The Nuremberg Trials - A Crime Upon Their Selves

The Nuremberg Trials. Possibly the most well known and highly publicised of all war-crime trials ever. The defendants - the last remaining of the Nazi high command, including Martin Bormann, Karl Doenitz, Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hess, Alfred Jodl, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner to name a few. In all, 24 defendants stood trial, along side 6 organisations - the Nazi party, the SS, the SD (SS Intelligence), the SA, The Gestapo, and the High command of the German armed forces. The trial consisted around 4 indictments. These were Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crimes against peace, Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against humanity. In total, out of the 24 defendants, 19 were found guilty. Of those 19, 12 received the death penalty, and 3 received life imprisonments. However, it is the belief of this blog that this trial not only breached the rights of the defendant to have a fair trial, but also that some of the charges mounted against the defendants were done so illegally, and that, therefore, the defendants were convicted illegally, and should have their convictions over turned.





According to Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the United States of America, "(Chief US prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." Surely this shows that, if the Chief Justice of the USA felt that the trial was fraudulent, then there must be some truth behind it. To understand this thinking and belief, you need to look at the trial. The bench of judges, normally used to ensure a fair and balanced trial, were instead chosen from countries of the leading victors, namely USA, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. This, as you can have no doubt, shows the attitude before the trial had began. Although the whole world had been affected by the war, judges from Australia, India, New Zealand and Austria, for instance, could have been used to try and limit the extent of belief that the defendants were already guilty. Certainly, from the line up of judges, the trial can be seen as unfair and, as of such, an invalid trial.



However, it was Associate Supreme Court Justice Willaim O. Douglas who made it fully clear as to the true extent of the illegality of the court and convictions. According to Douglas, he believed at the time that "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time". This means that the laws upon which the defendants were tried on were not illegal before the outbreak of the war, or when the crimes were committed, but instead were created after the defendants had be detained and were ready to stand trial. This comes as part of the Bavarian Code in 1813 which all continental European countries agreed to stating Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali (Latin for "No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law"). Therefore, the charge of Crimes Against Humanity should not have been possible, as it was only under the London Charter that the term had a definition applied to it, and it was therefore not in existance at the time that the Nazi's occupied Europe. Therefore, as no country is able to charge people with crimes which were committed before the law was created, then it is clear that the charges brought against those at the Nuremberg Trials should not have been allowed.



Further proof that the Nuremberg Trials were illegal can be summed up in a few paragraphs. After the convictions, there was no chance for appeal. In any country, the chance for appeal is given when there is the chance that the convicted party are either innocent, or their was unfairness at the trial, leading to the chance of a re-trial. However, in the case of the Nuremberg trials, this was never allowed. The charge of conspiracy to commit agression against Poland in 1939 could also have applied to the Russians, who agreed with the Germans on how to split the country through the German-Soviert Non-Agression pact. Moreover, neither Great Britain nor the USSR were tried for their part in the Anglo-Soviet war in Iran, or the Winter war, of which they both conspired to commit agression.



Furthering the illegitimacy of the Soviet Union being on the bench of Judges, the leaders of the Soviet Union were relieved of having to attend the trials, despite the Soviets agreeing to carve Poland, and attacking Finland 3 months later. This was done so in order to hide their crimes against civilians during the war. Furthermore, one of the Judges who was sitting on the panel also happened to be the same judge who presided over Stalin's show trials, executing and removing anyone who was in oppositon to, or powerful enough to take over from Stalin.




No matter what anyone feels about the crimes these individuals were charged with, there can be no denying that they faced an unfair and biased trial. Even more so, the fact that the defendants were not allowed grounds to appeal shows further proof that the decision of the court was for the majority to be executed, and the trial was only there to make an attempt at ensurin it was legite. No matter what the outcome of the trial, these trials were unfair and unjust, and, as of such, all convictions should be overturned, allowing a re-look at the evidence provided from both sides.



'Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the law', Alphus T. Mason, (New York: Viking, 1956)

'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif, 1983)