Nuremburg Trials: Flawed or International Success?

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

The last blow against the Third Reich was dealt in a suitable location; the city of Nuremberg. Once the home to the Nazi Party's rallies, Nuremberg was chosen to host the military tribunals that would bring those responsible for the Nazi's war crimes to justice. The judges were of four nations; The Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and the United States. Today we remember these trials as a shining example of international cooperation, but were they as pristine as they now seem?

It seems rather ironic that the nation who dealt the harshest sentences on Nazi officials was itself a totalitarian nation guilty of its own crimes. The Soviet Union collaborated with Germany to carve up Poland in the early stages of the war. The USSR also used the trials to blame responsibility of the Katyn massacre on the Nazis, a claim later to be challenged and dropped by the American and British judges after evidence pointed that it was in fact the Soviet NKVD who committed the killings.

Other intriguing occurrences in the trials are shown below:

The court agreed to relieve the Soviet leadership from attending these trials as war criminals in order to hide their crimes against war civilians, war crimes that were committed by their army that included "carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later." This "exclusion request" was initiated by the Soviets and subsequently approved by the court's administration.[77]

Freda Utley, in her 1949 book "The High Cost of Vengeance"[81] charged the court with amongst other things double standards. She pointed to the Allied use of civilian forced labor, and deliberate starvation of civilians[82][83] in the occupied territories. She also noted that General Rudenko, the chief Soviet prosecutor, after the trials became commandant of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. (After the fall of East Germany the bodies of 12,500 Soviet era victims were uncovered at the camp, mainly "children, adolescents and elderly people."[84])

The Tribunal itself strongly disputed that the London Charter was ex post facto law, pointing to existing international agreements signed by Germany that made aggressive war and certain wartime actions unlawful, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the Hague Conventions.[avalon 25]

The main Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938, where he among other things sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev.[86] According to the declassified Soviet archives, 681,692 people arrested for "counter-revolutionary and state crimes" were shot in 1937 and 1938 alone–an average of over 900 executions a day.[87]

So clearly, the Nuremberg trials incorporated and dealt with highly controversial actions. Do you believe that these actions were necessary in order to bring the Third Reich to justice? Or did they make a mockery of law and create double standards on the victors?

I believe that while the trials did serve a noble cause, the allied nations did engage in war crimes themselves. The US waged unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese (though this charge was later dropped from the Nazi defendants), and the Katyn massacre was used as a tool to cleanse the Soviets of all responsibility. Whether or not the Allies should have themselves been tried is a question I am unable to answer.

[Alyakia]

what's your opinion? i assume you think it was just a show and want to complain about the soviets based on what you said, but let's remove the doubt.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

what's your opinion? i assume you think it was just a show and want to complain about the soviets based on what you said, but let's remove the doubt.

Added to the OP.

[Mefpan]

Yes, of course the Nuremberg Trials were a shining example of Victor's justice.

And well, they were shining because compared to the last time around, the extent it took was most definitely justified because...well, look at how the Nazis behaved. Yeah, alright - the Soviets got away with their share of nasty business - but everyone getting away with it isn't really any better.

Let's face it, the Schutzstaffel and the Wehrmacht pulled some massive shit in Eastern Europe, much of which was indeed controlled by the Soviets at the time. As much as I hate the USSR's legacy, it shouldn't be surprising at all that they were out for blood, given the staggering amount of war dead amongst both military personnel and civilians alike.

On that note - does anyone know any decent sources on alternate plans for post-war Germany from the Soviet side? All I can find is plans from the western side, believable and absolutely sodding megabonkers ravings from non-politicians alike.

[The Rich Port]

While it's sad Stalin had his own plans for Nuremberg...

We cannot forget what the Nazis did.

At least give the Soviets some credit: we shared a goal for once more or less, which was to pursue justice for the survivors of the Holocaust.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

While it's sad Stalin had his own plans for Nuremberg...

We cannot forget what the Nazis did.

At least give the Soviets some credit: we shared a goal for once more or less, which was to pursue justice for the survivors of the Holocaust.

Exactly. This is one of those situations where there really is no clear and obvious answer.

[United Marxist Nations]

Does it matter that one of the judges presided over show-trials? Nuremburg practically was a show trial, they had all the evidence, and that made it pretty obvious that they were guilty as charged.

[WestRedMaple]

They were necessary, as the people needed to be dealt with.

