I thought it was clever of the prosecutors to use the detailed documents that the Nazis' recorded instead of using holocaust survivors to testify because it's much clearer evidence. It would be much harder to believe a person than records of these horrific events. Plus the survivors may not have seen all the things the the Nazis' recorded.
This is a very good point. Words can make things easier to believe, especially when it is hard to; If you go to the doctor and are diagnosed with the flu, your first reaction is something like "this cannot be true, I cannot be sick" and then when the doctor officializes your diagnosis on paper, you realize that this is happening, and you are sick... Most of the prosecutors and public were probably still in shock from the whole ordeal, who wouldnt't be??? This being said, paper was just easier for everyone.
Proof is great but I think that it's so much more convincing to have actual holocaust survivors testifying because they lived it. The Nazis also lived it, but they were the ones that were doing the harm. Why would people belive them over a Jew who survived the mess? Even though they hated Jews, they would have learned something from what the Germans did. Maybe the Jews would have been looked at differently if they were able to share their stories. Maybe the Jews would finally have respect from others around them. The files are an interesting part of this but I still think that Jews would have had more opportunities after the Nuremburg Trials if they would have gotten to testify.
I agree that it was very smart of the prosecutors to use the Nazi records as evidence in the trials because they are using their( the Nazis') own errors against them. They admit it rather recordand document their actions and the prosecutors just shove that back in their face. There I'd no better form of evidence. How i'm could the Nazi leaders deny what the written themselves? I hope when the US prosecutors presented them with that evidence it made them really stop and reflect about what they had done. What they had done to the Jews, the gypsies, or any other 'undesired' people. What they had done to humanity.
I think the Nuremberg trials were such a good and serious way to civics these bad men for their crimes during World War II. It's amazing how long the trials took since they were over a series of 13 separate trials. I agree that the men associated with the massacre of the killing of the Jews deserved to be punished by death, even though 7 were sent to prison for 10 years to life.
I think they deserved it too. Though it was interesting how many of the nazis including Hitler, Goebbels, Let, and Goering committed suicide before their trials or near the end of the war. They all turned out to be cowards hiding behind murder and other nazis. They were too afraid to stand up to what they did. So they knew it was wrong or else why not let everyone know exactly what they did.
I somewhat agree. But weather you commit suicide or punished from your crimes by death either way you'll end up being dead. What I think hits most to people is when they are still alive and have feelings. (Yes I understand the fear and cowardice behind suicide getting it over with/easy way out.) But having someone live and feeling the guilt and letting that person deal with themselves with this problem is a good enough effective punishment. Guilt can hurt more than physical imprisonment because it's able to haunt. I believe the nations where being mature in there justifications of punishment. (In a sence for letting the ones to survive is somewhat a graceful act showing them like "hey we are treating you more humanly than you did with people you killed" so theyre showing a mature side while also stopping with the continuation of anymore death. The act of letting them live is an adult human like example it gives morals back)
The process itself was impressively orginized and worked efficiently.
The ironic thing about this is the question of how you're supposed to defend your actions. How do you justify that? You could place the blame on someone higher, but that still wasn't a good excuse. I think it was a good idea to have both France and Britian in the "jury" because it gave both sides of the war. The French were under nazi rule, so they saw the true horrors and could contribute quite a bit. I just wonder how to people were released...
Although what happened was terrible, I think it is interesting how all 4 groups (The U.S., The Soviet Union, French, and Great Britain) worked together to get revenge over the Germans. Some things that happen in the world, they all disagree on, but as far as genocide goes, they agreed on this topic. I think it's shocking how it takes something this big to get people to work together, but it only takes one person to start something this huge.
I think it's such a thoughtful, skillful way too resolve issues. Then just straight up war on somebody. Although what they indeed isn't easy to recover from it was handle with maturity and class. All war has atrocities. So with returning fire and fighting the economic levels will hit an all time low, the death rate with increase, infant mortality rates won't be so hot and thousands more of lives will be lost. I also feel like it must be such a heart-wrenching thing to witness. Seeing all of these nazi liberals charged because of there actions. I'm proud that we were able to resolve these issue without causing greater conflict.
I agree, I think it is amazing that they were all able to come together in this time of great distrust and anger and pain. These four nations, who previously hadn't always been on good terms, were able to put that aside for the common good of delivering justice onto the guilty party. What I also thought was amazing was that they decided on a trial instead of immediate execution. They found a fair way to judge the heinous crimes and the fiends who performed them. I think they knew that if they didn't put these men on trial, then the four great nations would be just as guilty of genocide. Though on a much smaller scale, the mass murder of 199 murderers would still be wrong. Instead of these men being given the mercy of death, they were made to stand trial for their atrocities and they had to live with the things they'd done. In my opinion, I think that's actually more harsh, but in a way that they deserved.
I think is interesting how the trials were set up for four different countries which each had differrent categories. I believe that these four counties were the best to use for the Nurmburg Trials, because these countries were the most stable at the time. By having four counties on jury, it allows for more diverse and contrasting final consequences for the Nazis at trial.
Ernest Michel, a concentration camp survivor, reported at age 20 in the Nuremberg Trials. He talks about why this event was so important, saying it would bring justice to the actual leaders of the government who made these war crimes, not the specific individuals that committed the crimes. He goes on to talk about how it would be good to set up a global court to deal with all leaders who have committed or are committing atrocities. However this is a good idea, I don't think it will work. Different counties are affected differently, so each counrty will have very different and possibly completely opposing ideals
I agree with the importance of the Nuremberg Trials, and how they were a global turning point for history, as this was the first time a western government had been brought to justice for the horrific crimes they had committed. However, I believe that it is possible for these international trials to occur in the future, when the time calls. The International Crimes Tribunal has convicted people involved in both the Rwandan and Yugoslavian Genocides, and I believe that they are capable of trying criminals in the future as well.
I was supprised that people were mad at the Nuremberg attendees, for supporting the sentencing of the Nazi official. They thought that because there were no laws aginst the mass murder of jew before the trial that the Nazis shouldn't take responsibility for their actions.
