• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What does everyone think of the Nuremberg Trials-Did they prove Nazi guilt?

Jerry Wright

Scholar
J
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
54
Or were they just for show?
I've read the arguments about it being a show trial, kangaroo court, and victor's justice.

Was it?

Or was it a legitimate proceeding that proved beyond all doubt that the Germans were guilty of mass murder?
 
Jerry Wright said:
Or was it a legitimate proceeding that proved beyond all doubt that the Germans were guilty of mass murder?
Click to expand...

yes. evidence was presented that proved the Nazi mass murder of millions of innocent victims, including hundreds of thousands of "Aryans".
 
Jerry Wright said:
Or were they just for show?
I've read the arguments about it being a show trial, kangaroo court, and victor's justice.

Was it?

Or was it a legitimate proceeding that proved beyond all doubt that the Germans were guilty of mass murder?
Click to expand...

I think it was a mix of all those elements
 
Wrong subforum.
Belongs in History.

ETA: I assume this is another drive-by jaqing by Jerry Wright. I expect him to insinuate some biased ******** and then run away. Like last time.
 
Last edited:
Short answer: yes.

Long answer:

The Soviets especially, as well as certain politicians and military commanders in the West were in favor of dispensing victor's justice and simply do away with the Nazis without further thought. Most, however, realized that this was pretty much exactly what happened after World War I, which created fertile ground for Hitler and his Nazis. The majority opinion was that victor's justice would just lead to another war, so instead a trial was to be arranged to outline the exact crimes of the Nazis and dispense justice using law.

There was also another reason for going this route. The crimes of the Nazis were so great that it was felt that a judicial process would forever document the atrocities so that nobody could deny what happened. In this respect, the trials mostly succeeded. The crimes were documented, and all rational people understand what happened in Germany, Poland and other places during the war. The Holocaust was exhaustively laid bare, and the perpetrators were punished. Some accused were found not guilty and were free to go, something which would not have happened in a show trial. Many were sentenced to imprisonment, and when they had served their terms, they were let go, something that wouldn't have happened in a show trial.

So, the Nuremberg trials were successful enough to prevent a climate like that after World War I (the Cold War has nothing to do with the trials), and in documenting the crimes of the Nazi regime for history. Some people deny this, but those people are without exception politically motivated to deny history, as can be shown in every case.
 
Jerry Wright said:
Mods, please move to the appropriate forum if you wish.
Click to expand...
Mods do not monitor threads. If you want moderator action, you have to PM a mod, or use the "report" function (triangle with exclamation point) in the lower left of the original post.
 
Jerry Wright said:
I thought that with all the contention surrounding the trial that it might have been better here.
Click to expand...

There is no rational contention surrounding the trials. The trials are a historical event that dealt with historical events such as the Holocaust and war crimes. The thread belongs in History, but as I'm certain it will soon be derailed by denial, it might just as well stay here.
 
Yes. The only people who deny this fact are nazi sympathizers like 9/11-investigator.
 
Thunder said:
yes. evidence was presented that proved the Nazi mass murder of millions of innocent victims, including hundreds of thousands of "Aryans".
Click to expand...

Do you think that since the Tribunal was not "bound by the technical rules of evidence" and could approve or disprove any evidence it saw fit it cast a dark shadow over the proceedings?

The defense could not question the authenticity of any prosecution documents submitted. All witness statements were read into the proceedings as fact without question as to their veracity.

Do you think this formed the basis for a fair trial?
 
Jerry Wright said:
Sorry..
I thought that with all the contention surrounding the trial that it might have been better here.
Click to expand...

It is better here, but only because of the lack of contention surrounding the trial.

This is the Conspiracy Theory forum. Where the psuedo-history held to be true by a small fringe minority is examined and debunked.
 
Jerry Wright said:
Sorry..
I thought that with all the contention surrounding the trial that it might have been better here.

Mods, please move to the appropriate forum if you wish.
Click to expand...

State the contention, source it, and argue why you think it is a conspiracy theory!
 
Jerry Wright said:
Do you think that since the Tribunal was not "bound by the technical rules of evidence" and could approve or disprove any evidence it saw fit it cast a dark shadow over the proceedings?

The defense could not question the authenticity of any prosecution documents submitted. All witness statements were read into the proceedings as fact without question as to their veracity.

Do you think this formed the basis for a fair trial?
Click to expand...

Do you think the people on trail gave their victims a fair hearing?

35 defendants were acquitted at these trails so they couldn't have been 100% biased or unfair. In fact a relative few people were actually executed most served jail time and few killed themselves. Had this been a kangaroo court then I doubt any would have made it out alive.
 
Jerry Wright said:
Do you think that since the Tribunal was not "bound by the technical rules of evidence" and could approve or disprove any evidence it saw fit it cast a dark shadow over the proceedings?

