Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by say

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


Not all Nazi's used that excuse. Albert Speer one of Hitler's adviser's and chief architect admitted he was in the wrong during the trials and saved himself from hanging. He was jailed for some years and eventually released.

He used his time in jail to write "Inside the Third Reich" which was a pretty good read. Self serving yes but still gave good insight to Hitler and the Reich.

IIRC...this question came up as the Allies were setting the courts up. Somebody decreed that 'Just following orders' would not be an acceptable defense, and set them as ground rules. since it was an allied court they could pretty much set their own rules. so there was no real legal precedence.

The Nuremberg Trials were a sham all together.

Does this sound like justice?...

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the tu quoque defense was removed[citation needed]. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated: The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.

Critisism of Nuremberg Trials...

Critisism of Nuremberg Trials...

Here is a what a US chief justice thought about it at the time....

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."[67] Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest

Associate Supreme Court Justice....

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."

A few technical reasons to disregard any so called "evidence" brought forth in the Nuremberg Trials...

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the tu quoque defense was removed[citation needed]. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated: The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.

The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged or found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[76] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.

Luise, the wife of Alfred Jodl, attached herself to her husband's defense team. Subsequently interviewed by Gitta Sereny, researching her biography of Albert Speer, Luise alleged that in many instances the Allied prosecution made charges against Jodl based on documents that they refused to share with the defense. Jodl nevertheless proved some of the charges made against him were untrue, such as the charge that he helped Hitler gain control of Germany in 1933. He was in one instance aided by a GI clerk who chose to give Luise a document showing that the execution of a group of British commandos in Norway had been legitimate. The GI warned Luise that if she didn't copy it immediately she would never see it again.

.... to list a few.


Any historical knowledge gained from these trials should be struck from the record of every text book and encyclopedia. Any historian that bases any fact off those trials is nothing more than a fictional story teller.

I'm 100% sure if you were a Nazi soldier that didn't follow the orders given
I truly doubt you'd be court-martialed with severnce pay.
You would be shot dead and added to the pile.

MALBOSIA
The Nuremberg Trials were a sham all together.

Any historical knowledge gained from these trials should be struck from the record of every text book and encyclopedia. Any historian that bases any fact off those trials is nothing more than a fictional story teller.

I agree with the first statement, not necessarily with the second. While the evidence presented may not have been legitimate to a court of law, or in this case a military tribunal, it is still valid for the sake of the historical record. Much of the evidence against the Generals and Party hierarchy was obtained via secret recordings, evidence which is still not admissible in a court of law, but has validity to anyone studying the dynamics and inter-personal relationships of the Nazi leadership. Much of the evidence wasn't presented openly to the court because of deals struck between Nazi and German personnel to provide evidence in exchange for lighter sentences, information exchange, or as we know from Operation Paperclip and the such like, for immunity altogether if they had such expertise as could be used by the Allies. Both the US and the UK made such deals. Also, much evidence was kept from the public eye because the planning for the Cold War was already underway, and they did not want to share said information with the Soviets. All of this is of huge interest to the historian, but clearly, it should be viewed in the understanding, and in demonstration, that the Nuremberg Trials were not a display of justice.

Google has quite a lot of sites detailing the deliberate starving of 1.500,000 German troops on the orders of Eisenhower, even train loads of food from Switzerland being sent back. And the Cossacks being sent back to Russia to be murdered as 'turncoats' so that the Russians, would not hold the Allied prisoners they had under their control in Poland, yep, the allies are lilly white.

rupertg
I'm 100% sure if you were a Nazi soldier that didn't follow the orders given
I truly doubt you'd be court-martialed with severnce pay.
You would be shot dead and added to the pile.

There is absolutely no evidence that this was the case. Those who refused to partake in mass murder were invariably removed to other duties. Most death squads were comprised of volunteers anyway. There are notable cases of orders being disobeyed or simply ignored, but largely, they were so indoctrinated, and loyal to their commanders, that they acted without question. If the General communicated the orders, they were carried out. Those instances where they were ignored or disobeyed, it was on the part of the General concerned. Rommel and Guderian being the most notable examples, but there were others.