I felt the same way when I heard that the Nuremberg Trials faced some opposition. I knew that the trials were the first of its kind, but I never thought of the implications of sentencing actions due to laws that didn't exist when the actions were executed. I always thought that the trials were justified because of the enormity of the Nazi's actions, so it was interesting to hear about how certain people opposed the trials because of how unfair they seemed. Winston Churchill's change of heart was especially intriguing; one would expect the leader of one of the prosecuting nations to fully support the prosecution of the Nazi's.
The Nuremburg trials were a result of the nazi surrender. At the end end of the war some one needed to be held responsible for the actions of the nazis. The allies said If no one was held responsible for the actions then crimes against humanity would be tolerated and left unjust. I feel they were right to hold the higher nazi power responsible. The Jews that were involved in the trails held an inportant role in how the story is told today. The Nuremburg trials were the last time most of the nazi party was seen together before being executed of taken to jail. This justice was inportant in history and how World War Two was depicted today.
I think that the Nuremburg Trials were something fair to do. The Nazi's somehow had to pay for what they did. It was right about time for the Nazi's to take responsibilities for their actions. Now, why were the people mad? And didn't really agreed with the Nuremburg trials nor with its participants?
I also liked how all those four countries (Great Britain, France, USA and the Soviet Union) got together to go against the Germans.
The claims made against the Nazi officials included: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War, Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity Respectively. Off the 22 men convicted, they were all convicted on count 1, 16 were convicted on count 2, and 18 were convicted on counts 3 and 4. I disagree with only 18 officials being found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity because they all had to do with the slaughter of innocent people. Some may have not played a large roll, but they did still play a roll. If only the high ranking officials were sent to these trials, they each had a hand in spreading the holocaust around Europe, therefore I believe they should've all been convicted.
I wanted to talk about the question: how did the Nazis persuade others to participate. I think that they did what Hitler had done in the beginning. He made promises to get other to vote, and then made a law to prevent him to be overthrown. I think the Nazis promised high positions to them such as: commander-in-chief, secretary, governor and police, in order to get others to join forces.
i feel like it was really smart to use the nazi's personal records. although we did get to try i also thought it was pretty smart to have each nation have it's own judge. this way each nation had their own say in their area, but at the same time they came together making one decision.
I think the Nuremberg Trials was a wonderful idea! The Nuremberg Trials gave a voice to everybody who were in the concentration camps. All they wanted was justice and that's just what they got! They didn't want people roaming around that had killed innocent people and families. It wasn't fair to the millions of people who had to suffer, so they made the Nuremberg Trials to make sure something like this wouldn't happen or prevent something bad from happening again.
I think that the sentiment you're trying to express is genuine, while the information itself is slightly incorrect. The Nuremburg Trials document says that because the wealth of information found in the Nazi's own records was so detailed, Holocaust survivors were never really asked to testify. It wasn't until a later trial in 1961 that they were actually encouraged to share their stories. I think that at that time, when they had just been through this horrible trauma, it was unnecessary for them to recount these horrifying stories in front of everyone and it would only add to their suffering. On the contrary, I think that it would have served the purpose that if the victims shared their stories then the people being put on trial would see the damage they'd done and the pain they'd caused. In the end, it's really a toss up, as no solution was a perfect one.
I fell like a lot of people really just think that the Nuremberg trials were important because they brought justice to what had happened in WW2, but a lot of people don't consider the bigger consequences their actions could have brought. Robert Jackson explained that these trials were a lot bigger than just bringing justice to the minorities, because they were bringing justice to human kind. What was at stake was the existence of humanity its self because the nazi were trying to wipe out human groups that they did not agree with, and if no one would have stopped them then it would not have only been the jews and gypsies but other cultures as well.
During the sentencing that was happening because of the Nuremburg Trial, many things occurred. 12 were hung, and the other 7 were either going to prison from 10 years- life in prison. Many of the convictions had to do with how involved each of the Nazis were during the war. This has to do with how much punishment they received. In my opinion, I think this trial was necessary and it really confuses me on how one could possibly agree that Nazis were doing something good to their country. What good did it do?
I agree how the trials were a good way to stand for justice against the nazi officials. Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor at the subsequent Einzatsgruppen trial, explained in the video that as humans we are trying to build a better world. He said that if we want to do that we need to act upon crimes against humanity. If we try to achieve this goal, videos like this are good to inform others on how this worked. Much of the speakers in the video said that history like these trials needs to repeat in order to show people how they called to action once the nazis were doing bad in the world. It illustrated how these certain leaders of government and others came together to stop the wrong doings of the nazis. It implied the amount of damage the nazis did. And how so many people were upset with all of the decisions.
I believe the Nuremberg Trials were required to remind the public countless amount of crimes the Nazis commited but also the mental changes they went through. Someone had to have persuaded the soldiers to join the group. The trials also helped the soldiers realize what they had caused and even cause them to feel guilty.
I was surprised how people were against the trails. It was the first time a group was being accused of crimes against humanity, but I can't imagine someone agreeing with what the Nazis were doing. It seemed obvious to put the Nazis to trial. They needed to make sure crimes like these would not repeat themselves and that everyone would remember silence during these sort of incidences would be a crime.
The purpose of bringing nazi war criminals to justice was a good idea because even though there were no laws when the nazi's nurses the Jews, they still have to take authority for what they did. The four nations coming together and being against the Germans was clever but I think after finishing with the nazis they still won't feel satisfied because nothing can change the fact that the nazi's killed the innocent Jews.
I agree with you Samantha. I am glad that the trials happened, but so many people got killed that no punishment was enough. I am not satisfied with how the men got punished. All most every man got the death punishment, except for the few men that only got 10 years of jail.Of the 22 men convicted, they were all convicted conspiracy to wage aggressive war. 16 were convicted on crimes against peace.
18 were convicted on war crimes and crime against humanity. I do not like that only 18 of the men were found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity because each one of those men were part of the killing of all the innocent Jewish people. They were innocent individuals, being punished as a group for their beliefs.
I Think that although the nazis gave the allied poweres a huge reason to end their lives, they didn't. Instead they were able to come up with a good system to justify their actions and gave all of the Nazis a fair and just court trial and a lawyer for them. I don't agree with the allied powers sentencing the Nazis. I belive it would have been more just to use a neutral party to judge them.
