Talk:Nuremberg trials/Archive 1

Churchill Contradiction
"Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, and was only dissuaded from this by pressure from the U.S. later in the war." Followed in the same paragraph by: "Churchil was vigorously opposed to executions for political purposes."

Which of these two is accurate? --TheGreatFoo 05:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly, both are. Churchill at first favoured summary executions. Then the US stepped in, convinced him otherwise, and Churchill became vociferously against the writ of attainder. Both Telford Taylor's book and the Persico book talk about Churchill's flip on it. 86.152.149.107 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
Where's the 24 defendants figure coming from? "Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy" by Telford Taylor (U.S. Chief Counsel at Nuremberg) mentions 200. [EDIT: I forgot to log in...]

cprompt


 * The International Military Tribunal (IMT) had only 24 defendants prosecuted by representatives from Russia,   United Kingdom, United States, and France.  The United States carried out 12 other, separate cases against 185 other Nazi defendants.  See Nuremberg Military Tribunals--Oshin 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Karl Doenitz
The info on Karl Doenitz contradicts the infomation in the article on Karl, which claims he was found guilty of crimes against peace... Martin He was,because after germans Krigesmarines men were rescuing British men in the sea,they suffered themselves after a a british attack. Hitler ordered Doenitz and he ordered the Kriegesmarine,not to survive any more of british and USs navy men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.72.36 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

195.162.40.135 17:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC) I have removed the bit about Doenitz, since he was not "found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare". Rather, the "tu quoque" defence worked, his sentence was not assessed on the grounds of his conduct of warfare. See IMT sentence of Doenitz: "In the actual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is not prepared to hold Doenitz guilty for his conduct of submarine warfare against British armed merchant ships." Tu quoque defense: "In view of all of the facts proved, and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on 8 May 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at night in the Skagerrak, and the answer to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare." Therefore I removed it.


 * The point you picked up on was against "British armed merchant ships" (my emphasis) but not against unarmed ships. the judgement actually says: ""Doenitz is charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to the Naval Protocol of 1936 ... The orders, then, prove Doenitz is guilty of a violation of the Protocol". As the Allies were also in breach of the same protocol nothing was tacked onto his sentence already given for other crimes or in the words of the Judgement "the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare". --Philip Baird Shearer 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Allies
Why should the Allies have been tried for war crimes? For what? The indictments at Nuremberg were for:


 * Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace: The Allies acted in wartime in response to German aggression.
 * "→ Soviet Union was also an aggressor. Germany also acted as a result of conditions initiated by Britain and France. That statement above is highly glib."
 * "→ The Anglo-Soviet invasion of neutral Iran in August 1941 falls into this category and implies that Churchill and Stalin among others should have been tried accordingly if charges like these were brought up against Germany. --Meudonnais (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)"

The issue is one of endless conquest more than individual acts. Germany and Japan sought to conquer the world by aggressive war. The acts of England and Russia were taken to halt the Nazi advance. Had the Nazis been satisfied with the Rheinland, the war never would have begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.32.96 (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression: Germany initiated the wars
 * "→ In the first world war, France and Russia both planned on initiating a war (along with Germany). Germany's actions (even Hitler's rise to dictatorial power) is a direct result of the misdeeds of Britian and France."

France did not do anything to Germany to cause Germany to invade her in WWI. What did Belgium do to deserve being invaded? Russia is a bit more complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.32.96 (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "→ The Anglo-Soviet invasion of neutral Iran in August 1941 falls into this category. --Meudonnais (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)"


 * War-Crimes: The only violation of the Geneva convention as I can see it is the Fourth Convention (civilian population), which dates to 1949. The League of Nations did condemn aerial bombing of civilian targets, however given the Battle of Britain, I'm not quite sure this is relevant.
 * "→ How about the massive ethnic cleaning by the Soviets of German ethnics in eastern Europe, or U.S. use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Concentration camps existed in North America (both U.S. and Canada) and confiscation civilian property (sounds like what the Nazi's did to Jewish peoples). Had the Allies began to really lose that war, how safe would you be as a Japanese innocent in such a camp.  There are numerous other war crimes committed by the Allies.  Nüremberg had little to do with justice ... it was mostly 'victors try the vanquished'."


 * Crimes against humanity: which we describe as "heinours persecution against a group.
 * "→ I guess ethnic cleansing, forcing individuals into slavery, slaughter via the military, and other Allies atrocities do not count."

Apart from the self-deprecating "look at the Allies. They were almost as bad the Nazis," there is no reason for the statement. Danny

German expulsions occurred after the war had ended. They might well have been evil, but they were not war crimes. Many horrors happen in peacetime, but they simply do not qualify as war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.32.96 (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Karl Doenitz was charged for unrestricted submarine warfare. Chester Nimitz engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare (by his own evidence) and yet was not charged. That's interesting, at least to me. Obviously crimes against peace and against humanity were only commited by the Axis side, but allegations of war crimes were made against both sides. Martin

Just because allegations were made doesnt mean they have any validity. Plenty of allegations are made in wartime and after. Posting them here without context, without saying who said it or when, while equating American and British military leaders to Nazis is at best misinformed, at worst, libelous. Danny


 * You'd like more context, Danny? Righto... Martin


 * Hmmm, "at worst, libelous". The Allies, when taken in entirety, meaning spanning actions leading to and results afterwards, were almost as bad as the Nazis.  I can cite examples that would fill this page, but that would bring us way off track for this article and highly biased discussion by some.

Something beyond Biddle, please, since he does recognize the validity of Jackson's position regarding Nimitz, even though it he argues that it opened the trials up to tu quoque criticism. Danny

Okay, now you wrote:
 * "The clearest example of the differences between the treatment of Axis military leaders and Allied military leaders was the trial of Karl Doenitz. ... The court later decided that "In view of all the facts proved ... the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare".

In other words, Doenitz was cleared of the charges as it was recognized that both parties engaged in that kind of warfare. What, then, is the "clearest example of the difference? You'll have to do better than that. Danny


 * Doenitz was charged and the charge was then "not assessed". Nimitz was never charged. This is a clear example of two military leaders, who breached the same set of naval accords in the same way, being treated differently. I think it's wonderfully clear because it's such a symmetrical case and because the facts are not in dispute. Still, if you can think of clearer examples, perhaps you could give me a few hints? ;-)


 * Btw, I'm not trying to prove that Nuremberg was a show trial or that the Allies were as bad as the Axis - I'm just trying to illustrate some of the differences and let readers draw their own conclusions. I'm really not trying to push a POV here - I just think the issue is interesting and deserves to be discussed in the article. Martin

Not assessed means that it was not considered. The charge was dropped. You have pointed to one non-difference and presented it in such a way as to offer a rhetorical ad hominem tu quoque argument that the Allies should have been treated the same way as the Nazis, i.e., there was little difference in their actions. That is actually a misrepresentation of facts. Danny

I removed this paragraph:
 * Obviously charges of crimes against peace could not be seriously made against the Allies, because the war was started by the Axis. It is equally clear that the Allies did not commit any crimes against humanity. In addition, nobody from the Allied side was indicted for war crimes.

Now it is a non sequitor. This is an article about the trial of Nazis suspected of war crimes. To make a statement that other people were not charged with war crimes is unrelated and misleading. It is like adding to the article on Leopold and Loeb that Al Capone was not charged in the murder because he did not do it. Danny


 * One example of the differences between the treatment of Axis military leaders and Allied military leaders was the trial of Karl Doenitz. Doenitz was charged with, amongst other things, "waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to the Naval Protocol of 1936 to which Germany acceded, and which reaffirmed the rules of submarine warfare laid down in the London Naval Agreement of 1930". The court later decided that "In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare". Doenitz was found guilty on other charges, however. Admiral Chester Nimitz was never charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare.

Ok, Danny, I've removed this section, so the article is basically back as it was before I started messing around. I still think it's an interesting topic that should be explained, but obviously I'm not the person to do it, so I'll leave it to someone else. :) Martin

This sentence bothers me: "The defendants were not allowed to complain about the selection of judges." We didn't allow Nazis the right to help name their own judges, so this might be evidence that the court was not fair? This is hubris; the defendents on trial admitted that they were part of the Nazi party; why should they get any right to help select their own judges? These same people had just murdered hundreds of judges themselves, because the judges were of Jewish ancestry. he Nuremburg trials were by any rational standard the most fair and unbiased war trials ever held. This is especially so, since if they had operated by the same standard that previous tribunals had worked under, they would have borught to trial, found guilty, and executed well over a thousand German, Austrian and Polish citizens. (Which, of course, they did not do.) Considering the huge number of German, Austrian and Polish citizens who eagerly cooperated with the genocide of the Jews (and others), the Nuremburg trials were perhaps the most liberal and lenient court ever assembled in humanity. To see so much effort made here to defend the complaints of the Nazi defendants is a bit surprising. RK


 * We need to stick to NPOV, even in cases like this one. --Eloquence 22:04 26 May 2003 (UTC)


 * It is a basic principle of fair treatment that everyone has equal rights. So just because they were Nazis and everyone knew they were guilty does not mean they should be denied basic rights like the tu quoque defense or the right to complain about judges.
 * Furthermore, the bombing of civilian areas in Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne and many other cities was as much a war crime and a crime against humanity as the bombings of London or Coventry. Just because the ones responsible were responsible for even more terrifying crimes as well does not mean that that they should be treated differently for these ones.
 * War crimes also happened with the treatment of German prisoners of war many of which starved to death, and with civilians. There exist proofs of women getting nailed to doors and being raped by Russian soldiers.
 * I am not writing any of this in defense of Nazi horrors, I only think that the evilness of an enemy does not exempt from morality and law. Get-back-world-respect 23:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But a large percentage of the war crimes were for the Holocaust. The US never (During WWII) gassed people through ethnic cleansing. Also, in case no one noticed, We Won The War. Not the Germans. While this doesn't excuse our actions, it meant that we (the allies) made the rules.-Tom


 * I would like to encourage Martin not to give in against Danny by merely conceding:
 * Ok, Danny, I've removed this section, so the article is basically back as it was before I started messing around. I still think it's an interesting topic that should be explained, but obviously I'm not the person to do it, so I'll leave it to someone else. :) Martin


 * Here is someone else - and here is a tiny clue to what may have been America's true role in WWII:
 * In the movie "A hundred billion dollars" Patrik Deweare plays a reporter-detective in a WWII political plot. This movie features a certified excerpt of approximately one minute from a documentary film. This excerpt shows an American destroyer about to be sunk by a German torpedo boat with an... American torpedo!
 * Patrick Dewaere often played detectives. He may have tried to do more research into WWII film archives, before a beautiful woman crossed his way, lured him into hard drugs, and he died from an overdose...


 * You can find a more comprehensive account of my views on WWII in the discussion section of the article on Theodor Herzl under the heading Israel and the Arab oil.


 * 62.202.5.149 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not being an expert on the subject, it's my understanding that Donitz was found guilty of "Waging unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping", he just didn't recieve additional sentencing for that count, but that doesn't mean that the accusation is void, and Donitz honor was violated (in being a criminal). The British and American admirals obviously quilty in the same, weren't even accussed of such a crime.
 * And that violates a basic principle of western law; That all men are equal to the law. Clearly the germans were subject to the rules, and the allies weren't. Another example is the accusation concerning the "Commando order" and in the case of the Wehrmacht officers also the "Commissare order" (The first instructing to shoot "commandos, uniformed or not" on sight and the other to shoot communist political officers on sight.) Both illegal orders under haaque conventions, I believe. Disregarding the novelty that Keitel, Jodl and Donitz most likely just acted as rubberstamps to their political masters in  these isues, there also exits written orders from high level allied officers (particularely american) instructing the murder of uniformed POWs (in case, members of the Waffen-SS). And we don't have to dig into the manner in which sovjets treated their POWs, which didn't leave the nazies's treatment of russian POWs much to wish for. Again the rules applied to the germans, but not to the allied.
 * I quess that the Nurenberg trials and the subsequvent nurenberg trials will always be tainted by a sense of "victor's justice". On the other hand the crimes committed by the 3rd reich was of such an extend that somebody had to be held accountable.Jomsviking (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up of the criticism section
There are some weird criticisms in the article.

- "Abolished the tu quoque" It can hardly be said to ever have been established. I know of no legal system where the defendant can try to be acquitted beacause the judge or prosecutor committed crimes.

- "No rules of evidence"

Rules of evidence are hardly neccessary for a fair trial. I know several Scandinavian legal systems that do without them, and I assume there are other examples.

- "No grand-mufti on trial"

I fail to see the relevance to put it politely. Assuming he was a supporter, it still seems very reasonable that the Allies choose to try the actual criminals and not their froeign supproters. Also, it is hard to see how his absence would have made the trial unfair for the defendants, or deprived the court of juridsdiction. I'm deleting the mention of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

so much hypocrisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.16.119 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Validity of the court
One of many issues regarding the validity and fairness of the Nuremberg trials is that almost no crimes commited in Poland were taken into consideration. However, I have no idea how to put it in a NPOV way.Halibutt 06:52, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Don't look now but I think you just did --Raul654 07:03, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hermann Göring once said "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused". We don't have to discuss on validity issues because the Nuremberg Trial was a show trial. I'm sure that if they would have a chance to capture Erwin Rommel(his tactics are on military books and he is a legend in military), they would put him in the trial list of Nuremberg too, just like they did to Karl Doenitz or Alfred Jodl. Deliogul 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Telford Taylor addresses the issue of the near total silence re: the extermination camps in Poland by pointing out that all of the Aktion Reinhardt camps had been destroyed before the Soviets occupied those parts of the Gov't-General. No one had completely twigged what had happened at Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, etc. until much later.  Even Auschwitz hadn't completely entered the public consciousness in the same way as it is now.  This is criticism of the trial done basically out of context of the situation in 1945.  86.152.149.107 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Doenitz states in his memoirs (Ten Years and Twenty Days, p. 52) that also the charges of waging war of aggression were applied retroactively. Can someone confirm this? Should this be incorporated into the article? The article does state that "the indictments were created ex post facto" but does not clearly express which ones, although I understand that as referring to all of them. 82.181.61.48 00:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The defense was also excluded from documents useful to their clients. The evidence of crimes ( the fact of the crime ) was excepted as fact - no evidence put forward by the prosecutors was allowed to be contradicted/questioned in court. One of the prosecutors left - he refused to be involved in such a blatant kangaroo court. Several of the defendants crime was being good officers - never have been connected with anything criminal -Doenitz I believe is the most embarrassing one. [Unsigned comment.]

I tried to clean this section up a bit and removed some of the obvious POV language. It definitely needs sourcing, as who knows if this is anything but one person's opinion. Without sourcing, it smacks of a POV soapbox and revisionism apologia. I also reordered it in the article for editorial flow. UncleFester 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific War
Just an observation: it seems a trifle odd that this article mentions Allied war crimes in the Pacific in this context, especially when there is no mention of Japanese war crimes or the 5,600 people tried in relation to these in several cities, from 1946 onwards. Grant65 (Talk) 08:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your trifle odd comment is vital. There should definitely be an article about the Japanese war crimes trial if there is not one. I would be honored to write an article with you about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martial69 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stunningly disappointing article
This article in it's attempt to appear neutral is nothing more than a blatent indictment of the Allies as being the same as the Nazis. What a load of rubbish and gibberish. As a regular visitor to Wikipedia, I have seen it grow over the past couple of years in leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, many of the more recent articles have become nothing more than talking points for left wing truthsayers and right wing visionaries. This project is in serious and mortal danger of becoming a qaugmire of relavent facts and objective views.


 * I don't understand why did you disappointed. Because of their victory, Allies gained a right to judge Nazis. Attention... Not because Allies were right. The Nuremberg Trial was a show trial. They found soldiers guilty! A soldier's duty is to win the war on the battleground. You can't say that they are guilty because they are warriors. Deliogul 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look @ NPOV. "relavent facts and objective views" are our goals. Sam Spade 12:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! You can't just say the soldier's duty is to win a war, so they can do whatever they want. Soldiers aren't above the law. If a soldier executes a load of unarmed civilians, or executes POWs after they have surrendered, then he has comitted murder.

I don't believe anyone at Nuremberg was charged with "the Holocaust" or mass murder - except for the Katyn forrest massacre which it turns out the Russians did. I believe the charge was "waging aggressive war". England and France could have declared war on Russia for aggressively attacking Poland - long before Germany did - but they wanted to fight Germany instead.


 * Just about every word in this is incorrect. Several defendants were convicted for their complicity in the Holocaust (in particular, Kaltenbrunner and Frank).  This was covered under Count IV--crimes against humanity.

-Hans Frank was tortured, thus his "confession". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.30.180 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaltenbrunner - as close as you can get. Read the indictment, charged with setting up camps and persecution ( not murder ). Having some prisoners shot - criminals? maybe. Sorry no holocaust for this guy. ( His entire indictment sounds like a kid writng a note to the teacher saying I don't like Billy ,he's mean).159.105.80.141 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I always find it funny when people say, "Had the Germans won the war, the Allies would have been tried for war crimes." If the Germans has the won the war, there would have been no trial, the Allies would have simply been murdered.

Even if you believe that the defendants at Nuremberg had no chance at proving their innocence, they at least had a chance to defend themselves, and try to excuse their various atrocities to the world. During the period of Nazi rule, the Germans executed people for anything. The sister of Erich Remarque was beheaded by Hitler's court, which stated "Ihr Bruder ist uns leider entwischt - Sie aber werden uns nicht entwischen" (your brother has unfortunately escaped us - you, however, will not escape us)" Her brother had written All Quiet on the Western Front. Look up Volksgerichtshof if you want to see some German justice.

I honestly think that some people have lost track of the utter monstrosity of Germany during WW2. A city like Dresden being destroyed is a tragedy. It is not the same as the calculated and systematic massacre of the Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, Russians, Poles, and countless other people.68.163.249.192 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Area bombing
Area Bombing was carried out by all sides in the World War II. No Axis personnel were tried for it because it was not a war crime at the time. So implying that the Allies personnel should have been tried for such actions is a POV but not a NPOV.
 * "In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners war" The Law of Air Warfare, 30 June 1998 International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 by Javier Guisández Gómez

It was undertood that attacking civilains was not kosher. We don't have international laws against eating captured soldiers during war - probably the same concept.159.105.80.80 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No but how about some moral check against some of the allies actions. The use of atomic bombs with the effects predicted after the test detonation. Or the murder of the few surrendering Japanese soldiers simply because they had no place to put POWs, or for that matter the use of the flamethrower, a weapon now considered inhuman. Im not condemning the allies but it has to be realized that they were not innocent in the whole mess that was world war two. Just because the law isn't in place doesn't mean we shouldn't think about the implications of our actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.235.237 (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Jodl
I removed the article's claim that Alfred Jodl was posthumously acquitted of all charges in 1953. It's easy to find Wikipedia mirrors stating this, but I'm having trouble finding independent sources. The german Wikipedia does give a bit more information, and if I understand the babelfish correctly, states that the main arbitrition board in München did acquit in 1953, but this acquittal was recalled for "political reasons" (POV?) later the same year. It also lists two sources: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/JodlAlfred/ and http://www.shoa.de/content/view/255/202/.