KilgoreTrout

MALBOSIA
The Nuremberg Trials were a sham all together.

Any historical knowledge gained from these trials should be struck from the record of every text book and encyclopedia. Any historian that bases any fact off those trials is nothing more than a fictional story teller.

I agree with the first statement, not necessarily with the second. While the evidence presented may not have been legitimate to a court of law, or in this case a military tribunal, it is still valid for the sake of the historical record. Much of the evidence against the Generals and Party hierarchy was obtained via secret recordings, evidence which is still not admissible in a court of law, but has validity to anyone studying the dynamics and inter-personal relationships of the Nazi leadership. Much of the evidence wasn't presented openly to the court because of deals struck between Nazi and German personnel to provide evidence in exchange for lighter sentences, information exchange, or as we know from Operation Paperclip and the such like, for immunity altogether if they had such expertise as could be used by the Allies. Both the US and the UK made such deals. Also, much evidence was kept from the public eye because the planning for the Cold War was already underway, and they did not want to share said information with the Soviets. All of this is of huge interest to the historian, but clearly, it should be viewed in the understanding, and in demonstration, that the Nuremberg Trials were not a display of justice.

I am tryimg to figure out a way to respond to that witout going
to far off task which we both are already.

To answer more with the OP... I think for the sake of documenting
the facts, detailing the defeat of - Arguably - the biggest
moster the world has ever seen, a degree of evil was levied against
the charged war criminals, that could summon a state of compliance
within the accused.

That being said; KilgorTrout, because of the nature of the
trials and the lack of visable due process, how can any historical
fact be drawn from this?

To me that is like someone standing above us saying "Eat this, it's
good for you...because we say so"

MALBOSIA
I am tryimg to figure out a way to respond to that witout going
to far off task which we both are already.

To answer more with the OP... I think for the sake of documenting
the facts, detailing the defeat of - Arguably - the biggest
moster the world has ever seen, a degree of evil was levied against
the charged war criminals, that could summon a state of compliance
within the accused.

I'm not really sure what you are saying there...but, in line with the OP, those accused faced created charges, none of which existed prior to those trials, though many have now become part of international law. So, the defence of 'I was following orders' was legitimate. The evil was played up, and it was somewhat gross hypocrisy to go calling Hitler a monster given Stalin's record. Nuremberg was victor's justice, and, as importantly, an attempt at a quick fix solution to the public outrage at the atrocities. As I already said, it was not justice.

MALBOSIA
That being said; KilgorTrout, because of the nature of the
trials and the lack of visable due process, how can any historical
fact be drawn from this?

It depends very much on how you view history and it's purpose. If it wasn't for the trials at Nuremberg we would be unaware of the inconsistencies of reporting of the war, and of the hypocrisy of world leaders in measuring guilt and responsibility. The testimony may be shrouded in doubt, but the process, the selection of those to be tried 'for show', is highly illuminating. Why were the German board of IG Farben tried and convicted, and not the US board, for example? This is all very helpful, historical speaking, especially to us conspiracy theorists. Why was Speer let off with a custodial sentence and his subordinate Saukel executed? Or why were Karl Wolff and Walther Schellenberg not publically tried?

It are these gaps, and inconsistencies that give us indications of where we should be looking in order to ascertain the true history, rather than the one presented to us by the victors. So while justice may not have been served, and reasonably, why those conviction should be overturned, it is still history and valid. Justice and history are not the same thing. One is an aspect of the other.

The real takeaway from Nuremburg is that the most evil men in history were just ordinary people doing their jobs.

They committed horrible acts on other people just to save a buck, or bring some extra money in, or to have the privilege of being able to do the same thing the day after. They just moved through their lives carrying out orders just like everyone else does every single day throughout history.

Keep this in mind the next time you're doing whatever it is you do for a living and you put someone else in a worse circumstance for your own benefit, or you shop at Walmart to save some money, or you criticize a whistleblower for breaking rank.