I think that the Nuremberg trials was a justifiable act but it doesn't erase what happened during the holocaust and how badly Jews were treated
Sally Falk Moore stated that the 21 men going to trial can not be prosecuted for something that wasn't the law before they start. I partly agree with her in the way that one cannot be held accountable for something that was known when the action took place. On the other hand, some crimes are so great that they go against basic morals. All humans should be held to an unwritten standard.
What stuck out to me were the men who killed themselves before the trial. Through this, they showed their true cowardess. They weren't able to hold their heads high and face their consequences. This is pretty ironic because the ones, like Hitler, who acted all mighty and powerful, turned out to be the weakest.
The Nuremberg trails were a set of trials that were conducted in order to find a fair punishment for nazi leaders who helped comit an atrocious genocide. I thought giving these people a trial was a very good decision. I beleive they deserve a punishment, but senseless violence only leads to more senseless violence. They were given a fair chance to be judged for their decisions, and had to face the consequences of their actions.
The trials where a very thought through process between the United States, Great Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union. These trials where made to judge the Nazi officials on there crimes against the many people who where effected but there actions. I felt as if these trials worked well. They used the evidence that the nazi's themselves had created. By this I am saying the Nazi's kept very detailed records of all that had happened during the holocaust. This caused there to be no need for actual statements from the Jews and others who where effected until later. But there testimonies where not held in or during the Nazi officials trials, these where held before there trials for the reason it doesn't state but I trust that there was good reasoning behind this. From all this I can conclude that I support the Nuremberg Trials.
I its was very beneficial for the U.S. Soviet Union,French, and Great Britain all worked together to get revenge over the Germans. The 4 countries were best fit for the Nuemberg Trials because they were the most stable at the time. It's crazy that something this big has to happen for people to get together and make a stand. I think that the Nurmberg Trials were very helpful because the NAZIS NEEDED TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY DID. It wasn't fairy for gh Jews to be murdered for something they had no control over
I thought It was ^
Not every nazi official did something that they could be convicted of. Some did more horrifying deeds than other therefore leading to more severe consequences. The Nuremberg trials gave the freedom of three nazis making it fair to them instead of just shooting them right off the bat. This was a time where justice could be done despite the inhumane things the nazis did.
After reading, i have mixed feelings about the trials. One part of me feels sympathetic and pitty-full and another part of me feels like the defendants deserved what they got. However, one question does come to mind; How was the amount of innocence measured? What I mean is that many SS soldiers did what they did because they had a job and many did it for protection. I'm not giving justification to the holocaust; i am merely stating a possible reason. We say "who does Hitler think he is deciding the fate of billions of people" and yet at the trials we did the same. Who were we to measure the innocence of the defendants?
After reading and watching the video on the Nuremberg trials, I feel as though justice was not done. despite the classiness of a trial, the tiny number of 192 nazi's being persecuted does not come close to sizing up to the exponential number of people killed in th
sorry guys it cut me off, continuing:
some of the nazi's committed suicide and many were only sentenced to jail for maximum of ten years. The trial was civilized and well organized, but the number of nazi's punished for their actions is too small. Had all the nazi's and all those who participated in the murders (architects, scientists, political leaders...) been killed, maybe justice could have been done for those who died in the
I believe it's interesting how they brought four great powers together to make a collective decision on what to do. These countries were chosen because they were the most stable at the time. It's good that they could have their opinions be known and have a decision for each count.
What I am about to say could be incredibly controversial...but this is just a thought.
Between 1945 and 1950, the Nuremberg Trials took place. These were a set of trials that determined the fate of 199 leaders/ individuals who took part in the man slaughter of many innocent people during the Holocaust. The idea was to achieve justice. Meaning, the leaders of these crimes against humanity would be tried, and most likely convicted- killed. However, where I begin to question this idea starts back at the reason why the trials are being held in the first place. Many lives were lost. And, as a result, we kill more men. I find this situation to be somewhat ironic. I completely understand that what they did was wrong, but I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, encouraging killing. However, it's hard to say what other kind of way justice could be achieved. And if there was another way, would the leaders ever really learn their lesson? Or continue to kill in secret? So as a whole, I understand the idea behind a large, international type trial- to try and keep political leaders from continuing inhumane activities.
While watching this video I was completely shocked by Ernest Michel who was actually thankful to be at the trail as a reporter even after he was stuck in a concentration camp. He kept his cool even after all the pain those men put him through. If I had to go through that I would have wanted most of them dead. They handled things in a very dignified way even after the inhuman acts the nazis committed.
Death is too easy. A lifetime of reflection is what I think should have been the punishment for the nazis. The few nazis who were convicted needed to understand that they had made the wrong decisions by not doing anything to stop the mass murder and "following orders". They had to understand that they truly deserved that punishment, and by doing that, the former nazis would become better people.
I would have to disagree, while I don't think that death is always an option, I would have to say that the Nazi's wouldn't have had their mind changed. This was also a way to get rid of the troubled ending of the war. By killing them, they tied up some loose ends. I also think that they had so much hate for the Nazi's that any attempt to talk to them would have been dangerous and would have ended in conflict.
I agree that those who committed suicide before the trials or who were executed took the easy way out. The Nazis who were convicted and killed after the trials probably would have committed suicide anyway. Also, "following orders" is a terrible excuse for mass murder because if those officers had been ordered to murder their families they most likely would not have been able to. They were completely aware of the crimes they were committing and they were able to do it because those lives didn't mean anything to them. There really isn't any punishment that would be appropriate for the type and magnitude of the crime committed.
The nurenburg trials were a great idea and I agree that the Nazis needed to be severely punished for their crimes. Ernest Michel is a first hand witness of these crimes, spending 5 1/2 years in a concentration camp. He was a journalist that reported the Nuremberg trials as a young 20 year old. I agree with Joel that the Nazis should spend their time in prison reflecting about the horrific crimes they commited during the war.
The Nuremberg trials were trials to punish the the Nazi leaders in the holocaust. The Nuremberg trial was good for a fresh start for bringing the people together. If the Nuremberg trial wouldn't have happened it would still be chaos. The trial shows how important this was to the citizens and countries. Even though the Nazi's were punished for what they did, it wasn't good enough. Some Nazi people only got sentenced to the maximum of ten years, and that is not enough for the trouble they caused. But, some of them did get what they diserved, and some of them died which might have been good for the world.
