You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
5

[–] cdglow 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It would be interesting to look into the history of the trial further, but consider some of these points.

  • What specifically did these defendants say? Did anybody confess to there being an actual systemic gassing program, or did they just say they couldn't deny that the program existed? There's a difference between those two things. Would the media of the time and historians be crystal clear about what was actually claimed?
  • How many of the Nazis charged at Nuremberg would have been in position to know details about a mass gassing program that was so top secret that no documentation was ever found? Would random generals and admirals and other people not all of the way at the top know details about this? Which would have been the key witnesses to the alleged gassing program? Whose testimony actually matters here?
  • Don't discount the power of torture and threats to family members.
  • Conduct a simple thought experiment. Imagine you're a Nazi locked up in a jail cell and fairly isolated until the trials are setup. Briefly before the trial, you're presented with the charges and given some limited access to a fixed lawyer. Even assuming that these prisoners were not tortured or threatened, at the very least they're psychologically demoralized and subject to intense Allied propaganda in that time and don't have any realistic way to conduct an actual defense. You're brought before the Nuremberg court and told your country engaged in mass gassings of Jews. You're presented some random evidence that the gassings happened that you have no way to verify. How can you truthfully claim that you deny this event in that situation?
  • Keep in mind that this was a kangaroo court at best.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art19

Article 19.

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art21

Article 21.

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.