The lesson of Nuremburg is that people have a responsibility to think through their personal actions and weigh them against what their society is doing.

Prisoner60863
Following orders should never be used as excuse.

But aren't you trained in the military to follow orders without question?

I think it should then fall onto the commanding officer. That way they don't walk away from what they caused leaving some poor private as a scapegoat.

rupertg
I'm 100% sure if you were a Nazi soldier that didn't follow the orders given
I truly doubt you'd be court-martialed with severnce pay.
You would be shot dead and added to the pile.

exactly. People see this as black and white. Oh...killing jews is wrong...why didn't they simply refuse...? right. As if a tire can refuse to turn and make a car go. It can only be punctured, and replaced with a new tire. The old tire is thrown to garbage, burned or recycled.

You can never fight a big system this way. By refusing orders...the system will chew you up and spit you out....and just replace you. It will invent reasons and justifications, just as they invent reasons and justifications for spying on the world. And you who have refused to play the game within the system...will get stamped on...no matter how right or wrong you may be.

It is always far more easier to convict individuals. The system must never be shown to be flawed. Many billions of dollars and sad souls depend on the system being accepted (and appearing) as just.

Obviously, the "i was following orders" defense worked pretty well for some...see NAZI relocation programs for further reference. Those that could be used...were exempt from the proceedings. That is where justice falls flat on it's face. It's always about interests...crimes be damned.

Our society only asks for justice when it has to put on a show for the public...

KilgoreTrout
There is absolutely no evidence that this was the case.

Everything i have read suggests the opposite; German soldiers by en large did not like shooting defenseless civilians\soldiers any more than anyone else did and despite the fact that these execution units were already largely composed of 'troublemakers' of various stripes their commanders complained bitterly about the adverse effects this was having on morale. The reason there was less and less people involved in the executions and murders was mostly because even in Germany there were not a large mass of people who could carry out these acts without abrupt or eventual adverse mental consequence.

Those who refused to partake in mass murder were invariably removed to other duties.

It is the other way round. As far as my reading goes initially it was expected that the armies had to somehow 'take care' of such duties but it was quickly noticed that they could not be expected to and the existing special groups would have to be greatly enlarged to do the things the old guard generals just did not want to get involved in. Suffice to say that the men in these units did not want to be there and normally got the duty because of disciplinary or similar reasons in their regular units. Obviously under these conditions some adapted and learned to 'like' it just as we can see from the torture and murder scandals in other ( abu ghraib comes readily too mid even thought it happened on a very small scale) armed forces.

Most death squads were comprised of volunteers anyway.

You must be joking? Volunteers? Death squads? SOURCE!

There are notable cases of orders being disobeyed or simply ignored, but largely, they were so indoctrinated, and loyal to their commanders, that they acted without question.

Blatantly inaccurate. Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers were during the course executed for refusing to follow orders. By the end of the war and based on relative strengths the percentages of soldiers the SU and Nazi Germany executed were quite similar; both sides expected total compliance and unless you knew the correct people you had every right to fear your own regime as much as the other one.

If the General communicated the orders, they were carried out. Those instances where they were ignored or disobeyed, it was on the part of the General concerned. Rommel and Guderian being the most notable examples, but there were others.

Yes, they were carried out and those who commanders and generals who did not succeed, or could explain failure, were demoted or removed from the command structure or in the case of the infantry shot as soon as the tide of war turned against them.

The German armed forces were certainly not a liberal organization but to suggest that the NSDAP managed to turn a large, or even significant, proportion of the German population/armed forces into happy executioners in the five years before the war is a gross misstatement of reality. The armed forces Hitler started the war with was barely equipped for the ground war it had to fight and while loyalty pledges were made the vast majority of Germans, as with people from every other place, fought because they were compelled to do so or because they were led to believe that were under attack and had to respond.

While it can be hard to explain why men in volunteer armies ( most modern armies) commit atrocities when they could essentially resign or refuse to carry out orders ( no death penalty; some years in prison) it is not hard to understand how the power of summary execution could compel men to do things they would never do under different circumstances.