In the handout I found it interesting that a lot of the Nazi leaders committed suicide or (became ill) before the trial. These men who advertised themselves as these superior men in the end could not stand up strait for what they did. It's ironic. I do understand the positives of a trial because it brings the stop to unjustified killing of a large group of people. I don't agree that only 12 out of 19 were sentenced to death and the rest sent to prison. I think they should all have been sent to death, but it did send out a message that if you take the lives of innocent people, you won't be entirely forgiven.
I find it amazing the irony of human beings that were tried for Crimes against humanity and I believe the sheer irony in this is reason for their trial. This is a sticky topic since it is hard to really find and bring to justice all possible allies of this injust. The trial was "good" response; however, due to its uncertainty, I am not sure if it ensured trust with the public.Also I agree with the idea that the measure of innocence was "not fair". Many people that went along with the holocaust were merely doing their job. In my opinion the industrial companies had a part in allowing the Holocaust to proliferate in deaths. How many more were at fault? For this reason, the trial was done well yet left so many unanswered questions.
I thought that giving these people a trial was an excellent decision. I believe they deserve a punishment, but even though death is the strongest form of punishment, in a way it also isn't because a shot to the head would be swift and painless. Yes they were given a fair chance to be judged for their decisions, and had to face the consequences of their atrocious actions. "Just knowing history doesn't mean it won't repeat."
The fact that four different world powers were able to come together and agree on this trial shows how the holocaust was globally recognized as an atrocity. Sometimes it takes an awful occurrence to bring out our humanity. I think that a trial was the only humane thing to do in this case. Immediately killing the Nazi leaders would not have solved anything. Churchill was able to see the benefits of these trials. These trials helped us learn how these things happen.
I think the trials were actually a more mature way to handle. Instead of just killing all the people they wanted gone, they chose a different levels of punishments. I don't agree with a few out of the whole being sentenced to death. I think all should've been sentenced to death. Their actions caused just as many problems as the others. I I think the trials really brought people together and unified them as well. 4 powerful countries making decisions together.
I feel like the Nuremberg trials were somewhat inevitable given the horrendous crimes that were committed by the Nazis and if not the trials something would have been done to punish the Nazis. Even if the trials didn't punish everyone responsible for the crimes, the trials were a step towards righting the Nazi's wrongs and providing a healing process for the Jews. I don't completely agree with the death sentences either and I agree with what was commented previously that they should spend the rest of their lives to think about what they had done.
The Nuremberg Trials were the most important criminal proceedings ever held. They established the principle that individuals will always be held responsible for their actions under international law, and brought closure to World War II, allowing the reconstruction of Europe to begin.
The Nuremberg Trials were meant only to punish the Germans and not all those who had committed reprehensible acts during the war. I belived the trials were a good way to stand against the Nazi officals, but many people were not for it. when making the trials the court was not interested in punishing actual crimes that had been committed, but simply in punishing the German leadership. There were four counts that were charged against the defendants actions after the war.
I think that the Nuremburg trials acted as a way to try and punish the people involved with the holocaust in order to discourage and to prevent an event like the holocaust happening again. The Nuremburg trials tried 199 people who were high up in the Nazi party and who were partially involved with the mass murder of jews.
The Nuremberg Trials were a very just set of trials and showed that even if all the Allies had all been damaged in some way, they all came together to bring justice to the Nazi remnants and bring peace to the Holocaust Survivors. The idea of not just using Holocaust survivors' eyewitness reports, but the files the Nazi Reich had was pretty interesting in that the files were so detailed and from a quote, "The Germans sure love to organize everything". This organization lead to all the tried members to their downfall.
The Nuremburg trials forced those involved to take responsibility and recognize the cruelty of their actions. I found it interesting that many of the Nazis rather found found death as a better option then going to trial and facing the consequences of their actions. The Nuremburg trials were an occasion that should have occurred sooner. Some of those who were guilty were tried and released while others were given the death penalty and jail time. I think everyone involved should have been found guilty even while they believed they weren't doing anything wrong.
I think that the fact that the Allies who were trying the Nazis took thought into the punishment and decided on putting them up for trial. They didn't want to just kill people without trying them, which I think was a wise decision on their part and that shows their morals. I also think that they did a thorough job of assigning punishments to the Nazis; however, I feel that they should have found a better way to keep the men who committed suicide alive for their trial and after they were sentenced they could do what they pleased with their life because it would either be a long miserable one in prison or a short one if you were sentenced to death. I find it very fortunate that the holocaust survivors rarely had to speak in the trials, but I find it incredibly stupid on the nazis part to keep record of all of that. I think the trials were well set up and well organized overall, though.
Honestly, there was no way to really avoid the nuremburg trials, and it was probably the best, if not the only way, to handle it. There wasn't a way to punish everyone, which is bad, but they
In my opinion, the Nuremberg trials were the best way to deal with punishment of those involved in the execution of millions of civilians. Although not all Nazi leaders were convicted, many were convicted and punished. I do, however, disagree with the fact that few were sentenced to death. The people who participated in the genocide should have been punished by prison so they would have a longer, more effective punishment. The fact that many were executed would, on the other hand, aid in keeping a genocide from occuring after the Holocaust because anyone involved would be punished, likely by death. The trials were a mature and just way to deal with the genocide.
The trials helped by both getting revenge on the Nazis as well as justice for the lives lost. It however isn't the main reason for the trials importance. Because the thing is, if this continued, pretty much every ethnic group would be annihilated by the Nazis UNLESS it was what they believed to be this perfect ethnic group.
I believe this was a reasonable way to punish the Nazi leaders for their actions. They were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, so in a way they deserved these consequences. On the other hand, the Nazis weren't alive to deal with the guilt and truly understand what they did.
