Latest / The History of Germany: Kingdoms, War, and Rebuilding Europe — Fexingo History / The Nuremberg Trials: Justice After the Holocaust
Transcript
- Luna: We've covered a lot of German history — the rise of the Nazis, the war, the Holocaust. But I've been wondering: how did the Allies actually deal with the leaders afterwards? What did justice look like? Lucas: That's exactly what we're diving into today — the Nuremberg Trials. Officially, the International Military Tribunal, which ran from November 1945 to October 1946 in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. It was the first time in history that defeated leaders were put on trial for war crimes, not just executed or pardoned. And it set a precedent that still shapes international law. Luna: So it wasn't a foregone conclusion that there would be trials? Some people wanted summary executions? Lucas: Absolutely. Winston Churchill initially favored simply shooting the top Nazis. But the Americans, especially Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Justice Robert Jackson, pushed for a legal process. They wanted to establish a record of the crimes, not just revenge. And that's how the London Charter was born in August 1945 — defining the charges: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Lucas: Crimes against humanity was the groundbreaking charge. It covered atrocities against civilians, including genocide — though that term wasn't yet in use. The Charter made clear that leaders couldn't hide behind state sovereignty. If you ordered or allowed mass murder, you were personally responsible. Luna: So who were the main defendants? The ones in the dock? Lucas: Twenty-two major Nazi leaders were tried. The most prominent was Hermann Göring — Hitler's second-in-command, head of the Luftwaffe. Then there was Rudolf Hess, Hitler's former deputy who had flown to Scotland in 1941 on a bizarre peace mission. Joachim von Ribbentrop, the foreign minister. Albert Speer, the architect and armaments minister. And Wilhelm Keitel, the head of the Wehrmacht. Among others. Lucas: The trials were a logistical and legal challenge. The court had to work in four languages — English, French, Russian, and German. They used documentary evidence extensively, including the 'Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression' volumes compiled by the Americans. And they brought in survivors to testify — like the Polish witness who described the Treblinka death camp. Luna: I imagine the defendants tried to defend themselves. What was their strategy? Lucas: A mix of denial, deflection, and claiming they were just following orders. Göring was combative, trying to dominate the proceedings. He insisted he knew nothing about the Holocaust — which was a lie. Speer was more clever: he accepted moral responsibility but denied direct knowledge of the extermination program. That saved his life; he got 20 years instead of the noose. Lucas: But the 'following orders' defense didn't work. The Tribunal ruled that orders from above were no excuse for committing atrocious acts. That principle is now a cornerstone of international law. Luna: And what were the verdicts? How many were sentenced to death? Lucas: Twelve were sentenced to death by hanging, including Göring, Ribbentrop, Keitel, and Rosenberg. But Göring cheated the hangman — he committed suicide with a cyanide capsule the night before his execution. Three got life sentences — Hess, for example. Four got prison terms from 10 to 20 years. And three were acquitted completely: Hjalmar Schacht, the banker; Franz von Papen, the former chancellor; and Hans Fritzsche, a propaganda official. Lucas: The acquittals were controversial. Many felt they let collaborators off too easily. But the Tribunal stuck to strict legal standards — they needed proof of conspiracy to commit aggressive war, and for those three, the evidence wasn't strong enough. Luna: It must have been complicated having Soviet judges on the panel, given the USSR's own atrocities under Stalin. Lucas: That's one of the deep ironies of Nuremberg. The Soviets had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, invaded Poland, and committed the Katyn massacre. Yet they were prosecuting Germans for similar crimes. The Western Allies chose to include them for political unity, but it undermined the moral authority of the trials somewhat. Still, the majority of the evidence and the convictions were sound. Luna: You know, it's amazing that these conversations are possible — that we can dive into such complex history for free. A couple of dollars a month from listeners genuinely keeps these episodes going. If you've gotten something out of them, buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo really helps us keep the show ad-free and independent. Lucas: Absolutely. And it's listeners like that who allow us to spend the hours researching topics like this. So thank you to anyone who chips in. Lucas: Back to Nuremberg — the legacy of these trials is immense. They established the precedent that individuals could be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. That directly influenced the later tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and Rwanda in 1994. And it paved the way for the International Criminal Court, which was established in 2002. Luna: So without Nuremberg, there might be no ICC today? Lucas: Exactly. The very concept of international criminal justice was born in that courtroom in Nuremberg. But it also raised questions that still haunt us. For example, why were only the losers tried? The Allies committed war crimes too — the firebombing of Dresden, the atomic bombs. But victor's justice meant only the defeated faced the court. Lucas: That tension remains. But the Nuremberg Trials were a revolutionary step. They said: there are some acts so terrible that they transcend national sovereignty. And if you commit them, you will be held to account — even if you're a head of state. Luna: One thing that strikes me is the location — why Nuremberg? Why not Berlin? Lucas: Good question. The Palace of Justice in Nuremberg was one of the few large court buildings still intact after the war. It also had a prison attached. And symbolically, Nuremberg was the site of the massive Nazi party rallies. So holding the trial there was a way of reclaiming the space — turning a place of Nazi propaganda into a place of justice. Luna: That's powerful. So the trials weren't just about punishment — they were about documenting history. Lucas: Yes. The Allies made sure to create a comprehensive record. Over 100,000 documents were submitted, and the trial transcript runs to over 16,000 pages. That record has been invaluable for historians. It also helped counter Holocaust denial — the evidence was overwhelming and publicly available. Lucas: One of the most chilling moments came when the prosecution showed a film of the liberation of the camps. The defendants had to watch footage of Belsen, Dachau, Auschwitz. Some wept. Others looked away. Göring just stared. It was a stark confrontation with the reality of what they had done. Luna: Did any of them show remorse? Lucas: Very few. Speer tried to project remorse, but it was calculated. Hess spent most of the trial pretending to have amnesia. Most of them remained unrepentant to the end. Göring's last words on the scaffold — if you can call them that — were reportedly 'Heil Hitler!' So there was no redemption arc. Luna: That's grim but honest. What about the judges — were they all impartial? Lucas: The judges were from the four Allied powers: the US, UK, France, and the USSR. They were jurists, not politicians. But the Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, had also presided over show trials under Stalin. So impartiality was a concern. However, the majority of the verdicts were unanimous, and the legal reasoning was sound by Western standards. Lucas: After Nuremberg, there were twelve more trials at Nuremberg — the so-called Subsequent Trials — prosecuting doctors, lawyers, industrialists, and others. Those continued until 1949. And across Germany, hundreds of lower-level Nazis were tried by national courts. Luna: So the pursuit of justice didn't end with the main trial. Lucas: No, it didn't. But it also faded. The Cold War shifted priorities. West Germany needed to be rebuilt as an ally against Communism. So many Nazis slipped through the cracks or got lenient sentences. But the Nuremberg principles remained. And they've been invoked in every major war crimes tribunal since. Luna: It's a sobering legacy, isn't it? A step forward, but imperfect. Lucas: Imperfect, yes. But without Nuremberg, we might not even have the language to talk about 'crimes against humanity'. The trial gave us that term and gave us a framework for holding individuals accountable. And in a world still full of atrocities, that framework matters.