Nuremberg: Before and After

Excerpt of Jackson's Opening Statement

"The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Merely as individuals their fate is of little consequence to the world. What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power.

If these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given a chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law. Realistically, the Charter of this Tribunal, which gives them a hearing, is also the source of their only hope. It may be that these men of troubled conscience, whose only wish is that the world forget them, do not regard a trial as a favor. But they do have a fair opportunity to defend themselves—a favor which these men, when in power, rarely extended to their fellow countrymen. Despite the fact that public opinion already condemns their acts, we agree that here they must be given a presumption of innocence, and we accept the burden of proving criminal acts and the responsibility of these defendants for their commission."

Activity 3: 

Judging Guilt and Responsibility 

Once students learned how the trials were structured and about the charges that were to be lodged against the defendants they are ready to address questions of guilt and responsibility by considering the actions of a number of individuals involved in the Third Reich. Some individuals were defendants at the Nuremberg trials; some had been involved in various roles at the death camps and others had been members of organizations that were crucial to carrying out the military and genocidal policies of the Third Reich. After reviewing the evidence, students will consider whether those people should have been charged with one or more of the crimes tried at Nuremberg. 

I like to conduct this assignment in the form of barometer activity. Draw a horizontal line across a board or on a blank wall. On one end of the line write, "Not guilty of any charges; acquit the defendant." On the other end write, "Guilty on all four counts." Have students read a short biography of different people involved in WWII from the German side. You can have students pick biographies at random or assign them based on student interest and skill. After students read individually, pair students with the same biography. As a group, students will discuss their examination of the information they read of their particular defendant, and determine where to place the defendant on the continuum. To debrief the activity, have a representative from each group explain why his or her group has decided on the placement of their defendant 

1. Should this individual have been charged for one or more of the crimes (conspiracy, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity) or should they have been acquitted? Why?

2. What criteria would you establish to evaluate an individual’s responsibility in such circumstances?

As their final task, students should take on the role of either a defense attorney or a prosecutor and write the opening statement for the individual they evaluated. Do they believe they should be tried? For what crimes? Students should remember to introduce their person and then make their case either for or against him.

At the end of the assignment, you can offer students the actual results for each individual studied. 

Activity 3: 

Remembering Nuremberg

Have students watch a 13-minute film, Remembering Nuremberg, that reflects on the Nuremberg Trials take notes on the responses of the following individuals to the Trials. 1. Richard Sonnenfeldt; 2. Ernest Michael; 3. Sally Falk Moore; 4. Bernard Meltzer; 5. Benjamin Ferencz. Divide students into groups. Each group will be responsible for taking notes on their discussion.

Discussion Group 1

In the film, Ernest Michael, a Holocaust survivor who was a reporter at the Nuremberg trials, remarked about the trials:

Was everything perfect? I don't believe so. But, under the circumstances it was the best way of doing it, and hopefully it will be the beginning of future instances like that where the leaders of a government, and we know who they are, are eventually being brought to trial for crimes against humanity. That was the lesson of the Nuremberg, and that is why I feel so good 60 years afterwards to be able to talk about it.

1. To what extent do you agree with Michel that the Nuremberg trials represented "the best way" of achieving justice after the Holocaust?

2. Should there have been a trial at all? What are the benefits of a trial?

3. What are the costs or limits of a trial to prosecute crimes against humanity?

4. What does it signify about Nuremberg that a survivor of the Holocaust could say that it makes him "feel so good" to talk about the trials?

5. Why do you think he feels this way?

Discussion Group 2

Bernard Meltzer, a staff member of the prosecution team at Nuremberg, remarked that one crime that was not prosecuted at Nuremberg was the "crime of silence."

1. To what extent were bystanders, those who knew about the crimes being committed against Jews and others but who did nothing to stop them, responsible for what happened during the Holocaust?

2. Did they have the power to prevent these crimes? What could they have done?

3. Should bystanders have been held responsible in a court of law? Why or why not?

Discussion Group 3

In the film, the chief interpreter of the American prosecution team, Richard Sonnenfeldt, said, "Just knowing history does not guarantee it won't repeat."

1. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

2. What can an understanding of the Holocaust accomplish toward the prevention of more crimes against humanity?

3. What else is required in order to prevent horrible atrocities like the Holocaust?

Discussion Group 4

One critique of the Nuremberg trials is that individuals were held responsible for breaking laws that did not exist prior to the war. This is often called "retroactive justice."

1. What do you think of this criticism?

2. If you think it was fair to prosecute Germans after World War II, would it also be fair to hold individuals or groups accountable for their involvement in slavery and the slave trade?

Discussion Group 5

After the massacre of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks, the newly established nation of Turkey organized a trial to prosecute leaders of the Young Turk party who had organized the murders and deportations. None of these leaders was officially punished for these crimes because by the time the trials were under way, they were all in hiding in other countries. As Hitler prepared for the "final solution of the Jewish question," he asked, "Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" 

1. What was Hitler saying about international law at the time? About the rules of war?

2. Professor Richard Hovannisian maintains that had the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide been more vigorously prosecuted and punished for their crimes, the case might have served as a deterrent for the Holocaust. Do you agree?

Discussion Group 6

Compare the reflections from participants at the trial with the goals that Jackson laid out in his opening address. To what extent do participants suggest the trials met Jackson's hopes? What work remains to be done?

Activity 4:

Reconsidering Nuremberg

Part 1: 

Have students read “The War and the Law” by Max Frankel, New York Times Magazine, May 7, 1995. This piece should begin to offer students a more critical perspectives of some of the opposition to the trial. 

Questions:

1. Frankel is pessimistic regarding the effectiveness of international tribunals. He writes, “The ugly truth is that international crime pays. Aggressors walk free if they win the wars they start. Atrocities are customarily cited only against losers. The civilized world cannot prosecute the most heinous crimes without first defeating the perpetrators. It can't defeat them without an army...” Do you agree with Frankel’s assessment? Why or why not?

2. What ideas do you have for how international justice might be more effective in achieving justice for past atrocities, and preventing future ones?

Reflect on E.B. White’s quote: “When a man hangs from a tree it doesn't spell justice unless he helped write the law that hanged him.” What do you think White means? Do you agree or disagree?

Part 2:

To give students more ideas and evidence for the different range of arguments leveled against the execution of the Nuremberg Trials here is a compilation of excerpts that you can use in a big paper activity or as in independent assignment.

As they study the excerpts that contest the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials, they should make a list of the arguments being made and who is making them. It important to reflect, for example, the quote from Goering, founder of the Gestapo and Hitler's designated successor, and who was himself on trial.