Nuremberg at 80: How do you put a death machine on trial?

A courtroom gave the defeated Reich’s leaders a chance to defend themselves – and the world a record of crimes they could no longer conceal

On the night of October 16, 1946, 10 individuals were hanged in the Nuremberg prison. These were the main Nazi criminals who had been captured and brought to trial.

Despite the horrifying scale and brutality of the crimes, the Nuremberg Trials remain one of the most controversial proceedings in world history.

Justice instead of revenge

The idea of an international tribunal to address Nazi atrocities had been considered for some time. In 1942, the Soviet Union established a special Extraordinary Commission that gathered information about these crimes. Tragically, it had a lot of work to do. The USSR became the primary battleground for the bloodiest and most brutal war in Europe.

Read more

The range and nature of the crimes committed on Soviet soil were staggering: genocide against multiple peoples, mass killings on various grounds, all sorts of war crimes, deliberate attacks on medical facilities and civilian infrastructure, arbitrary executions, economic exploitation, and sexual violence. Essentially, every town liberated from the Nazis had enough evidence to warrant its own tribunal. When the concentration camps were liberated, it became clear that Allied propaganda had not exaggerated but rather understated the extent of Nazi atrocities.

In addition to the Soviet government, the exiled governments of occupied countries – Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, France, and Yugoslavia – also wanted to hold the Nazis legally accountable for their crimes. 

The outlines of the future tribunal began to take shape in the fall of 1943 during a conference in Moscow attended by the foreign ministers of the ‘Big Three’ – the USSR, the UK, and the US. The three powers agreed that Nazi leaders who committed crimes across multiple nations should be tried by an international court.

At that time, even the idea of lynching Nazi leaders seemed valid. Benito Mussolini was executed along with his mistress by Italian partisans on April 28, 1945, without any trial. Their mutilated bodies were publicly displayed. No one mourned Mussolini; similarly, no one would have objected if a Red Army soldier had shot Hitler.

Sporadic acts of vigilante justice also occurred as the war neared its end. A well-known incident involved American soldiers executing the staff of the Dachau concentration camp. Polish troops beat to death Oscar Dirlewanger, the commander of a punitive brigade responsible for countless deaths in Belarus and Poland.

Yet vigilante justice was not what the Allied leaders envisioned.

The men in the dock – and those who escaped it

Read more

It became clear that the crimes committed were not only widespread but complex. Determining individual responsibility was not always an easy task. The Nazis had taken measures to conceal their atrocities whenever possible; for example, they buried the remains of over 100,000 people, mostly Jews, after executing them at Babi Yar ravine near Kiev. Furthermore, once the Reich collapsed and arrests began, everyone began shifting blame onto one another, particularly onto those who had already died.

By April and May of 1945, most of the individuals who would eventually be tried at Nuremberg had been apprehended. Of course, many key figures were never tried. 

For obvious reasons, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels and Hitler himself were absent from the trial: both had committed suicide before they could face justice. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, was captured by two freed Soviet prisoners, yet during a medical examination, he swallowed a poison capsule and died. Heinrich Müller, the leader of the Gestapo, likely shot himself in late April or early May 1945. His body was discovered months later in a temporary grave.

The fate of Martin Bormann, Hitler’s private secretary and head of the party chancellery, was unknown for many years. He went missing, which in 1945 could imply that he had fled under an assumed identity. However, today we can say with certainty that Bormann was killed in the final hours of the defense of Berlin, while attempting to break out of the encircled city alongside a column of German troops.

Twenty-four people were tried in Nuremberg. The most prominent among them was Hermann Göring, the commander of the Luftwaffe, who held numerous official and unofficial positions, served as Hitler’s close associate, and was considered the second most powerful man in the Reich.

Other figures included the Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories and the Nazis’ chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg; Chief of the Armed Forces Command Wilhelm Keitel; Minister of Foreign Affairs Joachim von Ribbentrop; and the head of the security service Ernst Kaltenbrunner. 

Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice was chosen for the trials for several practical reasons. It had direct access to the prison, was in relatively good condition, and was well-equipped to accommodate large numbers of people.