Still, I'd really like to find more references. Perhaps someone fluent in german can find out some more (although such an important fact should be available in every langugage)... Woseph 2005-07-07 08:19:48 (UTC)


 * It is not important. It was a mistake to judge and murder Alfred Jodl. They don't even let him to be killed by a shooting squad! Deliogul 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the German Wikipedia states that he was posthumously acquitted by a German court and that in that acquittal the charge of crimes against peace wasn't even considered. The Bavarian state chancellery then nullified this acquittal, and finally some Bavarian "minister for political liberation" nullified the countermand. (It is unclear from the German Wikipedia whether that minister nullified the acquittal by the court or the nullification of that acquittal by the state chancellery. It is also unclear what kind of court that was, I have found mentions of a denazification court in other places) There is also some discussion on the veracity of these statements on de:Diskussion:Alfred Jodl, revolving around the questions whether the executive really had the power to nullify decisions made by the judicative and the timing, because apparently that "ministry for political liberation" existed only until 1950. It should be noted that www.dhm.de (the German Historical Museum) is not a reliable source; its web presentations frequently contain errors. Lupo July 7, 2005 08:38 (UTC)


 * The BBC have just (19/11/2005) rebroadcast their radio programme on Nuremberg, first broadcast in 1996. They seem to believe Jodl was retrospectivly exonerated. Suggest you see if the programme is on their web site (NB - 2 hours long!) Linuxlad 14:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The summary of Jodl in Goldensohn's "The Nuremburg Interviews" states in part: "On February 28, 1953, he (Jodl) was posthumously exonerated by a German de-Nazification court that found him not guilty of crimes under international law." (page 137). This summary was presumably written by Robert Gellately, who edited the book in 2004.  No mention is made of later retraction. -- Primaryspace 20:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Help! You appear to have done the opposite of what the above would suggest, and removed reference to his exoneration!Linuxlad
 * Check my editing notes in the history. I added the reference before reading talk.  After reading talk, I moved the gist of my edit here for consideration instead. -- Primaryspace 23:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my forensic skills are about on a same low par as my mind-reading ones. Why not explicitly ask the question? or add/reinstate the para (there seems to be adequate reason, prima facie) and see who jibes! ('be bold'...). Bob aka Linuxlad
 * Woseph seems to object despite some evidence, albeit not concrete evidence... if there's no more discussion about this for another week or so, I'll re-add. Feel free to do so if you think I'm taking too long. -- Primaryspace 19:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that if someone convicted at the Nuremberg trials was posthumously acquitted of all charges one ought to be able to find loads of references. Also, I strongly object to adding something along the lines of "... was posthumously acquitted of all charges.", without including the nullifications mentioned by Lupo (assuming they are factual). -- Woseph 11:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From The Nuremburg Interviews: "On February 28, 1953, he [Jodl] was posthumously exonerated by a German de-Nazification court that found him not guilty of war crimes under international law." Robert Gellately is editor of this book, published in 2004, and gives an excellent history of the trials in his introduction.  I assume he is responsible for the short biographies that precede each interview.


 * Jodl's exoneration is just as significant as the fact that von Papen, acquitted at Nuremburg, was later "reclassified as a major offender" by another German de-Nazification court in 1947; this was not mentioned in this article either. He was sentenced to eight years hard labour and released after two years on appeal.  Both are significant facts in the history of the trial, and this article is incomplete without them. Primaryspace 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I agree that this is an important question, which is why we must be careful to get it exactly right. I'm not contesting that some sort of court found him to be wrongfully convicted of some charge/s. However, some points of importance, in my opinion, are:
 * The validity of the court: Typically, a higher court reverses a lower court, was this the case here?
 * What counts did they consider? Your quote mention "war crimes", does this include counts one, two and four?
 * The Nuremberg trials are today considered as parts of international law, was this the case then? (AFAIK, the Nuremberg trials are usually referred to when someone uses the "only following orders"-defence.)
 * Finally, I think it's strange that it's so very difficult to find consistent accounts of the issue. The only source giving references that I have found so far is David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, where it is stated (sans typos):
 * At denazification proceedings in Munich in 1953 a German court effectively cleared the late General Jodl of the Nuremberg charges and rehabilitated him posthumously, basing its decision in part on the fact that four years earlier the eminent and universally respected French member of the Nuremberg Tribunal, Professor Donnedieu de Vabres, had stated that in his view the conviction of Jodl had been without merit and a miscarriage of justice.


 * Footnote reference: Prof. Dr Erich Schwinger, 'Declarations,' Marburg, Jun 15, 1951, reporting what Donnedieu had told him (Luise Jodl papers; copy in IfZ, Irving Collection).
 * This is in support of your quote (apart from claiming all charges, whereas yours seem to restrict itself to war crimes), but David Irving is rather controversial. Also, why isn't the nullifications mentioned?


 * Perhaps an expert historian could sort this out for us? In the meantime, it'd be nice if someone could translate parts of de:Alfred Jodl to Alfred Jodl, in particular the Nachspiel section, since it mention the exoneration, as well as some of the controversy surrounding it. -- Woseph 11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't address any of your very valid points, since the only information I have comes from Gellately's short biography. I for one don't consider Irving to be reliable.  Having been pretty much demolished by Evans, I don't think his body of work should be used anywhere as a reference, irrespective of his unpalatable revisionist viewpoint.  I'm not familiar with the nullifications, and mentioning them, as you seem to suggest above ("assuming they are factual"), would put us back at the beginning of this question (additions without reference). Primaryspace 22:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, in one of books I have seen the statement about Jodl rehabilitation with a reference to the following source: Eugene Davidson, The Trial of the Germans (New York: Collier Books, 1966). p. 363. The mentioned book states (with reference to Davidson) that a German court has officially rehabilitated Gen. Jodl and annuled all property sanctions on persons convicted by the Trial. The source seems to be reliable, though it worth to check what really Davidson says. Does somebody have the book? --Mgar 15:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this article in a German Holocaust site: Jodls Nuremberg verdict was controversial also in U.S. military circles and in February 28, 1953, a West German court in Munich posthumously acquitted Jodl of all charges. His property, confiscated in 1946, was returned to his widow. However, yielding to U.S. pressure the Bavarian government recanted the courts judgment. In September 3, 1953 the Bavarian state minister of "political liberation" revoked the German courts revocation of the Nuremberg judgment.,

This Polish article seems to be discussing the same thing, but for the moment my German is better than my polish.. Note however the references used for the section on the events 1953. --Stor stark7 Talk 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [192] Staatsarchiv München, Der Minister für politische Befreiung in Bayern – Betr. Verfahren..., SpKa 814 Jodl Alfred.
 * [193] Staatsarchiv München, Der Minister für politische Befreiung in Bayern – Betr. Spruchkammerverfahren gegen den verstorbenen Generaloberst Jodl, SpKa 814 Jodl Alfred.

Jodl was charged/convicted/executed mainly because the Soviets wanted it that way. Amazing how the Killers of Katyn got their way - they knew the weaknesses of Western legal system(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should probably be pointed out that a municipal German Court cannot acquit or pardon someone who was found guilty for an offense committed against another state by an international tribunal. Jodl wasn't convicted of burning 30,000 homes in Germany. The obligation to respect the customs and laws of war have never depended on reciprocity. harlan (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The main trial links
I'd prefer to see the external links that are currently shown as reference notes ([1] etc) changed to something else. The note-style linking is a bit confusing. Perhaps move completely to "External links" section, perhaps with sublists? (ie, **). Adding true reference notes in this section alongside the external hyperlinks gets a bit ugly. -- Primaryspace 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
The recent addition concerning the "conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland" needs to be sourced. The aggression against Poland was only one part of count one of the indictment. Indeed, all these statements in the section on "the validity of the court" need to be sourced properly, preferrably to trustworthy online sources that are backed by reputable print publications. Lupo 08:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have never claimed that the conspiracy to committ aggression against Poland was the only charge, so please do not put words into my mouth. Your demands for sources is phrased in such a way as to imply that I am some sort of neo-Nazi crank (which certainly am not!), but in regards to your requests, I will add citations. But since we are on the subject of conspiracy to committ aggression against Poland, can you please explain to me why the Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, under which the Soviets and the Germans agree to commit aggression against Poland and partition that nation does not constitute conspiracy to commit aggression, or it does, why was Ribbentrop on trial for his life on a number of charges, one of which was conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland, and Molotov and Stalin were not. --A.S. Brown 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Our main ally - Russia - did attack Poland - so what's the "aggression against Poland" thing. Maybe a joke?159.105.80.141 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Allied war crimes
Well, the article names the Biscari massacre, which names the Canicatti slaughter. That are only two examples of war crimes (we are not talking about the moral bombing of civil homes or the shooting of SS-prisoners after the German surrender) and this article says the American soldiers (only two!!) were tried. But if you read the whole text of Biscari massacre, it says, that one of them was released later and the other one was acquitted. And the incident of Canicatti was simply covered up. I call this therefore victor's justice. Küstenkind

My friend, it appears that the one most respolnsible and least remorseful for the crimes is patton, not the officer, who faced his crime with honor. (Anon)


 * Yeah, more critique is needed. One of the most common criticisms is that air bombing charges were not raised since allied themselves commited same crime. --80.221.29.88 09:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That was how they worked. It was a defense in trial to prove that the Allies committed the same crime. If you could prove they did it, it wasn't considering a crime for you. They actually brought in witnesses to prove the Allies did things too, surreal.

