 program but rose to prominence in NASA with no reckoning of his past. And the US knew of the slave labor used by Belgium in Congo to extract uranium for the nuclear weapons program which killed dozens to hundreds of Congolese but for some reason we never talk about that as it's always "hey, don't look over there, look at the evil Nazis instead".

tdba 3y ago

One of the main points against the validity of the Trials is that some of the most high profile defendants confessed to things that were either not true or greatly exaggerated versions of the truth. E.g. Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, confessed to having murdered three million people there, whereas in reality the number could not have been much more than 1 million.