Read more

Unprecedented crimes, untested law

The decision was made to conduct the trials according to established legal standards, allowing the defendants the right to defend themselves. The Nazis found attorneys to represent them. Admiral Karl Dönitz took an interesting approach: he secured a maritime law specialist as his lawyer, but said that if he were not allowed to work with him, he would choose the admiral of the Allied forces who commanded submarines as his lawyer.

Rosenberg pursued a different strategy by trying to recruit Hans Frank, who was also being tried for war crimes as the governor of occupied Poland, and happened to be a lawyer by training. However, this request was denied. Furthermore, since the court needed to address the criminal status of certain organizations, and Martin Bormann was absent from the trial, the court appointed its own attorneys. The judges were from the USSR, the US, the UK, and France. 

A significant challenge arose from the fact that some legal norms were developed during the trial itself. As a result, defense attorneys argued that the court was fundamentally unlawful since it relied on laws that did not exist at the time the defendants committed their crimes. Certain participants stated that Nuremberg represented “victor’s justice.” This sentiment partly fueled Winston Churchill’s earlier wartime suggestion to execute the political leadership of the Reich outright. The problem was that such a trial was unprecedented – nothing similar had ever been attempted before – and required the unveiling of many layers of guilt to find the responsible persons. 

For example, one of the most repugnant acts leading to the mass death of people was the so-called Barbarossa Decree issued in May 1941. This document was signed by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, chief of the German armed forces. It effectively removed accountability for crimes committed by Wehrmacht soldiers and officers against Soviet civilians. Such actions could only be punished if they harmed German interests. If a soldier looted and killed a peasant, Keitel technically bore no responsibility, as the soldier operated within the legal framework that existed at the time.

Additionally, during the trial, Keitel’s attorney attempted to shift all blame onto the dead Hitler, citing that Keitel “was just following orders.” Moreover, the fact that the USSR did not sign several international agreements designed to protect war participants, especially prisoners of war, compounded the issue. The mortality rate among Soviet POWs during WWII exceeded 50%; in absolute terms, 3.3 million out of 5.7 million documented prisoners died. And this was just a small part of the challenges faced by the judges at Nuremberg.

The prosecution comprised four categories of crimes: crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, war crimes, and general conspiracy crimes.  There was a significant challenge in aligning the legal positions of the USSR, the UK, and the US. Soviet law existed as an independent branch but was rooted in continental legal principles; meanwhile, the British and Americans relied on their own legal frameworks; for instance, the concept of ‘conspiracy’ was unique to these countries and was not typical in Soviet or German law.

Read more

Additionally, the Allies often favored a compromise stance whenever they could have been held accountable for similar actions themselves. This enabled Admiral Dönitz to mitigate his own sentence: although German submarine forces under his command fought ruthlessly, British and American submarine forces could have been accused of similar conduct.

Witnesses, evidence and Göring’s defiance

In some cases, the Allies had to make real compromises with their conscience. One such case involved Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, who participated in the proceedings as a witness. This man had directly overseen mass killings during counter-partisan operations in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and Poland.

A horrifying tactic employed by his subordinates involved rounding up villagers in partisan areas into one building, which was then set ablaze. The mass slaughter of Poles during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 is another example of his policy – about 15 civilians were killed for every lost insurgent.

Zelewski understood that his survival depended on betraying others, so he turned on everyone, revealing their darkest secrets. Hermann Göring shouted from the defendant’s stand, “You disgusting traitor, swine!” but there was nothing he could do. Ultimately, a German court sentenced him to life in prison, not only for his wartime actions but also for murders committed during the power struggles in Germany in the 1930s.

The tribunal had volumes of documents to examine. American judge Robert Jackson later recalled that he had approached stories of Nazi atrocities with skepticism before the trial, but was horrified by the reality that unfolded before him. He was particularly struck by an SS report detailing the destruction of ghettos – Jews leapt from burning buildings, and some attempted to crawl away on broken legs; they were hunted down like game.

While most defendants tried to speak evasively, Hermann Göring stood his ground until the very end. He was informally dubbed ‘Fuhrer of the Defendants’. Göring urged his co-defendants to remain defiant and not to confess. He showcased his skills as an orator, made sarcastic remarks, and effortlessly parried the initial accusations.

