Nuremberg trials

src: i.ytimg.com

The Nuremberg court (German: Die NÃÆ'¼rnberger Prozesse ) is a series of military courts held by Allied forces under international law and war law after World War II. The trials are best known for the prosecution of prominent members of the Nazi Germany's political, military, judicial and economic leadership, who planned, implemented, or participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. The trial was held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, and their decision marked a turning point between classical and contemporary international law.

The first and best known set of trials are the trials of major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). They are described as "the greatest court in history" by Norman Birkett, one of the English judges who led them. Held between November 20, 1945 and October 1, 1946, the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich - although Martin Bormann's process was put on trial in absentia, while others, Robert Ley, committed suicide in one week since the start of the trial.

Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Burgdorf, Hans Krebs, and Joseph Goebbels all committed suicide in the spring of 1945 to avoid arrest, although Himmler was arrested before committing suicide. Krebs and Burgdorf committed suicide two days after Hitler in the same place. Reinhard Heydrich had been killed by a Czech partisan in 1942, so he was excluded. Josef Terboven committed suicide with dynamite in Norway in 1945. Adolf Eichmann fled to Argentina to avoid the capture of the Allies, but was captured by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad and hanged in 1962. Hermann GÃÆ'¶ring was sentenced to death but committed suicide the night before. execution as an act considered to be against his captors. MiklÃÆ'³s Horthy appeared as a witness at the Ministries hearing held at Nuremberg in 1948.

This article deals primarily with the first series of trials conducted by the IMT. A second series of trials on smaller war criminals was conducted under the Control Council Act No. 1. 10 in the Nuremberg Military Courts of the United States (NMT), which included the trial of the Doctor and the Court of Justice.

Tipification of crime and the constitutional court represents the juridical progress which will be used later by the United Nations for the development of specialized international jurisprudence in matters of war crimes, crimes against humanity, war of aggression, as well as for the creation of the International Criminal Court.

Video Nuremberg trials

Origin

A precedent to try those accused of war crimes was set at the end of World War I in the Leipzig War Crimes Trial held from May to July 1921 before the Reichsgericht in Leipzig, although this has been a very limited scale and largely considered ineffective. In the early 1940s, the Polish government in exile asked the British and French governments to condemn the German invasion of their country. Originally the British refused to do so; However, in April 1940, a joint declaration was issued by Britain, France and Poland. Relatively bland as Anglo-French ordering, he proclaimed the trio's desire to "make a formal and public protest against the conscience of the world against the actions of the German government to which they are accountable for these crimes that can not be tolerated."

Three and a half years later, the stated intention to punish Germany is much sharper. On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States published a "Declaration on the Cruelty of Germany in Occupied Europe", which gave "a full warning" that, when the Nazis were defeated, the Allies would "pursue them to the ends of the earth... in order justice can be done... The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of major war criminals whose offenses have no specific geographical location and who will be punished by a combined Allied Government decision. "This intention by the Allies to uphold justice is reaffirmed at the Yalta Conference and in Potsdam in 1945.

The British War Cabinet document, released on 2 January 2006, shows that in early December 1944, the Cabinet had discussed their policy to punish Nazi leaders if caught. The British prime minister, Winston Churchill, then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, using the Successor Act to avoid legal obstacles, who were persuaded from this only through talks with later US and Soviet leaders in the war.

