NUREMBERG TRIALS

1945. The World War II was over. The Allies (USA, USSR and UK) had defeated the Axis powers (Germany, Italy and Japan). Unprecedented destruction wreaked by ‘Little Boy’ and ‘Fat Man’ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki confirmed the results of the war in favour of the Allied beyond any doubt. Hitler, who once marshalled a thoroughly defeated Germany, in body and spirit, to a formidable empire, could see no further recourse and hence committed suicide. Some of his followers followed the suit. But many of the high officials of the Nazi Party were captured and put in a prison at Nuremberg, Germany. They were to be tried before a court. Thus came Nuremberg trials.

Just Shoot Them!

Why not just shoot them! This thought came to many at that time. It might even resonate with many of you too. The sentiment (of shooting away) can even intensify knowing that chief among those who were captured was Hermann Göring, the Reichsmarschall (highest ranking military title in Nazi Germany), the designated successor of Hitler, a founding member of Nazi Party and commander of Luftwaffe (Nazi Air Force). 

       In prior episodes of history of wars, the vanquished were either killed by the victors or left at the mercy of the latter. Never before, were they put before a trial. No one would have batted an eyelid if the Nazi prisoners were killed without going through any trial of any sort. Even, Göring himself demanded to be executed by a firing squad. Again, why not just shoot them!

Need of the hour

The Allied could foresee what could have happened decades later. The Nazi ideology still hadn’t been rooted out completely despite the immediate context of a thumping victory of the Allied. Leaving the World War II to be viewed merely as a tussle between two coalitions, fighting for more territory, colonies and other strategic interests ran great risks. It could have left space for resurgence of the same ideology or aspirations as had been the case during the rise of Hitler in Germany after 1919. Hitler himself fought as a soldier in the World War I. Although defeated in the War, he did lead Germany into not only reconstruction but re-emergence as a great power. Similarly, after the World War II, the Nazi sympathisers could concede their defeat only as temporary one and get up once again for another bout. 

Exposè

      The trials were instrumental in exposing the true evil of the Nazi regime. The purpose of the trials was not to punish the Nazi high officials for fighting a war but for committing crimes that can’t be swept under the rug as collateral damage. The Nazi officers were charged of crimes like “Crime against Peace” and “Crime against Humanity”. 

       It must be noted that the atrocities meted out to Jews had not yet become common knowledge to the world as it is now. The prosecutors wanted to show to the world  the racial hatred and injustice perpetuated by the Nazis to legitimise their rule. To this effect, videos of concentration camps wherein hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, was shown as evidence. Nuremberg laws (harshly discriminatory laws against Jews) were already known to everyone. Thus, the very ideological and political foundation of the Nazi party was challenged. 

      On the other hand, the Allied had to justify their own reasons for going to war. This writer suspects that the Allied wanted to project themselves as being forced to go into war not only to defend themselves against ‘unwarranted’ aggression of Germany but also to rescue millions bearing the brunt inhumane Nazi tyranny. What were the real intentions of the Allied can be debated without end. But what remains uncontested is the fact that the trials gave them an opportunity to set the narrative.

Criminals, not martyrs.

Göring demanded to be executed by firing. His desire was to achieve a soldier’s death. He repulsed the assumed moral superiority of the Allied. In fact, during the trial proceedings, he used to ridicule the prosecutors and those sitting in judges’ chairs. He conducted himself as a lost emperor and expected to be treated with dignity.  In his views, he simply lost to a stronger enemy, not to a morally superior one. A soldier’s death would have bestowed upon him ultimate martyrdom. 

     The prosecutors on behalf of the Allied, weren’t ready to make any concessions in this regard. They wanted to prove the Nazi high officials as thorough criminals and by no extent as martyrs in any sense of the term. 

The Trials: A level playing field

History is written by victors. The adage seems satirical. It points out flaws in recording significant events of history and how such events are to perceived by generations to come. Alexander is hailed as conqueror and not called a mass murderer. 

    Perhaps, the Allied didn’t want to leave any doubt over their political correctness and moral propriety. To this end, they opted for a fair trial to punish the Nazi officials. A fair trial gives opportunity for the accused to present his/her case. Audi alteram partem (Latin for “Listen to the other side”). The Nazi officials were even given lawyers of their own choice. The proceedings of the trial were made public. Similarly, other principles of natural justice were adhered to. 

    Convicting the Nazi high officials in such court would have been of great significance. It would have proved that their guilt was determined not by their defeat in battlefield but by their own actions in grievous violation of moral conduct.

    The Allied, by holding trials, exonerated themselves from any charge of influencing history writing.

Legal Vacuum, Jurisdictional Overreach

It can be argued that not everything was fair about Nuremberg trials. For example, principles of natural justice dictate nullum crimen sine lege. No person should be punished for any act by a law which was not in force at the time of commission of act. Suppose, as you are reading this, a new law comes into effect that forbids eating ice cream. You can’t be punished for eating one yesterday. This principle was invoked in defence by the lawyers of Nazi officials. During the World War II, no such laws were in effect having jurisdiction all over the world. There were no such laws that defined “ Crimes against Humanity” and “Crimes against Peace”. 

    Another legal loophole presented itself before the court. The Nazi officials were German Citizens. The trial was held by judges from USA,UK, USSR and France. What authority did they have over citizens of a foreign state that too in foreign soil.

Greater Justice 

The London Charter was signed among UK, USSR, USA and France which established International Military Tribunal. It was in this court that the Nazi officials were to be tried. The Charter also had defined crimes for which they were to be tried. The Court argued that since the Allied defeated Germany it effectively did have control and jurisdiction over territory of Germany as well as its citizens. However, the argument of no existing law during commission of acts still held firm. The London Charter was drafted and signed only after the World War II was practically over. The defence lawyers once again pointed out that punishing the accused under London Charter would not be in favour of justice.

       The prosecutors argued that there were in fact laws in force under which trial could carry forward. Germany had signed international treaties which explicitly outlawed aggressive warfare and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. The London Charter was not invented out of thin air but was an extension of the international treaties. Moreover, by 1939 it was well recognised by natural and customary laws that massacre of civilian populations constituted heinous crime against humanity.

        Above all, letting the Nazi officials, perpetrators of unprecedented cruelty, off the hook just because of some technicality would be far greater injustice than acting on a retroactive law.

The Judgement 

Out of 22 Nazi high officials who went through the trial, 3 were acquitted, 7 were awarded life imprisonment and rest 12 including Göring were sentenced death penalty. 

   Before the trials began, Göring used to say that he would escape the hangman’s noose. He was even of confident that the prosecution wouldn’t be able to convict him. He made the trial a psychological battleground. At this point, this writer suggests you to watch the movie “Nuremberg”. Anyways, spoilers alert, as it would happen, Göring did escape hangman’s noose. He took his own life by consuming cyanide. It was his final act in defiance.

     Nuremberg trials played indispensable role in evolution of international laws. In fact, some deem it to be Big Bang of international laws on war crimes. 

       However, the trials did seem to be selective in terms of who were brought before it and what was allowed to be said and presented during its proceedings. No one from the Allied camp, not even a cadet or foot soldier was tried in this court. It’s hard to imagine that all war crimes in those fateful six years were committed by only one camp. And shockingly, or may be not, not even a word about the atom bombs’ use was mentioned. The definition of war crime  and its identification as to what constitutes a war crime by the International Military Tribunal left a lot to be desired. Therefore, one wonders if justice rendered in Nuremberg trials was a case of Victor’s justice.