Given the various slaughters committed by the Soviets, they definitely should have found themselves on the receiving end instead.

What were the two biggest differences between the Axis countries and the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union was fighting on the other side and it's victims were more skewed towards it's own citizens than the others.

In my opinion, as soon as the Axis was definitely defeated, the other Allies should have moved on the Soviet Union.

[Nadkor]

A flawed international success.

[United Marxist Nations]

They were necessary, as the people needed to be dealt with.

Given the various slaughters committed by the Soviets, they definitely should have found themselves on the receiving end instead.

What were the two biggest differences between the Axis countries and the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union was fighting on the other side and it's victims were more skewed towards it's own citizens than the others.

In my opinion, as soon as the Axis was definitely defeated, the other Allies should have moved on the Soviet Union.

You seem to forget that the Nazis killed 20-28 million Soviets, and that the Soviets did most of the fighting. Your idea would have only led to countless more deaths, and a likely Soviet victory, considering how many more Soviet troops were in Europe than Allued troops, coupled with the USSR's pull with the Partisan groups in Italy and France. That's not even considering war weariness in the US, UK, and France.

[The Rich Port]

While it's sad Stalin had his own plans for Nuremberg...

We cannot forget what the Nazis did.

At least give the Soviets some credit: we shared a goal for once more or less, which was to pursue justice for the survivors of the Holocaust.

Exactly. This is one of those situations where there really is no clear and obvious answer.

Absolutely.

That doesn't mean Nuremberg was flawed in it's intent.

It was merely tainted with the reputation and the legacy of some of it's participants. Does that make the whole thing a sham?

Why would it?

[Quintium]

It was a bunch of show trials and a bloody shame. The worst culprits of all, who had helped Germany invade Poland and had been much more brutal to civilian populations than the Germans during World War II and at the time occupied half of Europe, keeping the 'workers of all nations' in line with arbitrary executions and deportation to prison camps often worse than those the Germans had used, weren't put on trial for their crimes. So, the people who organised these trials punished the killer, but let the serial killer run free. That, and even within the group of German core officials a severe double standard was maintained. Many Germans who had done more than the ones on trial were whisked away to the United States and given a house, a car and a nice big income in exchange for their research.

Your idea would have only led to countless more deaths, and a likely Soviet victory, considering how many more Soviet troops were in Europe than Allued troops, coupled with the USSR's pull with the Partisan groups in Italy and France.

Absolutely not. Their partisan groups would not have amounted to anything, and I agree with General Patton's analysis:

In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.
(...)
If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.

In parts of Eastern Europe, America and Britain are still hated for signing over all of those countries to the horrors of Soviet Socialism without a fight.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

It was a bunch of show trials and a bloody shame. The worst culprits of all, who had helped Germany invade Poland and had been much more brutal to civilian populations than the Germans during World War II and at the time occupied half of Europe, keeping the 'workers of all nations' in line with arbitrary executions and deportation to prison camps often worse than those the Germans had used, weren't put on trial for their crimes. So, the people who organised these trials punished the killer, but let the serial killer run free. That, and even within the group of German core officials a severe double standard was maintained. Many Germans who had done more than the ones on trial were whisked away to the United States and given a house, a car and a nice big income in exchange for their research.

Your idea would have only led to countless more deaths, and a likely Soviet victory, considering how many more Soviet troops were in Europe than Allued troops, coupled with the USSR's pull with the Partisan groups in Italy and France.

Absolutely not. Their partisan groups would not have amounted to anything, and I agree with General Patton's analysis:

In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.
(...)
If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.

In parts of Eastern Europe, America and Britain are still hated for signing over all of those countries to the horrors of Soviet Socialism without a fight.

I would give the advantage for artillery and tanks to the Soviets. They not only outproduced the US, but outperformed American tanks as well.

[United Marxist Nations]

It was a bunch of show trials and a bloody shame. The worst culprits of all, who had helped Germany invade Poland and had been much more brutal to civilian populations than the Germans during World War II and at the time occupied half of Europe, keeping the 'workers of all nations' in line with arbitrary executions and deportation to prison camps often worse than those the Germans had used, weren't put on trial for their crimes. So, the people who organised these trials punished the killer, but let the serial killer run free. That, and even within the group of German core officials a severe double standard was maintained. Many Germans who had done more than the ones on trial were whisked away to the United States and given a house, a car and a nice big income in exchange for their research.