In late 1943, during a Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin proposed to execute 50,000-100,000 German staff. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt joked that perhaps 49,000 would do so. Churchill, believing them to be serious, denounced the idea of ​​"cold-blooded executions of soldiers fighting for their country" and that he preferred to be "taken out into the yard and shoot" him instead of taking part in such acts. However, he also stated that war criminals should pay for their crimes and that, in accordance with the Moscow Documents which he had written himself, they should be tried in places where the crime was committed. Churchill vigorously opposed the execution "for political purposes." According to the minutes of the meeting between Roosevelt and Stalin in Yalta, on February 4, 1945, at Livadia's Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he was devastated by the extent of the destruction of Germany in the Crimea and therefore he was more thirsty in Germany with regard to than a year ago, and he hopes that Marshal Stalin will return a toast to execute 50,000 German Army officers. "

Henry Morgenthau Jr., US Treasury Secretary, proposed a plan for total German denazifikasi; this is known as the Morgenthau Plan. The plan advocated the forcible decentralization of Germany and the execution of the so-called "criminals", the great war criminals. Roosevelt initially supported this plan, and managed to convince Churchill to support it in a less drastic form. Later, the leaked details caused widespread condemnation by national newspapers. Roosevelt, aware of strong public resistance, abandoned the plan, but did not adopt an alternative position on the issue. The death of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with Nazi leadership. The plan for the "European War Crimes Trial" was drafted by the War Secretary Henry L. Stimson and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave a strong approval to the judicial process. After a series of negotiations between Britain, the US, the Soviet Union, and France, details about the trials were resolved. The trial will begin on November 20, 1945, in the city of Nuremberg, Bavaria.

Maps Nuremberg trials

Court creation

On April 20, 1942, representatives from nine countries occupied by Germany met in London to draw up "Inter-Allied Resolution in German War Crimes". At meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945), three major wartime powers, Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, approved the format of punishment for those responsible for war crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place in the tribunal. The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, agreed by the four so-called Great Powers on August 8, 1945, and which limited the trial to "the ultimate war criminal punishment of European Axis countries"

About 200 German war crimes defendants are tried in Nuremberg, and another 1,600 are tried under traditional military justice channels. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of courts is defined by the German Submission Instrument. The political authorities for Germany have been transferred to the Allied Control Council which has sovereign powers over Germany, may choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because courts are limited to violations of the laws of war, there is no jurisdiction over crimes that occurred before the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939.

Location

Leipzig and Luxembourg briefly considered the location for the trial. The Soviet Union wanted the trial to take place in Berlin, as the capital of 'fascist conspirators', but Nuremberg was chosen as the venue for two reasons, with the first being the determining factor:

1. The Palace of Justice is large and largely undamaged (one of the few buildings still largely intact through the extensive Allied bombing in Germany), and large prisons are also part of the complex.
2. Nuremberg is considered the birthplace of the ceremonial Nazi Party. It has hosted annual Party propaganda demonstrations and Reichstag sessions passing through Nuremberg Law. So it is considered a fitting place to mark the symbolic death of the Party.

As a compromise with the Soviets, it was agreed that while the trial location was Nuremberg, Berlin would be the official home of the Tribunal. It was also agreed that France would become a permanent place of IMT and that the first (some planned) trials would take place in Nuremberg.

Most of the defendants have previously been detained at Camp Ashcan, a processing center and interrogation center in Luxembourg, and transferred to Nuremberg for trial.

Participants

Each of the four countries provides one judge and an alternative, as well as the prosecutor.

Judge

• Major General Iona Nikitchenko (main Soviet)
• Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Volchkov (alternative Soviet)
• Judge Colonel Sir Geoffrey Lawrence (British leader), President of the Tribunal
• Sir Norman Birkett (English alternative)
• Francis Biddle (Main America)
• John J. Parker (American Alternative)
• Professor Henri Donnedieu de Vabres (Main French)
• Robert Falco (French alternative)

Chief prosecutor

• Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross (United Kingdom)
• Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson (United States)
• Lieutenant General Roman Andreyevich Rudenko (Soviet Union)
• FranÃÆ'§ois de Menthon, later replaced by Auguste Champetier de Ribes (France)

Helping Jackson is a lawyer for Telford Taylor, William S. Kaplan and Thomas J. Dodd, and Richard Sonnenfeldt, a US Army interpreter. Helping Shawcross is Major Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and Sir John Wheeler-Bennett. Mervyn Griffith-Jones, who later became famous as chief prosecutor in the addiction test of Lady Chatterley's Lover, also in the Shawcross team. Shawcross also recruited a young lawyer, Anthony Marreco, who was the son of a friend, to help the British team with a heavy workload.

Legal counsel

Mayoritas pengacara adalah pengacara Jerman. Ini termasuk George Fröschmann, Heinz Fritz (Hans Fritzsche), Otto Kranzbühler (Karl Dö¶nitz), Otto Pannenbecker (Wilhelm Frick), Alfred Thoma (Alfred Rosenberg), Kurt Kauffmann (Ernst Kaltenbrunner), Hans Laternser (staf umum dan comando tinggi), Franz Exner (Alfred Jodl), Alfred Seidl (Hans Frank), Otto Stahmer (Hermann GÃÆ'¶ring), Walter Ballas (Gustav Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach), Hans FlÃÆ'¤chsner (Albert Speer), Gunther von Rohrscheidt (Rudolf Hess), Egon Kubuschok (Franz von Papen), Robert Servatius (Fritz Sauckel), Fritz Sauter (Joachim von Ribbentrop), Walther Funk (Baldur von Schirach), Hanns Marx (Julius Streicher), Otto Nelte (Wilhelm Keitel) dan Herbert Kraus/Rudolf Dix (keduanya bekerja untuk Hjalmar Schacht). Pembicara utama didukung oleh total 70 asists, juru tulis dan pengacara. Para saksi pembela termasuk dalam kejahatan perang selama Perang Dunia II, Seperti Rudolf Hoess. Para pria bersaksi tuk kalimat-kalimat yang lunak. Semua kesaksian atas nama pembelaan dinyatakan bersalah atas beberapa tuduhan.

Percobaan

The International Military Tribunal opened on 19 November 1945 at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. The first session was led by a Soviet judge, Nikitchenko. The prosecution brought charges against 24 large war criminals and seven organizations - Nazi party leaders, Reich Cabinet, Schutzstaffel (SS), Sicherheitsdienst (SD), Gestapo, Sturmabteilung (SA) and "General and High Staff" Komando ", consisting of several categories senior military officers These organizations must be declared "criminal" if found guilty.

The indictment is for:

1. Participation in a general plan or conspiracy for the settlement of crimes against peace
2. Plan, start, and wage war of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crime
4. Crimes against humanity

The 24 defendants, in relation to each indictment, are charged but not punished (I), prosecuted and convicted (G), or unclaimed (-), as stated below by the accused, indictment, and end result:

Test of intelligence and psychiatric assessment

The Rorschach test was given to the defendants, along with Thematic Apperception Tests and the German adaptation of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Test. Everything has above average intelligence, some enough.

During the trial, especially between January and July 1946, the defendants and a number of witnesses were interviewed by American psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn. His records detailing the attitudes and comments of defendants persist; they were edited into book form and published in 2004. Jean Delay is a psychologist for the French delegation in the trial of Rudolf HeÃÆ'Ÿ.