I think that the nuremburg trials were a good idea. No matter how harsh the crime everyone had their stories and reasons. Of course that doesn't invalidate the numbers of people who died. But it does mean people have a chance to explain themselves. Out of the 22 tried 19 were convicted, that means 3 got to live or didn't have a sentence. The fact that originally all of them were just to be hanged just shows that even more unnecessary blood would be shed. I highly doubt the radio head did as bad crimes as the commander in chief, he doesn't deserve to be killed for maybe just propagating. No matter how unfair the war was someone has to step up and create some fairness, not everybody needs to hanged. I think the trials were fair in the way they showed different countries that came together and their options kinda averages out instead of a highly biased country who had a lot happen to them being particularity cruel or the opposite. The evidence was a good idea as well, as if saying you did this to yourself.
I also think that the people in charge of the trials were smart to use the Nazis personal records for evidence. What I do not stand for, is how only some of the Defendants were charged with the crimes of peace and humanity when all of them should have been charged. I really think it was wrong not to put the ill man on trial just because he is ill. It makes me feel that the 4 countries were just as cruel as the Nazis.
Honestly, there was no way to really avoid the nuremburg trials, and it was probably the best, if not the only way, to handle it. There wasn't a way to punish everyone, which is bad, but they were still effective. It's sad that some people were so afraid to take responsibility, that they had rather committed suicide.
The overarching message from the Nuremberg trials was not only administering justice, but an idea of international cooperation and compromise for a 'greater good'. The four countries organizing and prosecuting the officials not only set aside their differences, but also had a joint belief in justice through trial. The idea of these world powers all considering the trial to be the best option to administer justice shows an ability to compromise on morals and values pertaining to justice in each respective state. The active cooperation and the act of setting aside differences in order to prosecute officials recognized to have dealt horrible crimes was a turning point in history, as it is an example of a multinational organization forming for a joint cause.
I feel that the Nuremberg trials were the best thing to do during this time. Bringing the Nazi leaders to justice is something they should have done from the beginning. I just don't understand why they would even let these criminals walk around killing innocent people.
It makes sense that the U.s. advocated for fair trials, since the notion that ever y man deserves a fair trial is embedded in our country. However, I think that executing the leaders of the Nazi regime straight off without the trial would have been more beneficial. That way the allied countries could have made an example that if people commit these heinous crimes the will respond swiftly and harshly. Though this might not have prevented all future genocides, I believe it would be more likely to do so than the nuremburg trials.
Honestly, there was no way to really avoid the nuremburg trials, and it was probably the best, if not the only way, to handle it. There wasn't a way to punish everyone, which is bad, but they were still effective. It's sad that some people were so afraid to take responsibility, that they had rather committed suicide. They shouldn't have used the death penalty. They should have let the people responsible think about what they did. I know that sounds cheesy but it's true.
I believe that the Nuremberg trials was an unnecessary excess of punishment due to morality. Germany lost the war, I imagine the country was at a bad state economically, and maybe even in ruins. Germany had to build up their economy from the bottom once again. In my humble opinion, I believe that was punishment enough for the officials. Having to work, and pay, and focus on their people and their country, trying to bring it back up again. Also I don't necessarily agree that the allies had all the right to put Germany on trial. I get that they won the war and they were considered the most powerful countries in the world, but I don't think they had the right to just because their sense of morality was to abundant that they felt that the people had to simply just die to learn what they did was wrong.
The Nuremburg Trials were a good thing, I won't say otherwise. However not everybody agreed on a trial at first. The soviet leaders and the English Prime Minister wanted to do straight up executions, but we're able to go through with the prospect of a trial. There were most defintly others who supported this method. This was their own perfered method of justice. As always, justice is delivered in different ways. Many of the defendants in those trials were executed anyways. However, just the prospect that they might either delayed or just didn't recieve the right punishment, I feel is more important.
I believe the Nuremburg Trials were not harsh enough considering the kind of damage the Nazis had done. They murdered tons of innocent people and for that they should all have been punished in the same way that had been done to the Jews. So for that reason, I agree with the Soviet and British prosecutors initial thought for punishment- execution without trial to all of the high ranking Nazis.
I believe that the Nuremberg trials were not only inevitable but they were a positive thing. If they had just been put in jail for their whole lives then that would be a strain and burden on society. Resources and tax money would have to be used to keep them alive. They were responsible for so many deaths. It was right to have them be put on trial because that is what we use for everybody. Just because they were such evil people didn't mean they deserved to die without a fair trial. Even though I believe they should be put on trial I do think they deserved the punishment they got. They were responsible for so much destruction and heart ache. No one should get away with that.
Benjamin Ferencz (the chief prosecutor in the Einzatsgruppen trial) mentioned something in the video that I found interesting: Is there any purpose in allowing a murderer to walk free?
Nazi Germany set out to destroy a population of the Earth. They did not want to associate themselves with people they considered "inferior."
I think that the Nuremberg trials were an extremely crucial advancement in the rule of law. If the Nazis were to advance and continue committing atrocities without anyone stopping them, there would be pandemonium around the world. The Nuremberg Trials were a very important step in the advancement of humanity.
The Nuremberg trials were the first of their kind, leaving people unsure of what the "just" punishment should have been. Though what the Nazis did was terrible beyond belief, some did not do it willingly on their part. Many were victims to Hitler themselves. So the trials found a way to "measure" their crimes, which was fine, but the punishment did not seem fit. How is it that the world criticized the mass murder of the Jews, but are fine with the killing of more men? And many would say "because it's fair". It seems like the "eye for an eye" conflict the world has been dealing with since the earliest times. What the Nuremberg trials should have brought was not only justice, but peace and prevention of crimes against humanity. But many of the Nazis had no opportunity to self reflect by seeing the actual effect of the murders. They should have been put in prison for life to let pure guilt be their own punishment. Just eliminating the Nazis was like the original plan to eliminate the "unfit" Jews. Just taking out the evil does not mean it won't pop up again.
I believe that the Nuremberg trials were necessary because if they weren't placed, then everyone else would be just as guilty as those who participated in the mass killings. As one of the speakers said, "the biggest crime is the crime of silence". Also, the point of the trials was to bring justice to "crimes against humanity" with the problem of administering the punishment, since trying this crime was a first. Although not everyone was happy with the outcome of trials, the trials were made and justice was brought to those found guilty (12 sentenced to death out of 21). It is good that at least something was done.
