Nazi War Criminals Trials example essay topic

What has been achieved by prosecuting Nazis alleged to have committed crimes against the Jews?' While fighting for victory the German soldier will observe the rules for chivalrous warfare. Cruelties and senseless destruction are below his standard', or so the commandment printed in every German Soldiers pay book would have us believe. Yet during the Second World War thousands of Jews were victims of war crimes committed by Nazi's, whose actions subverted the code of conduct they claimed to uphold and contravened legislation outlined in the Geneva Convention. It is this legislature that has paved the way for the Jewish community and political leaders to attempt to redress the Nazi's violation, by prosecuting individuals allegedly responsible. Convicting Nazi criminals is an implicit declaration by post-World War II society that the Nazi regime's extermination of over five million Jews won't go unnoticed. Many of the alleged Nazi war criminals that were captured had attempted to evade prosecution shortly before the end of the war.

Some opted for suicide, rather than risk capture while others used the Austrian and German Underground offers of fake passports and other means of forged identification to assume a new identity. A choice opted for by many, that virtually guaranteed them a new life with remote chance of detection was to travel to the Anglo-American countries after immigration quotas were raised. Over 4000 Nazi criminals sought refuge in Australia. Many lied about their history to gain entry into their new home and proceeded to blend in, unnoticed by our government.

They were no longer Nazi criminals but new citizens with a hidden past. Lists of suspected criminals were compiled and alleged perpetrators systematically captured and put to trial. In 1943, under Soviet leadership the first war crime trials were conducted, however the first trial to involve the Allied powers was the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal in 1945. The International Military Tribunal (IMT), set out to prosecute 22 defendants comprising largely of the administration arm of the Third Reich.

The American's initially wished to indict whole Nazi organisations for their crimes. This focus was soon altered to determine the accountability of particular individuals. The accused were tried under at least two of the following four headings devised for indictment. The first count was the 'formulation of a common plan or conspiracy'; two, 'crimes against peace (planning and waging a war of aggression in violation of international treaties) '; three, 'war crimes (any destruction or ill-treatment of POW's not justified by military necessity) '; and four, 'crimes against humanity (inhumane acts, including persecution on racial or political grounds, committed on a civilian population'. Using these laws the IMT, and trials conducted by various other legal organisations around the globe, managed to incarcerate or execute thousands of the Holocaust perpetrators. Due to the outbreak of the Cold War in the 1950's the Allies grew increasingly disinterested in the Nazi's and released all the criminals still being detained.

The trials conducted during and post-Nuremburg were a source of heated debate as to their effectiveness. Firstly, the prosecution in all trials faced the difficulty of establishing guilt. Prosecutors had difficulty ascertaining which particular acts qualified as murder and which were defined as manslaughter (which has a statute of limitations). Could they prosecute a Nazi because he watched the death of a thousand Jews? How could they prove if a criminal was not forced to participate in the genocide but completed orders willingly?

These and many other problems arose creating much doubt as to their effectiveness. The prosecution of criminals was significant to a large proportion of the Jewish community, not as a form of justice but as a means of revenge. It can be argued that there can be no justice for what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust. A step towards justice will only be achieved if Nazi criminals seeking refuge in various countries 'have their masks of respectability torn away and let people know what is in their pasts'. The world has a responsibility to formally recognise the many crimes committed during the Second World War and for the most part they have sought to fulfil this through prosecution. Retribution for the heinous crimes against not only the Jews but humanity, has educated the ignorant.

Sadly this has not prevented the repetition of these crimes with 'warlords in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, (and) Burundi' following Hitler's lead. What has prosecuting the Nazi war criminals really achieved? The trials held to prosecute these criminals have given the Jewish community a chance to realise their hopes of retribution but they may have also inadvertently presented more reasons to oppose future trials than favour them. The wider community debate has created many divisions in Australian society - among political parties, the media, the Jewish community and other ethnic communities. It has been suggested that it is only the Jews who wish to have war criminals punished after so many years because they are agitating for retribution. One of the most legitimate objections against the trials of Nazi war criminals concerns the lapse of time since the crimes were committed.

The witnesses brought forward lack the clarity required to recall events and suffer from confusion due to their age. Some witnesses have died - both those who could have testified for the defence and for the prosecution. Hence, doubt is cast over the fairness of the trials. The question of whether there is 'any social purpose to punishment since the perpetrators have long since been integrated socially', has also arisen. This refers to the fact that Australia's legal system aims to rehabilitate criminals and reintegrate them into society, rather than incarcerate only as a punishment. The primary purpose of incarcerating any criminal is to prevent them from re-offending and Nazi war criminals are not in the position to commit any more acts of genocide.

If an elderly grandfather, living in a nursing home, is asked to stand trial with the possibility of being incarcerated with eventual integration back into society, this is somewhat paradoxical as he already is socially integrated. There seems little to be achieved by spending exorbitant amounts of money to put an old pensioner or a nursing home resident to trial for a crime he committed in the Second World War, under wartime conditions. Many who oppose the trials claim their tax would be better spent elsewhere rather than on vengeance. On the other hand, a government has a moral obligation to pursue justice for those Jews that survived the Holocaust and came to live in their country. However, when a government does place criminals on trial it faces accusations of doing so under coercion from the Jewish communities. People who object to the trials have stated that 'their (Jews) chief object seems not to be justice... but are intended to be a demonstration, an educational exercise, coupled with an act of relentlessly pursued vengeance'.

The trials themselves and the subsequent allegations that the trials have only been put on for the benefit of 'fanatical members' of the Jewish community may have created a wave of anti-Semitism. Objections to the trials have stated that focussing on ex-Nazi's is bound to cause a spate of anti-Semitism. This statement has been closely linked to the argument that 'war crime trials will create ethnic stereotyping and harm community relations in multicultural Australia'. Highly publicized trials will put many refugees from the Second World War under suspicion maybe even subject them to assumed guilt by association.

Conversely, the Jewish community may be looked upon as vengeful and bitter instead of granting the accused elderly Nazi war criminals the chance to die of old age. Putting 'nice old men' through costly trials may also give anti-Semite's an opportunity to exploit the situation for their own political agenda. If all this is true the decision to continue the Nazi war criminals' trials must be weighed against that of letting Germany's heinous past fade into history, overlooked by the worlds' governments. Trials of the war criminals, however people view their effectiveness, gives the defendants much more of a chance than they gave anyone who experienced 'life' during the Holocaust.

Bibliography

Aarons, Mark, Sanctuary! Nazi Fugitives in Australia, William Heinemann, Australia, 1989.
Beren baum, Michael, The World Must Know. The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Little, Brown & Company, Boston / Toronto/London, 1993.
Dawidowicz, Lucy, S., The War Against the Jews 1933-45, Penguin, London, 1987.
Dear, I.C.B. (ed), The Oxford Companion to the Second World War, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, pp.
824-826, 1257-1289. Extracts 9.1, 9.2 & 9.3, AIH 152. The Holocaust: The Final Solution and Beyond, 1941 -, Deakin University, Geelong, 1997.
Kw iet, K., Section 9, 'The prosecution of Nazi war crimes: A never-ending story', AIH 152. Levy, Alan, The Wiesenthal File, Constable, London, 1993.
Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Scourge of the Swastika, New Port way, Great Britain, 1985, p.
253. Marrus, M. & Paxton R., Vichy France and the Jews, Basic Books Inc. Publishers, New York, 1981.
Marrus, Michael R., The Holocaust in History, Penguin, London, 1987.
Wiesenthal, Simon, Justice - Not Vengeance, Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1989.