Trial overview

• November 20, 1945: Start trial.
• November 21, 1945: Judge Robert H. Jackson is open to prosecution with a speech that lasts for several hours, leaving an impression in court and public.
• November 26, 1945: Hossbach Memorandum (from the conference in which Hitler explains his war plan) is presented.
• November 29, 1945: The movie "Nazi concentration camp" is playing.
• November 30, 1945: Witness Erwin von Lahousen testified that Keitel and von Ribbentrop gave orders for the killing of Polish, Jewish, and Russian prisoners of war.
• December 11, 1945: The Nazi Plan Movie is playing, showing long-term planning and preparation for war by the Nazis.
• January 3, 1946: Witness Otto Ohlendorf, former head of Einsatzgruppe D, acknowledged the killing of some 90,000 Jews.
• January 3, 1946: Witness Dieter Wisliceny explains the organization of RSHA IV-B-4 Department, which is responsible for the Final Solution.
• January 7, 1946: Witness and former SS- ObergruppenfÃÆ'¼hrer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski recognizes the mass murder of organized against Jews and other groups in the Soviet Union.
• January 28, 1946: Witness Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, a French Resistance member and concentration camp victim, testifies about the Holocaust, became the first victims of the Holocaust to do so.
• February 11-12, 1946: Witnesses and former Field Marshal Friedrich Paul, who had been taken secretly to Nuremberg, testified about the question of waging an aggression war.
• February 14, 1946: Soviet prosecutors try to blame the Katyn massacre on Germany.
• February 19, 1946: The Cruelties of the German-Fascist Intruders film, detailing the atrocities that occurred in the extermination camps, was screened.
• February 27, 1946: Witness Abraham Sutzkever testified about the killing of nearly 80,000 Jews in Vilnius by the Germans who occupied the city.
• March 8, 1946: The first witness for defense testifies - former General Karl Bodenschatz.
• March 13-22, 1946: Hermann GÃÆ'¶ring takes the position.
• April 15, 1946: Witness Rudolf HÃÆ'¶ss, former Auschwitz commander, asserted that Kaltenbrunner was never there, but claimed to have committed mass murder.
• May 21, 1946: Witness Ernst von WeizsÃÆ'¤cker describes the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, including its secret protocol that outlines Eastern Europe's division between Germany and the Soviet Union.
• June 20, 1946: Albert Speer takes the position. He is the only defendant responsible for his actions.
• June 29, 1946: Defense for Martin Bormann testifies.
• July 1-2, 1946: Court heard six witnesses testify about the Katyn massacre; The Soviets failed to inflict blame on events in Germany.
• July 2, 1946: Admiral Chester W. Nimitz gave written testimony of an attack on a merchant ship without warning, admitting that Germany is not alone in this attack, because the US is doing the same.
• July 4, 1946: Final statement for defense.
• July 26, 1946: Final statement for prosecution.
• July 30, 1946: Starts trials of "criminal organization".
• August 31, 1946: The last statement by the defendants.
• September 1, 1946: Court closes.
• September 30-October 1, 1946: Punishment takes place, takes two days, with each sentence read on the afternoon of October 1st.

The accusers managed to reveal the developmental background that led to the outbreak of World War II, which cost at least 40 million people in Europe alone, as well as the degree of atrocities committed on behalf of the Hitler regime. Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death, seven received prison sentences (ranging from 10 years in prison for life), three were released, and the other two were not charged.

Execution

The death penalty was made on October 16, 1946 by hanging using the standard drop method instead of the long drop. The US army denied the claim that the length of the drop was too short which caused a person who was cursed to die slowly from strangulation rather than quickly from a broken neck, but the evidence remains that some condemned man died slowly, fought for 14 to 28 minutes before finally choking until die. The executioner is John C. Woods. Woods had hung 34 US troops during the war, damaging some of them. The execution took place in the courthouse gymnasium (demolished in 1983).

Although rumors have long persisted that the corpses were brought to Dachau and burned there, they were actually burned at a crematorium in Munich, and the ashes scattered over the river Isar. French judges suggested that the military condemned (GÃÆ'¶ring, Keitel and Jodl) were shot by firing squads, like the standard for military military tribunals, but this was opposed by Biddle and the Soviet judges, who argued that military officers had violated their military ethos and not worth dying with a shot, which is considered more dignified. Prisoners sentenced to prison were transferred to Spandau Prison in 1947.

Of the 12 defendants sentenced to death by hanging, two were not hanged: Martin Bormann was punished in absentia (he, unknown to the Allies, died while trying to escape from Berlin in May 1945), and Hermann GÃÆ'¶ring committed suicide the night before the execution. The remaining 10 defendants who were executed were hanged.

Nuremberg Principles

The definition of what constitutes war crimes is explained by the Nuremberg principles, a set of guiding documents created as a result of the trial. Medical trials conducted by German doctors and on trial in the so-called Physician Experiment lead to the creation of the Nuremberg Code to control future experiments involving human subjects, a set of ethical principles of research for human experiments.

From the following indicted organizations found not to be a criminal:

• Reichsregierung
• "General Staff and High Command" were found not to form groups or organizations as defined by Article 9 of the London Charter
• Sturmabteilung

src: www.ushmm.org

Subsidiaries and related trials

The US authorities are conducting the next Nuremberg Trial in the zone they occupy.

Other trials conducted after the Nuremberg Trial included the following:

• Auschwitz Court
• Belsen Trial
• The Belzec trial before the 1st District Court of Munich in the mid-1960s, of eight SSs from the Belzec extermination camp
• Che? mno trial from Che camp extermination personnel? mno, held in Poland and in Germany. The cases were decided almost twenty years apart
• Dachau Experiment
• Auschwitz Frankfurt Court
• The Majdanek court, the longest Nazi war crimes tribunal in history, spans more than 30 years
• Trial of the Mauthausen-Gusen camp
• Hamburg Trial RavensbrÃÆ'¼ck
• SobibÃÆ'³r trial held in Hagen, Germany, in 1965 against the SS troops from the Sobibor massacre camp
• Treblinka trial in DÃÆ'¼sseldorf, Germany

src: naziwarcrimes.org

American role in trial

While Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of England is a judge elected as court president, the most prominent of judges in the trial is arguably his American counterpart, Francis Biddle. Prior to the trial, Biddle had become the US Attorney General but had been asked to resign by Truman in early 1945.

Some accounts argue that Truman has appointed Biddle as America's primary judge for the trial as an apology for requesting his resignation. Ironically, Biddle was known during his time as Attorney General for opposing the idea of ​​prosecuting Nazi leaders for crimes committed before the war began, even submitting a memorandum on January 5, 1945 on the matter. The record also states Biddle's opinion that instead of continuing with the initial plan to prosecute the whole organization, there should be more experiments that would require certain offenders.

Biddle immediately changed his mind, because he approved the modified version of the plan on January 21, 1945, possibly due to time constraints, since the trial would be one of the main issues discussed in Yalta. In the trial, the Nuremberg court ruled that any member of an organization convicted of war crimes, such as the SS or the Gestapo, who joined after 1939 would be considered war criminals. Biddle manages to convince other judges to make exceptions for any member recruited or not knowledgeable about the crimes committed by these organizations.

Judge Robert H. Jackson played an important role in not only the court itself, but also in the establishment of the International Military Tribunal, when he led an American delegation to London who, in the summer of 1945, argued in favor of the Nazi prosecution of leadership as a criminal conspiracy. According to Airey Neave, Jackson is also one behind the prosecution's decision to enter membership in one of six criminal organizations in the indictment at the trial, even though the IMT rejects this on the grounds that it is entirely without precedent either in international law or domestic law of any of the Allies. Jackson also tried to get Alfried Krupp on trial at his father's place, Gustav, and even suggested that Alfried volunteer for trial at his father's place. Both proposals were rejected by the IMT, mainly by Lawrence and Biddle, and several sources indicate that this resulted in Jackson being dismissed by the latter.

Thomas Dodd is a prosecutor for the United States. There is a large amount of evidence supporting the prosecutor's case, especially since a careful record of Nazi actions has been saved. There are records taken by the prosecutors who have signatures from the Nazi signing specifically for everything from stationery supplies to Zyklon B gas, which is used to kill inmates in the death squares. Thomas Dodd showed a series of pictures to the courtroom after reading the crime documents committed by the defendants. The show consisted of images showing the atrocities committed by the defendants. The photographs were collected when the prisoners were released from the concentration camp.