The defense could not question the authenticity of any prosecution documents submitted. All witness statements were read into the proceedings as fact without question as to their veracity.

Do you think this formed the basis for a fair trial?
Click to expand...

Got sources to support your premises?
 
Biscuit said:
Do you think the people on trail gave their victims a fair hearing?

35 defendants were acquitted at these trails so they couldn't have been 100% biased or unfair. In fact a relative few people were actually executed most served jail time and few killed themselves. Had this been a kangaroo court then I doubt any would have made it out alive.
Click to expand...


But they did that precisely because they wanted you to believe it wasn't a kangaroo court when it really was. Those jooooos are sneaky.
 
Jerry Wright said:
Do you think that since the Tribunal was not "bound by the technical rules of evidence" and could approve or disprove any evidence it saw fit it cast a dark shadow over the proceedings?

The defense could not question the authenticity of any prosecution documents submitted. All witness statements were read into the proceedings as fact without question as to their veracity.

Do you think this formed the basis for a fair trial?
Click to expand...

I think the trial was about as fair as could be expected given the circumstances. The United Nations went out of their way to please all participating nations and to adopt some form of standardized legal system. Remember that the trials weren't a US court of law, nor were they any other national court of law. They needed to take into account the legal systems of many varied nations.

The removal or rejection of certain technical points are to be expected as nobody wanted to see anyone walk because of a technicality - something that might well have happened given the unusual events leading up to the trial (there was a war on, after all). As it stands, the Nuremberg trials were a fledgling step towards some kind of international judicial system, and given the circumstances, the accused got as fair trials as they could ever have expected. Again, this is supported in part by the fact that some accused were acquitted.
 
uke2se said:
Short answer: yes.

Long answer:

The Soviets especially, as well as certain politicians and military commanders in the West were in favor of dispensing victor's justice and simply do away with the Nazis without further thought. Most, however, realized that this was pretty much exactly what happened after World War I, which created fertile ground for Hitler and his Nazis. The majority opinion was that victor's justice would just lead to another war, so instead a trial was to be arranged to outline the exact crimes of the Nazis and dispense justice using law.

There was also another reason for going this route. The crimes of the Nazis were so great that it was felt that a judicial process would forever document the atrocities so that nobody could deny what happened. In this respect, the trials mostly succeeded. The crimes were documented, and all rational people understand what happened in Germany, Poland and other places during the war. The Holocaust was exhaustively laid bare, and the perpetrators were punished. Some accused were found not guilty and were free to go, something which would not have happened in a show trial. Many were sentenced to imprisonment, and when they had served their terms, they were let go, something that wouldn't have happened in a show trial.

So, the Nuremberg trials were successful enough to prevent a climate like that after World War I (the Cold War has nothing to do with the trials), and in documenting the crimes of the Nazi regime for history. Some people deny this, but those people are without exception politically motivated to deny history, as can be shown in every case.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your informative post.

A few points.
In Europe at the time.."Waging aggressive war" was not a crime.
It was created ex post facto for the Tribunal.

The Holocaust was not exhaustively laid bare as you put it. The crimes committed in the concentration camps were part of the Soviet presentation (the US team prosecuted the Industrialists). The Soviet evidence consisted of a document from a Soviet Wartime Commission entered into evidence as USSR-8. This document included witness statements such as this.

Samuel Abramowitsch STERN, a former prisoner from Bucharest, testified:

"...In Auschwitz camp, I worked as the assistant to the doctor. On the orders of Ober-Sergeant Major KOSCHUB, I subjected prisoners to injections with other manipulations. I know every well that kerosene was injected into the leg... Experiments were performed on the irritability of the skin...For these purposes, an 80% solution of alum actinium was used. The entire layer of skin was then removed and sent for examination. Those who had deep-seated skin inflammations had the entire piece of flesh cut out, together with the skin, and this was also sent for examination...

KOSCHUB infected prisoners with artificial jaundice and gave them malarial blood transfusions. WALIGUVA M, a test subject, testified:

"...Several days after my arrival at Birkenau, I believe it was the beginning of December 1942, all younger men between 18 and 30 were sterilized by x-ray exposure of the scrotum. I was also among those sterilized. Eleven months after I was sterilized, that is, on 1 November 1943, I was castrated... together with 200 other men who were sterilized in one day."

All well and good, but by the evidentury rules established by the Tribunal...the Defense could not question its authenticity, nor was the witness in question in the courtroom available for cross-examination.

USSR-8 is available on the Web.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Got sources to support your premises?
Click to expand...

They are laid out in the "Constitution Of The International Military Tribunal.
It can be read here.

http avalon . law. yale . edu / imt / imtconst . asp

Sorry about that!

To Wit:

Article 19.

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

Article 20.

The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof.

Article 21.

