Nuremberg Remembered: Guilt and Responsibility

Overview

In Lesson 1 [1], students learned how the trials were structured and about the charges that were to be lodged against the defendants. In Lesson 2, we will address questions of guilt and responsibility by considering the actions of a number of individuals involved in the Third Reich. Some individuals were defendants at the Nuremberg trials; some had been involved in various roles at the death camps and others had been members of organizations that were crucial to carrying out the military and genocidal policies of the Third Reich. After reviewing the evidence, students will consider whether those people should have been charged with one or more of the crimes tried at Nuremberg.

Learning Outcomes

Students will...

Consider questions of guilt and responsibility for the Holocaust.
Examine a range of individuals involved with the Third Reich and consider their respective roles.
Determine which of the individuals examined should have been held accountable for one or more of the charges against defendants at the Nuremberg trials.
Explore the evidence in secondary and primary sources regarding the activities of the individuals in question and determine which, if any, of the charges were applicable to each individual.

Suggested Grade Level

9th - 12th

Duration of Activity

60 minutes

Historical Context

The Nuremberg trials consisted of two sets of trials: the first was the International Military Tribunal (1945-1946) and the second was the twelve subsequent trials (1946-1949), held under the auspices of the United States with Telford Taylor as the chief prosecutor. The trials were complicated and required the cooperation of the international legal community and considerable economic resources from cooperating nations.

Resources

Biographies of Potential Defendants
Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior [2]

Activity

Warm-up

Have students read the description of the crimes tried at Nuremberg. You can refer to the Lesson 1: Group 3 handout for the description of the charges or refer to the resource book, Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior [3], page 423. Have students underline key words and phrases as they read.

Main Activity

Note: This activity is adapted from the Barometer: Taking a Stand on Controversial Issues [4] teaching strategy.

One-page handouts for this activity focus on the following people:

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Major Julius Schmahling

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

The class will briefly review the differences of the charges. Once students understand the charges, divide the class into small groups to consider questions of moral guilt and legal responsibility of potential defendants. Note: The number of the 12 potential defendants the students investigate depends on various factors such as class time. Adaptations can be made in accordance with the time allocated for the activity and the amount of time available for debriefing the decisions students have made.

Each small group will be given at least one handout about an individual who may or may not have been tried at Nuremberg-the individuals investigated represent the range of people involved in carrying out the military and genocidal policies of the Third Reich.

Ask each group of students to determine whether the individual(s) they study should have been charged with one or more of the crimes or should have been acquitted. As students work, have them develop their own criteria to evaluate the legal cases.

While students work, draw a horizontal line across a board or on a blank wall. On one end of the line write, "Not guilty of any charges; acquit the defendant." On the other end write, "Guilty on all four counts."

After each group has examined the information on a particular defendant, the group should determine where to place its defendant on the continuum. To debrief the activity, have a representative from each group explain why his or her group has decided on the placement of their defendant.

Extensions

Share with students the actual decisions regarding defendants in the exercise.

For more details of the Nuremberg trials, refer students to Nuremberg Fact Sheet [17] found in the Facing History online module "Transitional Justice: Reconstructing Self and Society." [18]

Among the 22 men who stood trial at Nuremberg was Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Stuermer, an antisemitic newspaper with more than six hundred thousand readers. The short reading called "A Man of Words," found on pages 429-30 of the Holocaust and Human Behavior Resource Book [19], describes Streicher's role during the Holocaust. He was not a government official; he did not set policy or carry out orders. His only weapons were his words. Streicher was punished for using these words to turn neighbor against neighbor. Streicher's story invites students to consider the complicated ethical dilemma that emerges when the power of words to stir up hatred conflicts with our constitutional right to freedom of speech. Questions raised by this reading include Can words be used as weapons? Should a person be held responsible for his or her words? By finding Streicher guilty, what message were the judges at Nuremberg sending to others who would stir up hatred in similar ways? In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Does that mean that individuals have the right to incite hatred? To publish symbols of hatred? To spread racism? Students might be interested in learning more about these topics through researching how the United States courts have answered the same questions or by researching hate crime legislation at the state and federal level.

Explore websites on the Nuremberg trials to gather primary sources on testimony or documents to support their arguments for the charges against the people they examined. Two useful websites are:

- The Avalon Project at Yale Law School [20]
- Harvard Law School Library: Nuremberg Trials Project [21]

Use the Internet to research the subsequent trials at Nuremberg and present the findings to the class. For example, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [22] has exhibits on the Doctors' Trial online.

Hold a mock trial for the defendants at Nuremberg.

Have students can read and reflect on the meaning of the "Dear Teacher" letter in the preface to Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior [23], page xv. They can make connections from their knowledge of the Nuremberg trials to support their thoughts of the letter's meaning through the Town Hall Circle teaching strategy [24].

Employ the Jigsaw teaching strategy [25] to have students read and discuss various readings on judgment in Chapter 9 of Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior [26].

Suggested Assessment

Have students write a reflective journal entry on how their group made choices about the charges and came to consensus, including how they developed their standards of legal guilt and moral responsibility.

Contributor

Deborah Chad and Mary Johnson, Facing History and Ourselves