Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Nuremberg Trials

 

A series of trials held in Nuremberg, Germany, from November 1945 to October 1946. They were held by the International Military Tribunal to indict and try twenty-four former Nazi leaders for committing and conspiring to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity during World War II. Six organizations also were indicted for aiding the Nazis. All of the officers pleaded not guilty. On October 1, 1946, the tribunal declared verdicts, which included three acquittals and the sentencing of four officers to imprisonment ranging from ten to twenty years, three to life imprisonment, and twelve to death by hanging. The tribunal rejected arguments from the defendants that the trials were ex post facto and that only the state, not individuals, were accountable for violations of international law.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics

In the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946), an International Military Tribunal tried high Nazi officials for actions committed during World War II that contravened the accepted laws of war. Among the practices condemned were plotting and waging aggressive war, using slave labor, looting occupied countries, and abusing and murdering civilians (especially the Jews) and prisoners of war. The Allies' decision to try major Axis officials for war crimes had been announced in October 1943, when the American, British, and Russian foreign ministers met in Moscow. Planning for the trials began soon after V-J Day, and the tribunal opened in Nuremberg, Germany, on November 20, 1945, before a board of distinguished judges from the Allied countries. Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Josef Goebbels had committed suicide by that time, but Hermann Goering, Joachim Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Julius Streicher, Hjalmar Schacht, Martin Bormann (in absentia), and sixteen others were tried one by one for individually specified crimes.

Twenty-one of the 24 were convicted; of these, 12 were sentenced to hang and the remainder were sent to prison. Two of those condemned to death escaped execution--Goering by committing suicide and Bormann by remaining at large; the rest were hanged on October 16, 1946. Lesser officials were also tried, including officers and guards from the Dachau prison camp and civilians who had murdered American aviators. In all, 24 defendants were executed as a result of the Nuremberg trials, 128 were sent to prison, and 35 were acquitted. Similar trials in Tokyo (1946-1948) resulted in the hanging of 7 Japanese leaders and the imprisoning of 16.

The trials were criticized by many for retroactively criminalizing actions that had been legal, and even required under orders, at the time they occurred; to these critics, the trials appeared more like vengeance than impartial justice. But Robert Jackson, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and chief U.S. prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials, maintained that the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 had outlawed aggressive warfare; holding individuals accountable for their actions, he argued, would deter future aggression. This argument prevailed at Nuremberg and was subsequently supported by the United Nations.

See also World War II.


Answer of the Day:

Nuremberg Trials

Top
From the Film<br><i>Judgment at Nuremberg</i>  
From the Film
Judgment at Nuremberg
The Nuremberg Trials drew to a close sixty years ago today, when 22 leaders of Nazi Germany were convicted of crimes perpetrated during World War II. Eleven were sentenced to death and the rest of the guilty were given lengthy terms in Spandau Prison. Among those who received the death sentence were Field Marshal Hermann Göring, Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann and Foreign Affairs Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The trial led to a definition of what constitutes a war crime, as documented in the Nuremberg Principles.

Previous:Nuestra Señora de Atocha
Next:Was New England's Dark Day caused by a volcano?

From our Archives: Today's Highlights, September 30, 2006

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The Nuremberg trials were a series of trials held between 1945 and 1949 in which the Allies prosecuted German military leaders, political officials, industrialists, and financiers for crimes they had committed during World War II.

The first trial took place in Nuremberg, Germany, and involved twenty-four top-ranking survivors of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party). The subsequent trials were held throughout Germany and involved approximately two hundred additional defendants, including Nazi physicians who performed vile experiments on human subjects, concentration camp commandants who ordered the extermination of their prisoners, and judges who upheld Nazi practices.

World War II began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Over the next few years, the European Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania) successfully invaded and occupied France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, and the Netherlands. But when Adolf Hitler's troops invaded the Soviet Union, the Nazi war machine stalled. By the end of the war, the Axis powers were battered and beleaguered, and in 1945 they unconditionally surrendered to the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France (the four Allied powers).

Although the surrender of the Axis powers brought the war to its formal conclusion, the Third Reich had left an indelible imprint on the world. During Germany's attempted conquest and occupation of Europe and Asia, the Nazis slaughtered, tortured, starved, and tormented over six million Jews and countless others — including Catholics, prisoners of war, dissenters, intelligentsia, nobility, and other innocent civilians. As part of their systematic effort to extinguish persons they deemed subversive, dangerous, or impure, the Nazis constructed concentration camps around Europe where they murdered their victims in gas chambers and incinerated their bodies in crematories. Persons who escaped this fate were deported to Nazi labor camps where they were compelled upon threat of death to work for the Third Reich.

The Allies had been discussing the idea of punishing war criminals since 1943 when U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, British prime minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet premier Joseph Stalin signed the Moscow Declaration promising to hold the Axis powers, particularly Germany, Italy, and Japan, responsible for any atrocities they committed during World War II. In 1944 Roosevelt and Churchill briefly entertained the idea of summarily executing the highest-ranking members of the Third Reich without a trial or legal proceeding of any kind.

However, by June of 1945, when delegations from the four Allied powers gathered in London at the International Conference of Military Trials, the U.S. representatives firmly believed that the Nazi leaders could not be executed without first being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in a judicial proceeding. Principles of justice, fairness, and due process, delegates from the United States argued, required no less. U.S. leaders also feared that the Allies would be perceived as hypocritical for denying the vanquished powers the same basic legal rights that were denied to those persons summarily executed by Germany, Italy, and Japan during the war.

On August 8, 1945, the four Allied powers signed a convention called the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis Powers, which set forth the parameters by which the accused would be tried. Under this convention, which is sometimes referred to as the London Agreement or Nuremberg Charter, the Allies would conduct the trials of leaders of the European Axis powers in Nuremberg, and would subsequently prosecute lower-ranking officials and less important figures in the four occupied zones of Germany. American military tribunals in the South Pacific, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, tried accused Japanese war criminals.

The London Agreement also established the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which was a panel of eight judges, two named by each of the four Allied powers. One judge from each country actively presided at trial, and the other four sat on the panel as alternates. The four Allied powers also selected the prosecutors, who agreed to pursue a conviction against the defendants on behalf of the newly formed United Nations.

Under the Nuremberg Charter, each defendant accused of a war crime was afforded the right to be represented by an attorney of his choice. The accused war criminals were presumed innocent by the tribunal and could not be convicted until their guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the defendants were guaranteed the right to challenge incriminating evidence, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and introduce exculpatory evidence of their own.

The court appointed interpreters to translate the proceedings into four languages: French, German, Russian, and English. Written evidence submitted by the prosecution was translated into the native language of each defendant. When considering the admissibility of particular documents or testimony, the IMT was not bound by technical rules of evidence common to Anglo-American systems of justice. The tribunal retained discretion to evaluate hearsay and other forms of evidence that are normally considered unreliable in the United States and Great Britain.

The IMT made all of its decisions by a majority vote of the four judges. On issues that divided the judges equally, the president of the court, Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence from Great Britain, was endowed with the deciding vote. In all other situations, a vote cast by Lawrence carried no greater weight than a vote cast by Soviet judge Ion Nikitchenko, French judge Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, American judge Francis Biddle, or any of the alternates. The IMT's decisions, including any rulings, judgments, or sentences, were final and could not be appealed.

Neither the defense nor the prosecution was permitted to challenge the legal, political, or military authority of the court. The IMT said that its jurisdiction stemmed from the London Agreement that was promulgated by the Allies pursuant to their inherent legislative powers over the conquered nations, which had unconditionally surrendered. According to the tribunal, each Ally possessed the unqualified right to legislate over the territory that it occupied. By establishing the IMT, the court said, the Allies "had done together what any one of them might have done singly."

The IMT was given authority to hear four counts of criminal complaints: conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Count I encompassed conspiracies to commit crimes against peace, whereas count II covered persons who committed such crimes in their individual capacities. Crimes against peace included the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of aggressive war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Crimes against peace differed from other war crimes, the tribunal said, in that they represented the "accumulated evil" of the Axis powers.

Count III consisted of war crimes committed in violation of the laws and customs of war as accepted and practiced around the world. This count aimed to punish those individuals who were responsible for issuing or executing orders that resulted in the plundering of public and private property, the wanton destruction of European cities and villages, the murder of captured Allied soldiers, and the conscription of civilians in occupied territories for deportation to German labor camps.

