nuremberg

r

     The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial of 1945-1946 was "the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world" (Marrus 79). It was clear that it was going to be an historic event, even as it happened. Through publicity of the proceedings the world was about to find out how directly the actions of the international community after World War I lead to World War II. The trials held broad, powerful significance. It was a positive action in the difficult circumstances created by the end of the Second World War and it left a strong precedent and influence for how similar situations should be dealt with in the future.Although some of its ultimate goals have not materialized, the trial's significance is still clear and influential today.
     There had been talk of similar trials after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 said that William II, the former Emperor of Germany, should be put on trial for "a supreme offense against international morality and the sanctity of treaties" (Marrus 10), and that not only should persons guilty of criminal acts against any nations should be brought before a tribunal of that nation but that, "Powers guilty of criminal acts against the nationals of more than one of the Allied and Associated Powers will be brought before military tribunals composed of members of the military tribunals of the Powers concerned" (Marrus 11).
     This prescribed procedure closely resembles what eventually occurred twenty-six years later at the Nuremberg Trial. Even though no such trials materialized after the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles paved the road toward the proceedings that occurred in 1945. Each of the Allied powers of the United States, Britain, France, and Russia provided a judge and an alternate, in case that judge was for any reason unable to perform all of his duties. This was done in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. (Marrus 52) This Article, however, appears to have been inspired by the design put forth in Articles 227 and 229 of the Treaty of Versailles.
     Since the Treaty of Versailles failed, an alternative agreement was reached to settle what was to be done at the end of World War I. In this agreement the Germans were allowed to try their own war criminals at their supreme court, the Reichsgericht, in Leipzig, Germany. The Germans agreed to bring forty-five criminals before the Reichsgericht. Only twelve were ever brought to court of which only six were convicted. Of these convictions, one criminal was immediately released and the others were sentenced very lightly. (Marrus 12) This was widely seen as an unsatisfactory outcome. The London Times called the Leipzig trial a "scandalous failure of justice" and Peter Calvoressi, who became a junior official at Nuremberg, said the Leipzig proceedings were an "unjust and injudicial farce" (Marrus 12). According to Robert Jackson, the prosecutor from the United States, "the trials after the First World War taught the victorious powers the 'futility' of leaving adjudication to the vanquished" (Marrus 12). The general opinion of Allied leaders after World War II was that the standard of events at the Leipzig proceedings needed to be greatly surpassed at Nuremberg.
     The weakness of the trials at the Reichsgericht brought Germany and the international communities several injuries. The world recognized the lack of retribution bred by the criminals of war not having been convicted and brought to justice. Also, these criminals still existed in the German society. After World War II, "It was not a trick of the law which brought (the Nuremberg defendants) to the bar; it was the 'massed angered forces of common humanity'" (Marrus 243). Surely such common sentiment existed after the Germans lost World War I, but no such satisfaction of that anger was created by the farce at Leipzig. Therefore, when the peace agreements that were agreed upon proved to be oppressive on the German government and economy, great resentment grew not only in the German people towards the international community but in the international community towards Germany. This existence of unsatisfied "bad blood" only fed the fire of what became World War II.
     These failures of the post World War I era primed the years immediately after World War II to have a profound impact on the future of world history, and the Nuremberg War Trials were at the center of this impending impact. "For contemporaries, what was particularly impressive about the Nuremberg trial was its gravity and solemnity, a reflection of the extraordinary scope of the issues heard by the Tribunal" (Marrus 71). Of the actions he attempted to punish at the trial, Prosecutor Jackson said that "civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated" (Marrus 70). He also said that his honor of giving the opening address for the United States "imposes a grave responsibility" (Marrus 79) on him. "What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust" (Marrus 80).
      It was clear that the international community was very interested in seeing the outcome of this trial, with hopes of justice through punishment of the defendants. The trial garnered the most news coverage of any single event up to that time in history - over 160 journalists. (Marrus 242) "Opinion surveys in Britain and the United States showed large pluralities or majorities supporting the swift execution, without trial, of Nazi leaders" (Marrus 242). One pollster in France during October, 1944 polled the French people about what should be done with Hitler. He reported that forty percent of French peopled polled favored the option "shoot, kill, hang him" and that thirty percent favored "torture before killing him" (Marrus 242). But, American prosecutor Jackson understood that, "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow" (Marrus 81). Furthermore, "We must summon such detachment and intellectually integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice" (Marrus 81). American official Henry Stimson observed that a summary execution of the defendants would have satisfied the international longing for emotional revenge through punishment. Severe punishment was the natural desire in response to the horror and tragedy created by the Nazis. "But this fact was in reality the best reason for rejecting such a solution. The whole moral position of the victorious Powers must collapse if their judgments could be enforced by Nazi methods. Our anger, as righteous anger, must be subject to the law" (Marrus 244). All of this lead prosecutor Jackson to claim that these attempts toward fair trial for the defendants was "'one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason'" (Marrus 244).
     This was not the only exhibition of the significance of the Nuremberg Trial. At the conclusion of the trial American President Harry Truman asserted that "'an undisputed gain coming out of Nurnberg [sic] is the formal recognition that there are crimes against humanity" (Marrus 180). The trial also had the responsibility of repairing the social confidence and security of individuals in the world's powers. "More than toward the past, our eyes are turned toward the future" (Marrus 90) said French prosecutor Francois de Menthon. He went on in his opening address to say that, "We believe that there can be no lasting peace and no certain progress for humanity, which still today is torn asunder, suffering, and anguished, except through the co-operation of all peoples and through the progressive establishment of a real international society" (Marrus 90). The effectiveness of the Nuremberg Trial was imperative because "without this punishment the people would no longer have any faith in justice" (Marrus 90).
     That punishment was indeed dealt out. Of twenty-two defendants, nineteen were convicted. Fourteen of these were sentenced either to death or life in prison and the rest were sentenced to between 10 and 20 years in prison. This success in conviction and sentencing stands in stark contrast to the post-World War I trials - as was hoped for.
     The Nuremberg Trial also had significant, but limited, effect on international relations. One of the most significant contributions in this area was its voluminous contributions about Nazism and the Holocaust to the international public record. "More than many of the organizers ever hoped, Nuremberg has been a voice for history, in the form of thousands of documents on the Third Reich assembled by the court and released for the scrutiny of historians and writers with every possible viewpoint" (Marrus 253). One participant in the trial wrote that, "There is no parallel in history to this baring of contemporary official papers to the public eye and to expert scrutiny" (Marrus 254). This is important because, as prosecutor Jackson reported to President Truman in 1945, "Unless we write the record of this movement with clarity and precision, we cannot blame the future if in days of peace it finds incredible the accusatory generalities uttered during the war. We must establish incredible events by credible evidence" (Marrus 42). The law teams representing both the prosecution and the defense "used the trial to introduce evidence that has been pored over by a whole generation" (Marrus 253). This has benefited the knowledge of all future generations.
     Not all of the aims of the Nuremberg Tribunal were realized. In preparation for the trial prosecutor Jackson said that, "We think it is justifiable that we interfere or attempt to bring retribution" (Marrus 45), to individuals or states that have been victimized by illegal war. Professor A. L. Trainin, who was the Russian judge's alternate, said that, "There might come a time when there will be a permanent international tribunal of the United Nations organization to try all violations of international law" (Marrus 45). Such a permanent tribunal, however, was never successfully established.
     The events that followed World War I may have, in many ways, contributed to the outbreak of World War II. The ineffectiveness of the Leipzig trials may have been one way in which post World War I events lead to the instability that allowed for the Nazis to rise to power and cause the Second World War. But, the mistakes made at Leipzig were learned from and not repeated. The Nuremberg trials were highly significant both in the international consciousness of the time and its precedence and influence on contemporary and future international relations.

Back to History page

Ryan's Writings main page

WORKS CITED

Marrus, Michael R. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial 1945-46. Bedford/St. Martin's:
     Boston, 1997.