Removed some idiots all caps racial comment

Jurisdiction of Nuremberg
I personally think there should be a discussion of the jurisdiction of the Nuremberg trials. The UN was founded in 1945 and founded the declaration of human rights (See http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf). Many lawyers consider the trial of Nuremberg is oppositing these human rights because as in Article 7, 1. no one can be judged for a offense which weren't an offense at the time it was committed. The german nazis weren't committing any crimes in the german law during WWII and the buildup to WWII, therefore, as the human rights declares, the nazis couldn't legally be found guilty of any of those charges. I think it's a very important legal positivitic and ethical issue of which has to be mentioned in the article, because this was a trial based on moral to get revenge for all the horrible things the german nazis committed during WWII but not a legally reasonable trial. The nazis were, no matter personal opinion, was following orders and following the laws they were bound to follow at that time, and therefore the legal jurisdiction of the trials is nonexistant. I'm not saying I sympathize with the nazis, I think they should be punished. But I also think the trials gives a big legal-ethical issue. Let's say in 10 years it becomes totally illegal to smoke, and because I had a smoke today I could be sentenced for that in ten years? Because I should have known better, though the laws didn't prohibit it?

That link isn't to the UN, its to the Council of Europe's Declaration of Human Rights. They are two different entities with two different documents. But you point is still valid. The simple answer would be 'vae victus'. The Allies won, we got to impose our trial on the vanquished. However:

The Nuremberg trials were based on International Law, not German national Law - that objection doesn't work. Some of the crimes were new 'waging a war of aggression', and some were not (I don't have the Geneva Protocols in front of me ATM). I think the answer would have to lie with natural justice. People virtually unanimously agree that the Nazi actions were 'crimes', so it doesn't make much sense to quibble with the details. In any case, going down this path would make the article dangerously POV; the article should be about what happened, not whether it was right 213.48.73.94 23:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You can blame those well-known sticklers for international law the Americans for this. Both Churchill and Stalin orginally wanted to shoot the Nazi leaders out of hand rather than bother with trials. Roosevelt took the view that justice had not only to be done but be seen to be done if we were going to create a better world after the war, so he persuaded his allies to agree to trials. The law applied naturally had to be both international and retrospective - everything the Nazis did was "legal" under German law (thanks to the Enabling Act of 1933), and no-one had thought to make murdering 6 million people a crime before the Nazis thought of carrying the crime out. The jurisdiction of the court was settled by the Berlin Decree of (I think) June 1945, by which the German state was abolished (by right of conquest) and all Germans placed under whatever laws the Allies chose to dispense to them. This was a fairly rough-and-ready legal process, but as Robert H. Jackson pointed out at the trials, much more than the Nazis had allowed to any of the peoples whose countries they had occupied. Adam 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Doenitz again
His section seems to have been discussed, and I don't have any content contributions to make, but the "notes" for his section don't make much sense. I don't know about the accuracy, but it's just grammatically unclear. Very hard to understand and should be revised in that regard. I can't do it because I'm not even certain what the author was trying to say.--161.185.1.100 15:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People charged with war crimes
Is there some reason why nobody listed in this article appears in Category:People charged with war crimes? --Mathew5000 03:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, one reason may be because they (the allied governments, such as the U.S.) might have wanted to hush hush their names for some kind of political (and probably what they think as "humanitarian") reasons. Course, this is just speculation and reasoning. --VampireBaru 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

befehl ist befehl defence
Hey, this is interesting, there's no mention of the befehl ist befehl defence. I thought the nuremberg trials were famous for rejecting this defence. The defence *is* mentioned briefly on the dutch wikipedia. Kim Bruning 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rules of Evidence

 * Article 19 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal Charter reads as follows:
 * "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value."

What would this mean in practice? Wouldn't this mean a departure from any orderly form of a trial, except for the outer procedures?!

This means hearsay, rumor, evidence from torture, etc - sounds like the US Patriot Act - whoops sorry. You were not allowed to bring up any evidence that contradicted the existence of the crime - no habeas corpus. Your guilt was predetermined - which makes defense seem riduculous/nearly impossible - only your method of execution was at question. You sure Nuremberg isn't in Ohio? The Simpson Committee ( US Senate I believe ) said that almost all of the defendants had been tortured by the US interrogation team - seems to be an old habit of the US army.


 * Sorry to interrupt your train of rant, but would this be a good time to point out that the Simpson Army Commission had nothing to do with Nuremberg? Gzuckier 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So sorry but you must have the Simpson Army Commission mixed up with OJ. The Simpson Commission is the one that found out that the defendants had been worked over ( tortured) at Nuremberg before they testified. The Commission is where we find out that the 137 out of 139 male prisoners had their testicles destroyed before they remembered that they had been involved in ____( fill in the blank).159.105.80.80 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a cite for these ludicrous allegations?

Yes, the Simpson Army Commission.159.105.80.141 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of whether or not the commission investigated the Nuremberg trials, but they certainly had a go at the Malmedy trials., --Stor stark7 Talk 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Simpson commission said absolutely nothing about the Nuremberg trials.

Tried in place
What does "Tried in place of Joseph Goebbels" mean? It can be misleading because it could be interpreted to mean that one man stood in peril for the crimes of another instead of his own crimes, which if it were tp mean that, a lot of explaining on how that would be possible is in order. The next possible meaning is that he is on trial for his role in assisting Goebbels, and that if Goebbels were found the priority of Fritzsche would drop and only so much can be done at once. Hackwrench 05:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fritsche was in fact the only 'senior' Nazi caught by the Soviets. He would, on occasions, stand in for Goebbels in radio broadcasts, and was a leading figure in the Propaganda Ministry; so in that sense he might be said to have been truly 'in place of' his minister at Nuremberg. Goebbels was the one great 'absentee' at the trial and there was clearly a need for some kind of approximation. It failed, of course. White Guard 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not misleading - that is exactly what took place. Kind of creepy aint it.

If you read the article you find that the prosecutors also tried to substitue an industrialists son for the sick father. Miraculously the judges wouldn't allow it. 159.105.80.80 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Fritzsche was tried for his own crimes; that was why he was acquitted at least in this specific court dealing with very "top crimes". However, the reason why he was accused in this court in the first place (and not simply in a lower level, e. g., "Propaganda Ministry trial" as one of the subsequent Nuremberg trials) was indeed that he was a stand-in for Goebbels. Similarly, Kaltenbrunner's role was significantly more important, and he was sentenced to hanging purely on his own crimes; but can we doubt that accused by this court he fulfilled also a stand-in rôle for Himmler and Heydrich?--2001:A61:20CA:1701:D5D7:566E:69B8:4F70 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The opening line

 * The Nuremberg Trials were the trials of the Nazi officials involved in the Holocaust during World War II.

Is this sufficiently accurate? The article itself lists five defendants not charged with crimes against humanity, and it is often argued that e.g. Doenitz or Raeder were not directly involved in the Holocaust. Naphra 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all accurate; you are quite right. There were subsidiary trials of concentration camp guards and the like; but the defendants in the main trail were variously charged. I've made the alteration. White Guard 05:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to yet further improve the edit; I feel that neither 'official' or 'minister' is quite applicable to e.g. Schacht or Streicher, and neither is the phrase "crimes contrary to international law during World War II" accurate, because no international law against some of the crimes existed during World War II (I think). I propose something to the effect of


 * The Nuremberg Trials were the trials of Nazi officials and prominent figures of Nazi Germany for their involvement in the course of events culminating in World War II and the Holocaust.

although that would cover only the main trial. Naphra 09:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And, that might come across as too lenient to those actually directly responsible for the Holocaust, as well. Naphra 09:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and rephrased the line, improve as you see fit. Naphra 18:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are fine. I've removed the reference to 'military trials' though, on the grounds that it makes them sound a little bit like courts martial, which they were not. White Guard 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone was charged with anything holocaustish till much later.


 * I've always been under the impression that the charges of crimes against humanity were very much about the Holocaust. Crime against humanity sheds some light, but it's true that this (Nuremberg) article doesn't go too deep into the details of the charges. Naphra 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What does the word "memberfinilia" mean? It is right there in the first paragraph, and a google search of the web shows this is the only use of it anywhere in the entire internet. I can find it in no dictionaries. I can't possibly be the only person to notice this... Moehong 21:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Need for an Article "Criticism" section
I am thinking of adding a "Criticism" section to the main article ... because it sorely needs one ... especially to counter Napoleon’s assertion that history is only recorded by victors ... and leaves people with the wrong impressions of the one-sided fact of these "so called" trials (many more Nazis deserved to be burned there ... but justice requires a good amount of addition company if it is to reconcile). Nonprof. Frinkus 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuremberg
why "nuremberg"? the cities name is Nürnberg (Nuernberg)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.239.39 (talk • contribs)
 * Nuremberg is the English name of the city, so the trials, in English, are referred to as the Nuremberg Trials, while in German it is the Nürnberger Prozesse. Scottmsg 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Artur Seyss-Inquart
Has anyone else noticed that there is twenty-fourth person missing? It's Artur Seyss-Inquart, and he must be added to the table.Velimir85 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're right. His entry somehow did not show up due to an error in the HTML. Fixed now. Lupo 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Three points in need of raising
Having read this article over for the first time (and even gave it a second read entirely), given my very little knowledge on this subject (blame my geographical location of birth country) there are three things I noticed specifically that need addressing.