Henry Gerecke, a Lutheran minister, was sent to serve the Nazi defendants.

src: i.ytimg.com

Legacy

The tribunal is celebrated to establish that "[c] rimes against international law is perpetrated by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law apply." The creation of IMT was followed by the lower court of Nazi officials and the courts of Nazi doctors, who conducted experiments on people in prison camps. It serves as a model for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East who tried Japanese officials for crimes against peace and against humanity. It also serves as a model for the Eichmann trial and for the present court in The Hague, for attempting crimes committed during the Balkan wars in the early 1990s, and in Arusha, to try those responsible for genocide in Rwanda.

The Nuremberg court has had a major influence on the development of international criminal law. The conclusion of the Nuremberg court serves as a model for:

• Genocide Convention, 1948.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• Nuremberg Principle, 1950.
• Convention on Restrictions on Statutes of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 1968.
• the Geneva Conventions on the Laws and Habits of War, 1949; its supplementary protocol, 1977.

The International Law Commission, acting on the request of the General Assembly of the United Nations, produced in 1950 the report of the Internationally Recognized Law Principles in the NÃÆ'¼rnberg Court Charter and in the Tribunal Court (Annual Book of the International Law Commission, 1950 , volume II). See Nuremberg Principles.

The influence of the court can also be seen in proposals for permanent international criminal tribunals, and the compilation of international criminal codes, subsequently drawn up by the International Law Commission.

Tourists can visit 600 courtrooms on days when there is no trial. The permanent exhibition has been dedicated to the trial.

Establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court

The Nuremberg Trials started a movement for the establishment of a permanent international criminal tribunal, which eventually led more than fifty years later to adopt the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This movement occurred because during the trial, there was a conflicting method of trial between the German court system and the US court system. Conspiracy crime is unheard of in the civil legal system on the Continent. Therefore, the German defense considered it unfair to sue the defendant with a conspiracy to commit a crime, while the judges of the common law countries used to do so.

This [IMT] was the first successful international criminal tribunal, and has since played a pivotal role in the development of international criminal law and international institutions.

src: www.thenation.com

Criticism

Critics of the Nuremberg court claimed that the accusations against defendants were only defined as "crimes" after they were committed and therefore the proceedings were invalid, and thus were seen as a form of "winning justice". The double standard relating to putative victor justice also proved from the German defendant's indictment of a conspiracy to aggression against Poland in 1939, while no one from the Soviet Union was accused of being part of the same conspiracy. As Biddiss observes, "The Nuremberg Trials continue to haunt us... This is also the question of the weakness and the power of the process itself."

Quincy Wright, writing eighteen months after the IMT conclusion, described the opposition to the Tribunal as follows:

The assumptions underlying the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the Nuremberg Court Charter are far from positivistic assumptions that greatly influenced the thinking of international jurists in the nineteenth century. As a result, the activities of these institutions are often heavily criticized by positivistic legal experts... who have asked: How did the principles spoken by the Nuremberg Trials, to make it an example, become lawful until most states have to approve a court with jurisdiction to enforce those principles? How could the Nuremberg Courts get jurisdiction to find Germany guilty of aggression, when Germany did not approve of the Tribunal? How could the law, first explicitly accepted in the 1945 Nuremberg Charter, have binded the defendants to trial when they committed the acts they accused the previous year?

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(US Chief Prosecutor) Jackson is conducting a death penalty party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I do not care what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he runs the courts and proceeds under general law.This is a bit too pretentious to fulfill my old ideas."

Jackson, in a letter addressing the weakness of the trial, in October 1945 told US President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or done some of the things we demand from Germany." France so violates the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is to take back the prisoners sent to them We are demanding looting and our allies are practicing it We say aggressive warfare is a crime and one of our allies affirms the sovereignty of the Baltic states based on no titles except conquest. "

Associate Justice William O. Douglas alleged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting forces for principle" at Nuremberg. "I think at the time and still think that Nuremberg courts are not principled," he wrote. "The law was created ex post facto to match the passion and demands of time."

