80 years of the Nuremberg Trials“There is no sign of remorse among the defendants.”
A picture spread across the world in November 1945: top National Socialist leaders sitting in the dock at Nuremberg. They were accused of various war crimes. The Nuremberg trials held on November 20 were not only intended to bring justice to the Nazi atrocities, but also had an educational purpose, as historian Annette Weinke explained in an interview with ntv.de. He spoke about the alleged “victor’s justice”, the atmosphere in the courtroom, the behavior of the defendants – and the reception of the trial among Germans.
ntv.de: If today someone talks about “victorious justice” in connection with the Nuremberg trials, what do you say?
Annette Weinke: On the one hand, it is true that the palace lords were also the victors. In this case, the accusation of “victor’s justice” is not completely wrong. However, in the end these accusations are misguided because the military trials of 1945/46 must be seen in a longer context. The idea of international criminal law originates from the Geneva Conventions of 1864. This idea was revived during the Second World War. The aim was to establish a tribunal that would punish serious international crimes, especially those committed against civilians.
Nuremberg prosecutors were aware of the legal criticism. Do you have other goals with the process that go beyond the purely legal level?
Testing also has an educational purpose. In the final phase of the war, investigative commissions were being set up to gather evidence of war crimes, some of which was later made public. Germany also had to be made aware that, as it was said, it wanted to stop aggressive “Prussian militarism” once and for all and educate Germany into a peaceful nation.
Was this goal achieved?
This question was not clearly answered in the research. On the one hand, there was a relatively high level of acceptance among the German public for the trials of major war criminals – because the right people were tried and punished appropriately. But the succession process pushed by America is no longer unanimously supported. The slogan “victorious justice” emerged; there were accusations that a scapegoat would be made and the German people as a whole should be humiliated. After the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949, calls immediately became loud for an end to the trials as well as denazification. Criminal law processing and political review are carried out simultaneously.
Initially, the Allies had the idea of simply shooting the Nazi leader. Why was a legal investigation finally carried out?
From 1942 onwards, the exiled governments of Eastern and Western Europe in London tried to bring German crimes to justice. The major powers then agreed in October 1943 to take action against major war criminals. This is still formulated vaguely, because it cannot be predicted when and how the war will end. Only from 1944 onwards did considerations turn to the courts, primarily because the United States and the Soviet Union supported them. England was somewhat against it, and France was also very skeptical at first.
There were already trials in the Soviet Union.
That’s right, since the summer of 1943 there had been trials there against Soviet collaborators, but also against members of the SS special commandos and representatives of the occupation and the Wehrmacht. According to anecdotes told in different ways, Stalin even called for the liquidation of the entire German general staff, namely 50,000 people, but in the end he was more interested in show trials. Both the Soviet Union and America wanted to criminalize wars of aggression. In the summer of 1945, this was included as a criminal offense in the London Statute, which regulated the work of the Nuremberg trials.
With regard to the Soviet Union, this seems surprising if you think about the secret additional protocols of the Hitler-Stalin Pact or the attack on Finland in the Winter War of 1939.
Yes, that was the big weakness of the London Statute and the whole process: in 1939, the Soviet Union annexed the eastern part of Poland, as well as the Baltic states, and started a war against Finland. But it played no role in Soviet self-perception; they see themselves as being on the right side of history. We must not forget that the Soviet Union was the country that suffered most from the National Socialist war of conquest and extermination, which killed 27 million people. That’s why he wanted to make a statement.
Cooperation between the US and the Soviet Union ended shortly after a major war crimes trial. Was this primarily due to political reasons at the start of the Cold War?
The Soviet Union was not at all happy about the three liberations at Nuremberg. Considering their own war crimes trials, there is the idea that a tabula rasa is possible. The desired outcome – the confidence and execution of everyone involved – was not achieved. In this case, they argue that they have been betrayed by their own allies in this matter.
How did the Soviet Union react to the verdict?
The propaganda machine immediately fired up and the Western Allies were accused of betraying the Potsdam principles. However, the Americans also did not want to hold a second international military tribunal with the Soviets.
Was Nuremberg chosen as the trial location because the US, as the occupying power, had its own power there?
In a way, yes. The Soviet Union wanted to hold trials in Berlin, but was unsuccessful. As a concession, the opening meeting only took place there on 18 October 1945. But there were also practical reasons for Nuremberg: the Palace of Justice was relatively undamaged and had the dimensions of a world court. Next to it was a section of the prison where high-profile defendants could be housed.
And America is able to exploit its resources?
In principle, the venue reflected a real balance of power: the Americans were present with all their economic and bureaucratic power, they provided the largest delegation, did most of the preparatory work and, during 1945, completely identified themselves with the project. They also make maximum contributions on the logistical and technical side, for example on complex translation technology. Other winning countries will not be able to do this.
What atmosphere prevailed during the negotiations and how did journalists report it?
It is not easy for the journalists involved to follow this process. This was new legal territory and the few foreign correspondents present were overwhelmed. They have to deal with complex procedural questions, documents are read aloud in multiple languages - everything is long-winded, tedious and difficult to summarize. Journalists are also under a lot of pressure to represent the national interests of their respective media. You can’t afford to be left behind when it comes to your own country.
Were there any new revelations about Nazi atrocities during the trial or was more already known?
There are moments that are particularly reflected in the collective consciousness, for example the statements of SSgruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, commander of the security police Einsatzgruppe D. He spoke without emotion about the murder of almost 100,000 Baltic Jews. The fact that he spoke specifically and dramatically about mass atrocities had a profound impact. At least for those who are interested. We must not forget that many people in Germany at that time had to fight for their personal survival.
Is there any explanation as to how the defendants reacted to these statements?
In fact, the Americans tried to record the reactions systematically, and psychologists were even on site for this purpose. But there was no sign of remorse among the defendants, but rather defensiveness and great indifference. The exception was Albert Speer, who was perhaps the only one able to adapt to the situation of a criminal trial. He seems relatively emotional and approachable. Others called themselves victims and rejected the accusations.
Defendants can hire their own attorneys. Is there agreement on defense strategy?
There is clearly an effort to develop a common line of defense. However, this was only partially successful because it was violated in certain situations, in cross-examination. In the end, the defendants’ interests were too different.
When we think of the Nuremberg trials, we first think of the major war criminals. What is the essence of the succession process?
This is related to a particular interpretation of the National Socialist government. The Americans in particular wanted to investigate the historical causes of the rise of the Nazis. Experts, including many people who fled Germany because of the Nazis, provide reports on this matter. The most famous is “Behemoth” by Franz Neumann. This suggests that the traditional social elite, in solidarity with the National Socialists, took over and destroyed the German state.
And these elites are then put on trial?
Yes, military representatives, diplomats, doctors, lawyers, civil servants, and large industrialists were singled out and punished for their participation in the consolidation of National Socialist power and their crimes.
The Nuremberg Trials were intended to establish international jurisdiction. But that didn’t happen at first. Why?
Momentum toward a permanent international criminal court weakened significantly in the early 1950s. This was not only caused by the Cold War, but also by decolonization. Great Britain and France in particular were not interested in prosecuting further war crimes as they themselves committed war crimes while defending themselves against the independence movement.
The topic is missing?
International criminal law is not completely ignored, but it is greatly ignored. It was only after the end of the Cold War that similar efforts were made again with ad hoc tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Nuremberg trials played an extraordinary role as they developed criminal acts. In the late 1990s, a permanent International Criminal Court was established in The Hague. The issues discussed at Nuremberg can be found there: genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes.
Markus Lippold talks to Annette Weinke.
