“I indict the following persons for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity: Hermann Wilhelm Göring. Rudolf Hess. Joachim von Ribbentrop…”
Courtroom 600 in Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice were packed as chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson read the list of names one by one. His list was long. The major war crimes trial against 24 high-ranking representatives of the Nazi state began on November 20, 1945, in the southern German city of Nuremberg.
Over the next 218 days, more than 230 witnesses were questioned, 300,000 statements were read, yielding 16,000 pages of transcript.
The selection of Nuremberg as the trial site was not arbitrary. The Bavarian city was previously the site of Nazi Party rallies. It was here that the Nazi regime flexed its power, and it was here that the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated – racist and anti-Semitic laws that paved the way for the Holocaust. And that is why justice had to be done here.
crimes cannot go unpunished
This was the first time that leading representatives of a state were held personally responsible for their inhumane actions. This was something new in the system of international law. There was one thing on which the conquerors of Germany – the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union – agreed: the crimes of the Third Reich should not be punished. Millions of people became victims of the Nazi regime – murdered in concentration camps, through war, starvation, slavery and forced labour.
Another important factor which was being addressed for the first time was the question of individual crime. “By that time, a state leader like Hermann Göring [one of the most powerful figures in Nazi Germany] “The Germans could be trusted to hold the state on whose behalf they were acting accountable, not themselves — and perhaps that’s what they expected to happen,” legal scholar Philipp Grebke told DW.
no one pleaded guilty
When the trial began, defendant after defendant pleaded “not guilty.”
“The mass murders were carried out exclusively and without any influence by order of the head of state Adolf Hitler,” declared Julius Streicher, editor of the staunchly anti-Semitic and inflammatory newspaper “Der Stürmer,” which spread Nazi propaganda for years.
As president of the Reichsbank, Hitler’s personal press chief Walther Funk denied Jews access to their bank accounts. Furthermore, he directed that the valuables of Jews who were murdered in extermination camps, including their dental gold, be sent to the Reichsbank.
At Nuremberg, he testified in court: “Nobody lost their lives as a result of actions I ordered. I always respected other people’s property. I always tried to help people in need. And, as far as I was able, to bring happiness and joy into their lives.”
Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, one of those responsible for the creation of the first concentration camps, also confidently declared his innocence. When asked if there had been any policy aimed at exterminating the Jews, he replied, “As far as I am concerned, I have said that I did not know, even approximately, the extent to which these things were happening.” He claimed that he only knew about plans for the emigration of the Jews, not about their extermination.
Twelve death sentences, seven jail sentences
Senior Nazis showed no remorse and systematically placed all blame on Hitler. However, Hitler could no longer be tried because he had committed suicide in the final days of the war.
But all efforts to deny were of no avail. The evidence was overwhelming. Concentration camp films. Testimony of survivors. Letters and orders from criminals. For the first time, the world witnessed the atrocities committed in the camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen.
The first Nuremberg trials ended on October 1, 1946. The court handed down 12 death sentences, seven prison sentences and acquitted three against high-ranking Nazi leaders.
The German public viewed the trials as ‘victors’ justice’
Bernhard Gottow of the Institute for Contemporary History says, “When the defendants were convicted, most Germans thought, ‘Now we have found the real criminals, and that’s that.’
His colleague Stephanie Palm says: “The Nuremberg trials established a certain narrative among the German population. …Everyone else had merely followed orders, they were mere followers and not guilty!”
“A kind of victim approach was adopted: ‘We are the victims of this small group around Hitler,'” she says.
In this regard, most Germans were opposed to the 12 subsequent trials against lawyers, doctors and industrialists. The tribunal was seen as “victor’s justice,” says Goto, “because it immediately raised the question of how far responsibility for Nazi crimes extended. Suddenly it was no longer just Goring and Keitel, the Wehrmacht, Himmler, and of course Hitler, who had supposedly seduced the Germans. The burden of guilt then spread onto more shoulders, and most Germans were unwilling to accept it. Were.”
Precursor to the International Criminal Court
Today, the Nuremberg Trials are considered a milestone in international law. In 1945, it was hoped that the legal standards applied at Nuremberg would apply to all in the future. No war criminal should be able to rely solely on the power of his office or the laws of his country.
Legal scholar Philip Grebke says, “If we assume that international criminal law first appeared in the court of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice in 1945, we can actually draw a direct line from the UN war crimes tribunals of the 1990s to the establishment of the International Criminal Court.”
“However, this certainly did not lead to uninterrupted application of international criminal law since 1946, nor do we see it today,” he said.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was not established in The Hague until 1998, and it began its work in 2002. But not all states recognize it. Of the 125 signatory states, the most important major powers are missing: the US, Russia, China and India. Israel also does not recognize the court.
Is ICC just a paper tiger?
But even countries that recognize the ICC have ignored the arrest warrant.
Till now, the rule for the leaders who have been accused has been that if you do not want to go to jail, then stay at home. Now even that is no longer needed. Russian President Vladimir Putin is wanted on an arrest warrant for kidnapping Ukrainian children to Russia. But in September 2024, he traveled to Mongolia, which is economically highly dependent on Russia, and was welcomed there with full respect.
What’s more, the ICC was unable to find Putin guilty of a war of aggression against Ukraine. Unlike crimes against humanity, the court can prosecute a head of state for ordering an attack only if that country also ratifies the ICC.
An arrest warrant is also issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the ICC, Netanyahu allowed the starvation and killing of Palestinian civilians. But during Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary in late 2024, Prime Minister Viktor Orban demonstratively assured his guest of safe passage.
Even in Germany, Netanyahu will probably remain untouched.
In February this year newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, “I find it completely absurd that an Israeli prime minister cannot visit Germany.” This stance was also adopted by his predecessor Olaf Scholz.
Whether a war criminal is ultimately brought before judges depends on the diligence of member states. The Hague lacks the resources and powers to prosecute the suspects themselves.
This article was originally published in German.