According to him, Gestapo actions and concentration camps were just a response to the terrorist actions of the communists; and the extermination of Jews was merely harsh rhetoric, there were no actual plans for their annihilation. He claimed to have had no hand in any acts of aggression, insisting he was always taken by surprise by such acts. He also maintained that the Reich had to strike preemptively against the USSR to defend itself from potential Soviet aggression. As for the humanitarian catastrophe in occupied territories – that was the fault of the Soviet authorities and their scorched-earth tactics; and any crimes committed by German soldiers were merely isolated incidents.

Read more

Göring steamrolled over Justice Robert Jackson with his shameless demagoguery. However, the Allies had seized enough documents to bring down the Reichsmarschall. Soviet prosecutor Roman Rudenko and British prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe hammered Göring with his own orders that led to mass starvation. Göring knew that he intended to starve millions and openly discussed it in his circles. 

In contrast, Albert Speer, the Minister of Armaments, didn’t plead for mercy; he acknowledged his guilt and presented himself as a humble technocrat, successfully avoiding the gallows.

The defense generally argued that the Nuremberg Tribunal established no new legal norms, yet the entire legal framework had been crafted specifically for this trial. Moreover, the conspiracy concept (one of the four main charges) allowed individuals to be condemned for being affiliated with criminal organizations. This was an unprecedented model in continental European law, including German law, and many lawyers deemed it inapplicable.

Even the term ‘genocide’ was used retroactively, having only emerged during the trial itself. Additionally, the defense reduced the discourse to the notion that the defendants were either uninformed or inadequately aware of the crimes being committed, while the actual perpetrators were presumably already in their graves.

The verdicts and the gallows

Out of 24 defendants, only 12, including Göring and Keitel, received death sentences. In reality, there were only 11, as the fate of Bormann remained unknown. Three others received life sentences – including naval commander Erich Raeder and Minister of Economics Walther Funk – but both were released in the 1950s. Rudolf Hess, one of Hitler’s associates, was sentenced to life in prison and committed suicide in 1987 at age 93. Albert Speer and the leader of the Hitler Youth organization Baldur von Schirach both received 20-year sentences. Interestingly, three people were acquitted: propagandist Hans Fritzsche, diplomat Franz von Papen, and financier Hjalmar Schacht.

Two others managed to evade justice altogether. Party official Robert Ley committed suicide before the trial even began, while Göring somehow obtained poison and took it just hours before his execution.

On the evening of October 15th, three gallows were erected in the prison gymnasium. Before midnight, the condemned were roused from their cells and led out. Execution began just after one o’clock, and by 2:45 AM, it was all over. The bodies were transported to Munich for cremation, and their ashes were scattered.

Read more

But that wasn’t the end of it. Following the main trial, there were 12 ‘mini-trials’ which focused on Nazi doctors, judges, and the case of the Einsatzgruppen (paramilitary death squads), among others. In total, 142 more individuals were found guilty, with 13 sentenced to execution. Many of these defendants were just as monstrous as those hanged in the primary trial. For instance, doctors were accused of a range of inhumane experiments on human subjects, including frostbite experiments, the deliberate poisoning of victims, and intentional infection with deadly diseases, among other atrocities.

Among those hanged was Waldemar Hoven, the chief physician at the Buchenwald concentration camp, who conducted gas poisoning experiments on inmates. A whole team of SS officers was convicted in connection to the Einsatzgruppen case. For unclear reasons, out of 24 individuals, only a few were actually executed, despite all being directly responsible for the murders. Among those executed was Paul Blobel, who organized the mass killings at Babi Yar. Additionally, separate trials occurred in various countries under their national laws. In Norway, 12 Germans and 25 collaborators were executed. In Poland, Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, was hanged following a separate trial.

***

The Nuremberg Tribunal was an impressive judicial process, and the Allies’ decision to hold it deserves commendation. The trial wasn’t perfect and it’s true that it departed from traditional methods of justice. Many legal norms were established retroactively; moreover, in the subsequent trials, many Nazi criminals managed to escape justice. However, Nuremberg wasn’t merely about ‘victor’s justice’. No one would dare say that those horrific criminals were hanged unjustly. Most importantly, while the principles of justice established in Nuremberg may have been imperfect, they are still effective in situations reminiscent of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis.