Transcript The Nuremberg Trial - SMCC12ModHist

The Nuremberg Trials
The End of WWII
What next?
Stalin
Churchill
De Gaulle
Truman
• Already decided at the Teheran Conference in Nov 1943.
• Procedures set out by London Charter of the International
Military Tribunal (Aug 1945): “To [bring to] trial and
punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries…”
Why?
• Needed to make an example of Nazi leaders for a variety
of reasons:
1. Atrocities part of govt policy, not just individuals.
2. Ensure the German people knew what had happened.
3. Hope that the example made would ensure no further repeats.
4. Give the United Nations a reputation for morals.
The Nuremberg Trials
• The Nuremberg Trials was the name given to a series of trials
that prosecuted prominent members of the political, economic &
military leadership of Nazi Germany.
• One major & twelve subsequent trials.
• Only Germans were prosecuted. Why?
-
Russia was one of the Big Three Allies
-
Italy had ended the war as an Allied nation
-
Japan dealt with separately
-
They lost!
The Nuremberg Trials
• The first Trials began October 18, 1945 with defendants charged
with one or more of the following:
Conspiracy or participation in a common plan to commit
crimes against peace.
II. Crimes against peace (planning, initiating & waging wars of
aggression)
I.
III. War crimes
IV. Crimes against humanity
• The Charter stated that holding an official position was no
defence to war crimes. Obedience to orders could only be
considered in regards to mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal
determined that justice so required.
(Some of) The Accused
Jodl
Hess
Bormann
Goring
Von Papen
Kaltenbrunner
Speer
Krupp
Results
SHORT TERM:
It saw the death and incarceration of 21 German major war criminals
Julius Streicher
Nuremberg Trials: Defendants in their dock.
The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (left on the first row), considered to be
the most important surviving official in the Third Reich after Hitler's death.
LONG TERM:
It set the precedent in International Law for crimes against humanity
The Legitimacy of the Trials
• History is about winners, not about losers.
• History is about assessing distortions, not copying out truths.
• History has much to say about the way the powerful handle power,
for power endangers records.
• History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There
is a bias between winners and losers.
• History is hopeless on love, but excellent on hatred. Such a state
of things may not please all, but then history was never meant to
please.
History Extension Source Book of Readings (NSW Board of Studies)
The Legitimacy of the Trials
What gave the trials legitimacy?
• Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender
• Hague (1899 & 1907) & Geneva (1925) Conventions on the
conduct of warfare
• Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928
• Punishments varied according to guilt.
The Legitimacy of the Trials
What made the trials illegitimate?
• Article 3: ‘Neither the Tribunal, its members or their alternates can be
challenged by the prosecution or by any of the defendants, at any time.’
• Article 16A: ‘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 but he cannot make an appeal.’
•
Article 19: ‘The tribunal shall not be bound by the technical rules of
evidence. The tribunal may admit any evidence which it deems to be of
probative value…’
•
Article 26: ‘The judgments of the Tribunal shall be final and are not
subject to any future review.’
The Legitimacy of the Trials
What made the trials illegitimate?
• Crimes defined after they were
committed
• ‘Victor’s justice’
• Same rules did not apply to Allies
(eg. Nazi-Soviet Pact, bombing of
Germany, Katyn, etc) – therefore,
double standards