I think that the decision of the allies to hold sound, fair trails was an admirable one. Automatic death sentences for all involved would likely not have sat well with the citizens of these nations, who may have seen it as the classic "we're no better than them" situation. The nations involved conceived a fair plan to hold trials and convict guilty parties, and stuck to it. They even used the Nazi's own records against them, avoiding placing Holocaust survivors in the uncomfortable position of facing their assailants and digging up agonizing memories of the horror they suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Overall I believed that the Allies came up with a plan that didn't handle anyone unfairly, and let the prosecuting countries prove that they were going to handle things in a mature, humane way.
I came across the little asteric saying that it wasn't until Eichmann that they started to encourage holocaust survivors to share their stories, and so I googled his name and found that he was the guy in charge of deporting Jews to be executed. I think during his trials they encouraged testimonials from the Jews because they wanted him to realize his wrong doings, how he lost the connection that those are people he's sending in cars to execute- it's wrong how easily he's treating them like cattle.
Thank you for looking that up, I got the wrong idea when I first read it. I thought that the Jews were encouraged after his trail because they were hesitant before hand. I thought that by charging another one of the "power houses" it had freed more of the Jews to speak. It makes sense that they would call in the Jews to show him their humanity but if that's the case then why didn't they call the Jews in earlier? Was it just because they had the facts and figures and didn't need the reminder? They charged everyone else, why did they bring out the emotional appeal for him? Just curious.
Okay so I could be completely wrong, I'm good with that, but this is what I've gathered from reading the handouts And watching the video. It's enemy's like the point of these trials were to take the blame off the four powers because they hadn't done anything about this mass genocide already and were trying to make up for it, so they went to where some of the major Nazi rallies took place, and were like sorry this will never happen again because we have these trials! It also seems likes the people that really should have been tried or punished for their actions weren't, they died or fled or were not able to be present. I do get the "at least they turn a blind eye" but it also seems like they turned the eye the wrong direction. To me it just seems like even with these trials and them trying to say sorry, it just will never be enough and they tried to make it enough. They tried to make up for 60 million deaths by prosecuting 199 people.
I found it really fascinating that they had multiple trials. Each country can conduct their own prosecution. I like that with multiple whole countries prosecuting it can put away controversies and I feel like this way the people of the world are being represented. I not even thought of the fact that the nazis violated treaties of peace I think that's cool.
The thing though that I cannot believe is the suicide of hitler. I understand logically why he did it but I just think it's ridiculous and honestly quite hilarious. Even more pathetic he did it with his wife,he wanted someone there with him mabye? That cantaminates further what would have been a "perfect act". But it woil dnt have been anyway, he used poison(the most feminine way to kill yourself) then shot himself. In one of the death cabins. It weakens his image and reputation to the point that the halocaust looks like the worlds worst temper tantrum. It is just a pathetic ending.
Hitler just wasn't cut out for the job
There where many things I found interesting about this section but the most engaging part was learning about how the Germans reacted to the trial. The fact that Robert ley, Goebbeis, and Hitler all commited suiscide before there trials made me despise them even more. I knew that Hitler commited suicide but what I didn't know was that he commited suicide a couple day before his trial. Where was his dignity or his pride? He manipulated people into doing his dirty work and didn't face the consiquences. The same basic idea goes to the men that where hung. To the men who did there time they should be shunned by there community but recognized that at least they weren't cowards to take the easy way out.
I believe the Nuremberg Trails were a great response to the actions of Nazis. The trails set an example for the future generations to use. The trails tell us no matter how terrible the crime is, you must respond with reason and civility. If they had not went through with trails and had shot them instead, then there would have been a negative example sent out to everyone by the four, big, influencial powers. Responding to death and atrocity with death will lead people to respond in the same way and cause more atrocities. The Nuremberg Trails are an icon of humanity and reason.
I think that the Nuremberg Trials were a good way to determine the punishment for Nazis. Even though they caused so many deaths at least they had a chance to defend themselves. I consider the men who committed suicide cowards because instead of taking responsibility they killed themselves to avoid punishment. I'm not happy with the people who were released. The people who were real should have also have been punished since they still knew about the plan even if they didn't take part in it. At least the majority received punishment. I think that sentencing someone to die shouldn't have been a punishment, killing more people won't bring back the people who have already been killed. I think even though the Nazi deserved to die, killing them proves that we weren't the better person since we just killed more people. I think the suitable punishment would be that they should be assigned in prison for life so they won't try to create a genocide again.
Nuremburg trials , I feel was a good thing it's was the start of justice . I was very disappointed that not everyone was convicted, but I am glad that those who did get convicted where most of the leaders,I'm not sure I like the fact that only 21 where put to trial and 16 punished because 3 got released , Some how this rings a bell in my little ear (sorry if it's to soon ) but this sounds a little like ferguson to me.
For further explanation this sounds like ferguson to me because this man didn't get convicted of a crime that he committed , just like the 3 men where released . It was a nazi who killed Jews ,in my mind it's kind of similar to a white man who killed a black boy
Considering the number of people that played a hand in the American Genocide, only 21 we're put up for trial and only 18 were convicted. I find it crazy how 18 people were punished and responsible for the death of millions. The article says they wanted to know how these "leaders" persuaded others to participate in something so horrifying. I think Adolf Hitler was smart, but he was so full of hatred. He used his knowledge and his hatred to convince others to agree with him and see that his views were right. The Nuremburg trials gave justice, but very little to make up for such a huge amount of death and pain inflicted.
I have mixed feelings about the Nuremberg trials. I find that what they did was fair and trying each individual for their specific crimes was completely reasonable. On the other hand I did find it ridiculous that some people were given a chance to get out of prison after ten years when they had taken part in a genocide. I feel that they had taken part in a horrendous crime, and their should've been a more serious punishment. (and let's not even get started on the men that were aquitted) But I think an interesting debate is what would've happened if they had listened to Churchill and Stalin. Would the world have responded in joy or in anger? And would have Germany tried to retaliate for their deaths?
Apart from the obvious purpose of bringing Nazis to justice, the Nuremberg Trials served as an example to the world. The fact that even something as inhuman as the Holocaust would be met with civil, systematic trial sent a message to the onlooking world about the capacity people have for reason. If we had met savagery with savagery, all we would've shown was that fighting fire with fire created a bigger flame. However, our ability to come together and uphold values of justice for all people was a crucial thought for people to have as they go forward from the rampage brutality of the Holocaust.
