Image result for the other side of the story

Mr Wear has published several articles like this which he believes prove how unjust the Nuremberg trials were. They consist of the  opinions of men, women and editorials mainly from the US or UK.

The Nuremberg Trials were not perfect, nor could they be, as they were dealing with events unprecedented in modern history. The formalities and technicalities of the trials are often criticised, generally by US sources unaccustomed to European legal procedures.

The main question is: were the Nuremberg Trials actually fair? The best people to answer this question have to be the Germans themselves. After all the defendants were German and the trials took place in Germany with many German defense lawyers.

In 1955 a book called “Nuremberg: German Views of the War Trials.” was produced, a review of which can be found here:

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=uclrev

by Charles A Horsky.

The book contains letters and statements by many of the German defense attorneys in relation to the Nuremberg Trials. The following paragraph sums up the attitude of German lawyers to the trials:

There is also abundant evidence that the trials were conducted with impartiality

and a sense of justice-that they were trials in the real sense. “Nobody

dares to doubt,” says one attorney,3 that the International Military

Tribunal “was guided by the search for truth and justice from the first to the

last day of this tremendous trial.” Or, as Dr. Ehard puts it, “Within the framework

set by the Charter all participants were obviously endeavoring to be

objective. Occasional deviations from this rule were stopped immediately by

the President.”‘4 There are, significantly, no complaints to the contrary.

But perhaps most importantly, the papers recognize the significance, for

Germans and for non-Germans alike, of the fact that there have been judicial

proceedings which have examined the evidence and stated the facts on what

happened under Hitler. It is not only, as Dr. Ehard puts it that “A prosecution

‘in court’ of the criminally induced world catastrophe just could not be avoided

unless recourse was to be had to considerably more far-reaching methods,

methods of punishment more questionable for the development of law which

necessarily would have entailed a higher degree of arbitrariness.” It is also,

as Dr. Ehard says earlier, that, “The indictment, the protocols of the proceedings

and the judgment described the fateful course of National Socialism in Germany

and in the world as objectively and impressively as hardly any German description

could have done…. One would like to tell every German to read these

documents, particularly those people who forgot too soon and would like to

avert their eyes from the horrors of the near past.” Or, as another author

puts it “There scarcely exists a more effective means of extinguishing whatever

Nazi ideas and efforts may still exist among the people than the reading of this

Judgment.”

Comments such as these, from German sources, are more significant than

disagreements with legal concepts. That the defense agrees that the trial, given

its legal concepts, was fair, and that the judgments are true judgments is high

tribute to both the judges and the prosecution.

I don’t think that Mr Wear will be printing out these opinions any time soon….

Please excuse the formatting!!

 

Advertisements