The Nuremberg Trails: Hypocrisy of the Allies

Draft: By: Divyanshu Raj (2083030)

Introduction
Crimes committed during wartime for a very long time went unchecked or were given one sided
harsh treatment by the victors but the allied forces after World War 1 for the very first time tried
12 German prisoners of war before the German Reichsgericht Leipzig war crimes trails of 1921
were the predecessor of the famous Nuremberg trails. Even though considered a failure by many
the Leipzig war crimes trials were a significant step towards a system for the prosecution of
international law violations. When the Second World War ended the allied forces again were left
with the question, “What to do with Nazi prisoners of war”? In 1943 the allied powers issued the
Moscow declaration which allowed joint governments to punish Nazi war criminals whose
offenses had no geographical location. The London Charter in 1945 was the legal document that
governed the Nuremberg trails proceedings. Unlike the Leipzig war crime trails it was not
conducted by the Germans themselves but an international body consisting of 4 powers namely
USA, UK, France and Soviet Union. Many considered the trails as a major leap in establishing a
system for fair trails at an International level but it was also criticized by many as the trails were
hypocritical for some people because the allied force’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or
the Soviet war crimes against Poland and even the Soviet invasion of Poland was completely
ignored as they were on the winning side.

Background

The Nuremberg trials which started on 20 th November 1945 was organized by the allied powers
to give Nazi prisoners of war a fair trial in front of the international community. Major Nazi
Leaders like the Luftwaffe chief Herman Goring, Hans Frank, Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormman,
Hans Sauckel, and Albert Speer etc. were tried. The American prosecution described the trial as
“one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason”. The trial took place
over a period of 10 months and 21 defendants out of 24 stood trial physically. The tribunal
handed 12 death sentences, 7 imprisonments and 3 acquittals.

Authority of the Trials

The authority of the trials was a major question throughout its existence mainly because
previously during the Leipzig trails the Germans refused to extradite anyone and tried German
accused war criminals in Germany itself. The allied powers argued that because of Germany’s
full scale invasion by the Allied forces they were the de facto territorial rulers over the defeated
states, hence they had full authority to conduct trails. Secondly the allies believed to have
broader authority on behalf of the international community. If we talk about the jurisdiction of
the Nuremberg trials, it had jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes
against peace and conspiracy”. Though the concept of criminal breach of international
humanitarian law and war crimes had already been established in The Hague Convention (1907)
“crimes against humanity” and “crimes against peace” were not established before 1945 and
hence it can be said that they were tried for crimes that were not illegal at the time they were
committed.

Prosecution

U.S.A: The American prosecution concentrated on the “aggressive war charge”, which he
identified as the source of both crimes against humanity and heinous war crimes. He pushed an
internationalist interpretation of the Nazi regime and its overarching plot to conduct every
offence included in the indictment. The jury, the audience, the historians, the prosecution and
even the defendants gave the speech favourable reviews.
United Kingdom: Unlike Jackson, he made an effort to downplay the novelty of the aggression
charges. The English case, which Shawcross covered in the second half of his speech, covered
the expansionist ideology which lead to the invasions of Poland followed by Soviet Union. The
charges took 3 days to present, in which Maxwell Fyfe outlined 15 treaties that the Germans
broke.

France: They focused on how Nazism had caused such heinous and barbaric crimes, in contrast
to the other prosecution teams, and explored the “Sonderweg theory” of Germany's growth in the
19th century.

Soviet Union: Soviet Union’s address, which covered all four counts, was the Soviet
prosecution's opening statement. They also highlighted the destruction of Eastern Europe, the
aggressive war, and the numerous crimes the German forces committed against the people of
USSR.

Criticism

The trials of Nuremberg were widely criticized and was called “victors justice” because the
entire trial was overseen by victorious allied leaders who were not put on trial. The atrocities
committed by the Soviet troops like Katyn massacre was completely ignored by the tribunal
which indicates the partial nature of the judges. Not just Germans but the Americans as well as
British lawyers also believed that the trials were not fair. They also applied the “tu quoque”
principle which says that “any illegal act is justified if it had also been committed by the enemy”.
Even the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which took many civilian lives were never
questioned by the tribunal. The allied powers defined crimes by keeping in mind the Nazi
atrocities and completely neglected any crimes which were committed by the victorious allied
forces.

Aftermath of the Nuremberg Trials

The "Nuremberg principles" are the legacy that is still most important today. They established
that people can be held liable for crimes commited under international law, which was confirmed
in a UNGA resolution of 1948. Criminals were no longer able to hide behind domestic law or
claim that they were just following orders. The “Genocide Convention”, the “Universal
Declaration of Human Rights”, and the “Geneva agreements on the laws of war”—all of which
were signed soon after the war—were also inspired by the Nuremberg trials. The most
significant effect should have been on the growth of international criminal law, but the Cold War
effectively prevented this. The memory of Nuremberg proved to be a strong justification for the
creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998, especially with the resurgence of
international tribunals looking into genocide and war crimes in the former Rwanda & Yugoslavia
in the 1990s.

USA, which was the primary supporter of the Nuremberg trials, could be very proud of its
influence if it weren't for the fact that subsequent American administrations have fought
tenaciously against the International Criminal Court’s insistence that international criminal law
might one day be applied against American citizens. Even the “Rome Statute” consists of many
principles which were developed in 1945. Inconveniently, Nuremberg's legacy still persists 70
years later.

Analysis and Conclusion

Nuremberg trials were not fair and were impartial in my opinion but the simple fact that at least
the trials happened even though Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and F.D.Roosevelt favoured
the idea of summary executions. If it was not for Henry S. Truman the barbaric summary
executions would have been the course of action. Although if we are talking about the trial being
fair, I would say that it was not at all fair because the victorious parties were in full control of the
proceedings and the judges were also not neutral. War crimes committed by the Allied forces
were completely ignored by the tribunal and the Soviets even tried to pin the Katyn massacre on
the Nazis. While the aggressive expansion of Germany was considered a violation, USSR’s
invasion of Poland was ignored completely. Bombardment of civilians by the Allied troops were
not even considered, even use of nuclear weapons on civilian population was ignored. Even
something as basic as “right to counsel” was denied to Rudolph Hess when he wanted to be his
own counsel. Even the authority of the Allied powers is questionable and their justice is based on
victor’s justice formula which is completely unfair and unjust.