US Deputy Chief Advisor Abraham Pomerantz resigned as a protest over the low caliber of judges assigned to prosecute industrial war criminals as in I.G. Farben.

A number of Germans who agreed with the idea of ​​punishment for war crimes admitted hesitant about the trial. A contemporary German jurist said:

That the defendants at Nuremberg are held responsible, punished and punished, will initially appear as a kind of historical justice. However, no one who takes seriously the problem, especially those who are not responsible wisely, will be satisfied with this sensitivity and also should not be left alone. Justice is not served when the guilty parties are punished in the old way, even if this seems to match the size of their mistakes. Justice is served only when the guilty are punished in a cautious and careful way to consider their criminal offenses in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable under the jurisdiction of judges appointed by law.

The validity of the court has been questioned for a number of reasons:

Legitimacy

One criticism IMT makes is that some agreements do not bind axis powers because they are not signatories. This is discussed in decisions relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which contain the extension of customary law: "The [Hague] Convention expressly states that it is an attempt" to revise the general law and customs of war, "which is thus acknowledged to then exist, but in 1939 these rules set forth in the Convention are recognized by all civilized nations, and are regarded as the declaration of the laws and customs of war referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter. "

src: c8.alamy.com

Introduction to simultaneous interpretation simultaneously

Nuremberg courts use four official languages: English, French, German and Russian. To address the complex linguistic issues that surround the trial, interpretations and translation departments should be established. However, it is feared that sequential interpretation will slow the process significantly. Therefore, the unique thing in both Nuremberg courts and the history of the interpretive profession is the introduction of a completely new technique, without the preparation of a simultaneous interpretation. This interpretation technique requires interpreters to listen to speakers in the source (or passive) language and orally translate the speech to other languages ​​in real time, ie, simultaneously, through headsets and microphones. Interpreters are divided into four sections, one for each official language, with three interpreters per section working from three other languages ​​into the fourth language (their native language). For example, an English booth consists of three translators, one working from German to English, one working from French, and another from Russia, etc. Defendants who do not speak official four languages ​​are provided with successive court interpreters. Some of the languages ​​heard during the process include Yiddish, Hungarian, Czech, Ukrainian, and Polish.

The equipment used to build this system is provided by IBM, and includes complex cabling arrangements that are connected to headsets and single earphones directly from four interpreting chambers (often referred to as "aquariums"). Four channels exist for every working language, as well as root canals for processes without interpretation. Channel switching is controlled by the settings in each table where the listener only has to rotate the dial to switch between languages. People tripping over the cables placed on the floor often cause the headset to break off, with several hours at a time sometimes taken to fix the problem and continue with the test run.

Translators are recruited and examined by each country where the official language is spoken: the United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, as well as in special cases Belgium and the Netherlands. Many former translators, military personnel, and linguists, some are experienced interpreters, others are regular individuals and even recent high school graduates lead international lives in multilingual settings. It is, and it is still believed, that the qualities that make the best interpreter not only a perfect understanding of two or more languages, but more importantly are a vast sense of culture, encyclopaedic knowledge, curiosity, and natural calm. character.

With the simultaneous technique being very new, the translators practically train themselves, but many can not handle psychological pressure or pressure. Many often have to be replaced, many return to the translation department, and many are left. Serious doubts are given whether the interpretation provides a fair trial for the defendants, mainly because of fears of mistranslations and mistakes made on the transcript. The translation department also has to deal with extraordinary problems due to staff shortages and overloaded with the inclusion of non-resolvable documents. More often than not, interpreters get caught in a session without documents right in front of them and are relied upon to do vision translations or double-text translation, leading to further problems and widespread criticism. Other issues that arise include complaints from lawyers and other legal professionals relating to interrogation and cross-examination. Legal professionals are most often surprised at the slower pace at which they have to perform their tasks because of the extended time required for the interpreter to make interpretations correctly. Also, some commentators protest the idea of ​​using vulgar language, especially if it refers to Jews or the conditions of Nazi concentration camps. The bilingual/trilingual members who attend the trial take a quick on this character aspect and are equally quick to file a complaint.

However, apart from extensive experiments and errors, without a system of interpretation, trials will not be possible and in turn revolutionize the way multilingual issues are addressed in courts and conferences. A number of translators who attend the proceedings are immediately recruited into the newly formed UN, while others return to their ordinary lives, pursue other careers, or work freelancers. Beyond the boundaries of the trial, many translators continue their position on the weekend of interpreting for dinner, private meetings between judges, and visits between delegates. Others work as investigators or editors, or help the translation department whenever they can, often using it as an opportunity to hone their skills and to correct poor interpretations of transcripts before they are available for public records.

For further reference, a book called The Origin of Simultaneous Interpretation: Nuremberg Trial, written by interpreter Francesca Gaiba, published by University of Ottawa Press in 1998.

Today, all major international organizations, as well as conferences or governments that use more than one official language, use simultaneous interpretation without preparation. Important agencies include the Kosovo Parliament with three official languages, the Canadian Parliament with two official languages, the South African Parliament with eleven official languages, the European Union with twenty-four official languages, and the United Nations with six official languages..

src: c1.staticflickr.com

See also

• Nuremberg memorandum bibliography
• Command responsibility
• Dora's Trial
• Eichmann in Jerusalem
• Einsatzgruppen Experiment
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East
• Judgment in Nuremberg (film 1961)
• Nuremberg (2000 movies)
• List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes
• Nuremberg Diary , accounts of observations and discussions with defendants by American psychiatrists
• Research Materials: Archives of Max Planck Society
• Superior command
• Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal
• Transitional justice

src: c1.staticflickr.com

References

Note

Quote

Avalon Project

This quote refers to a document on the "International Military Tribunal for Germany". Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy . Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library.

Bibliography

src: d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net

Further reading

• Conot, Robert E. (1983). Justice in Nuremberg . New York: Harper & amp; Line. ISBN: 006015117X.
• Priemel, Kim C.; Stiller, Alexa, eds. (2012). Reassess Nuremberg Military Courts: Transitional Justice, Experimental Narratives, and Historiography . Book Berghahn. ISBN 978-0-85745-532-1. Ã,

src: www.ushmm.org

External links

• International Center for Transitional Justice Justice, Criminal Justice page

• The documentary shown at the Nuremberg trial in November 1945 demonstrating the terror of the concentration camp
• Nuremberg Exam on Yad Vashem's website
• Official records from Nuremberg court (The Blue series) in 42 volumes of congress Library records
• Donovan Nuremberg Trials Collection Cornell Law Library
• Nuremberg Experiment Project: Collection of digital documents Harvard Law School Library
• Avalon Project
• Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg court)
• Next Nuremberg Exam
• Special focus on Trial - USHMM
• Fallen Tree in the Forest: Nuremberg Decision 60 Years On, JURIST
• Taking the Nazis to court: how do I test the GÃÆ'¶ring's 'fat kid' cross, guardian.co.uk
• The Nuremberg Judgments , Chapter 6 of The High Cost of Vengeance, by Freda Utley, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, (1948). Available by "The Freda Utley Foundation"
• Francine Hirsch, The Soviets at Nuremberg: International Law, Propaganda, and Post-War Order Creation
• The International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg tested transcripts and documentary evidence of German medical experiments in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity 1946-1947, National Library of Medicine United States
• "Nuremberg Trial Collection" The collection of the Northwestern University special collection archives was collected by Charles J. Gallagher, a court reporter at the trial.
• Works by a Nuremberg court in LibriVox (public domain audiobook)

Source of the article : Wikipedia