 * 1) The validity of the court / it being a show trial.
 * 2) The departing from the standard rule of execution of soldiers by the sword (or in this era by gun) and not by hanging like common criminals.
 * 3) The violent nature of death that all appear to have recieved in the media-blitz show trial glamour post-death poses they were propped in. I've never seen so much blood from hangings.

If someone more versed in this subject area could address this it might negate some of the POV whitewashing of the article that even I, as a third party ignorant viewer, have detected given that it fails to meet deductive reasoning per se. 211.30.71.59 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you specifically mean by addresing? You mean it needs a more NPOV view, or more infotmation on the subjects you mention?Velimir85 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When?
'''

Was the Nuremburg Trials during the Russian Revolution, World War I or World War II?
'''

1945-1946, as stated in the opening paragraph. After WWII, that is. Naphra 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
I think the article shows too little of the controversy during the Nuremberg trials. It's definately written by someone that approved the trials. There were many accusations that involved actions commited by Allied forces as well, hence the court made a convenient arrangement that it would not matter at all if the Allies did the same. In short this meant if a German officer had his units kill POW's he would be put on trial, while at the same time if a Russian or American officer was in the same position, he'd go free without any complications. I think this is something that can be seen as a smut on the trials and something unfair regardless of one's POV.

Another thing about international criminal law that should be added: The article says part of the defence was that the Axis forces did not sign several international laws concerning treatment of POW's etc. and therefore were not bound by these laws and that this was overruled. This is true, however this was also the case with the USSR, which declared after the Revolution it was not bound by any treaty the Czar had signed (like The Hague 1907). Therefore German soldiers taken as POW had no protection from these laws, which is why the Germans (logically) argued that at least on the Eastern Front, Germany was not bound by any of these international laws either. Again from a NPOV this should raise some questions on the validity of some accusations.

So it should be added to this article that the trials were in many/some ways unfair, especially regarding the "you can't do it but we can"-rule and the matter of international treaties.

Wiki1609 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to contribute with properly sourced information. There's a section named Validity of the court which you may wish to begin with. I however point out that the article is hardly written by "someone that approved the trials", as its present state is the result of numerous contributions, proposals and rebuttals, edits and re-edits. Make sure to review the discussions on this talk page as well, the fairness of the court has been discussed to an extent already. Also remember that original research and conclusions by contributors are explicitly prohibited as per WP:NOR. Naphra 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trials DID NOT establish Genocide against Jews
I am very surprised to learn there was not even one single judgment confirming genocide against the Jews during Nuremberg trials,

Here are sentences handed down to 22 accused:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NuremJudgement.htm

This confirms that the Srebrenica Genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe.

Bosniak 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defines a crime against humanity as:


 * Crimes Against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.


 * So while the word genocide is not explicitly used, the above definition strongly implies it, and is perhaps even less ambiguous. Naphra 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The charge of genocide occurs under Count 3 Section A (War Crimes) of the indictment:


 * [The defendants] conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.


 * This seems to mean that all 15 defendants found guilty of count 3 were thus found guilty of genocide. By the way, the OED notes that the use of genocide in the indictment was new enough that a Sunday Times editorial (1945/10/7) remarks:


 * The United Nations' indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders has brought a new word into the language--genocide.


 * Also, according to the wikipedia article on genocide, the UN convention on Genocide was adopted in 1948. Apparently this is the legal basis for the Srebrenica findings (Please correct me if this is wrong!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.114.30 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources?
Isn't the Avalon Project (at least in this case) mainly transcriptions of primary sources? Thinboy00 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted half the article?
I found that nearly HALF the article was deleted late on April 10. The following parts of the article were deleted: 1. Lists of information on the defendants 2. A small section of the "Influence on the development of international criminal law" 3. Most of the "Validity of the court" section 4. The entire "Further reading", "External Links", "Endnotes", and "Footnotes" sections There was no reason to delete so much of the article. It's true that the article needs some cleaning up, but deleting the lists of information on the defendants was pointless and unreasonable. In addition, I can find nothing constructive added. I've reverted it to the original version. 64.229.236.123 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Book
I am not certain that the following book should be listed as a source: "de Villemarest, Pierre, Untouchable - Who protected Bormann & Gestapo Müller after 1945..., Aquilion, 2005, ISBN 1-904997-02-3". It seems to me to be an very dubious book as judging by the title, it implies that Martin Bormann did not died in Berlin in 1945, and was instead protected by someone after the war. Given that it is quite clear that Bormann did in fact died in Berlin in 1945, this book appears to be of questionable quality. --A.S. Brown 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
 Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Prose:Some sections need to be converted into prose rather than bullet points. Some sections are just a list with no prose.
 * Pictures:Newspaper needs specific rationale of fair use
 * In most cases, the circumstances under which the accused were arrested is normally stated. There is no such information here
 * The list of the defendants. Needs to be more detailed, since it only says that they were charged with 1/2/3/4, but it does not state how did they (were accused) of doing war crimes? What was the war crime in question? Some of the lists simply say ...[head of XXX military post] - but what programs did they do which constituted war crimes. The actual proceedings of the trial needs to be more detailed.
 * Criticism . We also need comments bby proponents of the system. Otherwise this is POV and doesn't give them a fair chance to defend themselves
 * In general, I think the article should also be more detailed. This is a very notable event which was thoroughly researched, it should have more details.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bormann.jpg
Image:Bormann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Order
Anyone object if I rearrange the defendants so rather than being in alphabetical order they're in the order they were arranged at trial? This would put Goering first, then Hess, Ribbentrop.... down to ending with (I think) Fritsche, then adding Bormann and Krupp at the end? It's more historically significant than the current order (WP seems to be overly fixated with alphabetical listings). Better yet, anyone want to do it for me? -R. fiend (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

contemporary American legal opinion
The article has a brief discussion of American legal opinion at the time, but it seems a bit bare, consisting of just some quotes and comments, and is in parts unsupported. It quotes two U.S. Supreme Court justices who thought the trial was basically illegitimate, but then concludes that "The majority of commentators, however, felt the Nuremberg Trials represented a step forward..." etc., but doesn't given a citation for the "majority of commentators" claim. How did other commentators respond to Stone and Douglas's criticisms (did anyone prominent respond to them directly?). Were there any prominent legal commentators who explicitly thought the trials were legitimate who we can cite by name, instead of the vague "majority of commentators"? --Delirium (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno. But I know Telford Taylor has written about the trials. What did he write? Lupo 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I skimmed through the article just now, and didn't see any mention of Robert Taft's opposition, which was significant. A good source for that is Profiles in Courage. Note this does not have anything to do with the "majority of commentators" bit. It shoudn't be too hard to find a source for that, however, as it's pretty well known that most people (in this country at least) supported the trials, and to this day they remain, in the eyes of many, the paragon of justice in the persecution of war crimes. The fact that the opposition gets special mention just hows how they are a minority (Taft's inclusion in "Profiles" is solely because it was such an unpopular stance). -R. fiend (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert ley.jpg
Image:Robert ley.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazi war crimes
Nazi war crimes currently redirects here; this is not the good solution. We should have an article on that that would summarize them in a similar manner to Soviet war crimes (for example) and serve as a parent for the Category:Nazi war crimes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IQ scores for defendants
In the "Notes" section of the chart of defendants, someone has put in IQ figures. Where are these coming from? Someone needs to clarify why they're relevant, and if they are, they need to be cited. 72.138.80.195 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. I think we need a reason for keeping them even if they are cited. Their IQ isn't relevant to the trials as things are mentioned now. If someone doesn't come up with a good reason to keep them I may remove them later. Any IQ ratings would be better placed on the individuals' specific entries. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Commencing of the Sentences
Could someone please contribute information about the actual carrying on of the verdict? I think I read sometime that one reporter was admitted to the actual hanging and for example the last words and performances of the convicted were thus recorded. Even though this doesn't directly maybe relate to the actual trial, I think it would contribute to the demeanor and character of the accused involved? A separate article? Also please if someone can find this article online, it could be added to further reading and please add a link also here so I can find it. Thank you. 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Katyn Massacre
As I understand it, no Nazi was actually convicted of the Katyn Massacre, even though the Soviet prosecutors alleged Nazi responsibility. Therefore, I changed a statement in the "critcism" section saying that the Katyn Massacre was "proven" to alleged. 137.113.60.110 (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Baldur von Schirach beim Diner.jpg
The image Image:Baldur von Schirach beim Diner.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Borman.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Links
We have links on this page that are RED. In light of current world affairs, this article needs attention. Agreed? Doug youvan (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please comment as to whether this entire Discussion - or a good part of it - should be archived or not. Doug youvan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tribunal Jugdes
Comment on the Nuremberg Trials. September, 15, 2008

It is my understanding there's no paralell in history to the Nuremberg Trials.

It's unique outcome in terms of international law and awareness of te necessity after the War creating worldwide accepted identities to deal With such matters, case they would repeat themselves, due also to the enourmous controversy the trials themselves expose. Although the proper authority has been created to judge such crimes nowadays: The Hague International Tribunal...Created under the wing of the United Nations.

The article on the trials correctly describes how Russians, the U.K. and the U.S.A differed on how to deal with Nazi influencial and prominent men. And discussed the subject several times amongst themselves before and after the War. Perhaps one of the main concerns amongst the Allies would be after two Great Wars, neutralizing the possiblity of a third envolving Germany.

How carefully selected where the judges for the trials then? Obviously the Russian army was the first to race into and through German lines seizing the most prominent German commanders. The Russian's war effort was incredible, specially if we count the human sacrifice and deathtoll, although, Russia began the War as a German ally. The Northern American effort was crucial for the brakethrough towards victory even if they engaged in war very late. The British sustained the war effort without being invaded since the beginning. France was occupied...But so was alot of Europe! I certainly don't see a common pattern seeking justice due to the difference in legitimacy these four nations claimed to have to Judge.

The same criteria wasn't used against the Italians, Japanese or even Foreign Nationals who cooperated in atrocious ways with Hitlers Staff. Even Allies during the Great War commited war crimes and didn't receive the same treatment.

Unfortunatly wars and conflicts continue to exist, alot of people have been faced justice in The Hague through proper channels. Howhever it is still contradictory; men like Saddam Hussein not going to trial trough legal channels, or, other soldiers around the globe, in different war theaters, violating military code and not being brought to face propper Justice.

RodrigoSCinPT (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazi crime
Please note that I've stubbed this long needed former redirect to this article. Comments and expansion appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My Lai Massacre: Nuremberg Trials standards not applied
There is an interesting point being made in the My Lai Massacre entry:

"Some have argued that the outcome of the My Lai courts-martial was a reversal of the laws of war that were set forth in the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals. Those tribunals set a historic precedent, establishing the principle that no one may be excused from responsibility for war crimes because they were "following orders". Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders — a rationale that stands in direct contradiction of the standards set at Nuremberg and Tokyo, where German and Japanese soldiers were executed for similar acts."

Should this being mentioned in the "validity of the court" section ... or a new section?

HagenUK (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say so. Although hypocrisy among the victors is nothing new, it is a quality put forth by the validity section. Mortician103 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest these comments touch on a key issue? As I understand it the concept of the unlawful order was not and is not wholly accepted by the US armed forces and, as a result (amongst many other things) the trials at Nuremburg faltered and the Tokyo trials have a very odd history. Is it now the situation in the US where a defendant can claim at a court martial that a given order was unlawful and therefore he was right not to obey? I believe that in the British Army this concept (that of refusing to obey an unlawful order, knowing it to be unlawful) has been accepted, although with great reluctance. In addition, as I understand it and directly as a result of Nurmeburg, a British soldier can be charged with carrying out an unlawful act, whether or not he/she was so ordered. I also believe that it is now an offence in the British Forces to issue an unlawful order. In My Lai, for example, not only should Calley have been subject to his full sentence, whether or not he believed his actions were "part of his orders", he knew the orders were illegal as did the troops who, in turn, carried them out. Where does it, or should it stop?

Drg40 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

hoess
Wasnt he hanged at Auschwitz? Sates here he was sentanced to life imprisonment?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.145.195 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct, he was hanged at the gates to Auschwitz's A camp. Are you confusing these two people though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_hess   (Deputy Fuehrer) who indeed served life imprisonment at Spandau prison to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hoess (Auschwitz camp commandant)

Douglasnicol (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?
From Assessment: "Although the IMT had its flaws, it at least provided the Nazi defendants with a modicum of justice by virtue of the simple fact that they were allowed a trial. The Allies overcame the urge to indiscriminately execute every prisoner they took and inside decided to subject them to the rule of law."

From Criticism/Legitimacy: "But the customary law of war exists, and has existed, since time immemorial; the use of treaty to codify what is allowed and what is prohibited is merely its modern expression; just as the common law in the English-speaking nations has forbidden murder, under pain of death, since its inception, without a word on the statute-books proscribing murder in many of the common law countries up to the present day. (Continues on)"

These two items appear to express the personal opinion of the author rather than opinions of sourced material or deferring to the opinions of experts in the field (in fact, in both cases, no sources were provided). These statements, as worded, make it sound like a definitive position or "The Answer" to the criticisms and questions raised about the position rather than counter-arguments provided by other individuals.

There are other areas where NPOV is questionable (such as, under Allied War Crimes: "In restricting the international tribunal to trying suspected Axis war crimes, the Allies were acting within normal international law.") though these probably could be resolved with more sufficient citations.

Overall, more citations are needed and, IMO, a more neutral tone should be achieved. --75.155.4.128 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Gah --Forgottenlord (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By expressing your dissatisfaction with the existing parts of text you did not prove any lack of neutrality. No need to cover each sentence by a citation--138.88.212.182 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention was to highlight specific lines of example and state my complaint in the hopes that others might similarly see these flaws. However, I will abide by your request and go into greater detail on my two main complaints:


 * The Assessment line: Consider an alternate line that could be used for a completely different article: "While the Bush Administration may have conducted torture, it at least kept the country safe for 7 years from a terrorist attack."  The statement says that the latter fact justifies the first fact, but that is a position of opinion.  Others might look at the fact that there was (in the eyes of many) ex-poste-facto issues as a total miscarriage or even mockery of justice thus nullifying that there was some "modicum of justice".  It is an opinion and should be cited to those that held the opinion, not a neutral statement.


 * The Legitimacy Line: "But the customary law of war exists" - source? This is the opinion held of the supporters of this legitimacy and the customary law of war has actually been a rather obscure thing to use as justification - Japan's code of honor was considerably different from those of the Western Nations.  In effect, this entire thing is used as a predicate to dismiss criticism of the Nuremberg trials.  The reality is that there is an entire field of Law that believes that the law is applicable solely to the limitations of what has been written and nothing beyond that (while others opt for the spirit of the law and even more allow for the unwritten law to have its own impact).  I have no doubt that this was probably the argument used by the founders of the Nuremberg trials and, IMO, is a reasonable argument, but it is for the proponents of the trial to make and not for the author of a neutral article as an authoritative declaration.


 * Neutrality of an article is to present facts, not opinions. Yes, articles have opinions, but those are opinions expressed by individuals and to say that X said Y is a fact, even though Y itself is an opinion.  The objective is to provide an article that lays out all the arguments and counter arguments and to give the reader the chance to say "I agree with this opinion, but I don't agree with that one, therefore my opinion will be this".  This article does not do that for it authoritatively provides the position that the Nuremberg trials were justified because they provided a modicum of justice which is unusual in war and because there has always been an unwritten code of honor during war that the Nazis defied.  That position is something that should be justified by the sources, not by the author. --Forgottenlord (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On a different note: it specifically states that NPOV tags should not be removed unless the issue has been satisfactorily resolved by all parties. Saying I have not sufficiently made my arguments is not a resolution.  Failure to show up for a while and make my arguments, on the other hand, might be, but I don't believe 2 days would be sufficient to warrant that. --Forgottenlord (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. The two parts you've identified are just the author's opinion. In fact, when it says, "just as the common law in the English-speaking nations has forbidden murder, under pain of death, since its inception, without a word on the statute-books proscribing murder in many of the common law countries up to the present day", it is talking rubbish. Yes, in my country (England) which has a common law system, there is no specific Act of Parliament saying "Murder is illegal" but that is because of judicial precedents that have always prosecuted murder. The idea of judicial precedents doesn't apply across international borders unless specifically agreed between those two countries, let alone the number of countries involved in WW2. Especially since Germany doesn't have common law anyway, but civil law. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Template Holocaust at article beginning
Nuremberg Trials not equal Trials contra Holocaust. With this template the article has associated much more with holocaust, than with mankind. Therefore, the template should be removed.--89.197.157.50 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I don't quite know what you're getting at here? Douglasnicol (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And you? What you're getting at here? I mean - the template Holocaust {The Holocaust} should be removed from article.--89.197.190.121 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He was asking for clarification, there's no reason to get testy. --Forgottenlord (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While IMT is the focus of this article, the Nuremberg trials, collectively, included several charges that pertained to the holocaust. In all honesty, I would recommend splitting this article to differentiate between the Nuremberg trials in general and the IMT as a seperate article, with the IMT not including the Holocaust template. --Forgottenlord (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree.--89.197.158.169 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Justice Jackson's opening statement
I quoted parts of this in the criticisms section, but wasn't sure if
 * it was the right part of the article to put it
 * how much to use!

Here is the section from his opening statement where he talks about the historical nature of the trial and legalities on the victors trying the defeated. I am copying this word-for-word from my own personal copy of The Trial of German Major War Criminals - Part 1 - 20th November, 1945 to 1st December, 1945 (HMSO, London, 1946) (I also have part 2... only another 20 parts to get!) - please note that as this is an English publication, the date is in British format! I have put in bold the sections I quoted in the article

21.11.45 Page 50, final paragraph: ''' In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on this case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of the task, the world has demanded immediate action. This demand has had to be met, though perhaps at the cost of finished craftmanship. In my country, established courts, following familiar procedures, applyng well-thumbed precedents, and dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events, seldom commence a trial within a year of the event in litigation. Yet less than eight months ago to-day the courtroom in which you sit was an enemy fortress in the hands of German S.S. troops. Less than eight months ago nearly all our witnesses and documents were in enemy hands.''' The law had not been codified, no procedures had been established, no tribunal was in existence, no usable courthouse stood here, none of the hundreds of tons of official German documents had been examined, no prosecutin staff had been assembled, nearly all of the present defendants were at large, and the four prosecuting powers had not yet joined in common cause to try them. I should be the last to deny that the case may well suffer from incomplete researches, and quite likely will not be the example of professional work which any of the prosecuting nations would

Page 51: '''normally wish to sponsor. It is, however, a completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to render, and its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians.'''

Before I discuss particulars of evidence, some general considerations which may affect the credit of this trial in the eyes of the world should be candidly faced. There is a dramatic disparity between the circumstances of the accusers and of the accused that might discredit our work if we should falter, in even minor matters, in being fair and temperate.

