Nuremberg TrialsAfter World War II, numerous war-crimes trials tried and convicted many Axisleaders. Judges from Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the UnitedStates tried twenty-two Nazi leaders for: crimes against humanity (mostly aboutthe Holocaust), violating long-established rules of war, and waging aggressivewar. This was known as the “Nuremberg Trials. ” Late in 1946, the Germandefendants were indicted and arraigned before a war crimes tribunal atNuremberg. Twenty of the defendants were physicians who, as governmental,military, or SS officials, stood at or near the top of the medical hierarchy ofthe Third Reich. The other three occupied administrative positions which broughtthem into close connection with medical affairs.
It all started when peoplestarted hearing about the Nazi’s in human acts, just about four months afterWorld War II started. No one would believe that such a thing would happen. Whilethe people were thinking like that the Jews were being shipped out of thecountry. Some of them were put in working camps or at a person’s farm. Thiswas the beginning of the Final Solution of the German’s Problem (theHolocaust). On August 8 the Four Power nation signed the London Agreement.
Theylater named it the International Military Tribunal (IMT), it had 8 judges, onejudge and one alternate. This was made so that they would try to stop the Nazicrimes (Rice Jr. 81). They had supplementary Nuremberg hearings that were brokendown into twelve trials. In connection with these trials, the U. S.
militarytribunals had thirty-five defendants and released nineteen of them because theycould find anything to get them on (Rice Jr. 76). They made Nuremberg Lawsbecause of Hitler’s concentration camps and his other inhuman acts (Rice Jr. 31).
He didn’t go by the lead system, he made himself the Supreme Judge. Hitler could imprison or execute anyone he wanted to. He made laws keeping Jewsout of certain public places or jobs. He wouldn’t let Jews have Germancitizenship. The Nuremberg Laws stated that there would be no more inhuman actsor segregation of Jews. One of the positive sides of the Nuremberg incident wasthe trials documented Nazi crimes for posterity.
Many citizens of the worldremember hearing about the Nazi’s brutalities and inhuman acts (Rice Jr. , 5). Hundreds of official Nazi documents entered into evidence at Nuremberg tell thehorrible tale of the Third Reich in the Nazi’s own words. Six million Jews,and others not liked by the Nazis were killed. Not one convicted Nazi deniedthat the mass killing had occurred.
Each disclaimed only personal knowledge andresponsibility. The negative things that happened at Nuremberg were theestablishment of the I. M. T.
has yet to lead to a permanent counterpart beforewhich crimes against humanity can be tried. Twenty-four wars between nations andninety-three civil wars or insurgencies between 1945 and 1992, no internationalbody had been convened to try aggressor nations or individuals accused of warcrimes. To prosecute and punish aggression rest still on the wavering will of aninternational community ever reluctant to impose sanctions on offendinggovernments (Rice Jr. 100).
Despite the reluctance of nations to unite in commoncause and move swiftly toward a lasting road to aggression, hope yes abides forthe best of Nuremberg’s brightest promise. The world had a problem of what todo about the Nazi regime that had presided over the extermination of some sixmillion Jews and deaths of millions of others with no basis in militarynecessity. Never before in history had the victors tried the vanquished forcrimes committed during a war (Rice Jr. , 97).
Yet never in history had thevanquished perpetrated crimes of such inhumanity. The I. M. T. , like the courts inmany countries, have held to the principle that persons committing a criminalviolation of international law are responsible for violation, on the groundsthat crimes of this nature are the result of their own acts (Rice 1492). Thetribunal thought for crimes carried out on orders from above, since many of thecrimes had been committed in one with the Reich policy (Rice 1493).
The portionof the I. M. T. judgment dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanitycommitted by the defendants in the trial and by the criminal organizationsconcerns, in large measure, the persecution and murder of the Jewish people.
Inits analysis of these crimes, the I. M. T. found it appropriate to single out thepersecution of the Jews as a manifestation of consistent and systematic inhumanity on a huge scale (Rice 1493).
The testimony given at the NurembergTrial, the document presented by the prosecution, and the entire record of itsproceedings constitute an incomparable source for the study of the Holocaust. The Nuremberg debates may continue for decades. But because of the tribunal’srulings at Nuremberg, the initiating and waging of aggressive war is nowirrefutably criminal under international law. And that in itself is not a badlegacy.
