The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial: Creation of International Justice

Nuremberg was the first time in history that countries cooperated together to bring justice to criminals against humanity. Though noticeably disorganized and flawed, the trial was the beginning of a global recognition and protection of inalienable human rights. The Nuremberg Trial would be the force that would legitimize the new call to international order under the United Nations and displayed that leaders could no longer escape from the crimes they committed. It also began a temporarily philosophically connected world that would soon divide among different ideologies and set the stage of world politics in the Cold War.

The Nuremberg trials were the first attempt at international justice with no similar experiences to guide them, only telling them what not to do. Evidenced by the Versailles Treaty and the initial views of Stalin and Roosevelt, no precedent existed for the Nuremberg Trials. Created after World War 1, the Versailles Treaty was the condemnation of the Axis powers by the triumphant countries without any sort of sense of rationality. Instead of serving as a just punishment, the treaty just scorned the Axis powers for “starting” the war, forced them to pay reparations, and left them in economic despair. Instead of remedying war, it only facilitated the start of World War 2.

Similarly, Michael Marrus is able to show us with historical documentation that the leaders of the Allied powers, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, had no idea of how to handle the Nazi leaders after the war was over. Stalin suggested that they shoot over one hundred thousand of the top ranking Nazi officials, while Roosevelt jokingly replied that they would only shoot forty-nine thousand1. Though this can be taken as sarcasm, Churchill and others inferred that post-war justice was going to be a machine gun firing through the ranks of the Nazi party. Uncertain about the ability to quickly create an efficient and fair international court, and equally worried that their nations would be tainted by a stead fast execution of the accused, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill repeatedly fluctuated their positions. Churchill exemplified this in saying “I would rather be taken out into the garden here and now and be shot myself than sully my own and my country’s honour by such a infamy,” while Lord Chancellor Sir John Simon observed that “the method by trial, conviction, and judicial sentence is quite inappropriate for notorious ringleaders such as Hitler, Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, and Ribbentrop.”2 Soon, they realized that this vigilante justice would only provoke more resentment and a similar feeling of isolation and contempt that existed in Germany after World War 1. The Western victors had no source to draw upon for creating this court. Instead, the Nuremberg trials became based upon loosely connected charters and agreements between Western leaders.

Though the intention of the trial was quite dignified, the trial itself was conducted in a rather slapdash and set-the-rules-as-the-game-goes manner. Unsure on how to proceed in untried waters, the prosecutors were unsure of each others cases, uneasy about having to cooperate, and unable to successfully gather large amounts of applicable evidence. The justices, having no idea how to conduct the trial, allowed long testimony creating a lecture like atmosphere instead of an actual trial. Marrus points out the Hossbach Memorandum, which the defendants discredit, and eventually discredited by historians by, “drawing on a far richer body of evidence than was available in 1945.” 3 This illustrates one of the main problems that were illuminated during the trial: the lack of time and energy available to go through the captured documents. The trial, conducted only a year after the end of the war, was exposed to the fallacy of lack of concrete evidence. Though several videos were created to document the human tragedy, the written evidence was lacking, and when presented, was unable to connect the defendants with knowing about conspiracies or crimes against humanity. To cap this off, the defendants also had a wide body of knowledge about inhumane actions done by the allies and the hypocritical prosecution of German leaders when Allied war criminals were not accused or tried. The result of these flaws resulted in a prolonged and exacerbated trial, almost inducing the mental illness of several of the defendants.

No one manipulated this system greater than Hermann Göring. Conscious that his high-ranking position would almost inevitably lead to his death, Göring refused to back down and served as a source of energy for other defendants to draw on. Proud and arrogant, Göring showed no remorse for what he viewed as his obligation to the Fuhrer and the German people. Skillfully twisting around the words of his cross-examiners, Göring was able to elude the prosecution. Nothing exemplifies this better than his reply of “I do not think I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilization preparations of the United States” in response to Jackson’s question about German mobilization being kept secret4. Repeatedly providing detailed lectures about the mobilization of the Rhineland, the falseness of the Hossbach Memorandum, and the inapplicability of the Hague Convention of 1907, Goring out-intellectualized and maneuvered teams of top lawyers with their own points. His most brilliant realization came from his final statement, repealing his actual involvement in the destruction of other countries or peoples, and comparing the persecution of Nazi leaders as the persecution of an ideology instead of the actual investigation of crimes5. Though eventually found guilty and hanged, Göring’s testimony was the most damaging and most well thought out of the defendants.

The trial itself helped shape future international politics. With the formation of an international court, future prosecution of war criminals would be justified. Charters and agreements were no longer documents only, but legally binding, giving the newly constructed United Nations a new basis. If the world’s most deviant criminals could be successfully tried, why could no one else? Though the collaboration was faulty and often divided, it did illustrate the new unity between Western countries to ensure human liberties.

But in this collaboration the division between Russia and United States became apparent. Untrusting and ideologically opposites, the Russian and American justices illustrated what would soon come true in international politics: the Cold War. No longer could these opposed governments ignore each other for a common cause, as they were now forced to recognize each other’s differences.

In conclusion, the Nuremberg trial began a new interconnected world through the establishment of human rights. This interconnected world became the Cold War world, divided not by physical war, but by viewpoints and ideas. The protection and recognition of human rights was the foundation of the soon to come NATO alliance and the United Nations, legitimizing the soon to come rivalry between communism and democracy. The world was no longer connected just by commerce and industry, but by ideas and philosophies that applied to every country and every person.