I think the consequences the defendants received at the Nuremberg Trials were justifiable because I believe in the saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." During the Holocaust, Nazis killed millions of Jews and performed disturbing experiments on many others, even though many could have refused their orders. If those Nazis still decided to stay and follow their orders and kill millions of Jews, they should have their lives taken away or have their lives ruined by rotting in a prison cell for the rest of their lives. Basically I believe the defendants deserved the punishments for their crimes, whether that be by being hanged or spending ten years to life in a prison.
The Nuremberg trials were very much necessary and I am glad they happened because the nazis needed to be punished for what they did!!!! The Jews did absolutely nothing to harm hitler or any of the Germans. The trials helped us punish the Germans in a fair way. The defendants that were released are so lucky and in my opinion they deserve to be punished because they were just as guilty as the other defendants. The other defendant that committed suicide is an idiot. He needs to take responsibility for the harm that he made on the poor innocent Jews. I also liked the fact that these trials took place because the Nazis had a chance to defend themselves even though they failed at defending themselves the allies didn't attack them "unarmed" which is what the nazis did to the Jews.
What I find funny about the trials is that the nazis were so full of themselves that they would write documents and records like they were going to win the war. The things they would use to boast about when they were on top and use them as a badge of honor, were used against them in a trial to have them put to death. They definitely had what was coming to them if this is how they thought of it.
I think that The Nuremberg trials was a good idea and not to cruel, compared to all of the damage the nazis caused. They murdered millions of helpless Jews, and they should be chastised without a fair trial for their actions. With this said I 100% approve of the prosecutor and soviets original decision to execute the nazis for there horrendous crime.
The Nuremburg Trials were very interesting. I personally agree and disagree with this trial. I like who they brought in the 4differnt countries to decide the punishment for the Germans, working together and discussing their differences. But I was reading what Gracie said and she had a very important point. Yes there were people who got punished for their actions, but there were millions of people killed during this tragedy and yet only a few hundred were blamed and appointed. But on the other hand without this trial no Nazis would have been punished for their harsh wrong doings against the Jews and many others.
Reading about the Nuremberg trials changed my thoughts about the idea of collaboration. One of the most special things about the Nuremberg trials was the fact that 4 great powers came together despite their differences. I feel that having an International Tribunal was very effective. Although these 4 nations had combined power and authority, they did not carry out these trials unfairly. Instead of executing the people on trial, knowing that they had every right to, they gave them an opportunity to defend themselves.
A hammering question in my mind kept coming up as I was reading about the Nuremberg Trials: How did the advocates of the four major countries in the world set aside all of their countess differences, sit down, and conduct a trial only two months after the end of WWII? I was positively surprised that our world can just drop everything and work as a unit. I believe that the Nuremburg Trials are looked at in different ways and perspectives. In my opinion, the trials were the most efficient strategy at the time because of the irony of even more mass murder. However, what matters is that we solved an immense dilemma in our global community, and if we had to do it again, we would most likely succeed in having an even more productive blueprint.
I agree that the Nuremberg trials were an appropriate response to the atrocities committed by the Nazis; rather than simply shooting those chiefly responsible in one quick knee-jerk reaction, the four nations held a civilized trial; sentiments held aside as the facts could speak for the defendants alone. In this act of humanity, they chose to hear their accounts and consult the many documents that would straighten out each case. In doing so, the great powers were moving the world the slightest bit they could towards (as Benjamin Ferencz states in the video) "a world in which crimes against humanity and war-making itself could be eliminated." Of course there is no perfect way to decide the fates of 22 members of a government that had over six million people killed; however, the trials were the best option available and introduced this idea of a mission for international justice, which could possibly prevent future occurrences of state-supported barbarity. I support the Nuremberg trials for what they were meant to accomplish. And on that note of the system's imperfection, I think that even if the three Nazi officials were acquitted unfairly (by any chance), there were still hundreds of other people who shared the same responsibility for genocide. All we can do is keep Nazism and all elements of it subdued.
and keep ourselves aware
I think the Nuremberg trials was a good way to punish the Nazis, but I don't think any of those punishments could ever be worse than what they did to the jews. The Jews were punished for years, some killed just because of the way they looked. It also impacted other people, not just the jews. I thought that having the 4 countries part of the trials, instead of just having 1 was a good idea. you get more than 1 persons opinion from one specific place. The opinions varied.
Considering the historical context and legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, it is hard to believe that they were meant to be just at all. They were not fair to the defendants, and equally importantly they did not treat both sides equally. Though I do not deny the fact that many of the Nazis were terrible and deserved their punishment, the trials were nonetheless carried out in a way that was unfair to them. More importantly, many crimes just as terrible as theirs went unpunished because they were committed by the winning side.
I have a few points and a few questions for this post.
The trials were ment for Nazi officials, but what i would like to know is, what happened to those that perhaps followed the Nazi willingly, of course aside from the officials, many followed the Nazis by their own accord and may have not had to suffer the consiquences. The Nazis did many thing, the officials lead these horrific acts but, as people say, guns dont kill people people killed people.
Fist off the fact thay each ally had its own section of judgment is well thought out but i come to ask that if it was souly professional. Of course when dealing with a genocide of this magnitude people will have a bias, did the allies or did the lawyers? Aside from this using the documents of the Nazis against those trialed was a good move, my biggest concern was the biased, of couse no man in a genocide is innocent, but if one is unfairly tried for following orders then justice must prevail, not the feeling of others.
i have no more comments, the trals seemed fair to an extent and the sentances were fair and some even took it upon themselves to pass judgement.
Yes, many perpetrators were never put on trial.
The lawyers/judges were reasonably unbiased, as much as any one it/was.
The "Nuremberg Defense", the "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense - we are each expected to know right from wrong and act accordingly.
The Nuremberg Trails was held for the purpose of bringing Nazis War criminals to justice. I felt like this was a great way to punish who sided with the Nazis only because they were mistreated for the situation and things they did. I also enjoyed that the Nuremberg Trials gave a voice to everyone that was in the concentration camps. For the Nuremberg Trials there were a series of 13 trials carried out to punish the Nazis for what they did in each select. The selection of the trial called Crimes Against Humanity, I disliked only 18 of the men were founded guilty because for my opinion every men were part of the situation of killing innocent Jews.