Count IV consisted of crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, as well as every form of political, racial, and religious persecution carried out in furtherance of a crime punishable by the IMT. This count aimed to punish the most notorious crimes committed by the Nazi regime, such as genocide and torture. Early in the trial, however, the IMT ruled that the court did not have authority to try the defendants for crimes they committed before 1939 when World War II began.

Many of the prospective Nazi defendants were dead or could not be found after the war. Adolf Hitler, the totalitarian dictator of Germany who was the emotional and intellectual catalyst behind most of the war crimes committed by the Nuremberg defendants, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS (Schutzstaffel, or Blackshirts, the Nazi organization in charge of the concentration camps and the Gestapo, the German secret police), and Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, had all killed themselves during the final days of the war. Benito Mussolini, totalitarian dictator of Italy, was shot and hung by his own people in Milan in April 1945. Other German officials such as Karl Adolf Eichmann, a lieutenant colonel in the SS who was the architect of Hitler's "final solution" to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe and Asia, and Dr. Josef Mengele, a physician who performed barbaric experiments on prisoners at the concentration camp in Auschwitz, Poland, eluded the Allies by fleeing Germany after the war.

Not all of the Nazi leadership was able to escape justice. Twenty-four Nazi officials were indicted under the Nuremberg Charter for war crimes. The tribunal convicted eighteen of the defendants and acquitted three defendants (Dr. Hjalmar H. G. Schacht, president of the German Central Bank, Hans Fritzsche, propaganda minister for German radio, and Franz von Papen, vice chancellor of Germany). One defendant (Dr. Robert Ley, leader of the Nazi Labor Front) committed suicide before the proceedings began; one defendant (Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, a German military industrialist) was deemed mentally and physically incompetent to stand trial; and one defendant (Martin Bormann, Hitler's secretary and head of the Nazi Party Chancellery) was tried and convicted in absentia because his whereabouts were unknown.

The trial began on November 20, 1945, and concluded on October 1, 1946. Thirty-three witnesses testified for the prosecution. Eighty witnesses testified for the defense, including nineteen of the defendants. An additional 140 witnesses provided evidence for the defense through written interrogatories. The prosecution introduced written evidence of its own, including original military, diplomatic, and government files of the Nazi regime that fell into the hands of the Allies after the collapse of the Third Reich.

Robert H. Jackson, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, led the prosecution team. President Harry S. Truman had asked Jackson to assemble a staff of U.S. attorneys to investigate alleged war crimes and present evidence against the defendants. Jackson was joined on the prosecution team by Roman Rudenko, Fran|fcois de Menthon, and Sir Hartley Shawcross, the chief prosecutors for Russia, France, and Great Britain, respectively. Each of the four powers employed a number of assistant prosecutors as well.

Jackson commenced the trial with an opening statement that is considered one of the most eloquent in the annals of jurisprudence. "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish," Jackson said, "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 judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason."

Hermann Goering was the most powerful surviving member of the German government to be tried at Nuremberg. Goering had been elected president of the Reichstag (the German parliament) in 1932. After Hitler was named chancellor of Germany in 1933, Goering was appointed minister of interior for Prussia where he created the Gestapo and established the first concentration camps. In 1935 Goering became chief of the Luftwaffe (the German air force), and two years later he was made commissioner of the Four Year Plan, an economic program designed to make Germany self-sufficient in preparation for the ensuing Nazi blitzkrieg. After Germany's invasion of Finland in 1939, Goering was elevated to Reich marshall, the highest military rank in Germany, and designated as Hitler's successor in the event of Hitler's death.

The IMT convicted the Reich marshall on all four counts and sentenced him to death. The prosecution demonstrated that Goering had helped plan and direct the invasions of Poland and Austria. Other evidence indicated that Goering had ordered the Luftwaffe to destroy a business district in Rotterdam, Netherlands, even though the city had already surrendered. Goering was also implicated in the extermination of Polish intelligentsia, nobility, and clergy, the execution of British prisoners of war, the deportation of foreign laborers to Germany, the theft of art from French museums, and the suppression of domestic political opposition. Additionally, Goering admitted on cross-examination that he was responsible for promulgating laws that had facilitated the persecution of Jews throughout Europe.

Rudolph Hess was another influential Nazi official prosecuted at Nuremberg. Hess was a longtime friend of Hitler. In 1923 the two joined forces in an unsuccessful attempt to incite a Nazi revolution in a Munich tavern. Although Hitler was arrested and convicted of treason for his role in the so-called beer hall putsch, German interest in the Nazi movement grew after the publication of Mein Kampf, a manifesto Hitler dictated to Hess while serving his prison term. Mein Kampf planted the seeds of Aryan supremacy, German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarian government, seeds that Hess later cultivated in his capacity as deputy f;auuhrer to the Third Reich.

During the Nuremberg trial, the prosecution offered evidence that Hess had signed orders authorizing the persecution of European Jews and the ransacking of churches. Documents signed by Hess and meetings he attended reflected his support for Hitler's plan to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Hess originally asserted a defense of amnesia to these charges, claiming that he had forgotten the entire period of his life in which he had acted as deputy f;auuhrer. However, Hess withdrew this defense upon realizing that he would not stand trial with the other defendants if he were diagnosed as incompetent. Hess was convicted of counts I and II and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Joachim von Ribbentrop, Germany's foreign minister during World War II, was convicted on all four counts and sentenced to death. When he took the witness stand, the prosecution asked him if he considered Germany's invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Greece, France, and the Soviet Union "acts of aggression." In each case Ribbentrop answered in the negative, arguing that such invasions were more properly described as acts of war. Confronted with evidence that he had urged the German regent of Hungary to exterminate the Jews in that country, Ribbentrop responded only by saying that he did not use those words exactly.

Dr. Ernst Kaltenbrunner was the head of the Reich Central Security Office, the Nazi organization in charge of the Gestapo and the SD (Sicherheitsdienst, Security Service, the German intelligence agency) and was second in command to Himmler at the SS. Kaltenbrunner faced a mountain of evidence demonstrating that he visited a number of concentration camps and had personally witnessed prisoners being gassed and incinerated. One letter signed by Kaltenbrunner authorized the execution of Allied prisoners of war, and another letter authorized the conscription and deportation of foreign laborers. Laborers who were too weak to contribute, Kaltenbrunner wrote, should be executed, regardless of their age or gender. Kaltenbrunner received a death sentence after being convicted under counts III and IV.

Alfred Rosenberg was the Nazi minister for the occupied Eastern European territories. Rosenberg told Axis troops that the accepted rules of land warfare could be disregarded in areas under his control. He ordered the segregation of Jews into ghettos where his subordinates murdered them. His signature was found at the bottom of a directive approving the deportation of forty-five thousand youths to German labor camps. Cross-examined about his role in the unlawful confiscation of Jewish property, Rosenberg claimed that all such property was seized to protect it from Allied bombing raids. Rosenberg was found guilty on all four counts and sentenced to death by hanging.

Hans Frank, the governor-general of Poland during German occupation, was sentenced to hang after being convicted on counts III and IV. Frank described his administration's policy by stating that Poland was "treated like a colony" in which the Polish people became "the slaves of the Greater German World Empire." The tribunal found that this policy entailed the destruction of Poland as a national entity, the evisceration of all political opposition, and the ruthless exploitation of human resources to promote Hitler's reign of terror. While on the witness stand, Frank confessed to participating in the Nazis' systematic attempt to annihilate the Jewish race.

Wilhelm Frick, the German minister of interior, was found guilty on counts I, II, and III and sentenced to be hanged. Frick had signed decrees sanctioning the execution of Jews and other persons held in "protective custody" at the concentration camps and had given Himmler a blank check to take any "security measures" necessary to ensure the German foothold in the occupied territories. The tribunal also determined that Frick exercised supreme authority over Bohemia and Moravia and was responsible for implementing Hitler's policies of enslavement, deportation, torture, and extermination in these territories.

Wilhelm Keitel, field marshall for the High Command of the armed forces, was sentenced to die after being found guilty on every count. On direct examination Keitel admitted that there were "a large number of orders" bearing his signature that "contained deviations from existing international law." He also conceded that a number of atrocities had been committed under his command during Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. As a defense to these charges, Keitel asserted that he had been following the orders of his superiors when committing these crimes. Yet some witnesses testifying on behalf of the defense tended to undermine this assertion.