Stellar

Aazadan
The real takeaway from Nuremburg is that the most evil men in history were just ordinary people doing their jobs.

I understand where you are coming from but i believe you are going way too far... The most evil men in history are those that create the frameworks of propaganda and actions that will eventually compel individuals to either knowingly, refusal perhaps inviting great personal risk, or unknowingly partake in the execution of great crimes. The point of difference is that ordinary people could never and don't ever think up these great criminal schemes and most often do not even realise when they are partaking in them.

They committed horrible acts on other people just to save a buck, or bring some extra money in, or to have the privilege of being able to do the same thing the day after. They just moved through their lives carrying out orders just like everyone else does every single day throughout history.

That would be the upper middle classes and above, yes. The middle classes sons go to war while they get bombed at home and worked around the clock in factories or administration or whatever else. The workers generally don't have a clue and just keep working as they are normally totally dependent on daily wages and can't resist for fear of what is basically starvation or homelessness in the short term.

What i can say is that i agree with you that there are significant number of people that have a good idea of what is going on and are willing to keep playing their part in it for the initial stated rewards; these people pretty much got their position in upper society by towing the line and being morally flexible and they will not be the first to abandon all their 'hard work' because things are turning ugly. The vast majority of the rest do have moral sensibilities( that they will stand unless terrorized into submission; and yes, terror does work) and thus have to be misinformed or misguided into playing their roles without gaining insight into the consequences of the actions.

Keep this in mind the next time you're doing whatever it is you do for a living and you put someone else in a worse circumstance for your own benefit, or you shop at Walmart to save some money, or you criticize a whistleblower for breaking rank.

Yes, quit the two jobs you are working and dedicate your full energy to trying to overturn the 20 years of propaganda you had to suffer trough at home and in formal schooling. Nice and easy solution there...
That being said i share your general sentiment that if we all just did the things we thought would improve our countries i do believe we could accomplish a great deal of positive change.

The lesson of Nuremburg is that people have a responsibility to think through their personal actions and weigh them against what their society is doing.

And here i thought the ultimate lesson was that one should not commit massive crimes against humanity unless you we sure that you would win or had strong partner countries that would cover for you? That seems to be lesson the west took away from Nuremberg despite the original conclusion seemingly 'suggesting' that starting wars was the preeminent war crime and that doing so was commissioning all the rest in due course?

As if imperialist learn much from the imperialist that came before them... Right.

Stellar

The actual persons who pulled the triggers were not tried until the 50's and 60's. The Lubin district of Poland was declared 'jewenfri' or free of Jewish and was the focal point of the later trials of the actual killers. The Nuremberg tribunals were roundly criticized by everyone because of there self serving nature and the ones on trial were already presumed guilty all that was left was sentencing.

The reserve police battalions that were in charge of the Lubin district, and ordered to carry out the cleansing, were put on trial with little evidence remaining and memories faded. All in all not a single enlisted man was found guilty of anything because no one could remember the details-just an overview of who was there and what happened. Some sentences were handed out for various officers however appeals eventually set them free as well.

In essence of the original post question about the guilt of others who were ordered by others to carry out killing on non military personnel were only mired in more uncertainty and unfairness by the winners of the conflict in Nuremberg.

Case in point the alleged Malmédy Massacre that took place in the Ardennes Offensive in which two very different outcomes totally dependent on which side of the Atlantic a person is. Many untested in battle and 'green' solders were surrounded by the offensive as the Americans pulled out crack combat units and replaced them with new recruits thinking the war in the west was over. Desertions were rampant as the young solders didn't have the slightest idea what they should do. A private Eddie Solvic was hung in front of his fellow solders as a warning about the punishment for desertion in the face of the enemy. Less than a mile away more than 80 solders were surrounded by SS units and gunned down. The problem for the Americans was the solders were more than likely desertions from the very unit that the private executed was from. Therefore the killings were not war crimes. Interesting to note that the solders who were ordered to shoot the captured Americans were given long prison sentences however as the memories of the massacre faded all the sentences were commuted. By 1947 every single solder who carried out the killings were free men. It is not known the outcome of the officers who gave the orders however the persons who pulled the triggers were eventually set free.