While reading the Nuremberg trials I thought about the feelings of the Jews and how they would've wanted all of the prosecutors to die. Every man that was involved in torturing or killing should have been counted guilty not just 18. The trials were a good way to bring justice to the famalies who felt hurt in their heart from loosing their loved ones. Also I'm glad that the 4 countries came together to bring down the guilty party.
I think that the nuremberg trials were a more mature way to handle the punishments of the nazis for their actions of killing the Jews in the concentration camps. I find it interesting that there was trials set up in different countries. The countries with this actual trials were more stable and more organized other countries that did not have this trial. I believe this trial helped keep as much order as possible in a country, although most people loathed each other.
I believe that the Nuremberg trials were a very efficient system at the time. But be the fact that the holacaust survivors did not speak we're surprising. Although, they had documents of photos and killings I believe that the oral evidence should have also have been counted for.
One of the things I found really bizarre on the handout is that Holocaust survivors weren't encouraged to tell their stories until 1961. I understand that some of the Nazi records were so brutal that most victims weren't forced to listen to them, and it also seems that it would've given an up close and personal idea of what happened, allowing those who didn't experience any of it to see the damage it truly caused to each individual person, not necessarily just an entire nation as a whole.
I completely agree with the decision to put the Nazi leaders on a fair trial. I don't think it would be right to give the death penalty without a trial because they would just be stooping to the Nazi's level and nothing would be solved. They handled the situation in the fairest way possible. I don't think anyone has the right to decide to end someone else's life. All the people who killed themselves in the last days of the war chose to end their life deciding their fate rather than letting someone else decide it and facing the consequences.
Honestly, In my opinion I think that the Nuremberg trials were actually pointless. I understand that everybody should be tried and given a chance before proven guilty, however, we all know that these men were consciously participating to the murder of approximately 11 million innocents. When a person's job title is "Head of Slave Labor Recruitment", you cannot tell me that they are innocent of committing no crime worth the punishment of death. Only 19 of the 24 men tried in the trials were found guilty in the end, I think that is shameful. The murder of 11 million was not done by 19 individuals. Even so, any person at all who either helped or did not speak up against this series of horrible events should not have gotten away with any sort of punishment that is not severe.
The Nuremberg trials were fair because although some nazis may have believed it was the "right thing to do" out of peer pressure, many of the nazis knew it was wrong and proceeding with the actions anyway. I think it was fair that they receive punish but death is a little too far. If we punish them so harshly. It was a better way of handling things but the punishment were too extreme. I'm proud that the superpowers were able to give the right to trial which is a constitutional amendment to take it to an international level. I feel that through that we could enforce democracy. Which after the war became a U.S policy. So it's kind of a win win situation except for those punished
Regardless of the fact that I'm not in the judicial system, I believe that the situation was handled well. They all were given fair trails, and we're given nessisary punishment. A flaw in their judgment is how officials should and been supervision for the nazis being trailed, so the there wouldn't be as many sucides. Another positive is how the split up the judicial power to the other countries quite fairly I might add.
The point was to take the Nazis to Court and to kill all the higher ranked Nazis without a fair trial. I agree with thier original idea because how they treated the Jews during the Holocaust. If the Jews were innocent and didn't have a fair trial then why should the Nazis.
Just as some if the people had said in the interviews, the trials were the best way to handle such a crime. They were done efficiently with good evidence. Although the outcome was not necessarily clean, and a lot of people had objections, but it was fair and needed to be done.
When the four countries just met they decided to kill the nazis but only until the U.S. gave their input and decided they should get a fair trial . I think that it was completely acceptable for them to get a fair trial because not all of the Nazis were doing as wrong as other so I think it was right that they were charged for what they specifically did, and not just for being involved in the war .
I think it's quite logical to not have survivors testify in the trials because somebodies story or claim might or might not be valid in the eyes of the jury. Having the survivors not testify until 1961 was a good idea. In 1961 Adolf Hiechmann was tried.He was an important figure in the holocaust and having factual evidence ,testimonies and stories against him all at one time would be quite helpful in Imprisoning Adolf. Another thing that i found interesting about the trials is that lots of the people committed suicide before being punished for their crimes. I thought that having multiple judges and lawyers in the trial was also a good idea. Having different countries in one series of trials could be extremely difficult.
I find it interesting that a mere 19 out of the original 24 indicted men were found guilty of the planning and execution of the brutal murder of millions. If you think about, 19 people is the size of a small classroom, compared to the 11 million people who were killed (think the population of approximately 4 and a half houstons). Yes there were many more hundreds involved (like the members of the Gustapo), but only 19 were tried and found guilty. I also find it ironic how the trials were held in the same place that the nazis led their rallies.
I think they were only trying the leaders. We've learned before that the reason mout Germans went along with the killings was because they were following orders. On top of that, there might not have been enough evidence to take down more people. Many germans took part in the killing but it was only the leaders documenting it. (Or so I think) and since they were using the Germans documentation as evidence maybe they only really had solid evidence for those few 24
I believe the Nuremberg trials was a great idea, nazi officials and those who participated in such crimes deserve to be tried. I found it interesting how they decided to punish those who were tried based on their records. Prosecutors used their records as evidence to finding out which crimes were committed by who. However, the article does mention that these records had some flaws; they focused more on conspiracy and crimes of aggression and was easier to prove than war crimes and crimes against humanity. This leaves me wondering what other pieces of evidence they used to prove the other crimes that nazi records didn't prove enough of.
I feel that the Nuremberg trials convicted innocent men who took part in the Nazis Movement. Although they all had free will to say no, if they had defied Hitler's orders, they would've been executed or held as a POW. In addition, those who were convicted were held of the same accounts as another defendant who had a stronger influence on the Holocaust. For example, the prosecuting countries convicted Hans Fritzsche, Head of the Wireless News Service, of the same counts as Martin Bormann, Secretary to Hitler and Head of the Nazi Party Chancellery.
Read all the posts before making yours.