Alfred Jodl, chief of the operations staff for the armed forces, also received the death sentence after being convicted on every count. During the early stages of World War II, Jodl had been asked to review an order drafted by Hitler authorizing German troops to execute all Soviet military commissars captured during the Nazi invasion of Russia. Aware that this order was a violation of the customs, practices, and laws governing the treatment of prisoners during times of war, Jodl made no attempt to dissuade Hitler from issuing it. Jodl was also found responsible for distributing an order that authorized the execution of Allied commandos caught by the Axis powers and for mobilizing the German army against its European foes.

Julius Streicher, an anti-Semitic propagandist, was found guilty of count IV and sentenced to death. Author, editor, and publisher of Der Stuermer, a privately owned Jew-baiting newspaper, Streicher held no meaningful government position with the Axis powers during World War II. Yet the tribunal determined that circulation of Streicher's racist newspaper had fueled the Nazis' maniacal hatred of Jews and fomented an atmosphere in which genocide was acceptable and desirable. The prosecution introduced an article Streicher had published during 1942 in which he described Jewish procreation as a curse of God that could only be lifted through a process of political and ethnic emasculation.

Albert Speer, Nazi minister of armaments, received a prison term of twenty years after being convicted on counts III and IV. Speer had fascinated Hitler long before the war with his architectural prowess, designing buildings that were both immense and imposing. After the war began, however, Speer's primary obligation was to supply the German armed forces with military supplies, equipment, and weapons. Thus, Speer became a lynchpin in the Nazi military empire. In an effort to maintain this empire, the prosecution demonstrated, Speer had repeatedly cajoled Hitler to procure foreign labor to work in his weapons factories.

Dr. Arthur Seyss-Inquart, an Austrian who was appointed by Hitler to govern Austria and the Netherlands during German occupation, was found guilty on counts II, III, and IV and sentenced to death for his confessed mistreatment of racial minorities in those territories, including the deportation of more than 250,000 Jews to Germany. Seyss-Inquart also assisted Hitler's takeover of Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

Baron Konstantin von Neurath, Reich protector of Czechoslovakia, was convicted on all four counts and sentenced to fifteen years in prison for participating in the Nazi militarization campaign. Hoping to immunize the Nazi regime from its obligations under international law, Neurath had advocated Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations and denounced the Versailles Treaty that had formally concluded World War I. Neurath was also implicated in various brutalities committed against the Czechoslovakian civilian population.

Baldur von Schirach, governor of occupied Vienna and leader of the Hitler Youth, was convicted on count IV and sentenced to a twenty-year prison term. The IMT determined that Schirach had provided the visceral foundations for the militarization of Germany's youngest Nazis through psychological and educational indoctrination and had conspired with Hitler to deport Viennese Jews to Poland where most of them met their death. Fritz Sauckel, the plenipotentiary general for the allocation of labor, was convicted on counts III and IV and sentenced to death for his central role in the Nazi forced labor program that enslaved more than eleven million Europeans.

Erich Raeder served as Germany's naval commander and chief until 1943 when he resigned due to a disagreement with Hitler, and he was succeeded by Karl Doenitz. Both Raeder and Doenitz were indicted under counts I, II, and III for war crimes committed on the high seas, and both were convicted based in part on evidence that they had authorized German submarines to fire on Allied commercial ships without warning in contravention of international law. Doenitz was sentenced to a ten-year prison term, and Raeder received a life sentence. Walther Funk, Nazi minister of economics, also received a life sentence for financing Germany's aggressive warfare and for exploiting foreign laborers in German industry.

The IMT declared four Nazi organizations to be criminal: the SS, the SD, the Gestapo, and the Nazi Party. A team of Allied attorneys, including American Telford Taylor, subsequently prosecuted individual members of these organizations. Three Nazi organizations were acquitted: the SA (Sturmabteilung, the paramilitary organization also known as the Brownshirts or Stormtroopers), and the general staff and High Command of the German armed forces.

The Nuremberg trials made three important contributions to international law. First, they established a precedent that all persons, regardless of their station or occupation in life, can be held individually accountable for their behavior during times of war. Defendants cannot insulate themselves from personal responsibility by blaming the country, government, or military branch for which they committed the particular war crime.

Second, the Nuremberg trials established that individuals cannot shield themselves from liability for war crimes by asserting that they were simply following orders issued by a superior in the chain of command. Subordinates in the military or government are now bound by their obligations under international law, obligations that transcend their duty to obey an order issued by a superior. Orders to initiate aggressive (as opposed to defensive) warfare, to violate recognized rules and customs of warfare, or to persecute civilians and prisoners are considered illegal under the Nuremberg principles.

Third, the Nuremberg trials clearly established three discrete substantive war crimes that are punishable under international law: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and crimes in violation of transnational obligations embodied in treaties and other agreements. Before the Nuremberg trials, these crimes were not well defined, and persons who committed such crimes had never been punished by a multinational tribunal. For these reasons the Nuremberg convictions have sometimes been criticized as ex post facto justice.

The Nuremberg trials have also been criticized as "victor's justice." Historians have observed that the Allied nations that tried and convicted the leading Nazis at Nuremberg did not come to the table with clean hands. The Soviet Union had participated in Germany's invasion and occupation of Poland and had been implicated in the massacre of more than a thousand Poles in the Katyn forest. Bombing raids conducted by the United States and Great Britain during World War II left thousands of civilians dead in cities like Dresden, Germany, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan. President Roosevelt had implemented a relocation program for more than 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent that confined them to concentration camps around the United States.

However, the Nuremberg trials were not typical partisan trials. The defendants were afforded the right to counsel, plus a full panoply of evidentiary and procedural protections. The Nuremberg verdicts demonstrate that these protections were taken seriously by the tribunal. The IMT completely exonerated three defendants of war crimes and acquitted most of the remaining defendants of at least some charges. Thus, the Nuremberg trials, while not perfect, changed the face of international law, both procedurally and substantively.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1905W. E. B. Du Bois and others founded the Niagara Movement1908Race riots erupted in Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln's hometown1909On 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birthday, more than sixty citizens issued a "call" for a national conference to renew the struggle for civil and political liberty; the group and conference formed the foundation of the NAACP1910National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chosen as group's name at second annual conference; William Walling chosen as executive director; W. E. B. Du Bois chosen as director of publicity and research and editor of the Crisis1911NAACP incorporated1915In Guinn v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down grandfather clauses in state constitutions as unconstitutional barriers to voting rights granted under the Fifteenth Amendment1917Supreme Court barred municipal ordinances requiring racial segregation in housing in Buchanan v. Warley1920NAACP appointed its first African American executive director, James Weldon Johnson1923Supreme Court ruled in Moore v. Dempsey that exclusion of African Americans from a jury was inconsistent with the right to a fair trial1931Walter White appointed to succeed Johnson as director of the NAACP1934Charles Hamilton Houston hired as NAACP's first full-time attorney1936Thurgood Marshall joined NAACP as special counsel1940NAACP created separate legal arm, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and appointed Marshall as its director-counsel1941Secretary of Army authorized first segregated airman unit, the 99th Squadron, better known as the Tuskegee airmen1948Marshall's team argued Shelly v. Kramer, which struck down racially restrictive (land) covenants; President Truman abolished racial segregation in armed services by executive order1950In Sweatt v. Painter, Supreme Court ruled racially segregated professional schools inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional; first integrated combat units saw action in Korea1954Marshall's team argued Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional1955Roy Wilkins appointed to succeed White as NAACP's executive director1961Marshall appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Jack Greenberg succeeded Marshall as director of LDF1964NAACP lobbying led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 19641965NAACP lobbying led to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 19651967Thurgood Marshall became first African American associate justice of the Supreme Court1968NAACP lobbying led to passage of the Fair Housing Act of 19681972U.S. Supreme Court declared existing capital punishment laws unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia1974NAACP experienced a setback when Supreme Court overturned efforts to integrate largely white suburban school districts with largely black urban districts in Bradley v. Millikin1976Georgia, Florida and Texas drafted new death penalty laws; Supreme Court upheld these new laws1977Benjamin Hooks succeeded Wilkins as NAACP's executive director1978Supreme Court placed limits on affirmative action programs in Regents of University of California v. Bakke1993Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr. appointed to succeed Hooks as NAACP's executive director1994NAACP board of directors voted to oust Chavis after sexual harassment suit was filed against him1995Myrlie Evers-Williams replaced William F. Gibson as chairman of the NAACP board of directors1996NAACP board appointed Kweisi Mfume, a U.S. representative from Maryland, as president and chief financial officer; Mfume cut national staff by third as first step in returning NAACP to financial health1997NAACP retired debt Sources: NAACP web page; Simple Justice by Richard Kluger (1975). \. National Guard units were called to help with sandbagging efforts along the Mississippi River as waters rose in the summer of 1993. National Guard units are a part of the federal armed forces but are primarily called to service by state authorities. Thousands of Americans lost their jobs during the Great Depression and relied on local soup kitchens like this one in Chicago for food. The National Industrial Recovery Act attempted to introduce structural changes in the industrial sector of the economy and alleviate unemployment with a public works program. Robert Bell, director of Defense Policy and Arms Control for the National Security Council, met with reporters to discuss Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty agreements after a 1997 summit between U.S. president Bill Clinton and Russian president Boris Yeltsin. The route taken by Cherokees from southern Appalachia to Oklahoma in 1838 is called the Trail of Tears. Supreme Court decisions of that time called the native tribes "the rightful occupants of the soil" but also held that Europeans had "discovered" North America and had the right to "acquir[e] the soil from the natives." Controversy surrounds Native American hunting and fishing rights. Here, an Ojibwe woman counterprotests at a rally against Native American rights to spear and net fish. Native Americans enjoy the same legal rights of other U.S. citizens, but as members of self-governing tribes, they also retain unique hunting, fishing, water use, and gaming rights. Divine natural law theories influenced English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote that all people are born with inherent rights to life, liberty, and estate. Natural law philosophy is represented in U.S. Constitutional provisions that protect individual liberty. Individual liberty includes the right of terminally ill patients to refuse medical treatment and life-sustaining nutrition and hydration. Necessaries are things indispensable to sustain human life, including food, clothing, and shelter. Husbands and wives are obligated to provide necessaries for each other. Although many forest fires are caused by lightning strikes, they can also stem from negligence. If someone failed to put out a campfire, and if the act of putting out a campfire could be expected of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances, then that person was negligent. The law of negligence imposes higher standards on individuals who engage in activities that require special skills and training. For example, someone who engages in the practice of medicine must act as a reasonably skilled, competent, and experienced physician would. A bridge may collapse due to negligence. Germany invaded and occupied Norway during World War II even though Norway was a neutral nation and had not assisted either the Allies or the Axis. John Jay was the primary author of the New York Constitution of 1777. Robert R. Livingston helped draft the New York Constitution of 1777. Gouverneur Morris was instrumental in drafting the New York Constitution of 1777. These sisters are considered next of kin. If one of them were to die without drafting a will, the other would be entitled by law to inherit her sister's property. The Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote. Spiro Agnew, who served as vice president under President Richard Nixon, pleaded nolo contendere in 1973 to charges of income tax evasion. If this neighborhood is zoned residential after the gas station is already in existence, the station is considered a nonconforming use site that is permitted to remain as long as it is not substantially altered or replaced by a different type of business. [formtop] [frtxf]