I'm not sure that answers your question but without a doubt it invalidates the question as events in war time can not be judged by the same standards as that of a civilian court-especially some 70 years after the fact.

Nuerenberg trials imo were an utter disgrace committed by the allies.
Heck prisoners who had surrendered willingly and in good faith were sentenced.
Allies also proved that forgiveness is no longer a human virtue, and were no better
than the Nazis themselves

It all depends on who you accept as your authority. If you refuse to accept that the people judging you have any right to do so, that they are a mockery and a sham that has no standing in or association with your legal system, then you can justify pretty much anything. Had the Nazis won the War, then it all would have been sorted out later. In war you sometimes have to do brutal things and employ brutal people, anyone who says differently is unrealistic. But afterwards in peacetime you don't want that kind of thing continuing.

But the Nazis didn't win the War, so the losers must face the consequences of whatever Court the winners decided to create. Such is history.

StellarX
Everything i have read suggests the opposite; German soldiers by en large did not like shooting defenseless civilians\soldiers any more than anyone else did and despite the fact that these execution units were already largely composed of 'troublemakers' of various stripes their commanders complained bitterly about the adverse effects this was having on morale. The reason there was less and less people involved in the executions and murders was mostly because even in Germany there were not a large mass of people who could carry out these acts without abrupt or eventual adverse mental consequence.

Absolutely, Himmler set in place dedicated institutions in order to treat the adverse effects suffered by the soldiers, such as mental breakdown and alcoholism. Paul Blobel, Commander of Einsatzgruppen C, was institutionalised after a complete breakdown, exacerbated by alcohol abuse, but was able to return to duty when it was deemed necessary to expunge the evidence of the mass shootings in the East under the Aktion 1005 directive. The whole design of the Holocaust, that is the industrialised killing of the Reich Jews, Aktion Reinhard, was based upon Himmler's belief that the killing should be carried out as humanely as possible, not for the sake of the victims, but of his men who were tasked with the extermination in order to limit the mental trauma that had been shown to be caused by having to shoot, particularly, women and children on such a large scale.

StellarX
It is the other way round. As far as my reading goes initially it was expected that the armies had to somehow 'take care' of such duties but it was quickly noticed that they could not be expected to and the existing special groups would have to be greatly enlarged to do the things the old guard generals just did not want to get involved in. Suffice to say that the men in these units did not want to be there and normally got the duty because of disciplinary or similar reasons in their regular units. Obviously under these conditions some adapted and learned to 'like' it just as we can see from the torture and murder scandals in other ( abu ghraib comes readily too mid even thought it happened on a very small scale) armed forces.

I don't know of many accounts of any of those involved as 'liking' the work, most found it repellent, but almost universally, they saw it as necessary. In terms of the SS, they were indoctrinated to violence, one of the reasons Theodore Eicke was elevated to the position that he was, was due to his effectiveness in training his men to accept brutality via methods of desensitisation and normalisation. In the Wehrmacht, it depended very much on the individual Generals, and his attitude towards his men. There are instances both of Wehrmacht troops voicing their support of the atrocitities, as well as those expressing their disgust. Once in the East, particularly in the Ukraine, local millitia and the populace in general could and were incited to commit much of the killing themselves, the Wehrmacht and SS simply wound them up and let them get on with it. Similarly in Hungary and Romania, few Germans were actually involved in the atrocities relying instead on local feelings of anti-semitism and other racial tensions to 'get the job done'. In fact, in Romania, the Nazi Gauleiter complained to Berlin of the brutality of the local fascist party in it;s treatment of the Jews and other 'sub-humans'.

StellarX
You must be joking? Volunteers? Death squads? SOURCE!

Richard Rhodes 'Masters of Death', Heinz Hohne 'The Order of the Death's Head', Laurence Rees 'Auschwitz: The Final Solution',Guido Knopp 'The SS: A Warning from History'. The Einsatzgruppen was comprised largely from voluteers from other sectors of 'law and order', selectively approached. The SS were assigned, as any military unit was, but membership to the SS was voluntary.