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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.
 
Jerry Wright said:
A few points.
In Europe at the time.."Waging aggressive war" was not a crime.
It was created ex post facto for the Tribunal.
Click to expand...

True. Waging aggressive wars were deemed to be a crime against humanity during the trials. There was no precedent for these trials, after all. However, waging an aggressive war has always been punished if the aggressor is on the losing side, as was the case here. The Nazi defendants could hardly plead that they didn't realize people would judge them for that.

Jerry Wright said:
The Holocaust was not exhaustively laid bare as you put it. The crimes committed in the concentration camps were part of the Soviet presentation (the US team prosecuted the Industrialists). The Soviet evidence consisted of a document from a Soviet Wartime Commission entered into evidence as USSR-8. This document included witness statements such as this.

Samuel Abramowitsch STERN, a former prisoner from Bucharest, testified:

"...In Auschwitz camp, I worked as the assistant to the doctor. On the orders of Ober-Sergeant Major KOSCHUB, I subjected prisoners to injections with other manipulations. I know every well that kerosene was injected into the leg... Experiments were performed on the irritability of the skin...For these purposes, an 80% solution of alum actinium was used. The entire layer of skin was then removed and sent for examination. Those who had deep-seated skin inflammations had the entire piece of flesh cut out, together with the skin, and this was also sent for examination...

KOSCHUB infected prisoners with artificial jaundice and gave them malarial blood transfusions. WALIGUVA M, a test subject, testified:

"...Several days after my arrival at Birkenau, I believe it was the beginning of December 1942, all younger men between 18 and 30 were sterilized by x-ray exposure of the scrotum. I was also among those sterilized. Eleven months after I was sterilized, that is, on 1 November 1943, I was castrated... together with 200 other men who were sterilized in one day."
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The Holocaust was exhaustively laid bare in the sense that the crimes were revealed in their full scope. There was little time to dig up all the bodies or to conduct a full forensic investigation, something which has still not been completed (we still find mass graves today). What was proved beyond reasonable doubt was that a genocide had been committed, and this was not denied by the accused - they opted to go for the "only following orders" defense.

Lots of evidence was put forth, and it didn't confine itself to a single Soviet document. The Americans put forth thousands of confiscated documents, photos and films.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/es/article.php?ModuleId=10007271

Jerry Wright said:
All well and good, but by the evidentury rules established by the Tribunal...the Defense could not question its authenticity, nor was the witness in question in the courtroom available for cross-examination.

USSR-8 is available on the Web.
Click to expand...

Given the amount of testimony and the fact that the testimonies were not the sole nor even the primary evidence, that the witnesses could not be cross examined made no difference. The mass of evidence was so huge that the accused never even attempted to deny that it happened.
 
uke2se said:
True. Waging aggressive wars were deemed to be a crime against humanity during the trials. There was no precedent for these trials, after all. However, waging an aggressive war has always been punished if the aggressor is on the losing side, as was the case here. The Nazi defendants could hardly plead that they didn't realize people would judge them for that.

Not entirely true. The Holocaust was exhaustively laid bare in the sense that the crimes were revealed in their full scope. There was little time to dig up all the bodies or to conduct a full forensic investigation, something which has still not been completed (we still find mass graves today). What was proved beyond reasonable doubt was that a genocide had been committed, and this was not denied by the accused - they opted to go for the "only following orders" defense.

(JW: Remember, they were not allowed to deny the general facts-only their personal involvement)


Lots of evidence was put forth, and it didn't confine itself to a single Soviet document. The Americans put forth thousands of confiscated documents, photos and films.


(JW:
Here's where the USHHM is playing fast and loose. The US collected 12 tons of documents overall. By the time the trial came about, the translators had only translated about 12,000. Of these 12,000...1,000 were cherry-picked and made available to the Defense and their whole case had to be presented from these.

The Soviets presented the Auschwitz case, not the Americans. There were no documents collected by the Americans that dealt with the Holocaust.
USSR-8 was created by a Soviet Commission, read into the court transcripts, and that was about it.

The Americans produced a film of (I think) Bergen Belsen, which was not a Death Camp. That was the film shown in the courtroom.

Given the amount of testimony and the fact that the testimonies were not the sole nor even the primary evidence, that the witnesses could not be cross examined made no difference. The mass of evidence was so huge that the accused never even attempted to deny that it happened.
Click to expand...
.

Your quote above is the exact same scenario the Soviets used for the Katyn Massacre, which they tried to blame the Germans for as well. The evidence for German culpability at Katyn was entered into evidence as USSR-54. It is filled with the same type of witness statements as the Auschwitz documents. As we now know, the Soviets admitted to the mass murder at the Katyn Forest in 1989.
I think it is vital in any case proclaiming fairness that witnesses be made available for cross examination.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom