“The guilt of such individuals is so black that they fall outside… any judicial process” (Overy Making Justice). This was said by Anthony Eden, Britain’s foreign secretary, in 1942. He was talking about Nazis and major Axis leaders. In 1946, however, major war criminals did fall into a judicial process: The Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Trials were a series of 13 trials that occurred during the years that followed World War II. The goal of these trials was to punish and convict major war criminals fairly, in hopes of avoiding future wars. The execution of the trials lacked proper conduct and whether or not the trials were legal was debatable. Many criticized or praised the trials. Although some parts of the Nuremberg trials were illegal, …show more content…
Of the four, ‘war crimes’ was the most legitimate. The Allied judges and prosecutors built on the Geneva Conventions and Hague Rules as evidence against Nazi actions during World War Two. According to Cornell Law, “the Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting” (Geneva Conventions). The Hague Rules were rules established in 1907 during the Hague Conventions and also were a series of international treaties. With these, the Allies could conclude that major war crimes could include murdering and/or torturing of prisoners or civilians during war, taking over private property, and unnecessary destruction of land/cities. These ‘rules’ of war were explicitly laid out. “Crimes against humanity,” however, were ideas made by the tribunal, not previously or explicitly stated on an international level. These were based on actions seen by Axis powers during the war that exceeded the criteria of ‘war crimes.’ These included ‘murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts’ (Bard 82). ‘Crimes against peace’ can include ‘declaration of war upon another state; invasion by its armed forces.... attack by its land naval or air forces…’ (Bard 63). The “conspiracy to wage …show more content…
Some parts of the trials were illegal, yet most of the trials followed basic legal conduct. Many criticised or praised the first Nuremberg trials after 1946. Charles E. Wyzanski was a federal judge from the U.S. He shared his doubts on the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, but admitted he was wrong after the trials had ended. He grew more faithful after seeing how they were conducted, but had a piece of advice to improve the trials. He said that they could benefit from a neutral party to eliminate the bias of the trials (Bard 67-75). Benjamin B. Ferencz, an American lawyer who was the chief prosecutor at another Nazi war trial, believed that the rights of the accused were protected at the Nuremberg trials and therefore the trials were fair. He pointed out that the defendants at the trials had the right to chose their own lawyers. The trials were also completely open, making it impossible for anyone to accuse the Allies of displaying improper and illegal behavior during the trials. The fact that three of the accused were acquitted furthermore shows the fairness of the trials (Bard 88-96). The Americans, as stated before, wanted to ensure the trial was fair and that they weren’t just acts of vengeance. To do this, they had to find hard evidence that specifically proved the Nazis on trial were
Articles 1,3, and 4 all say that they were not directly involved in these crimes. Article 1 states, “That verdict was important because, as a bookkeeper, he was even more removed from the killing than a guard like Demjanjuk would have been.” Article 3 states “...even though there is no evidence of him committing a specific crime.” Lastly, article 4 states, “Most observers call for a hunt for the Holocaust perpetrators who have evaded justice for decades, but others point to their old age, legal issues and difficulty in proving the crimes, arguing that after nearly 80 years, the pursuit should come to a conclusion.” These all show that they were not involved in any direct crimes, so they should not be
In general, many believed that the soldiers that killed the Jews as either brainwashed by the Nazi or forced to kill with their life on the line. According to the book Ordinary Men, it was not the case. Christopher R. Browning made it clear that they were not forced to kill the Jews. When the Reserved Battalion 101 was in Jozefow, Major Wilhelm Trapp clearly stated that “if any of the older men among them did not feel up to the task that lay before him, he could step down” (2). The claim that these men did not have a choice but to kill was wrong.
