Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury...trying the Nazi bastard hierarchy....(2)

Every time I think about WW2, and its' aftermath, I think of this song by Dylan:

Dylan lends gravitas to just about anything, don't you find?  And the sixties, when the song was written, were hard times, during which the 'hard rain' fell in the aftermath of World War II.

And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast, the Nurenberg trials.

Now, let us further imagine that we had a chance to hold accountable some of the Nazis for the horrors seen at the concentration camps as they were liberated by the Allies  

Additionally, the victors of World War II were hard pressed to understand in a cultural sense, both the German and Japanese Prisoners. Is difficult to ascertain how a society could have fallen under Hitler’s spell, but they did. It is also difficult to understand the Japanese response to external industrialisation. In their case, the code of Buchito made it possible for them to conquer so much of the Pacific Rim.

As far as the German people are concerned, my experience with that culture is limited. I shall leave the questions of cultural character, to other scholars better versed In the subject.  In my view, most of the trouble of World War II lay in misunderstanding other cultures, and thereby dreeming them less valuable to the world at large.

Nuremberg--The First trial.

What were the Nuremberg trials? For historians, they were a valiant attempt to do the impossible:  hold those Nazis left accountable (among a myriad of other things) for the Holocaust--as well as about a  billion other war crimes. From the perspective of history, this was a crucial moment where 'some justice' might be meted out for unimaginable actions, and try to establish laws that governed warfare, If such a thing was even possible.

To try these cases, a new legal concept was created:  crimes against humanity, as well as  promoting the concept of international law.  It was also an attempt to create a universal concept of what it meant to wage total war. This had been done already most remarkably during the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865. In the last year of that war, the union made aggressive war on southern civilisation population and it’s infrastructure, in part to punish, and in part to restrain or destroy their ability to support further fighting on behalf of southern soldiers.  In the last year of that war, the union made war on southern population and it’s infrastructure, in part to punish, and impart to restrain or destroy their ability to support further fighting on behalf of southern soldiers.  To my knowledge that was the first time where wholesale warfare was bent on destroying farms, cities, and homes. But this is not a history lesson on warfare.

But this is not a history lesson on warfare, only its' aftermath.  However, we need to look a bit at the nature of warfare in World War Two....

World War Two was special in one regard--the industrial eradication of specific groups of people from the general Eurasian population.  But, it must be stated that Germany wasn't doing anything terribly original--I must remind you Dear Reader, of the near genocide of Native Americans in the nineteenth century any  the Armenians by the Turks in the years prior to World War One.  What made this horrifyingly singular, was the way in which Germans laid waist to any group of people they deemed 'unfit' to live. They, in fact, were trying to reengineer the Germanic people.

What made this case special, was the volume of individuals murdered by a sovereign power.  Murder on an ‘industrial' scale--i.e. concentration camps. This too was not new:  concentration camps were built by the British forces in the infamous Boer war provided, in part, the model for the death camps followed under Nazi Germany. 

World War Two also was a special conflict in the number of soldiers lost in specific battles--although World War One ran it a close second:  to give you an idea of what I am saying, take a gander at Spielberg's vision of D-Day:

Ghastly, right?

Violence, brutality, and genocide were on trial, but also the entire Nazi culture was present on the stand.  Someone had to provide a road map for others to understand the phenomenon.

The trials began primarily as an international endeavour--Russians wanted the pretence of a trial, whereas Churchill wanted an immediate firing squad. But, the consensus was that a longer trial was needed--it would afford the opportunity to perform a kind of mass reveal (ie. presenting a slew of damning documents supporting the "final solution to the Jewish question").  Frankly,  I'm here to tell you, that the Nazis wrote just about every f*&^ing thing down.

-

The person put in charge of this legal parade, was Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson--who had been appointed by FDR. He was a dyed-in-the-wool New Deal Democrat (meaning that he thought Roosevelt was a pretty great man).   It was Jackson's express task to create a spectacle whereby the entire National Socialist network of crazies/boneheads/evil bastards would be put on trial for the loony tunes they were.  So, was it a show trial? Perhaps.  Was it even necessary? Well Dear Reader, I certainly think so.  If a story is violent enough, scary enough, and horrific enough it demands to be aired in a public forum in the hope that such events will not reoccur.

Now back to Bob's mandate.  Jackson had his work cut out--getting the trial organised, including a complete makeover of the bomb ravaged Nuremberg courthouse, which took time.  I must also include  thousands of pages of documents -- Nazis were incredibly insecure.  I still find it interesting (horrifying) how German troops were told to destroy grave pits, crematoria, and gas chambers, as the Allied troops advanced into their area. Also, they were used to reconstruct the courthouse.

But, I digress.

What were the Nuremberg trials? For historians, they were a valiant attempt to do the impossible:  hold those Nazis left accountable (among a myriad of other things) for the Holocaust--as well as about a billion was crimes. For those prosecuting them, they were an attempt to come to terms with the aftermath of World War Two.

From the perspective of history, this was a crucial moment where 'some justice' might be meted out for unimaginable crimes.  For the first time in the history of warfare, a new legal concept was created:  crimes against humanity, as well as promoting aggressive war (meaning against the civilian population.  These were only some of the charges, but they were enough to indicate the brutality of WW2--in other words, a way to create order from chaos.

Telling the story of the trial isn't always easy--not every Nazi ended up with a rope necktie.  The 'legal framework' surrounding the proceedings is also a bit difficult to parse through.  So, who went on trial first?

• Hermann Göring
• Rudolf Hess
• Joachim von Ribbentrop
• Robert Ley (who committed suicide before the trial began)
• Wilhelm Keitel
• Ernst Kaltenbrunner
• Alfred Rosenberg
• Hans Frank
• Wilhelm Frick
• Julius Streicher
• Walther Funk
• Hjalmar Schacht
• Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach (deemed medically unfit to stand trial)
• Karl Dönitz
• Erich Raeder
• Baldur von Schirach
• Fritz Sauckel
• Alfred Jodl
• Martin Bormann (tried in absentia)
• Franz von Papen
• Arthur Seyss-Inquart
• Albert Speer
• Konstantin von Neurath
• Hans Fritzsche

These were all men, who occupied the highest levels of Nazi leadership.  Those who didn't survive had most likely embraced Agatha Christie, and downed a cyanide mocktail.  Goering was the most important defendant, as he had long been seen as Hitler's heir.  Less visible, but still important, were Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer.   Others, like Julius Streicher (publisher of the hate rag "Der Sturmer") were also on trial.  All faced the death penalty. 

Through the duration of the trial, many of the defendants were unwavering in their desire to escape accountability for crimes committed during the Nazi regime.  Nearly all said that they were merely following orders, and to disobey a direct order meant death.  This became known as the 'Nuremberg Defence."

For a long time afterwards, this defence would be revisited in similar war crimes tribunals, with similar results.  "Following orders" does not give any soldier the right to murder civilians.  

More later.