Nuremburg Trials - Fair?

[Drew5233]

I have always wondered the who's whats and why's etc of The Nuremburg Trials and thanks to Peter I finally read the 'simple version' on Wikipedia today
Nuremberg Trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I scrolled down and read through the who's who I was thinking to myself some of these seem a bit unfair to me.

Don't get me wrong, I know what the Nazi's did and that some were real 'Bastids' but when I see Donitz 10 years, Raeder Life, Jodl Death and Streicher Death I wonder were they fair?

I would have thought Raeder would have got less than Donitz for example?

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age? (No need to answer that one thanks)

Anyway I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject

[Tom Canning]

Drew - whether fair or not - i would have saved all that money and just shot the lot of them - try not to forget what they did to most people on the planet at that time - and the people who died -maimed etc - what was NOT fair was that Stalin was allowed to enter Europe for his 40 years of cold war.

We appear to heading in the same direction once more with the jackanapes crawling out of the woodwork in Iran - Venezuela - Somalia pirates - still Russia behind them !
Cheers

[Peter Clare]

Originally Posted by Tom Canning

Drew - whether fair or not - i would have saved all that money and just shot the lot of them
Cheers

The Soviet Union, which had lost millions of its people during the war, wanted the Nazis executed with as little folderol as possible. This was Stalin's position, and it was not one that Winston Churchill was about to waste much energy arguing against; Churchill said that as far as he was concerned, the Nazi leaders could be shot without a trial as soon as they were caught ''and their identity is established.''

[Gerard]

If we are talking about which sentences were fair and which ones werent consider the fact that Sauckel was executed whilst his Boss, Speer got a jail sentence. Also should Jodl have been executed?

[Drew5233]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

If we are talking about which sentences were fair and which ones werent consider the fact that Sauckel was executed whilst his Boss, Speer got a jail sentence. Also should Jodl have been executed?

This is the sort of debate I was looking for. It just appears to seem strange to me.

I wonder what penalties the German High Command would have dished out to the Allied Commanders if the shoe was on the other foot.

For example after watching the first two parts of WW2 Behind Closed Doors I wonder if Stalin dare I say this was any better than the Nazi's?

Can I just say to keep the record straight I do not subscribe to any ideas on Nazism nor am I sticking up for them. I am just seeking views on whether members think all the sentences fit the crime.

For Example:

I still don't get why Donitz's prison term was less than Raeders? From what little I know about both neither seemed to be in the 'Henchmen' catergory and Donitz replaced Raeder after he retired from the Kreigsmarine in 1943. I would say as many Merchantmen would probably agree Donitz struck terror in the Atlantic with his U-Boat campaign and had far more of a impact than Raeder did. It seems the only thing Raeder did of note was plan the invasion of Norway and this is what he was put on trial for.

Cheers
Andy

[Smudger Jnr]

It is normally always the victors that conduct war Trials when hostilities cease.

As far as I am aware those sentenced at Nürenberg were complicite with Forced labour policies and Concentration camp Slave Labour, in order to produce the weapons of war required by the German War machine.

Knowing this to be the case automatically rendered them guilty in the eyes of the world.

I am sure that the Germans would have held War trials if they had prevailed.

A friend loaned me a German book, the translated title being Crimes against the Wehrmacht, and was written by a Professor who works for the Bundeswehr.
It is a book documenting atrocities agains the soldiers on the Eastern front from the very opening days of Barbarossa.

After reading a couple of chapters I had had enough and it was not reading for the faint hearted.
All atrocities were documented in the field very much like Katyn and so cannot be dismissed as propoganda.
Judging by the widespread practice it was evident that the orders came from High.

As for fair or unfair sentencing, this is a problem that we have to this day!

Regards

Tom

[WotNoChad?]

Fair trials, fair sentences IMHO.

There's a good example of their fairness which I always bring up when someone mentions this, and that's the trial of Otto Skorzeny, albeit at the lesser Dachau Trials, who had F.F.E. Yeo-Thomas stand as a defence witness, backed by a petition from various Commandos demanding to be charged with similar offences should Skorzeny be found guilty.

It's worth bearing in mind how the bulk of the criticism of the Trials hails from ex-Nazis trying to justify the unspeakable, very similar to the origins of criticism of the Dresden bombings. Today they remain popular themes with neo-nazis, but time has allowed these standpoints to filter down into more moderate popular support.

All in all these trials were a more civilised route than the one suggested by Churchill, no matter how much I tend to agree with the very simple solution of just shooting them on discovery.

[James S]

In terms of trying to do justice and the nature of the crimes which were being answered for Nuremburg was something of a first.
Did they get everything "right" - probably not but given the huge nature of the undertaking they didn't do bad.

In terms of Justice - I would really have to refresh my memeory before sticking my neck out but again most of it was correct.
Jodl - mixed feelings about his being hanged.
Kietel - I think he betrayed the German Army and the German people.
Donitz - I would have to read it up again but as a naval commander he was uncompromising but by the book.
When his defence referred to the commander of US Subs in the pacific it turned out they conducted the same war Donitz had.
The Laconia order - given that Hartenstein was attacked his order is understandable up to a point.

Streicher - I think he was a personality disorder - should have been in care , a few screws missing .

Speer - With hindsight he knew more than he said and his defence did well to get him off.
Frank - guilty.
Kaltenbrunner - not angel I am sure but Heydrich or Himmler would have been the men to have had in the dock.
A pity both never made it and that HH managed to kill himself.

As far as shooting them out of hand - whilst I can understand the emotion behind it making them answer for what they had done did lead to what those who murdered in the Balkans in more recent times are now doing.

Although the process may not have been perfect it gave justice to men who had denied it out of hand to so many, the first time a national goverment had gone on trial - and what they had to answer for - when you shake it down it was as complex as it was twisted and evil.
Fair to say we are still finding out and revising just what they did and how they did it.
Must try and read up on the trial again .

[plant-pilot]

They got a chance of a day in court, which is more than most of their victims had, with plenty of witnesses to see that a legal process was followed. Were the sentences the right ones in every case? I doubt it, but the same could be said for court cases before that and since.

The trials also stopped the Soviets doing what they had done to their own people in the purges and sumarily shot everyone on the faintest of evidence, if that. If they had managed that we would probably be seen by the people some countries, and maybe some of our own, as being just as bad as they were. That wouldn't have been a good thing and Europe would have taken a lot longer to have some serious wounds heal.

[James S]

The court also set a standard for evidence - the Soviets would have had their evidence just as accepted as being right - " we said they did it , so they did it" - Katyn Wood being one example.