Google
 

View Full Version : Lessons from Nurembereg


Criminal
09-20-2003, 08:56 PM
The International War Crimes Tribunal convened at Nuremberg in 1946. It brought to trial a motly group of German War Criminals. Among those present were Herman Goering, Joachim Von Ribbontrop, Generals Keitel and Jodl and many others. The trials addressed various crimes but they fell under three classifications, 1) Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War, 2) Crimes against Peace and 3) War Crimes. The most immediately guilty criminals, it should be noted, from Hitler to Heinrich Himler, were already dead. What was left over was the Third Reich's henchmen. They were not necessarily the planners of the greatest crimes agains humanity but they were certainly the ones who implemented these crimes. Some of those charged, like Julius Streicher had little to do with the actual killing of people, though Streicher was sent to the gallows. Others had a direct link to many of the attrocities committed in the Reich.

Those familiar with War Crimes are aware that certain people from history were charged with crimes. Sir William Wallace was convicted for the deaths of several innocent people in Scotland by an English Court, which was probibly biased. He was put to death in the 14th century. Maj. Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville, a Confederate Prisoner of War Camp was the first American to be put to death for war crimes. He was hanged in 1865.

It was noteworthy that in WW 1 there were no war crimes trials. An attempt to bring Kaiser William to justice failed as he had fled to Netherlands and remained there to the end of his life.

World War Two differed from other wars however. Never had more blatant wars of agression been waged. Never had crimes against humanity been more flagrantly violated. On newsreels around the world were shown camps strewn full of bodies.

The severity of the trial and its aftermath were evident as 11 members were sentenced to death that a message was being sent.

The answer given in case after case was "I did was following my orders." This answer was no longer and excuse. It was not for the defendants who paid for their crimes. It was not for anyone.

The main criticism that was waged on this tribunal was that it was the victors of the war who exercised their justice. No war crimes trial ever was held for allied transgressors. No trial was held for the Soviet invasion of Finland or the Baltic States. Nor was any trial ever held for the death of 95% of German Prisoners of war in Soviet camps. Nor was any trial held for the nighttime bombing of Dresden Germany. In fact, as the trials were held, Soviet leaders were exercising their own brand of terror in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Yugoslav partisans were busy exterminating all who opposed Tito. Bulgaria was rounding up and executing all forms of opposition. Albania was the scene of a campaign of extermination which would make the nazis jelous.

The US and Britian were already finding their former Soviet Allies not reasonable partners to get along with. Disagreements had already errupted regarding treatment of occupied nations. A line was drawn through Germany and Austria. Manchuria was now in Soviet hands and the Russians were aiding Chinese Communist Partisans in a bloody civil war. Korea was split down the center.

In later years old allies became advisaries. V.Y. Pokrovsky, the cheif prosecutor on the Soviet side became famous for procecuting Gary Powers, an american pilot show down in the infamous U2 incident.

But all the same, the message of Nuremberg remains today. "I was obeying my orders" is not good enough. Orders which violate basic laws of civilized behavior cannot be obeyed.

We see this in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda. And like in these countries, as in Nuremberg it is still the winners who have the privlige of administering justice.

Google