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 aggressions carried out by these men has left but few real neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we must leave the defeated to judge themselves. After the First World War, we learned the futility of the latter course. The former high station of these defendants, the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of their conduct to provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between the demand for a just and measured retribution, and the unthinking cry for vengeance which arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so far as humanly possible, to draw the line between the two. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice.

'''At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these men to trial is to do them an injustice, entitling them to some special consideration. These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill used.''' Let us see what alternative they would have to being tried.

More than a majority of these prisoners surrendered to or were tracked down by forces of the United States. Could they expect us to make American custody a shelter for our enemies against the just wrath of our Allies ? Did we spend American lives to capture them only to save them from punishment? Under the principles of the Moscow Declaration, those suspected war criminals who are not to be tried internationally must be turned over to individual governments for trial at the scene of their outrages. Many less responsible and less culpable American-held prisoners have been and will be turned over to other United Nations for local trial. If these defendants should succeed, for any reason, in escaping the condemnation of this Tribunal, or if they obstruct or abort this trial, those who are American-held prisoners will be delivered up to our continental Allies. For these defendants, however, we have set up an International Tribunal and have undertaken the burden of participating in a complicated effort to give them fair and dispassionate hearings. That is the best known protection to any man with a defense worthy of being heard.

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. Realistically, the Charter of this Tribunal, which gives them a hearing, is also the source of their only hope. It may be that these men of troubled conscience, whose only wish is that the world forget them, do not regard a trial as a favor. But they do have a fair opportunity to defend themselves a favor which these men, when in power, rarely extended to their fellow countrymen. Despite the fact that public opinion already condemns their acts, we agree that here they must be given a presumption of innocence, and we accept the burden of proving criminal acts and the responsibility of these defendants for their commission.

When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we prove crime, I do not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of international conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that involves moral as well as

Page 52: legal wrong. And we do not mean conduct that is a natural and human, even if illegal, cutting of corners, such as many of us might well have committed had we been in the defendants positions. It is not because they yielded to the normal frailties of human beings that we accuse them. It is their abnormal and inhuman conduct which brings them to this bar.

We will not ask you to convict these men on the testimony of their foes. There is no count of the Indictment that cannot be proved by books and records. The Germans were always meticulous record keepers, and these defendants had their share of the Teutonic passion for thoroughness in putting things on paper. Nor were they without vanity. They arranged frequently to be photographed in action. We will show you their own films. You will see their own conduct and hear their own voices as these defendants reenact for you, from the screen, some of the events in the course of the conspiracy.

We would also make clear that we have no purpose to incriminate the whole German people. We know that the Nazi Party was not put in power by a majority of the German vote. We know it came to power by an evil alliance between the most extreme of the Nazi revolutionists, the most unrestrained of the German reactionaries, and the most aggressive of the German militarists. If the German populace had willingly accepted the Nazi program, no Stormtroopers would have been needed in the early days of the Party and there would have been no need for concentration camps or the Gestapo, both of which institutions were inaugurated as soon as the Nazis gained control of the German state. Only after these lawless innovations proved successful at home were they taken abroad.

The German people should know by now that the people of the United States hold them in no fear, and in no hate. It is true that the Germans have taught us the horrors of modern warfare, but the ruin that lies from the Rhine to the Danube shows that we, like our Allies, have not been dull pupils. If we are not awed by German fortitude and proficiency in war, and if we are not persuaded of their political maturity, we do respect their skill in the arts of peace, their technical competence, and the sober, industrious and self- disciplined character of the masses of the German people. In 1933, we saw the German people recovering prestige in the commercial, industrial and artistic world after the set-back of the last war. We beheld their progress neither with envy nor malice. The Nazi regime interrupted this advance. The recoil of the Nazi aggression has left Germany in ruins. The Nazi readiness to pledge the German word without hesitation and to break it without shame has fastened upon German diplomacy a reputation for duplicity that will handicap it for years. Nazi arrogance has made the boast of the "master race" a taunt that will be thrown at Germans the world over for generations. The Nazi nightmare has given the German name a new and sinister significance throughout the world which will retard Germany a century. The German, no less than the non- German world, has accounts to settle with these defendants.

I leave it for those of you who have better knowledge of the article to decide what (if any) of this should go into the article! As I'm reading Parts 1 and 2, if I come across useful bits for the article, I'll post them here.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 00:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed the "General Staff" group charge to be more accurate.
The "General Staff Charge" was a somewhat ad-hoc grouping distinct from the old Great German General Staff, which of course didn't exist in the Third Reich, and OKH or OKW, which were seen as unsuitable or limited groups to indict. Instead -senior- members of OKW and OKH were indicted along with field commanders senior enough to be titled "Oberbefehlshaber," which meant effectively Army commanders and above. This was about 135 officers, 115 of whom were thought to still be alive at the time of the trial.

The Avalon project has a lot of this material online; Telford Taylor's presentation of the case against the "General Staff and High Command" is at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-04-46.asp while the tribunal's judgement - which decided the grouping was arbitrary and unknown to people joining it at the time - is at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp. The dismissal of this charge wasn't, incidentally, meant as an exoneration of the constituent members as a group, as the tribunal makes very clear; it's a decision that such a group couldn't be made up on the fly.

Telford Taylor's memoirs also describe the pre-history of the charge in considerable detail. I went ahead and made the nomenclatural changes because I was quite positive about all of the facts involved (and the significance of it being the "General Staff and High Command" as such.)Jason Townsend (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust?
There is a prominent "Holocaust" panel, making somehow this article look like a part of "Holocaust" series (which itself is a subject for discussion), but the body of the article does not once mention either the word "holocaust" or even "Jew". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. Basically, although the article itself does not discuss the specifics, a large part of the trial was about the Crimes against Humanity, which includes the Holocaust. In the initial presentation of the case by the prosecution (before any of the witnesses were questioned), the discussion of the evidence about the "Persecution of the Jews" started on Dec 13 1945 and concluded on 14th December (and in the official transcript from HMSO, are on pages 378-420 of Part 2). The questions and evidence concerning the Holocaust covered a fair bit of the time of the trial (I can't give precise figures at the moment). I seem to recall reading somewhere that approx. 1/8 of the entire trial was about the persecution of the Jews (if I can find a source for that, I'll put it here). --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Coincidence?
Contrary to Boson I think it is encyclopedically relevant for the cultural impact of the trials, and it has precedents elsewhere in wikipedia. See R v Dudley and Stephens where a coincidence related to Edgar Allen Poe is mentioned, also in the RMS Titanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevance is, ironically, irrelevant if it isn't verifiable, from reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I now added reliable sources. ok412. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to an encyclopaedia article of this length about the Nuremberg Trials? If Streicher's last words have any relevance at all, they would appear to be given undue weight. What Streicher meant by the sentence fragment he allegedly shouted seems to be pure speculation, and the rest seems to be synthesis (if related at all). --Boson (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree. We should report what reliable secondary sources say about the incident and the "coincidence". Whether you think it relevant that's POV. If it's verifiable, we should include it, but in the last version I saw, most of it was primary material OR, following some proper citation of sources that I've not yet checked out. --Dweller (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is with the original research/synthesis. Providing sources for statements about ancient history does not justify their inclusion in an article about the Nuremberg trials unless a reliable source discussed all those facts in relation to the Nuremberg trials. That covers practically everything except the Streicher quotation itself. I am also (somewhat less) concerned about quoting a single utterance by one of the convicted. In my opinion this gives it undue weight, unless it is more important than the innumerable unquoted statements. Yes, that is my opinion; all contributors must exercise jugement about what is relevant and what is undue weight; such an assesment is a point of view, but is, of course, not contrary to WP:NPOV. Indeed, maintaining a neutral point of view often requires removal of speculation or facts of marginal relevance. --Boson (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many web-sites and books speaking of this coincidence from a religious POV, you can find them by a simple Google search. So whatever we may think about the speculative nature of it, it certainly has some cultural impact related to the trials, and as such worth reporting in this context. As I mentioned above in my first comment other coincidences are mentioned in wikipedia in their context. However, perhaps it better be in a separate small entry, and I'll just put a link from this entry to it. ok412 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the text and referencing are now much better, indicating that it is information about speculation, and supporting that information with sources. Personally, I think it is much too detailed to have this much information on a coincidence based on speculation about the possible meaning of one statement by one person convicted at the Nuremberg Trials (the topic of this article); so I would personally prefer it to be in a separate article. Let's see if anyone else chips in. If you do move it to a separate article, it might be wise to add some more information indicating why this speculation is notable. --Boson (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed OR flag, since I added secondary reliable sources for all factual claims, and indicated that the rest is speculation. I will put it in a separate article next week (going on small vacation:-)).
 * I managed to move the bulk of it to a separate article before going away. OK412. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok412 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - This does not deserve its own sub-part, simply add your works in the source area and move on. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That Holocaust Panel, again
Surely, the most appropriate panel or box is International Law. The trial was not primarily about the Holocaust, and the central charges related to planning and unleashing a war of aggression. Norvo (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See also section
The Nuremberg Trials section is rather long and seems to contain a number of links where the relevance is marginal, to say the least. I would say the following should be removed (for lack of sufficient relevance or for other stated reason):
 * Eichmann in Jerusalem
 * Human experimentation in the United States
 * Nazi eugenics
 * Nuremberg Defense duplicate: redirects to Superior Orders, which is also listed
 * Sons of Haman Coincidence?
 * Tanya Savicheva

The following also seem iffy:
 * Judgment at Nuremberg (1961 film)
 * List of war crimes

That would leave:
 * Command responsibility
 * Einsatzgruppen Trial
 * International Military Tribunal for the Far East
 * List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes
 * Nuremberg Diary, an account of observations and discussions with the defendants by an American psychiatrist
 * Superior Orders
 * Transitional justice

