Nuremberg Remembered: The Road to Nuremberg

Overview
The first lesson in this series looks at the decisions made by Allied leaders (France, Great Britain, Soviet Union, United States) to bring perpetrators of the Holocaust to justice. Students will consider the rule of law and the choices made by Allied leaders in the war's aftermath to create the landmark international war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg. They will also consider the challenges that had to be overcome in order to create a fair trial for Nazi officials and their accomplices.
Learning Outcomes

Students will...

  • Examine the complex issues that faced the world community after World War II, with particular attention to what should be done with the war criminals who perpetrated aggressive war and crimes against humanity.
  • Understand the negotiations necessary among the Allied powers to decide on the charges against defendants as well as procedures for an international trial with participating nations with different legal traditions and rules of evidence.
  • Learn the structure of the Nuremberg trials as decided upon during the London negotiations in the summer of 1945.
Suggested Grade Level
9th - 12th
Duration of Activity
60 minutes
Historical Context
As Allied forces marched toward Germany in the spring of 1945, they witnessed what the Nazis had done to civilian populations in concentration camps. Even earlier in January Soviet troops had come upon the death camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland. The scenes of brutality and inhumanity defied description: corpses were piled like cords of wood on carts and surviving individuals looked like mere skeletons. The unsanitary conditions and rampant disease left Allied witnesses sickened and, at times, speechless. The journalist Edward R. Murrow, who broadcast from the concentration camp at Buchenwald just after liberation, told his radio audiences that if they were eating lunch they might want to stop eating as they heard the description of events.

The victorious Allied powers-Great Britain, the United States, the U.S.S.R., and resistance France-were asking: What should be done with those responsible for the unspeakable crimes that had taken place? What should be done with the Nazi officials responsible for initiating the war? During meetings of Allied officials, there had been discussion of what would happen to the perpetrators, but no specific plan of action was taken because the priority at the time was winning the military war. As the war drew to a close, two sides emerged: Sir Winston Churchill of Great Britain favored immediate execution of the leading Nazis, thereby leaving them no time to elicit sympathy during a long drawn-out trial; Joseph Stalin of the U.S.S.R., who initially advocated massive executions but under pressure changed his stance, seemed to favor show trials, which essentially meant there was no due process but immediate punishment meted out to those deemed guilty. Initially U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt seemed to side with Churchill and his adviser Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who suggested immediate executions of leading Nazis and the return of Germany to an impotent agrarian state. However, U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson pushed for the rule of law to prevail and began swaying Roosevelt in the direction of trials. President Harry Truman, who succeeded Roosevelt upon his death in the middle of April 1945, immediately sided with the concept of trials that would scrupulously follow the rule of law.

One of Truman's first acts as president was to appoint U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson the chief prosecutor for the United States in an international military court designed to try the leading Nazi defendants who were captured at the end of the war. The United Nations, formed in the immediate postwar months, endorsed the idea of trials. Moreover, Truman persuaded Churchill and Stalin to agree to submit to the rule of law rather than summary justice or show trials.

Planning the logistics for the trials took place during the summer of 1945 in London. The first of the trials, the International Military Tribunal, opened in Nuremberg in November 1945 and lasted until the following October; the chief American prosecutor was Justice Robert Jackson. The second set of trials were held under American leadership at Nuremberg with General Telford Taylor as the chief prosecutor.
Resources
Activity
Warm-up

Begin by having students reflect on the dilemma that faced the victorious Allies in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Ask them to reflect on these questions: After the Holocaust what needed to happen for there to be justice? Who needed to be involved? Explain that there is no right or wrong answer to these questions. The idea is to reflect on the steps they think are necessary for justice to be achieved. It is often useful to have students write in their notebooks or in a journal before beginning a discussion.

Some teachers keep a list of the students' suggestions, which they can return to at the end of this three-lesson unit.

Explain that the three lessons will focus on one element of justice that the Allies ultimately agreed to-trials. Before moving to the main activity, share some of the key ideas from the overview (for example, the idea that holding trials was not a foregone conclusion).

Main Activity

Once it was agreed that there would be a trial for top Nazi leaders and their accomplices, several issues remained. Even though a body of international law existed before World War II, at Nuremberg the international community asserted that certain international war crimes law could transcend domestic codes of justice. For the main activity, divide the class into groups of four or five; each group will consider some of the challenges that confronted the victorious nations as they debated the best way to administer justice in the wake of the Holocaust. Distribute the following handouts, and first ask the students to look only at the question(s) posed at the top.
  • Group 1 Handout: Should there be trials or should there be summary justice?
  • Group 2 Handout: What should be the procedures and logistics of the International Military Tribunal?
  • Group 3 Handout: What crime(s) would you charge the defendants with? What evidence would you need to prove the case?
  • Group 4 Handout: Where should the trial be held? What factors should be considered in answering that question?

Have the small groups discuss their thoughts on their question or questions. After a few minutes, ask students to read the full handouts to see how various people struggled with the question(s) as they prepared for the trials. Before reconvening, have each group summarize its findings and place them in bulleted form on large chart paper for the whole group to view.

Follow through

To engage the whole group in an open discussion, have a student from each group report on the dilemmas of organizing the trials. Did anything surprise them? What did they see as the most difficult challenges?What do you consider the benefits of war crimes trials after the Holocaust? What is the role of a trial in the pursuit of justice? What can a trial accomplish that other forms of justice cannot?

Extensions

One interesting resource to carry this conversation further is a two-minute interview with Allan Ryan, former director of the Office of Special Investigations at the U.S. Department of Justice. In this short clip, Ryan articulates the purpose of holding a trial. Students can apply Ryan's ideas about trials to their understanding of the trials at Nuremberg.

Suggested Assessment
You might hold off assessing students' learning until after the third lesson of the unit, or you could ask students to expand on the warm-up question in the form of an essay, or they could focus on the role of a trial in the aftermath of mass murder.
Contributor
Deborah Chad and Mary Johnson, Facing History and Ourselves