The HMS Baralong sunk at german U-boat, the U-27, and that was just a part of war, what they did next was the war crime. Many of the crew members of the U-27 escaped the ship and made it into lifeboats. That is when the HMS Baralong crew was ordered to execute all of the german soldiers that were still breathing. That was in direct violation of the second Geneva Convention. The Baralong Incident was one of seven war crimes (Penrose, 2) committed strictly in World War
Those odds are far from certain. The pair, however, survive this trial, with the left going to prison. Once past the first selection, Wiesel only presents more uncertainty with the constant additional selections and the ability for the Nazis to kill without warning. The abundance of chance and randomness that is brought up perfectly proves the uncertain side of
Lastly, the Nuremberg trials was one of the biggest events to occur toward Albert Speer. It is because of his work with the Nazi Party and his contribution to the outcome of war, was he being held accountable for his actions. However, through devious remarks and claims that he was unaware of such actions being taken place under his authority, he was sentenced to a lighter penalty than what his fellow collages. Speer was held accountable for four crimes; including the common plan or conspiracy to accomplish… a war aggression, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, out of the four crimes, ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ were the two that would have been the biggest concern for Speer.
When World War II is discussed, a lot of information comes into mind; Nazi’s, Pear Harbor, D-Day, concentration camps. When asked post war events mostly one event comes to mind, which is the Nuremburg trials. The Tokyo Trials almost never comes to mind. The Tokyo trials took place around the same time as the Nuremburg trials, but it is not as well known. Both the Nazi’s and the Japanese committed gruesome acts during the war, but why is the Nazi’s side more publicized?
In conclusion, throughout all the suffering that went on during the Holocaust, justice needs to be served, all the cruel acts of the guards, and a good universal message are the reasons to why Nazi war criminals should be prosecuted. It will be beneficial to the victims who had died or escaped after all the torture and things
Historians have presented many perspectives as for why Leo Frank was incarcerated, which include gender, mass hysteria, and anti-Semitism, with mass hysteria presenting the strongest argument. All these arguments recognize the breach in justice that occurred in the case, but they differ when presenting why this breach in justice occurred. An advocate for the gender perspective, Nancy MacLean, looks at the attitudes of the time and is able to support her perspective, but the argument falters when relating gender to anti-Semitism. The perspective stating that mass hysteria was the driving force behind the guilty verdict is able to effectively explain why the public and police concentrated on Leo Frank and was able to overlook important facts, but fails to address the many appeal attempts.
The new decision led to a cyclone of accusations because people realized the possibility of their condemnation regardless they were guilty or innocent. Many helped that system by untrue confessions to save their lives. Miller, among others, refused to surrender to questioning. People who were revealed communists suffered greatly (Bly 2-5).
Some of these Germans were charged with conspiracy, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. In these trials they were able to prove with photographs and film footage of German soldiers having operations against Jewish people. There was also public records of the horrific crimes against the Jewish people .Also towards the end of the trials they were able to recover the plans for Auschwitz(Concentration
All the former SS officers that have had lives as upstanding citizens should be held responsible of all their actions and crimes that have been done in the past. People don 't wanna find out that the person they have been living right next to has killed and tortured entire villages. Or just the fact that they lied to come into this country and get rights that they don 't deserve in any country. Especially in such a horrific event as the Holocaust. These SS officers should be responsible for everything and everyone that they harmed.
These were trials held in Germany to convict Nazi war criminals and bring them to justice. They were a collection of 13 trials, from 1945-1949. The defendants included: Nazi party officials, high ranking military officers, and Nazi lawyers and doctors. The most commonly indicted on charges of peace crimes against humanity, and murder. Strangely, these trials were slightly controversial at that time, but today they are not.
Otto Adolf Eichmann was one of the most important members of the Nazi Party who was accused of crimes against the Jewish people and humanity during World War 2. After the war, he went to Argentina to escape prosecution but was captured there by Israeli agents and was transferred to Israel to be judged. During the trial, Eichmann’s defense was based on Kant’s duty-based ethical theory and categorical Imperative since he overstated many times that he was only following orders. By enouncing Kantian ethical theory, Eichmann acquitted himself from moral guilt. Kant’s categorical imperative as known as The Formula Of The End