The Nuremberg Trials

by R. D.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - fall 1996)

The Nuremberg Trials took place during the immediate aftermath of World War II. They were the first trials in history to indict an entire regime for aggressive war crimes. These crimes included invading other nations, violating the Treaty of Versailles and most significantly, "crimes against humanity". These crimes were what later became known as the Holocaust, in which millions of innocent victims were deported, enslaved and systematically executed. The victims were primarily Jewish however many other victims suffered at the hands of the Nazis such as: Poles, Gypsies, the handicapped and the elderly.

The Nuremberg Charter "defined war crimes as violations of the laws or customs of war"(Rosenbaum p, 30). Including killing of hostages, ill-treatment of civilians, use of forced labor and looting of public and private property and racial persecution. The International Military Tribunal, the prosecutors consisting of lawyers and judges from the United States, France, England and the Soviet Union had countless evidence of these crimes committed by the Nazis, however to serve justice to every individual for their inhumane actions was impossible. The Nuremberg Trials prosecuted twenty one defendants (all of whom were Nazi officers) and six major Nazi organizations. Although three organizations were declared criminal by the Tribunal and the defendants were convicted, justice was not completely served to many other organizations and individuals.

Literally thousands of men who willingly participated in massive genocide evaded justice and lived comfortable lives in other countries. The Nuremberg Trials were successful in "officially" recognizing the atrocities of the Nazis during and before World War II but they were not successful in holding all accountable for their administrative or direct participation in Nazi genocide. As Alan S. Rosenbaum asserts in his book, Prosecuting Nazi War Criminals: "In short, only a minority of planners and perpetrators were ever brought to trial....For there were hundreds of thousands of Nazi activists who took advantage of having a Nazi government....to persecute, enslave, murder, and enrich themselves by plundering the wealth of innocent victims (p, 69)." Rosenbaum further states that many Nazis who escaped justice were able to do so with the wealth they robbed from their victims by paying off those who assisted them and paying for their escape routes.

Contrary to the opinions of some Holocaust revisionists, the International Military Tribunal was not established by "International Zionists" for the purpose of destroying the German people and indicting the entire nation. It was a response to such unprecedented crimes of brutality against innocent men, women and children throughout Europe. These crimes required a different type of court because they were of such brutal nature and because their victims had no rights under German law. In fact, German law, at that time, simply legitimized the massive deportations, enslavement and eventual execution of innocent civilians who the Nazis declared "enemies of the state". Under German law, the victims never had the privilege of a trial or adequate representation, unlike the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg, who helped orchestrate crimes and atrocities. Their victims were determined guilty because of their ethnicity, religion or political affiliation. Because the "crimes against humanity" the Nazis committed were so unique and had nothing to do with military strategy or objectives, the International Military Tribunal was a more logical step than the traditional court marshal. If a court marshal was held instead of the IMT, the Nazis would have not been provided with adequate representation and the trials would not recognize the rights of the defendants the way the Nuremberg Trials did. Furthermore if the U.S., with the help of the English, French and Soviets did not form the IMT, the Germans may have been subjected to a Soviet court marshal which would have been far more vengeful in its nature (Taylor p, 39).

The establishment of the International Military Tribunal had two central objectives. First to try the highest ranking German officials and second to try the groups and organizations in which they worked. If the organizations like the Gestapo were found guilty of crimes against humanity, some members of those organizations would be considered guilty based on their membership and involvement in that particular organization (p, 39). Despite the IMT being formed by the victors to punish the aggressors in the war, this type of trial was legitimate and the Nazi defendants were allowed "due process of law" unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the millions of innocent victims who suffered at the hands of these Nazi officials and the organizations they either led or participated in.

The Nuremberg trials opened on November 20th, 1945. Robert H. Jackson was the Representative of the United States and Chief of Council. He prepared and prosecuted charges of war crimes against humanity by Nazi leaders. In his opening statement, Jackson addressed certain problems of the trials such as: "victor's justice" and indicting the German Nation as a whole.

Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The worldwide scope of the aggression carried out by these men has left but few real neutrals...We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow... If these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given a chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law...We would also make it clear that we have no purpose to incriminate the whole German people...If the German populace had willingly accepted the Nazi program...there would have been no need for the concentration camps or the Gestapo (p, 168).

When confronting the defendants with evidence against them, Jackson used official Nazi reports from field commanders. He made it clear that every defendant and organization on trial, would have all charges read and supported with evidence. One example of this is when deterring what atrocities the SS Einsatzgruppen committed, he read their reports after they invaded the Soviet Union with the intention of rounding up and executing Jews, Gypsies and others they considered "dangerous":

In Vitebsk, 3,000 Jews were liquidated because of the danger of epidemics. Kiev 33,771 Jews were executed on September 29, in retaliation for some fires which were set off there. In Zhitomir 3,145 Jews had to be shot because, judging from experience, they had to be considered as the carriers of Bolshevik propaganda (p, 170).

Another problem, which Jackson addressed, was justifying the treatment of the aggressors as criminals in the event of war. Jackson stated that it is civilization's responsibility to persecute the guilty party because the crimes were so brutal. Since these were the most appalling crimes committed against basic human rights that the world has ever seen, Jackson explained that in order for civilization to recover from such unprecedented evils, civilization had a moral obligation to persecute these crimes (p, 172). It was also important to give these men a fair trial despite their participation in organizations which planned and performed genocide on such a massive scale. Certain individuals in the United States government wished to execute all Nazis with no regard for "due process of law", however, Roosevelt, Jackson and other members of the IMT felt that the right to a fair trial morally separated the allied nations from totalitarian Germany.

The two remaining leaders of the Nazi party, tried at Nuremberg, were Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess. Since Hitler, Himmler and Gobbels were dead, these two men were considered the symbol of the evils of Nazism. Although prosecutors sought to cross-examining both men to tell all they knew about the Nazi's policies, Goering tried from the beginning, to discredit the International Military Tribunal and the trials. Hess, on the other hand, feigned amnesia and avoided being cross-examined. Other defendants tried at Nuremberg were Joachim von Ribbentrop, Field Marshall Wihelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenburg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick. These men were considered "Nazi thugs" and their trials did not last as long and were not seen as significant as Goering's. All men were charged with war crimes, "crimes against humanity" (genocide) and violation of the Treaty of Versailles (p, 186). Although all claimed they had no knowledge of some of the atrocities they were charged with, the prosecution had sufficient evidence to the contrary. Goering claimed the acts they committed were excusable because they were in war and Hitler believed there was no such thing as a "just war". Goering's attorney's tried to convince the Tribunal that the defendant had no choice but to follow the orders of the Furher. This flawed argument failed to impress the IMT and the public who followed his trial proceedings so obsessively.

Goering's trial lasted a total of twelve days of court time. Since he was the leader of the defeated Nazi regime, his trail was the most important of any Nazi leader. From the outset of the trial, Goering wanted to make his actions and the Third Reich's justifiable. Throughout the trial, Goering maintained calm, and he insisted his crimes were necessary for the Reich's survival. During his testimony, he admitted several war crimes and atrocities and his own testimony was sufficient evidence to convict him. Goering admitted to setting up concentration camps where "political opponents" of the Reich were incarcerated and executed. He further acknowledged authorizing financial penalties against Jews after Kristallnacht in 1938. Goering believed that if Third Reich was to grow and prosper, it was necessary to "reunite" with Austria, Poland and Danzig. In Goering's view, the ends of reclaiming lost territory for the greatness of the Reich justified their means of rearming themselves and conquering other nations (p, 330).

Goering may have implicated himself and the Third Reich during his testimony, however he answered many of the questions which related to concentration camps and genocide vaguely. His replies would be too long and often failed to answer the questions. Although he initially gained praise for his poise and confidence, attorney's, the press and the Tribunal grew increasingly frustrated with Goering because much of his testimony was too long and he attempted to explain philosophical justification of many of the Reich's actions. Goering did admit to setting up concentration camps but he said that the camps were intended to "sequester rather than punish political enemies of Nazism". Goering claimed that after 1934, he had no involvement with the camps or any knowledge of their activities since Himmler took control of the concentration camps. He added that he was the man closest to the Furher and if anyone could have any knowledge of a conspiracy to commit genocide it would be him. Goering said "At best only the Furher and I could have conspired. There is definitely no question of the others (p, 335)." Goering did not admit to participating in or knowing about genocide policies, however his testimony helped determine his guilt in two indictments of war crimes and crimes against humanity (p, 331).

With Goering taking the stand for such long intervals, he discussed the Nazi party's illegal seizure of power, the burning of the Reichtag, Kristallnact, its inevitable outcomes of financial alienation of the Jewish population and aggressive war policies until the final days of World War II. Because his trial lasted so long, the Tribunal agreed that the other defendants trials should not take up so much time. If each of the other twenty defendants had twelve day trials, Nuremberg would have lasted over a year. Jackson, along with other members of the Tribunal felt that long speeches by the defendants would be an "advertisement" for Nazism and since Goering articulated the Nazi's justification for aggression, the IMT believed that it would make no sense to have the remaining twenty defendants repeat Goering's testimony. On March 22, 1946 the Tribunal announced their intentions:

The Tribunal has allowed the Defendant Goering, who has given evidence first of the defendants and who has proclaimed himself to be responsible as the second leader of Nazi Germany, to give his evidence without interruption whatever, and he has covered the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception to the defeat of Germany. The Tribunal does not propose to allow any of the other defendants to go over the same ground in their evidence except insofar as it is necessary for their own defense (p, 347).

Goering implicated himself and his fellow defendants with his own testimony, therefore it was not necessary to hear lengthy testimony concerning the Nazi's policies. Each of the remaining defendants had an average of four trial days. All the Nazi war criminals, prosecuted at Nuremberg, were found guilty and sentenced to death. Their verdicts brought justice to the defendants for their actions, however many questions were left unanswered after their trials. Although prosecuting the twenty one individuals was not difficult (Goering's testimony alone sufficiently proved evidence for a conviction) prosecuting the Nazi organizations proved to be a much more problematic task. It was impossible to indict every member of the Gestapo, the SS or the RSHA (Reich Security Main Office), among other Nazi organizations because so many people made up these criminal organizations. Himmler was in charge of many of these groups and it was impossible to acquire the testimony from him since he took his own life before the Nuremberg Trials. Bring justice to every member of an organization could not be possible because individuals could not be held accountable for the actions of a group they participated in.

If the trial of every member of an organization was attainable, then the indictment and prosecution of every Nazi, or every German would be possible. This could not be done despite the inhumane actions of many Nazis and German citizens (p, 504).

Although the trial of individuals within a certain criminal organization was at best, problematic, the conviction of organizations like the SS and the Gestapo was not nearly as difficult. There was much evidence which proved the criminal actives of the Gestapo before and during World War II. Some of these crimes included the deportation of 20,000 during Kristallnacht, and the execution of "political oppositions". When the Gestapo was put on trial, there was little if anything that its lawyer could do to prove its innocence. Because the evidence against the Gestapo was so well-documented, its lawyer simply tried to proved that not all members of the Gestapo deserved prosecution. Technical employees like operators, secretaries and other office employees had no say in policy and possessed little knowledge of its operations. The tribunal exempted many of these employees from the prosecution's indictment. In his closing statement, the lawyer for the Gestapo declared: "I desire to clear the way for a sentence which will dethrone the powers of darkness and reconstitute the moral order of the world."(p, 509). In this particular case, the prosecution and the defense agreed on what the Nuremberg Trials should accomplish.

The trial of the SS proved to be even more problematic than the Gestapo because the SS had several branch organizations and consisted of over 700,000 members (p, 516). The prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict the SS but with so many branches and members, to hold all accountable was impossible. The evidence showed thousands of SS members knew of and participated in many war crimes and atrocities, but they could not prove that all or even most of the members participated in atrocities. Himmler was in charge of the SS and with his suicide, many questions of the SS's intentions and policies were left unanswered.

There was so much evidence against the SS, Gestapo and Nazi High Command that the defense councils had weak arguments in their behalf. Their first argument was the "official" announced purposes of these organizations were not to blame, it was the individuals within the organizations who committed the atrocities, therefore the individuals were the criminals, not the organizations. Using this logic, the defense council argued individuals should be prosecuted and the organizations exempt from the trials. Their second argument was organizations worked independently of one another, in other words, each organization had its own goal, leadership and programs.

Furthermore, the defense council argued there were several sub-divisions within each organization and they were also independent of one another. This argument did not convince the Tribunal since it had been established that the SS, Gestapo, SD and High Command were all under the direct leadership of Himmler and the Furher (p, 532). Every institution in Germany was at the time, under Nazi control, therefore the organizations all worked towards achieving the goals of the Nazi Party, genocide of massive and unparalleled proportions.

The Nuremberg Trials lasted nearly a year since there were so many atrocities to be accounted for. The defendants Hess and Goering were found guilty of war crimes and atrocities and were subsequently executed. Three of the six Nazi organizations on trial were also declared criminal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had such compelling evidence against the Gestapo, the SD and the SS that any verdict to the contrary would be an insult to justice and those organization's countless victims. Among some of its findings, the Tribunal declared the SD had forced labor programs where Jewish victims were deported to work as slave in many German industries. The Tribunal found the SS formed concentration camps and systematically performed massive executions of the inmates. This organization was declared to have committed the most atrocities and out of all Nazi organizations, had the largest membership. Since so many members were either drafted or forced to join, several SS members received exemption from the charges (584).

Despite the evidence that the Reich Cabinet, the General Staff and the High Command committed atrocities, they were not declared criminal. The Tribunal justified this decision because membership in either of these organizations meant an advance in rank in "one of the three services, and could not be conscious of the fact that he was becoming a member of anything so tangible as a "group", as the word is commonly used (p, 586). Another decision which was highly controversial was the Tribunal finding the organization the SA as not being criminal. The Tribunal explained this decision when they stated:

Until the purge beginning on 30 June 1934, the SA was a group composed in large part of ruffians and bullies who participated in the Nazi outrages of that period. It has not been shown that these atrocities were part of a specific plan to wage aggressive war, and the Tribunal therefore cannot hold that theses activities were criminal under the Charter (p, 585).

Although defendants Goering, Hess and others were convicted of committing atrocities, justice was not served to all Nazis who participated in atrocities. Some may consider the Nuremberg Trials to be "unfair" and a classic example of "victor's justice" however a conservative estimate is that over 7,000 former Nazi officers avoided prosecution by fleeing to America, Argentina and other countries (Rosenbaum, p, 79). Some of these men eventually faced persecution for their crimes but overall, most criminal managed to go unpunished. Many of these cases received much attention from the media, and during the 1980's many organization were formed with the intention of locating former Nazi war criminals who had evaded justice.

Some Nazi war criminals evaded justice with the help of Nazi organizations like Odessa, (the Organization for ex-SS Members) and in some cases, governments of other nations, including the United States (p, 68). Many former Nazi officials were able to seek refugee in the United States due to the 1948 Displaced Persons Act, which allowed refuges of World War II to enter the United States in large numbers. Many simply lied in their immigration papers, while others entered the United States with the help of government officials who actively sought and recruited Nazi war criminals. Some of these men were involved with Nazi Intelligence and possessed much information on the Soviet union which at the time, the United States found vital to "National Security" since the Cold War was beginning to emerge. Other Nazis were scientist who the U.S. Government and the Soviets coveted in order to work on the new aerospace technology. In many cases, some of these Nazi scientists used Jewish slave labor to work in their labs and conducted gruesome experiments on innocent people in the name of science.

The Displaced Persons Act expired in 1952 and by then an estimated 10,000 Nazi war criminals were residing in the United States (p, 75). One Nazi war criminal who managed to evade justice and reside in the United States was Arthur Rudolph. Rudolph was an engineer and production manager in the Nordhausen concentration camp. In addition to being a member of the SA, Rudolph was reported to receive work brigades of slave labor totaling 60,000. These innocent victims were forced to work for Rudolph and they lasted at most, six months until they died either of starvation, malnutrition or at the hands of SS guards (p, 76). The forced labor was seen as "less than slaves" since their "slave masters" worked them in such horrible conditions and deliberately deprived them of food, light and medical treatments. Rudolph and other Nazi scientists imported this labor with the intention of working them to death, thus contributing to Hitler's "Final Solution" (p, 76).

Rudolph was allowed entry into the United States based on the merit of his technical expertise. He eventually received a Distinguished Service Medal for his work in the space program. During the 1980's the OSI (Office of Special Investigations) interviewed him about his Nazi past and his utilization of "less than slave" labor. When the OSI told him his U.S. citizenship could be challenged he returned to Germany and renounced his citizenship. In 1986 Rudolph expressed his disappointments towards the United States: "I helped put the first man- an American- on the moon and then I was treated like this... The Americans are very ungrateful and I am very bitter (p, 77)."

Although Rudolph escaped persecution and returned to Germany, while still receiving a substantial amount of revenue from his generous U.S. Government pension, the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was not so fortunate. Barbie, who was nicknamed "Butcher of Lyons", was a chief of the Gestapo in Lyons during Germany's occupation of France. Barbie brutally murdered members of the French Resistance and ordered the shooting of seventy -two French Jews since at the time, railways to Auschwitz were not reliable. Barbie had no use for moral issues and commented "There are no war crimes....There are only acts of war (Ryan p, 275).

After the war ended, Barbie managed to avoid prosecution and eventually resettled in Bolivia. Barbie became close a friend and advisor to Hugo Banzer, the right-wing dictator who used terror and a secret police force to maintain his mandate. He had been exposed by a French woman who was investigating escaped Nazis but he remained protected by the corrupt Bolivian junta. It was almost ten years before he was deported to France, and by then he became a symbol of so many Nazi war criminals evasion of justice (p, 276). Barbie was arrested by the Bolivian Government for defaulting on a loan. Their original intention was to deport him to West Germany to face war crimes charges, however, the West German Government did not want to have anything to do with his case. France, on the other hand, did not show the same hypocrisy as the West Germans and they were glad to prosecute Barbie for his crimes. The French charged Barbie with "eight counts of crimes against humanity, the liquidation of the Union General of Jews in France; the deportation of 650 French men, women and children on the last convoy to Auschwitz; the arrest and torture and execution of scores of Lyon's Jews; the deportation of fifty-two orphaned
children from Isieux (p, 279)."

When his case became publicized, another link of former Nazi officials and U.S. intelligence was discovered. Alan A. Ryan investigated Barbie and concluded that he had been used by Americans immediately after the war for his knowledge of French and German communists. Although it was well known that he was a chief in the Gestapo and committed many atrocities, he successfully avoided justice for thirty-three years. In the closing statement of his report, Ryan asserted:

I therefore believe it appropriate, and I so recommend, that the United States government express to the government of France its regret for its responsibility in delaying the due process of law in the case of Klaus Barbie. This is a matter of decency, and honorable conduct. It should be, I believe, the final chapter by the United States in this case (p, 322).

The United States government issued a formal apology to France and in 1987, Barbie was convicted of all charges against him. Because France eliminated the death penalty, he was sentenced to life in prison where he died in 1991 (Rosenbaum p, 79)." Barbie may have received delayed punishment for his actions but his case is an exception to the overall trends of Nazi fugitives. To this day, thousands of Nazi criminals still remain unpunished for their involvement in genocide.

One argument against continuing the search for Nazis who evaded justice is the "Passage of Time Argument" this theory does not deny responsibility all together but it excuses further persecution on the grounds that these criminals are now elderly men and the crimes they committed occurred over fifty years ago. Advocators of this argument also assert that these men assimilated into their new countries, have their own families and live a peaceful, normal existence (p, 119). However, this argument fails to address several key issues in determining the accountability of Nazi war criminals. First, it not only "buries the past" but it fails to acknowledge it. These criminals have remained free of prosecution for involvement of some of the most brutal crimes in the history of mankind. To exempt an individual for wrongdoing simply because he is now elderly and residing in a new country is an insult to all of the victims of the Holocaust, the survivors and the victim's families. This argument fails to hold anyone accountable for these atrocities and it can only contribute to the already prevalent Holocaust apathy. Time does can not erase the Holocaust from human consciousness. To forget the genocide is to condone it. These remaining fugitives (however few may still be alive) should continue to be sought after and persecuted to the full extent of the law.

Although some individuals feel that Nazi war criminals should not be persecuted because of the long interval of time between now and the actual occurrence of the Nazi atrocities, the so-called "Holocaust Revisionists" believe Nazi trials are a "witch hunt" and politically motivated. One advocate of this belief is Mark Weber. In his revisionist essay, The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust: Do the `war crimes' trials prove extermination? Weber takes a "closer" [sic] look at the "general trustworthiness of the evidence cited at Nuremberg". His "closer look" is mired in anti-Semite rhetoric and he blames the "largely political nature of the Nuremberg process" on the "important Jewish role in organizing these trials". The chief architect of the IMT was Franklin D. Roosevelt who was not Jewish nor was chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson. Weber obviously overlooked this when he blamed the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization for the trials. If this were the case, why did so few Nazis go on trial? Weber's logic would make sense only if every individual to wear a Nazi uniform was sentenced at Nuremberg. This clearly was not the case and members of the prosecution were disappointed when some of the defendants and organizations received more lenient sentences than they anticipated (Taylor, p 536).

Another weakness in Weber's assertion of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization convincing the Allied leaders to "accept the idea" is the fact that several Nazi organizations were not declared criminal by the Tribunal. Even the Nazi High Command was exempt from being declared criminal by the IMT. If the trials were in fact the "brain child" [sic] of International Jewry, a declaration of the criminality of important Nazi organizations like the High Command and the SA would have been inevitable. Another one of Weber's outrageous claims is how the "powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's persecution of the Jews a primary focus". The first problem with this statement is if this organization was so "secret and profound" how could a Neo-Nazi or at best, Nazi sympathizer have such an authoritative knowledge of these powerful Jewish group's intentions? The second, and more obvious issue is the eye whiteness accounts, Nazi camp guard's testimony and the official Nazi documents that so clearly outlined Nazi genocide. With so much evidence of brutal inhumane atrocities available, to not prosecute organizations and individuals responsible to the fullest possible extent would be condoning them.

Weber calls the Nuremberg defendants on trial "in a sense, the first "Holocaust" revisionists" because Goering (who tried to discredit the trials and justify the Nazis aggressive policies) and his fellow defendants claimed no knowledge of the systematic murder of innocent victims. Out of all the outrageous and convoluted statements made by Weber, this one contains some validity since revisionists seek to clear the Nazis of any war crimes by dismissing overwhelming evidence as excusable in the pretext of war or denying it entirely, just as the Nuremberg defendants did.

Another Holocaust "revisionist" who sought to discredit the trials at Nuremberg was Paul Rassinier. He felt the trials were unjust because the entire nation of Germany was indicted and presumed guilty. Rassinier described the indictment against Germany at the Nuremberg Trials:

It is enough to read the reports of the Nuremberg Trials to realize that all of Germany was the object of the bill of indictment....and that it was Germany herself condemned by the judgments passed. It did not occur to the Prosecutors or the judges, or to anyone else that to decide that 70 million people were guilty was tantamount to saying that those 70 million were innocent (Rassinier, p.46).

Rassinier is greatly mistaken in his interpretation of Nuremberg. From the outset of the trials, the IMT emphatically stated that the German population was not on trial or being held accountable for the actions of some of its government officials. To hold the entire nation of Germany accountable for the atrocities committed, in the name of Germany, would not be logical since Germany was under the control of a totalitarian regime. Although many German citizens supported the Nazis and their anti-Semitic policies an indictment of the entire nation would be impossible. To declare Germany as the "aggressor" does not mean every German should be held accountable for the Holocaust or any other Nuremberg charges. Alan S. Rosenbaum discusses the issue of `Collective Guilt' by stating:

A `people' is in a basic sense an abstraction. Since a `people' cannot speak for itself or act to defend itself, and since no individual or aggregate can properly said to be its voice, moral and legal responsibility can be judged only on an individualized basis (Rosenbaum p, 107).

The Nuremberg Trials did not indict the German population, in fact the trails failed to hold many Nazis accountable for their participation in genocide. Thousands of Nazis avoided prosecution by fleeing to other countries, often with government assistance. Many others received lenient sentences for their crimes against humanity. In terms of declaring Germany the "aggressor" nation and declaring organizations like the SS and the Gestapo as criminal, the Nuremberg trials were a success. However, in terms of serving justice to all guilty individuals, the Nuremberg (and subsequent Nazi) trials were not successful. With so many evasions of justice by so many Nazi fugitives, Nazi trials can be seen as an attempt at justice but not a reconciliation to the millions of innocent victims of the Holocaust.

Works Cited

Rassinier, Paul The Real Eichmann Trial, Silver Spring, Md: Stepping Stones Publications, 1979.

Rosenbaum, Alan S. Prosecuting Nazi War Criminals, Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 1993.

Ryan, Allan A. Jr. Quiet Neighbors, San Diego, Ca: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1984.

Taylor, Telford. The Anatomy Of The Nuremberg Trials, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1992.

Weber, Mark. "The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust", Institute for Historical Review (web site)