Agreement made this day of , 19 , between (Original , of , and contractor)(Address, City, State, Zip)(Substituted contractor) of , and , of . (Address, City, State, Zip)(Contractee)(Address, City, State, Zip)

Whereas, an agreement dated the day of , 19 , was made between and , and desires to be released (Original contractor)(Contractee)(Original contractor) and discharged from the contract contained in said agreement, and has (Contractee) agreed to release and discharge therefrom upon the terms of (Original contractor) undertaking to perform the said contract and to be bound by its terms; (Substituted contractor)

It is agreed as follows:

1. Undertaking of Substituted Contractor. undertakes to perform said (Substituted contractor) contract and to be bound by the terms thereof in all respects as if (Substituted contractor) were a party to said agreement in lieu of . (Original contractor)

2. Release of Original Contractor and Agreement for Acceptance of Substituted Contractor. releases and discharges from all claims and (Contractor)(Original contractor) demands in respect to said agreement, and accepts the liability of (Substituted contractor) upon the said agreement in lieu of the liability of , and agrees to be (Original contractor) bound by the terms of the said agreement in all respects as if were (Substituted contractor) named therein in place of . (Original contractor)

In Witness Whereof, the parties have signed this agreement on the day and year first above written.

[Signatures] A sample novation\. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty permits signing states to conduct nuclear research and development for peaceful purposes. The scientists shown here test nuclear weapons in an explosive chamber. Defendants at the Nuremberg Trials listened with varied expressions as their sentences were announced by the International Military Tribunal. Of the twenty-four Nazi officials indicted, eighteen were convicted and three were acquitted (just twenty of the defendants are shown here). Robert H. Jackson was the Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. He and the three other Allied prosecutors sought convictions of accused war criminals on behalf of the United Nations.

(noor-uhm-burg)

Trials of Nazi leaders conducted after World War II. A court set up by the victorious Allies tried twenty-two former officials, including Hermann Goering, in Nuremberg, Germany, for war crimes. Goering and eleven others were sentenced to death. Many of the highest officials of Nazi Germany, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, had committed suicide before they could be brought to trial, and Goering killed himself before he could be executed.

  • Several of those accused at the Nuremberg trials offered the defense that they were merely carrying out the orders of their superiors. This defense was not accepted.

  • Wikipedia on Answers.com:

    Nuremberg Trials

    Top
    The October 1, 1946 Süddeutsche Zeitung announces "The Verdict in Nuremberg." Depicted are (left, from top): Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick; (second column) Funk, Streicher, Schacht; (third column) Dönitz, Raeder, Schirach; (right, from top) Sauckel, Jodl, Papen, Seyss-Inquart, Speer, Neurath, Fritzsche, Bormann. Image from Topography of Terror Museum, Berlin.

    Coordinates: 49°27.2603′N 11°02.9103′E / 49.4543383°N 11.048505°E / 49.4543383; 11.048505 The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany, in 1945–46, at the Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany, though several key architects of the war (such as Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels) had committed suicide before the trials began.

    The initial trials were held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT); among them included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials for details on those trials.

    Contents

    Origin

    Nuremberg Trials. Defendants in the dock. The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (at the left edge on the first row of benches), considered to be the most important surviving official in the Third Reich after Hitler's death.

    British War Cabinet documents, released on 2 January 2006, showed that as early as December 1944, the Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading Nazis if captured. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, being dissuaded from this only by talks with US leaders later in the war. In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German staff officers. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill denounced the idea of "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country" and that he'd rather be "taken out in the courtyard and shot" himself than to partake in any action.[1] However, he also stated that war criminals must pay for their crimes and that in accordance with the Moscow Document which he himself had written, they should be tried at the places where the crimes were committed. Churchill was vigorously opposed to executions "for political purposes."[2] [3] According to the minutes of a Roosevelt-Stalin meeting during the Yalta Conference, on February 4, 1945, at the Livadia Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in the Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."[4]

    US Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., suggested a plan for the total denazification of Germany;[5] this was known as the Morgenthau Plan. The plan advocated the forced de-industrialisation of Germany. Roosevelt initially supported this plan, and managed to convince Churchill to support it in a less drastic form. Later, details were leaked to the public, generating widespread protest.[clarification needed] Roosevelt, aware of strong public disapproval, abandoned the plan, but did not adopt an alternate position on the matter. The demise of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with the Nazi leadership. The plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals" was drafted by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave strong approval for a judicial process.[citation needed] After a series of negotiations between Britain, the US, Soviet Union and France, details of the trial were worked out. The trials were to commence on 20 November 1945, in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.

    Creation of the courts

    Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (at lectern, left) and an unknown prosecutor

    On January 14, 1942, representatives from the nine occupying countries met in London to draft the Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes. At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers, the United Kingdom, United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agreed on the format of punishment for those responsible for war crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place on the tribunal.

    The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, issued on August 8, 1945, which restricted the trial to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries." Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany. Political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which, having sovereign power over Germany, could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on September 3, 1939.

    Location

    Leipzig, Munich and Luxembourg were briefly considered as the location for the trial.[6] The Soviet Union had wanted the trials to take place in Berlin, as the capital city of the 'fascist conspirators',[6] but Nuremberg was chosen as the site for two specific reasons:

    1. The Palace of Justice was spacious and largely undamaged (one of the few buildings that had remained largely intact through extensive Allied bombing of Germany), and a large prison was also part of the complex.
    2. Nuremberg was considered the ceremonial birthplace of the Nazi Party, and hosted annual propaganda rallies.[6] Thus, it was considered a fitting place to mark its symbolic demise.

