Bazyler on The Holocaust at Nuremberg: What the Record Reveals @MichaelBazyler

Michael J. Bazyler, Chapman University School of Law, is publishing The Holocaust at Nuremberg: What the Record Reveals in volume 39 of the Loyola (L.A.) International and Comparative Law Review (2017). Here is the abstract.

Historians continue to debate how much of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) proceedings at Nuremberg concerned the Holocaust. The official goal of the Allies in Europe was to end the war by militarily defeating Nazi Germany. Stopping the atrocities was of secondary importance. Once the war ended and the top Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg, they were not tried for the mass murder of the Jews. Chief Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson announced at trial that the supreme crime committed by the twenty-one German defendants on the dock was the crime of waging aggressive war. This article aims to show that during the IMT trial, the genocide of the Jews — today known by the term Holocaust — was a running theme of the trial. To illustrate the significance of the subject of Jewish persecution at the IMT, the article examines actual testimony and other evidence introduced by the prosecution during each stage of the trial. Those who mine the IMT proceedings will find much about the fate of the Jews in territories under Nazi occupation. The historiography of the Holocaust began at Nuremberg.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Wilson @richardawilson7 on Propaganda and History in International Criminal Trials

Richard Ashby Wilson, University of Connecticut School of Law, is publishing Propaganda and History in International Criminal Trials in the Journal of International Criminal Justice (2016). Here is the abstract.

In the course of prosecuting crimes against humanity, international criminal tribunals from the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court (ICC) have provided accounts of the origins and causes of mass atrocities. Their historical narratives exhibit a common feature that has not been remarked upon, and that is the central role they assign to political propaganda in explaining popular participation in mass crimes. Judges have invoked propaganda to answer one of the most vexing questions at international criminal tribunals: why neighbor turned against neighbor and committed extreme acts of collective violence in contexts characterized by long periods of co-existence. This article evaluates the evidence for claims regarding the role of propaganda and concludes that eyewitness evidence for the causal role of propaganda is often slender and unconvincing. Insiders and material perpetrators more often than not repudiate their original testimony amid allegations of intimidation and bribery. At times, judges have balked at expert evidence on propaganda and refused to recognize it as germane to a criminal trial. Given the relative paucity of evidence for a directly causal role, why has propaganda become one of the overarching narratives that international courts employ to explain atrocities during armed conflicts? How does the model of causation customarily used in criminal law shape the kind of histories that international courts write? In answering these questions, the article refers to the unique model of causation used in criminal law, the apolitical nature of propaganda as an historical explanation, and the moral expressivist function of criminal courts.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

John Q. Barrett on the Opening of the Nuremberg Trials

John Q. Barrett, St. John's University School of Law; Robert H. Jackson Center, has published Opening the Nuremberg Trial: The Moment of November 20, 1945 as St. John's University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-0032. Here is the abstract.

On November 20, 1945, the International Military Tribunal (IMT), created by the victorious World War II Allied powers, began criminal trial proceedings in Nuremberg in the Allied-occupied former Germany. This first and only international Nuremberg trial involved twenty-one individual defendants and six organizations that had been leading parts of Nazi Germany’s government and war-waging. On November 20, 2015, the 70th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trial, the city of Nuremberg hosted in the trial site, Palace of Justice Courtroom 600, a discussion among three men who worked there during 1945-46. Dr. Yves Beigbeder served as an assistant to French judge Henri Donnedieu de Vabres. Father Moritz Fuchs was the bodyguard of United States Chief of Counsel Robert H. Jackson. Dr. George Sakheim was an interpreter and translator in the Interrogation Division, U.S. Office of Chief of Counsel. These introductory remarks preceded the panel discussion. I describe some of the dimensions, including military power, political decision making, legal concepts, personalities and logistics, that led the Allies to the Nuremberg courtroom in November 1945.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.