I'm not really sure all those deserve to stay, either. --Boson (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels & Heinrich Himmler
See Talk:List of convicted war criminals as it affects here too Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead
In the lead paragraph, the sentence "Some say that the Nuremberg War Trials were unorganized and did not have enough evidence to convict anyone" may be accurate...or may not be...in needs a citation. And even if it can be referenced it sounds sort of clunky in the lead. PurpleChez (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court Comments
Harlan Fiske Stone condemned the trials. Didn't Justice Douglas also do this 68.12.232.102 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Crappy styled chart
Section 3 The main trial You need to rearrange the article to prevent this slim unreadable court decision chart. --91.34.130.84 (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume, by chart, you mean the table. Could you explain what you find wrong with it? I am surprised at the word "slim", since it fills almost the whole width of my screen. Perhaps it looks different in your environment. --Boson (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Did any of the criminals show any remorse?
Just wondering if any of the Germans who were convicted showed any remorse for their actions during the trials? In photos they always look so serious, cold, and emotionless, almost inhuman. I wonder what was accomplished by murdering them. Thank goodness most of the world has abolished this barbaric practice. The greatest punishment these men could have received would be spending the rest of their lives in prison thinking about what they had done. Davez621 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why 99.9% of condemned criminals want to be executed, because it's "easier" (smirk) - well, Speer and Frank both stated they had remorse - but no one knows what really goes on in another's mind, and it would have been much better if these criminals had "shown remorse" prior to losing a devastating war and getting caught. You can look at the individual article entries on the defendants to get the gist of what they stated after sentencing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________

removed - not a Forum/no soapboxing - no RS discussed, nothing about improving or fixing the article ____________________________________________________________________________

Simultaneous Interpretation
The last paragraph of this section has a reference that needs to be properly footnoted. I don't know how to do it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.173.86 (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Defense Counsel needs more!
Currently, I'm writing a research paper on The Hunt for Nazi War Criminals. I found this page quite useful during my research. The only problem is that there is absolutely no information on these lawyers. If there is only that much information, why not merge it with another paragraph? This needs fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.177.244 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Origins/Morgenthau plan
As it is described here and on its own WP page, the Morgenthau plan does not really say anything about how "to deal with the Nazi leadership". IIRC Morgenthau was in favour of summary executions of war criminals, but I am not positive that this was an official part of his "plan". So this text needs a concrete statement as to what Morgenthau had in mind for the Nazi leadership, otherwise it is just confusing.Drow69 (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Morgenthau's original memorandum is linked to in the reference. He envisaged military commissions (including representatives of the liberated countries) to try "lesser" war criminals, but I presume the part mainly applicable to the Nuremberg Trials is his recommendation for dealing with what he calls "arch criminals":
 * "(1) Arch-Criminals.
 * A List of the Arch Criminals of this war whose obvious guilt has generally been recognized by the United Nations shall be drawn up as soon as possible and transmitted to the appropriate military authorities. The military authorities shall be instructed with respect to all persons who are on such lists as follows:
 * (a) They shall be apprehended as soon as possible and identified as soon as possible after aprehension, the identification to be approved by an officer of the General rank.
 * (b) When such identification has been made the person identified shall be put to death forthwith by firing squads made up of soldiers of the United Nations."
 * --Boson (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, couldn't this be included here in a sentence? I think it would be uncontroversial to label this as "summary execution" of major war criminals.Drow69 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Extensive Criticism - No Sentencing Arguments
The critics’ piece is as long in words as the rest of the article. Some of it is very tenuous and does not provide the counterargument to the critics. This is a very important formative article and cannot in any way justify Nazi behaviour as it does right now.

There is nothing in the arguments of the sentencing only criticism.

There is a discussion that is central to this article that should be included. Positivism vs. Natural law. Positivism was a German school of legal thinking that justify any law as long as it is approved through the proper mechanism and it is the principal argument of the defence in most of the trial. Opposite to it is Natural law that exits even if it has not been yet codified or explicitly approved (most common law countries subscribe also to the Natural argument, although it is not the same as custom). It is about unmovable principles, independent of custom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.228.40 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The position of the Trial was not really a natural law one either, altough that kind of legal sophistry was used. I think at the time it was for most observers quite visible that this was nothing more then victors justice seeking justification for the war. --41.151.50.147 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the criticism section as it is now "justifies Nazi behaviour" in any way. It is quite extensive, but some of these issues are at the very core of the important legal debate that continues today. There is no getting around the fact that having Stalin's representatives on the bench was somewhat inconvenient for the Western allies, to say the least. One could question whether the paragraph on the quality of the judges in a different - IG Farben - trial should be here. However, another issue raised by the defendants could be added: the quite asymmetrical access of procecution and defence to evidence and general resources. Currently this is only implied by the Luise Jodl section.Drow69 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications
No need for these templates. Drew whoever and I are expanding the article. The stuff in the bibliography will be used in due course. ColaXtra (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Always remember your Burns: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley." Leave them in anyway so that you, other editors, and readers know that those citations aren't referenced from article text.  Or, perhaps better, move those citations to §Further reading and then delete the clarify templates.


 * And the one that we have been reverting back and forth should be there until it's fixed. That one identifies a reference to a citation that does not exit.  It is not the Marrus 1997 that is broken; it is the Heller 2001.  The Marrus 1977 reference links from §References to its citation is §Bibliography (as it should).  Heller 2001 however, does not have a matching citation so it's link in §References goes nowhere.


 * That was the purpose of the No matching Heller citation; parameter in the template and my edit summary; to clearly identify Heller as the problematic reference.


 * I have restored the clarify templates.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, old bean. I'll slap them into further reading, then move them into biblio as I use them. ColaXtra (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Carving up countries
"The court agreed to relieve the Soviet leadership from attending these trials as war criminals in order to hide their crimes against war civilians, war crimes that were committed by their army that included "carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later." This "exclusion request" was initiated by the Soviets and subsequently approved by the court's administration.[69]

Wasn't this because the conspiracy for the USSR to invade Manchuria at the behest of the Anglo-Americans was same as the invasion of Poland except with less justification?Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Torture
I did a word search on this article and didn't find a single instance of the word "torture". Is there a reason why the criticism section doesn't include the (well documented) fact that confessions were obtained by torture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.253.4 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the Holocaust box
On my mobile device this article looks extremely, well, "unattractive". The problem is with the Holocaust box. It automatically blows up into the complete detailed version and you have to scroll forever just to reach the lead and find out what the hell the article is all about. Could some code expert please come up with a way that "folds back" all these individual links in the mobile view like it does on the regular site? Otherwise I would suggest removing the box, which I find somewhat redundant anyway since there is a nav box with the same name at the bottom of the page. Thoughts? Drow69 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Camps film shown at Nuremburg
I added a link to the youtube film produced by the US Government shown there since it does not appear on any of the links. The film is copyright-free as per US Constitution. This is the best copy on youtube. 81.132.46.110 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nine occupying countries
Section 2 begins, "On 14 January 1942, representatives from the nine occupying countries met in London ..." That puzzles me. If there were nine allies occupying parts of formerly German-occupied Europe, the date is too early. ?

P.S. I reworded 2.1.2 partly to specify "the Party's symbolic demise." Perhaps that should be the Reich's. --P64 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be "occupied" countries, i.e. those that had been occupied by the Germans (Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Poland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Yugoslavia) See here http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420112a.html I'll change it. Drow69 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

removed and there are other years-old citations for ref in article
The implication under international law is that if enough countries have signed up to a treaty, and that treaty has been in effect for a reasonable period of time, then it can be interpreted as binding on all nations, not just those who signed the original treaty. This is a highly controversial aspect of international law, one that is still actively debated in international legal journals. - does anyone have a reference for this little piece of op-ed?HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Overview of the trial
I added a timeline for the major events of the trial, but I am really bad at formatting. If anyone can come up with a more pleasing format... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drow69 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Defense counsel - unclear
The section now ends with: "The defence council included several men who took part in the war crimes during World War II. The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences, but that did not happen often. In fact, all of the men testifying on behalf of the defence were found guilty on several counts." This requires clarification. Does this mean that the defence counsel called on witnesses who were involved in war crimes? Or that the attorneys themselves were involved in war crimes. If the latter, could we name these guys so as not to cast a spell of suspicion on all of them? I entered the detailed info on the names, but the way this is phrased now is a problem in my view. Why were those testifying for the defence hoping for more lenient sentences? Usually, if you testify for the prosecution they may offer you leniency... Finally, what's this about "all of the men testifying for the defence were found guilty"?? That is obviously untrue, unless it refers only to other defendants. Drow69 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That in this case "defense counsel" includes the witnesses should definitely be pointed out explicitly. I created the section on the defense lawyers and meant it to focus just on the attorneys and their staff. There is also the question of Nimitz. His written testimony was sought by the defense to show that the Americans also did some of the things that the defendants were accused of. So "All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were found guilty on several counts" obviously makes no sense if we read it to include Nimitz. Drow69 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trial or Holocaust Trial?
It is to my mind incorrect to narrow the Nuremberg trials article down to being "part of a series on the Holocaust", the Holocaust being only one of the topics dealt with at the Nuremberg trials.
 * I understand what you're saying, but inclusion in that series doesn't mean that the trials are purely a Holocaust issue - merely that they're germane to it. Barnabypage (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Auschwitz Trial which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Narrative structure
Could it be possible to ad a section which provides a historical narrative of the bulleted points and the information summarized in the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone object to if I proceeded with this idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)