Your idea would have only led to countless more deaths, and a likely Soviet victory, considering how many more Soviet troops were in Europe than Allued troops, coupled with the USSR's pull with the Partisan groups in Italy and France.

Absolutely not. Their partisan groups would not have amounted to anything, and I agree with General Patton's analysis:

In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.
(...)
If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.

In parts of Eastern Europe, America and Britain are still hated for signing over all of those countries to the horrors of Soviet Socialism without a fight.

Oh quit your Nazi-sympathizing horseshit. Read about fucking Generalplan Ost, then spout about those poor Germans who planned to kill over 150 million people, did kill 28 million, and raped ten million.

[WestRedMaple]

While it's sad Stalin had his own plans for Nuremberg...

We cannot forget what the Nazis did.

At least give the Soviets some credit: we shared a goal for once more or less, which was to pursue justice for the survivors of the Holocaust.

Not really. The Soviet Union was pretty into camps and mass slaughter

Justice wasn't a big deal, they were just pissed at Germany

[Quintium]

On that note - does anyone know any decent sources on alternate plans for post-war Germany from the Soviet side? All I can find is plans from the western side, believable and absolutely sodding megabonkers ravings from non-politicians alike.

Oh, come on. Don't call that Morgenthau Plan believable. He was just angry at the Germans (he was, after all, a Jew) and wanted them humiliated (he had previously demanded extrajudicial executions). Well, no peace would have lasted with the Germans humiliated like that. And even the Western Allied occupation forces in Western Germany had a real problem with his plan, because (1) they would have to destroy some of the best industrial plants in the world and (2) the Soviet Union wasn't going to destroy anything useful, so they'd only be strengthening the Soviet Union by doing so.

I would give the advantage for artillery and tanks to the Soviets. They not only outproduced the US, but outperformed American tanks as well.

In that case, they could have resorted to an alternative strategy suggested by Churchill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFU6fyTx3eQ

[Saiwania]

I would give the advantage for artillery and tanks to the Soviets. They not only outproduced the US, but outperformed American tanks as well.

Yeah, sometimes Patton didn't know what he was talking about, he had an ego to rival Douglas MacArthur. The Soviets had among the most massive artillery and tank formations in the world by 1945. The Soviet spies could run circles around most foreign intelligence agencies.

[Laerod]

While it's sad Stalin had his own plans for Nuremberg...

We cannot forget what the Nazis did.

At least give the Soviets some credit: we shared a goal for once more or less, which was to pursue justice for the survivors of the Holocaust.

The Soviets were perfectly willing to do a show trial and nearly split with the Western Allies over how to handle things, particularly where the Katyn massacre was concerned that the Soviets had committed and wanted to pin on Germany. The Western Allies had the bigger names among those that stood trial and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to pull off the grand show they wanted had they gone and done it on their own.

[WestRedMaple]

They were necessary, as the people needed to be dealt with.

Given the various slaughters committed by the Soviets, they definitely should have found themselves on the receiving end instead.

What were the two biggest differences between the Axis countries and the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union was fighting on the other side and it's victims were more skewed towards it's own citizens than the others.

In my opinion, as soon as the Axis was definitely defeated, the other Allies should have moved on the Soviet Union.

You seem to forget that the Nazis killed 20-28 million Soviets, and that the Soviets did most of the fighting. Your idea would have only led to countless more deaths, and a likely Soviet victory, considering how many more Soviet troops were in Europe than Allued troops, coupled with the USSR's pull with the Partisan groups in Italy and France. That's not even considering war weariness in the US, UK, and France.

The Soviets would not have had any real hope of winning that war. They would have been facing an enemy which had a larger population, far stronger economy, larger industrial base, and access to superior technology which included nuclear weapons. They also would obviously no longer have access to the aid they we're receiving.

Sure, my idea would lead to many deaths, but not fighting that war also led to millions of deaths

[Estado Nacional]

The Allies, especially the Soviet Union, should have been trialled, but that would demoralize them internationally, something they couldn't afford while setting up puppet states in Europe.

[Brickistan]

I have come to think of it as a bit of a sham. As show trial, if you will. The victors exacting vengeance on the losers.

Thing is, while certain people in the Nazi leadership and Wehrmacht/SS certainly deserved to be tried and hung for various crimes, the same could be said for much of the Allied High Command. As such, while it did serve to establish some basic rules of behavior in war, it also set the stage for a nasty double standard in which the victor was free to go, even though he had committed atrocities that were just as bad the the loser.