    As a compromise with the Soviets, it was agreed that while the location of the trial would be Nuremberg, Berlin would be the official home of the Tribunal authorities.[7][8][9]

    It was also agreed that France would become the permanent seat of the IMT[10] and that the first trial (several were planned) would take place in Nuremberg.[7][9]

    Participants

    Each of the four countries provided one judge and an alternate, as well as a prosecutor.

    Judges

    The chief prosecutors

    Assisting Jackson was the lawyer Telford Taylor, Thomas J. Dodd and a young US Army interpreter named Richard Sonnenfeldt. Assisting Shawcross were Major Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and Sir John Wheeler-Bennett. Mervyn Griffith-Jones, later to become famous as the chief prosecutor in the Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial, was also on Shawcross's team. Shawcross also recruited a young barrister, Anthony Marreco, who was the son of a friend of his, to help the British team with the heavy workload. Assisting de Menthon was Auguste Champetier de Ribes.

    Defense Counsel

    The majority of defense attorneys were German lawyers.[11]

    The main trial

    The International Military Tribunal was opened on October 18, 1945, in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.[12] The first session was presided over by the Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and six criminal organizations – the leadership of the Nazi party, the Schutzstaffel (SS), Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the "General Staff and High Command," comprising several categories of senior military officers.[13]

    The indictments were for:

    1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
    2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
    3. War crimes
    4. Crimes against humanity

    The 24 accused were, with respect to each charge, either indicted but acquitted (I), indicted and found guilty (G), or not charged (O), as listed below by defendant, charge, and eventual outcome:

    Name
    Count
    Penalty Notes
    1 2 3 4
    Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R14128A, Martin Bormann.jpg

    Martin Bormann
    I O G G Death Successor to Hess as Nazi Party Secretary. Sentenced to death in absentia. Remains found in Berlin in 1972 and dated to 1945.[14]
    Karl Dönitz.jpg

    Karl Dönitz
    I G G O 10 years Leader of the Kriegsmarine from 1943, succeeded Raeder. Initiator of the U-boat campaign. Briefly became President of Germany following Hitler's death.[15] Convicted of carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare in breach of the 1936 Second London Naval Treaty, but was not punished for that charge because the United States committed the same breach.[16] Defense attorney: Otto Kranzbühler
    Ac.frank.jpg

    Hans Frank
    I O G G Death Reich Law Leader 1933–1945 and Governor-General of the General Government in occupied Poland 1939–1945. Expressed repentance.[17]
    Wilhelm Frick 72-919.jpg

    Wilhelm Frick
    I G G G Death Hitler's Minister of the Interior 1933–1943 and Reich Protector of Bohemia-Moravia 1943–1945. Authored the Nuremberg Race Laws.[18]
    Hans Fritzsche12.jpg

    Hans Fritzsche
    I I I O Acquitted Popular radio commentator; head of the news division of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry. Tried in place of Joseph Goebbels.[19]
    Waltherfunk45.jpg

    Walther Funk
    I G G G Life Imprisonment Hitler's Minister of Economics; succeeded Schacht as head of the Reichsbank. Released because of ill health on 16 May 1957.[20] Died 31 May 1960.
    Goering1932.jpg

    G G G G Death Reichsmarschall, Commander of the Luftwaffe 1935–1945, Chief of the 4-Year Plan 1936–1945, and original head of the Gestapo before turning it over to the SS in April 1934. Originally Hitler's designated successor and the second highest ranking Nazi official.[21] By 1942, with his power waning, Göring fell out of favor and was replaced in the Nazi hierarchy by Himmler. Committed suicide the night before his execution.[22]
    Rudolf hess portrait.jpg
    G G I I Life Imprisonment Hitler's Deputy Führer until he flew to Scotland in 1941 in attempt to broker peace with Great Britain. After trial, committed to Spandau Prison; died in 1987.[23]
    Alfred Jodl USA-E-Ardennes-2.jpg

    G G G G Death Wehrmacht Generaloberst, Keitel's subordinate and Chief of the OKW's Operations Division 1938–1945.[24]
    ErnstKaltenbrunner-12.jpg

    I O G G Death Highest surviving SS-leader. Chief of RSHA 1943–45, the Nazi organ made up of the intelligence service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo), Criminal Police (Kripo) and had overall command over the Einsatzgruppen.[25]
    Keitel Court.jpg

    G G G G Death Head of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) 1938–1945. Expressed regrets.[26]
    Bundesarchiv Bild 102-12331, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach.jpg
    I I I ---- Major Nazi industrialist. C.E.O. of Krupp A.G. 1912–45. Medically unfit for trial (died January 16, 1950). The prosecutors attempted to substitute his son Alfried (who ran Krupp for his father during most of the war) in the indictment, but the judges rejected this as being too close to trial.[27] Alfried was tried in a separate Nuremberg trial for his use of slave labor, thus escaping the worst notoriety and possibly death.
    Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2008-0922-501, Robert Ley.jpg

    I I I I ---- Head of DAF, The German Labour Front. Suicide on 25 October 1945, before the trial began.
    Konstantin von Neurath crop.jpg

    G G G G 15 years Minister of Foreign Affairs 1932–1938, succeeded by Ribbentrop. Later, Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–43. Resigned in 1943 because of a dispute with Hitler. Released (ill health) 6 November 1954[28] after having a heart attack. Died 14 August 1956.
    Vonpapen1.jpg

    I I O O Acquitted Chancellor of Germany in 1932 and Vice-Chancellor under Hitler in 1933–1934. Ambassador to Austria 1934–38 and ambassador to Turkey 1939–1944. Although acquitted at Nuremberg, von Papen was reclassified as a war criminal in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labour. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two years.[29]
    Erich Raeder.jpg

    G G G O Life Imprisonment Commander In Chief of the Kriegsmarine from 1928 until his retirement in 1943, succeeded by Dönitz. Released (ill health) 26 September 1955.[30] Died 6 November 1960.
    GERibbentrop.jpg

    G G G G Death Ambassador-Plenipotentiary 1935–1936. Ambassador to the United Kingdom 1936–1938. Nazi Minister of Foreign Affairs 1938–1945,[31]
    Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1985-0723-500, Alfred Rosenberg.jpg

    G G G G Death Racial theory ideologist. Later, Minister of the Eastern Occupied Territories 1941–1945.[32]
    Fritz Sauckel.jpg

    I I G G Death Gauleiter of Thuringia 1927–1945. Plenipotentiary of the Nazi slave labor program 1942–1945.[33] Defense attorney: Robert Servatius
    HSchacht.jpg

    I I O O Acquitted Prominent banker and economist. Pre-war president of the Reichsbank 1923–1930 & 1933–1938 and Economics Minister 1934–1937. Admitted to violating the Treaty of Versailles.[34]
    Baldur von Schirach beim Diner.jpg

    I O O G 20 years Head of the Hitlerjugend from 1933 to 1940, Gauleiter of Vienna 1940–1945. Expressed repentance.[35]
    Inquart crop.jpg

    I G G G Death Instrumental in the Anschluss and briefly Austrian Chancellor 1938. Deputy to Frank in Poland 1939–1940. Later, Reich Commissioner of the occupied Netherlands 1940–1945. Expressed repentance.[36]
    Albert-Speer-72-929.jpg

    I I G G 20 Years Hitler's favorite architect, close friend, and Minister of Armaments from 1942 until the end of the war. In this capacity, he was ultimately responsible for the use of slave laborers from the occupied territories in armaments production. Expressed repentance.[37]
    Julius Streicher 72-920 crop.jpg

    I O O G Death Gauleiter of Franconia 1922–1940. Publisher of the weekly newspaper, Der Stürmer.[38]

    The accusers were successful in unveiling the background of developments that had led to the outbreak of World War II, which cost at least 40 million lives in Europe alone,[39] as well as the extent of the atrocities committed in the name of the Hitler regime. Twelve of the accused were sentenced to death, seven received prison sentences, and three were acquitted.[40]

    Throughout the trials, specifically between January and July 1946, the defendants and a number of witnesses were interviewed by American psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn. His notes detailing the demeanor and comments of the defendants survive; they were edited into book form and published in 2004.[41]

    1946-10-08 21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty.ogv
    Oct 17, 1946 U.S. Newsreel of Nuremberg Trials Sentencing

    The death sentences were carried out 16 October 1946 by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop.[42][43] The U.S. army denied claims that the drop length was too short which caused the condemned to die slowly from strangulation instead of quickly from a broken neck.[44]

    The executioner was John C. Woods. Although the rumor has long persisted that the bodies were taken to Dachau and burned there, they were actually incinerated in a crematorium in Munich, and the ashes scattered over the river Isar.[45] The French judges suggested the use of a firing squad for the military condemned, as is standard for military courts-martial, but this was opposed by Biddle and the Soviet judges. These argued that the military officers had violated their military ethos and were not worthy of the firing squad, which was considered to be more dignified.[citation needed] The prisoners sentenced to incarceration were transferred to Spandau Prison in 1947.

    Of the 12 defendants sentenced to death by hanging, two were not hanged: Hermann Göring committed suicide the night before the execution and Martin Bormann was not present when convicted (he had, unbeknownst to the Allies, committed suicide in Berlin in 1945). The remaining 10 defendants sentenced to death were hanged.

    The definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines document which was created as a result of the trial. The medical experiments conducted by German doctors and prosecuted in the so-called Doctors' Trial led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code to control future trials involving human subjects, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.

    Of the organizations the following were found not to be criminal:

    • Reichsregierung
    • "The General Staff and High Command" was found not to comprise a group or organization as defined by Article 9 of the London Charter
    • Sturmabteilung

    Subsidiary and related trials

    The American authorities conducted subsequent Nuremberg Trials in their occupied zone.

    Other trials conducted after the Nuremberg Trials include the following:

    American role in the main trial

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

    While Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of Britain was the judge chosen as president of the court, the most prominent of the judges at trial arguably was his American counterpart, Francis Biddle.[46] Prior to the trial, Biddle had been Attorney General of the United States but had been asked to resign by Truman earlier in 1945.[47]

    Some accounts argue that Truman had appointed Biddle as the main American judge for the trial as an apology for asking for his resignation.[47] Ironically, Biddle was known during his time as Attorney General for opposing the idea of prosecuting Nazi leaders for crimes committed before the beginning of the war, even sending out a memorandum on January 5, 1945 on the subject.[48] The note also expressed Biddle’s opinion that instead of proceeding with the original plan for prosecuting entire organizations, there should simply be more trials that would prosecute specific offenders.[49]

    Biddle soon changed his mind, as he approved a modified version of the plan on January 21, 1945, likely due to time constraints, since the trial would be one of the main issues discussed at Yalta[50] At trial, the Nuremberg tribunal ruled that any member of an organization convicted of war crimes, such as the SS or Gestapo, who had joined after 1939 would be considered a war criminal[51] Biddle managed to convince the other judges to make an exemption for any member who was drafted or had no knowledge of the crimes being committed by these organizations[47]

    Justice Robert Jackson played an important role in not only the trial itself, but also in the creation of the International Military Tribunal, as he led the American delegation to London that, in the summer of 1945, argued in favour of prosecuting the Nazi leadership as a criminal conspiracy[52] According to Airey Neave, Jackson was also the one behind the prosecution’s decision to include membership in any of the six criminal organizations in the indictments at the trial, though the IMT rejected this on the grounds that it was wholly without precedent in either international law or the domestic laws of any of the Allies[53] Jackson also attempted to have Alfried Krupp be tried in place of his father, Gustav, and even suggested that Alfried volunteer to be tried in his father’s place[54] Both proposals were rejected by the IMT, particularly by Sir Lawrence and Biddle, and some sources indicate that this resulted in Jackson being viewed unfavourably by the latter.[54]

    Legacy

    The creation of the IMT was followed by trials of lesser Nazi officials and the trials of Nazi doctors, who performed experiments on people in prison camps. It served as the model for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East which tried Japanese officials for crimes against peace and against humanity. It also served as the model for the Eichmann trial and for present-day courts at The Hague, for trying crimes committed during the Balkan wars of the early 1990s, and at Arusha, for trying the people responsible for the genocide in Rwanda.

    The Nuremberg trials had a great influence on the development of international criminal law. The Conclusions of the Nuremberg trials served as models for:

    The International Law Commission, acting on the request of the United Nations General Assembly, produced in 1950 the report Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II[55]). See Nuremberg Principles.

    The influence of the tribunal can also be seen in the proposals for a permanent international criminal court, and the drafting of international criminal codes, later prepared by the International Law Commission.

    Establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court

    The Nuremberg trials initiated a movement for the prompt establishment of a permanent international criminal court, eventually leading over fifty years later to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

    Criticism

    Critics of the Nuremberg trials argued that the charges against the defendants were only defined as "crimes" after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid as a form of "victors' justice".[56][57] As Biddiss[58] noted "...the Nuremberg Trial continues to haunt us... It is a question also of the weaknesses and strengths of the proceedings themselves. The undoubted flaws rightly continue to trouble the thoughtful."[59][60]

    Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."[61]

    Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."[62][63]

    Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."[64]

    U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals such as those at I.G. Farben.[65]

    The validity of the court has been questioned for a variety of reasons:

    • The defendants were not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges. A. L. Goodhart, Professor at Oxford, opposed the view that, because the judges were appointed by the victors, the Tribunal was not impartial and could not be regarded as a court in the true sense. He wrote:[66]
    Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.'
    • One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, proposed the partition of Poland between the Germans and the Soviets (which was subsequently executed in September 1939); however, Soviet leaders were not tried for being part of the same conspiracy.[67] Instead, the Tribunal falsely[citation needed] proclaimed the Secret Protocols of the Non-Aggression Pact to be a forgery. Moreover, Allied Powers Britain and Soviet Union were not tried for preparing and conducting the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and the Winter War, respectively.
    • In 1915, the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging, for the first time, another government (the Sublime Porte) of committing "a crime against humanity". However it was not until the phrase was further developed in the London Charter that it had a specific meaning. As the London Charter definition of what constituted a crime against humanity was unknown when many of the crimes were committed, it could be argued to be a retrospective law, in violation of the principles of prohibition of ex post facto laws and the general principle of penal law nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.[68]
    • The court agreed to relieve the Soviet leadership from attending these trials as war criminals in order to hide their crimes against war civilians, war crimes that were committed by their army that included "carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later." This "exclusion request" was initiated by the Soviets and subsequently approved by the court's administration.[69]
    • The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the tu quoque defense was removed; and some claim the entire spirit of the assembly was "victor's justice". The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:
    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 [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.
    • The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged or found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[70] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.[71]
    • Freda Utley, in her 1949 book "The High Cost of Vengeance"[1] charged the court with amongst other things double standards. She pointed to the Allied use of civilian forced labor, and deliberate starvation of civilians[72][73] in the occupied territories. She also noted that General Rudenko, the chief Soviet prosecutor, after the trials became commandant of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. (After the fall of East Germany the bodies of 12,500 Soviet era victims were uncovered at the camp, mainly "children, adolescents and elderly people."[74])
    • Luise, the wife of Alfred Jodl, attached herself to her husband's defence team. Subsequently interviewed by Gitta Sereny, researching her biography of Albert Speer, Luise alleged that in many instances the Allied prosecution made charges against Jodl based on documents that they refused to share with the defense. Jodl nevertheless proved some of the charges made against him were untrue, such as the charge that he helped Hitler gain control of Germany in 1933. He was in one instance aided by a GI clerk who chose to give Luise a document showing that the execution of a group of British commandos in Norway had been legitimate. The GI warned Luise that if she didn't copy it immediately she would never see it again; "... it was being 'filed'."[75]
    • The main Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938, where he among other things sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev.[76] According to the declassified Soviet archives, 681,692 people arrested for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes" were shot in 1937 and 1938 alone–an average of over 900 executions a day.[77]

    Moreover, the Tribunal itself strongly disputed that the London Charter was ex post facto law, pointing to existing international agreements signed by Germany that made aggressive war and certain wartime actions unlawful, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the Hague Conventions.[78]

    Additionally, commentators such as Professor Henry T. King and some of the defendants and their legal teams believed the Nuremberg Trials represented a step forward in extending fairness to the vanquished by requiring that actual criminal misdeeds be proved before punishment could ensue:

    Perhaps the most telling responses to the critics of Jackson and Nuremberg were those of the defendants at trial. Hans Frank, the defendant who had served as the Nazi Governor General of occupied Poland, stated, "I regard this trial as a God-willed court to examine and put an end to the terrible era of suffering under Adolf Hitler." With the same theme, but a different emphasis, defendant Albert Speer, Hitler's war production minister, said, "This trial is necessary. There is a shared responsibility for such horrible crimes even in an authoritarian state." Dr. Theodore Klefish, a member of the German defense team, wrote: "It is obvious that the trial and judgment of such proceedings require of the tribunal the utmost impartiality, loyalty and sense of justice. The Nuremberg tribunal has met all these requirements with consideration and dignity. Nobody dares to doubt that it was guided by the search for truth and justice from the first to the last day of this tremendous trial."[79]

    In his opening statements to the trial, after the indictments had been read and the defendants had enterered pleas of not guilty to the charges, Mr Justice Jackson explained some of the difficulties faced by the prosecution:[80]

    In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on this case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of the task, the world has demanded immediate action. This demand has had to be met, though perhaps at the cost of finished craftmanship. In my country, established courts, following familiar procedures, applying well-thumbed precedents, and dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events, seldom commence a trial within a year of the event in litigation. Yet less than eight months ago to-day the courtroom in which you sit was an enemy fortress in the hands of German S.S. troops. Less than eight months ago nearly all our witnesses and documents were in enemy hands.

    He also acknowledged that the trial would not be perfect, as well as asserting the legal precedent being set:[81]

    I should be the last to deny that the case may well suffer from incomplete researches, and quite likely will not be the example of professional work which any of the prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is, however, a completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to render, and its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians... At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these men to trial is to do them an injustice, entitling them to some special consideration. These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill used... If these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given the chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law.

    Legitimacy

    One criticism that was made of the IMT was that some treaties were not binding on the Axis powers because they were not signatories. This was addressed in the judgment relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity,[82] which contains an expansion of customary law: "the Convention Hague 1907 expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter." The implication under international law is that if enough countries have signed up to a treaty, and that treaty has been in effect for a reasonable period of time, then it can be interpreted as binding on all nations, not just those who signed the original treaty. This is a highly controversial aspect of international law, one that is still actively debated in international legal journals.[citation needed]

    Introduction of Extempore Simultaneous Interpretation

    The Nuremberg Trials employed four official languages: English, German, French, and Russian. In order to address the complex linguistic issues that clouded over the proceedings, interpretation and translation departments had to be established. However, it was feared that consecutive interpretation would slow down the proceedings significantly. What is therefore unique in both the Nuremberg tribunals and history of the interpretation profession was the introduction of an entirely new technique, extempore simultaneous interpretation. This technique of interpretation requires the interpreter to listen to a speaker in a source (or passive) language and orally translate that speech into another language in real time, that is, simultaneously, through headsets and microphones. Interpreters were split into four sections, one for each official language, with three interpreters per section working from the other three languages into the fourth (their mother tongue). For instance, the English booth consisted of three interpreters, one working from German into English, one working from French, and one from Russian, etc. Defendants who did not speak any of the four official languages were provided with consecutive court interpreters. Some of the languages heard over the course of the proceedings included Yiddish, Hungarian, Czech, Ukrainian, and Polish.

    The equipment used to establish this system was provided by IBM, and included an elaborate setup of cables which were hooked up to headsets and single earphones directly from the four interpreting booths (often referred to as "the aquarium"). Four channels existed for each working language, as well as a root channel for the proceedings without interpretation. Switching of channels was controlled by a setup at each table in which the listener merely had to turn a dial in order to switch between languages. People tripping over the floor-laid cables often led to the headsets getting disconnected, with several hours at a time sometimes being taken in order to repair the problem and continue on with the trials.

    Interpreters were recruited and examined by the respective countries in which the official languages were spoken: United States, United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, as well as in special cases Belgium and the Netherlands. Many were former translators, army personnel, and linguists, some were experienced consecutive interpreters, others were ordinary individuals and even recent secondary school-graduates who led international lives in multilingual environments. It was, and still is believed, that the qualities that made the best interpreters were not just a perfect understanding of two or more languages, but more importantly a broad sense of culture, encyclopædic knowledge, inquisitiveness, as well as a naturally calm disposition.

    With the simultaneous technique being extremely new, interpreters practically trained themselves, but many could not handle the pressure or the psychological strain. Many often had to be replaced, many returned to the translation department, and many left. Serious doubts were given as to whether interpretation provided a fair trial for the defendants, particularly because of fears of mistranslation and errors made on transcripts. The translation department had to also deal with the overwhelming problem of being understaffed and overburdened with an influx of documents that could not be kept up with. More often than not, interpreters were stuck in a session without having proper documents in front of them and were relied upon to do sight translation or double translation of texts, causing further problems and extensive criticism. Other problems that arose included complaints from lawyers and other legal professionals with regard to questioning and cross-examination. Legal professionals were most often appalled at the slower speed at which they had to conduct their task because of the extended time required for interpreters to do an interpretation properly. Also, a number of interpreters were noted for protesting the idea of using vulgar language reflected in the proceeds, especially if it referenced Jews or the conditions of the concentration camps. Bilingual/trilingual members who attended the trials picked up quickly on this aspect of character and were equally quick to file complaints.

    Yet, despite the extensive trial and error, without the interpretation system the trials would not have been possible and in turn revolutionized the way multilingual issues were addressed in tribunals and conferences. A number of the interpreters following the trials were immediately recruited into the newly formed United Nations, while others returned to their ordinary lives, pursued other careers, or worked freelance. Outside the boundaries of the trials, many interpreters continued their positions on weekends interpreting for dinners, private meetings between judges, and excursions between delegates. Others worked as investigators or editors, or aided the translation department when they could, often using it as an opportunity to sharpen their skills and to correct poor interpretations on transcripts before they were available for public record.

    For further reference, a book titled The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial, written by interpreter Francesca Gaiba, was published by the University of Ottawa Press in 1998.

    Today, all major international organizations, as well as any conference or government that uses more than one official language, uses extempore simultaneous interpretation. Notable bodies include the Parliament of Canada with two official languages, the Parliament of South Africa with eleven official languages, the European Union with twenty-three official languages, and the United Nations with six official working languages.

    Further reading

    See also

    Notes

    1. ^ The World at War, episode 25, Reckoning
    2. ^ Crossland, John (1 January 2006). "Churchill: execute Hitler without trial". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 11 March 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070311090356/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article784041.ece. Retrieved 23 November 2011. 
    3. ^ Tehran Conference: Tripartite Dinner Meeting November 29, 1943 Soviet Embassy, 8:30 PM
    4. ^ United States Department of State Foreign relations of the United States. Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945. p.571
    5. ^ The original memorandum from 1944, signed by Morgenthau
    6. ^ a b c Overy, Richard (27 September 2001). Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands (1st ed.). Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0713993502. 
    7. ^ a b Heydecker, Joe J.; Leeb, Johannes (1979) (in German). Der Nürnberger Prozeß. Köln: Kiepenheuer und Witsch. p. 97. 
    8. ^ Minutes of 2nd meeting of BWCE and the Representatives of the USA. Kew, London: Lord Chancellor's Office, Public Records Office. 21 June 1945. 
    9. ^ a b Rough Notes Meeting with Russians. Kew, London: Lord Chancellor's Office, Public Records Office. 29 June 1945. 
    10. ^ Overy, Richard (27 September 2001). Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands (1st ed.). Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. pp. 15. ISBN 0713993502. 
    11. ^ Eugene Davidson, The Trial of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-Two Defendants Before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, University of Missouri Press, 1997, ISBN 9780826211392, pp. 30-31.
    12. ^ Summary of the indictment in Department of State Bulletin, October 21, 1945, p. 595
    13. ^ "Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Indictment: Appendix B". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/countb.asp. 
    14. ^ "Bormann judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judborma.asp. 
    15. ^ "Dönitz judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp. 
    16. ^ President of the Reich for 23 days after Adolf Hitler's suicide.Judgement: Doenitz the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School
    17. ^ "Frank judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judfrank.asp. 
    18. ^ "Frink judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judfrick.asp. 
    19. ^ "Fritzsche judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judfritz.asp. 
    20. ^ "Funk judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judfunk.asp. 
    21. ^ Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: A Biography, W. W. Norton & Co. 2008, pp 932-933.
    22. ^ "Goering judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judgoeri.asp. 
    23. ^ "Hess judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judhess.asp. 
    24. ^ "Jodl judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judjodl.asp. 
    25. ^ "Kaltenbrunner judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judkalt.asp. 
    26. ^ "Keitel judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judkeite.asp. 
    27. ^ Clapham, Andrew (2003). "Issues of complexity, complicity and complementarity: from the Nuremberg Trials to the dawn of the International Criminal". In Philippe Sands. From Nuremberg to the Hague: the future of international criminal justice. Cambrifge University Press. ISBN 0521829917. "The tribunal's eventual decision was that Gustav Krupp could not be tried because of his condition but that 'the charges against him in the Indictment should be retained for trial therafter if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit'." 
    28. ^ "Von Neurath judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judneur.asp. 
    29. ^ "Von Papen judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judpapen.asp. 
    30. ^ "Raeder judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judraede.asp. 
    31. ^ "Von Ribbentrop judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judribb.asp. 
    32. ^ "Rosenberg judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judrosen.asp. 
    33. ^ "Sauckel judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judsauck.asp. 
    34. ^ "Schacht judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judschac.asp. 
    35. ^ "Von Schirach judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judschir.asp. 
    36. ^ "Seyss-Inquart judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judseyss.asp. 
    37. ^ "Speer judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judspeer.asp. 
    38. ^ "Streicher judgement". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judstrei.asp. 
    39. ^ David W. Del Testa, Florence Lemoine, John Strickland (2003). Government leaders, military rulers, and political activists. Greenwood Publishing Group. p.83. ISBN 1573561533
    40. ^ "Germany – The Nuremberg Trials". Library of Congress Country Studies.
    41. ^ Goldensohn, Leon N., and Gellately, Robert (ed.): The Nuremberg Interviews, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2004 ISBN 0-375-41469-X
    42. ^ Shnayerson, Robert (October 1996). "Judgment at Nuremberg" (PDF). Smithsonian Magazine. pp. 124-141. Archived from the original on 30 April 2011. http://web.archive.org/web/20110430042108/http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdf_his102/nuremberg.pdf. "The trial removed 11 of the most des- picable Nazis from life itself. In the early morning hours of Wednesday, October 16, 1946, ten men died in the courthouse gymnasium in a botched hanging that left several strangling to death for as long as 25 minutes." 
    43. ^ "The Trial of the Century– and of All Time, part two". Flagpole Magazine. 17 July 2002. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2 March 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20090302002906/http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his34_trial2.html. "the experienced Army hangman, Master Sgt. John C. Woods, botched the executions. A number of the hanged Nazis died, not quickly from a broken neck as intended, but agonizingly from slow strangulation. Ribbentrop and Sauckel each took 14 minutes to choke to death, while Keitel, whose death was the most painful, struggled for 24 minutes at the end of the rope before expiring." 
    44. ^ War Crimes: Night without Dawn. Time Magazine Monday, October 28, 1946
    45. ^ Overy, Richard (27 September 2001). Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands (1st ed.). Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. p. 205. ISBN 0713993502. 
    46. ^ Persico, Joseph E. Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial. Penguin Books, 1995, p. 111.
    47. ^ a b c Persico, Joseph E. Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial. Penguin Books, 1995, p. 62.
    48. ^ Smith, Bradley F. Reaching Judgment At Nuremberg. Basic Books, 1977, p. 33.
    49. ^ Smith, Bradley F. Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg. Basic Books, 1977, p. 33.
    50. ^ Smith, Bradley F. Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg. Basic Books, 1977, p. 34.
    51. ^ Persico, Joseph E. Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial. Penguin Books, 1995, p. 396.
    52. ^ Neave, Airey. Nuremberg: A Personal Record of the Trial of the Major Nazi War Criminals. Grafton Books, 1978, p. 24.
    53. ^ Neave, Airey. Nuremberg: A Personal Record of the Trial of the Major Nazi War Criminals. Grafton Books, 1978, p. 339-340.
    54. ^ a b Neave, Airey. Nuremberg: A Personal Record of the Trial of the Major Nazi War Criminals. Grafton Books, 1978, p. 297.
    55. ^ "Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950". Untreaty.un.org. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/1950.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-04. 
    56. ^ See, e.g., Zolo(Victors' Justice (2009) by Danilo Zolo, Professor of Philosophy and Sociology of Law at the University of Florence.
    57. ^ See, e.g., statement of Professor Nicholls of St. Antony's College, Oxford, that "[t]he Nuremberg trials have not had a very good press. They are often depicted as a form of victors' justice in which people were tried for crimes which did not exist in law when they committed them, such as conspiring to start a war."Prof. Anthony Nicholls, University of Oxford
    58. ^ "Victors' Justice: The Nuremberg Tribunal," by Michael Biddiss, History Today, Vol. 45, May 1995
    59. ^ See, e.g., BBC Article for BBC by Prof. Richard Overy ("[T]hat the war crimes trials ... were expressions of a legally dubious 'victors' justice' was [a point raised by] ...senior [Allied] legal experts who doubted the legality of the whole process... There was no precedent. No other civilian government had ever been put on trial by the authorities of other states... What the Allied powers had in mind was a tribunal that would make the waging of aggressive war, the violation of sovereignty and the perpetration of what came to be known in 1945 as 'crimes against humanity' internationally recognized offences. Unfortunately, these had not previously been defined as crimes in international law, which left the Allies in the legally dubious position of having to execute retrospective justice - to punish actions that were not regarded as crimes at the time they were committed.")
    60. ^ See Paper of Jonathan Graubart, San Diego State University, Political Science Department, published online Graubart Article, referring to the ex post facto nature of the charges.
    61. ^ 'Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law', Alpheus T. Mason, (New York: Viking, 1956)
    62. ^ David Luban, "Legal Modernism", Univ of Michigan Press, 1994. ISBN 13: 9780472103805 pp. 360,361
    63. ^ "The Legacy of Nuremberg". PBS Online / WGBH. 1 March 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/peopleevents/e_warcrimes.html. Retrieved 23 November 2011. 
    64. ^ 'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif.: 1983)
    65. ^ Ambruster, Howard Watson (1947). Treason's Peace. Beechhurst Press. 
    66. ^ A. L. Goodhart, "The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials", Juridical Review, April, 1946.
    67. ^ Bauer, Eddy The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II Volume 22 New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation 1972 page 3071.
    68. ^ "Motion adopted by all defense counsel". The Avalon Project: Nuremberg Trial Proceedings volume 1. Lillian Goldman Law Library. 19 November 1945. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/v1-30.asp. Retrieved 23 November 2011. 
    69. ^ BBC News. 1945: Nuremberg trial of Nazis begins. November 20, 1945.
    70. ^ "German Defense Team Clobbers Soviet Claims". Nizkor.org. 1995-08-26. http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/germany/nuremberg/ftp.py?places/germany/nuremberg/tusa/katyn-hearing. Retrieved 2009-04-04. 
    71. ^ BBC News story: Russia to release massacre files, 16 December 2004 online
    72. ^ Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II
    73. ^ U.S. military personnel and their wives were under strict orders to destroy or otherwise render inedible their own leftover surplus so as to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians. Eugene Davidson "The Death and Life of Germany" p.85 University of Missouri Press, 1999 ISBN 0-8262-1249-2
    74. ^ "Germans Find Mass Graves at an Ex-Soviet Camp" The New York Times, September 24, 1992
    75. ^ Gitta Sereny, Albert Speer His Battle with Truth, p.578. ISBN 0-394-52915-4
    76. ^ Encyclopedia Krugosvet (Russian)
    77. ^ Abbott Gleason (2009). "A Companion to Russian History". Wiley-Blackwell. p.373. ISBN 1405135603
    78. ^ "International Military Tribunal, Judgment of the International Military Tribunal (1946)". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawch.htm. [dead link]
    79. ^ Robert Jackson and International Human Rights, Professor Henry T. King, Robert H. Jackson Center, 1 May 2003
    80. ^ The Trial of German Major War Criminals - Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal Sitting at Nuremberg Germany. 1 (20th November, 1945 - 1st December, 1945). London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. 1946. pp. 50. 
    81. ^ The Trial of German Major War Criminals - Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal Sitting at Nuremberg Germany. 1 (20th November, 1945 - 1st December, 1945). London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. 1946. pp. 50–51. 
    82. ^ Judgement: The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School

    External links


     
     

     

    Copyrights:

    Oxford Dictionary of the US Military. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright © 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Houghton Mifflin Companion to US History. The Reader's Companion to American History, Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors, published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Answers Corporation Answer of the Day. © 1999-present by Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
    $copyright.smallImage.alttext West's Encyclopedia of American Law. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: History. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Wikipedia on Answers.com. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Nuremberg Trials Read more

    Follow us
    Facebook Twitter
    YouTube

    Mentioned in

    » More» More

    Related topics

    » More