Is the law always a sufficient mechanism for justice? Can morality ever be objective? How do you begin to construct a legal defense for pure evil? In this blog post, author Andrew Sangster discusses the process of researching and conceptualising his new book, Blind Obedience and Denial, which examines every defendant at the Nuremberg trials, including their defense, psychology, and attitudes towards the Third Reich and other senior Nazis.
By Andrew Sangster | 4 min read
Examining the Evidence
I have been a priest for over 50 years, with excursions out to teach, and have a doctorate in modern European history and a Law degree. I set out to explore the Nuremberg trials from the legal point of view, as I was struck by the phrase Jus Post Bellum (Justice after War) and wondered about the trial and whether it was just victors’ justice.
It was a colossal task reading the trial notes (by courtesy of HMSO), followed by the interrogation notes, reports from psychologists, and even notes of overheard conversations between the defendants taken by American guards who, unknown to the Germans, spoke their language. After starting to write the book on legal matters, such as the banning of the tu quoque (you did the same thing) argument, I changed my mind about the legal aspects. It suddenly dawned on me that each and every defendant had arguments to support their roles, especially Göring and Dönitz, but the one singular factor was their personal depression and worry when the systematic murder of Jews came to light.
Just Following Orders
The word Holocaust was not used at this time and genocide was a word only just coming into use, but the films and witnesses brought home the sheer horror of what Nazism had committed in the concentration camps and elsewhere: the systematic and industrialised murder of millions of totally innocent people based on ethnicity. It was so shocking that Göring, who had been part of the authorisation, denied knowing about it, as did Ribbentrop, who it was proved had mentioned the issue to Mussolini and others. Even Julius Streicher the editor of Der Stürmer, the vicious anti-Semitic magazine, denied any knowledge.
Some claimed that it was obeying orders, others claimed they knew nothing about the massacres. Ignorance of events, carefully orchestrated amnesia, and blind obedience were all on display.
Author: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC
The trial had moved for me from a legal question to one of morality. Moral systems differ and are often reliant upon religious faith, so without it being aired in discussion at the trials, there is a sense the judgements were based on natural law whose origins date back to the early Greek philosophers. This expounds that we instinctively or naturally know that some things are simply unjust and evil.
Bearing this in mind, it was highly significant how all the defendants (those who were guilty and hanged, the partially guilty who were imprisoned, the innocent set free) all recognised this crime to be horrendously wrong. It was the unspeakable evil which has left a stain on humankind’s history. Bombs, submarines, mines, and flame-throwers were used by both sides; all protagonists had incidents of battlefield crimes and killing the innocent, even massacres at Katyń, but nothing compared to the Holocaust. Its sheer evil was recognised by the defendants as the one thing which would lead them to the gallows.
Justice is Served?
This raised the question as to whether the trial brought any sense of reconciliation to a broken world. Even those who were found innocent then had to go through German de-Nazification courts and ever since it has been a burden on German history. At one time it was hoped the trial would educate the public as to what happened under the Hitler regime but as the Cold War emerged feelings calmed down, as West Germany was soon becoming an ally and a sound buffer state was needed between the West and Soviet controlled areas. The Nuremberg trials set a precedent for post-war justice and if fairly done can bring hope of peace.
As the Russian attack on Ukraine continues, though, I’m reminded of this quote from the German philosopher Georg Hegel:
“The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
Follow