[United Marxist Nations]

You seem to forget that the Nazis killed 20-28 million Soviets, and that the Soviets did most of the fighting. Your idea would have only led to countless more deaths, and a likely Soviet victory, considering how many more Soviet troops were in Europe than Allued troops, coupled with the USSR's pull with the Partisan groups in Italy and France. That's not even considering war weariness in the US, UK, and France.

The Soviets would not have had any real hope of winning that war. They would have been facing an enemy which had a larger population, far stronger economy, larger industrial base, and access to superior technology which included nuclear weapons. They also would obviously no longer have access to the aid they we're receiving.

Sure, my idea would lead to many deaths, but not fighting that war also led to millions of deaths

Their tech wasn't that far behind, and their forces had more troops , tanks, and artillery. And nuclear weapons? Dude, the only city you could hit that would have much impact would be Moscow, which would kill far more than were killed by the USSR in the Cold War. And it's not like the US & UK didn't do a lot of bad things after the War.

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

Nuremberg set up a nice precedent in trials for extreme crimes like the ones the Nazis committed. It's one of the few instances where I'd say the death penalty would be justified.

As for the other belligerents for the war and whether or not they should have been tried, well, history is written by the victors. Not to mention the Americans and British definitely didn't commit any crimes against humanity on the same scale as the Nazis, although the USSR certainly did. Granted, I doubt they'd be willing to offer themselves for trial without a fight, and World War III immediately after World War II would not have been good for the reconstruction of Europe, or the rest of the world for that matter.

[United Marxist Nations]

Nuremberg set up a nice precedent in trials for extreme crimes like the ones the Nazis committed. It's one of the few instances where I'd say the death penalty would be justified.

As for the other belligerents for the war and whether or not they should have been tried, well, history is written by the victors. Not to mention the Americans and British definitely didn't commit any crimes against humanity on the same scale as the Nazis, although the USSR certainly did. Granted, I doubt they'd be willing to offer themselves for trial without a fight, and World War III immediately after World War II would not have been good for the reconstruction of Europe, or the rest of the world for that matter.

US War Crimes during the war:
In the aftermath of the 1944 Malmedy massacre, in which 80 unarmed U.S. military personnel were murdered by their German captors, a written order from Headquarters of the 328th U.S. Army Infantry Regiment, dated 21 December 1944, stated: "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but [rather they] will be shot on sight."[12] Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"[13] Stephen Ambrose related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up."[14]

American soldiers during the Pacific War sometimes deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered, according to Richard Aldrich (Professor of History at Nottingham University). Aldrich published a study of diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, wherein it was stated that they sometimes massacred prisoners of war.[17] According to John Dower, in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[18] According to Professor Aldrich, it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners.[19] His analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson,[20] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U.S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[21]

Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes[21] among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering), and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, "taking no prisoners" was still "standard practice" among U.S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945.[22]

It has been claimed that some U.S. soldiers raped Okinawan women during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.[28]

Based on several years of research, Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes:

Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children, and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the Marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight, and women who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.[29]
However, some other authors have noted that Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[30][31] According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[32]

There were also 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture after the Japanese surrender.[28]

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offences in Europe, including 126 rapes in England, between 1942 and 1945.[33] A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.[34][35] It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and one historian has claimed that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rld_War_II

UK War Crimes in the War:
As part of the Briggs' Plan devised by British General Sir Harold Briggs, 500,000 people (roughly ten percent of Malaya's population) were eventually removed from the land, had tens of thousands of their homes destroyed, and interned in 450 guarded fortified camps called "New Villages". The intent of this measure was to inflict collective punishments on villages where people were deemed to be aiding the insurgents and to isolate the population from contact with insurgents. The British also tried to win the hearts of the internees by providing them with education and health services as well as piped water and electricity within the villages. While considered necessary, some of the cases involving the widespread destruction went beyond justification of military necessity.[citation needed] This practice was prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law which stated that the destruction of property must not happen unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[49][50][52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_wa ... rld_War_II


The conduct of the Red Army was largely on-par with the conduct of the other Allied armies; the only reason there were more instances was because there were far more soldiers on the Eastern front.

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

snip

Did you miss the part where I said 'on the same scale as the Nazis'? I'm not denying that the Americans and British committed war crimes, but they certainly did not lead millions to extermination camps.