StellarX
Blatantly inaccurate. Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers were during the course executed for refusing to follow orders. By the end of the war and based on relative strengths the percentages of soldiers the SU and Nazi Germany executed were quite similar; both sides expected total compliance and unless you knew the correct people you had every right to fear your own regime as much as the other one.

Germans who refused to participate in atrocities were generally not punished, but risked peer, social, and sometimes professional exclusion or disadvantage. They could request other duties, such as guard duty or crowd control. There is no reliable evidence that German soldiers or police officials were killed for refusing to kill civilians. Non-Germans serving as auxiliaries and refusing to carry out direct orders to kill could be subject to discipline, dismissal, imprisonment, or even death.

www.ushmm.org...

StellarX
Yes, they were carried out and those who commanders and generals who did not succeed, or could explain failure, were demoted or removed from the command structure or in the case of the infantry shot as soon as the tide of war turned against them.

The German armed forces were certainly not a liberal organization but to suggest that the NSDAP managed to turn a large, or even significant, proportion of the German population/armed forces into happy executioners in the five years before the war is a gross misstatement of reality. The armed forces Hitler started the war with was barely equipped for the ground war it had to fight and while loyalty pledges were made the vast majority of Germans, as with people from every other place, fought because they were compelled to do so or because they were led to believe that were under attack and had to respond.

I never said they were happy, or unaffected, I said they were indoctrinated. Rommel was only removed due to his involvement in the assassination plot, Guderian was in fact elevated. In both cases in ignoring orders to commit atrocities, they pled ignorance of those orders, when in fact they destroyed them on receipt. In another instance, when ordered to remove all Jews, one general, simply said there were no Jews there, he simply didn't record them, or marked them as none-Jews. There was no inspections, or repercussions.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


That is correct. It is because of peer pressure, more or less. Although I can see there are greater experts on the subject than I here. The society around a person shapes what they think they can and cannot do.

We do have free will, but it can take serious cahones to stand up to someone, even when it is just your job or a friendship on the line (and yes, it would be better to speak your mind). But imagine speaking out when there are S.S. troopers waiting for the order to take you out.

Also, at the time, there was a Social Darwinist movement and the moral imperative was to implement The Final Solution. So, people were confused about what was right and what was wrong, as well - not as if people aren't right now, too.

But I guess everyone got confused in the same direction.

Hitler went after the Jews because they were the bankers. If you are asking if something similar could happen in the U.S., possibly - although I think having 50 different states is a barrier to it, for one.

Wikipedia

I guess the Salem Witch Trials are an example of the same sort of thing, what else... handing out Smallpox blankets to Native Americans. Not on the same scale, but that's what I can think of - Manifest Destiny.

KilgoreTrout

MALBOSIA
The Nuremberg Trials were a sham all together.

Any historical knowledge gained from these trials should be struck from the record of every text book and encyclopedia. Any historian that bases any fact off those trials is nothing more than a fictional story teller.

I agree with the first statement, not necessarily with the second. While the evidence presented may not have been legitimate to a court of law, or in this case a military tribunal, it is still valid for the sake of the historical record. Much of the evidence against the Generals and Party hierarchy was obtained via secret recordings, evidence which is still not admissible in a court of law, but has validity to anyone studying the dynamics and inter-personal relationships of the Nazi leadership. Much of the evidence wasn't presented openly to the court because of deals struck between Nazi and German personnel to provide evidence in exchange for lighter sentences, information exchange, or as we know from Operation Paperclip and the such like, for immunity altogether if they had such expertise as could be used by the Allies. Both the US and the UK made such deals. Also, much evidence was kept from the public eye because the planning for the Cold War was already underway, and they did not want to share said information with the Soviets. All of this is of huge interest to the historian, but clearly, it should be viewed in the understanding, and in demonstration, that the Nuremberg Trials were not a display of justice.

Most of the evidence used to convict the Nazis was gathered under torture. So no it shouldn't be historical record because if you torture a person enough they will say what you want.