Editing Nuremberg trials (section)

==Verdict==
The International Military Tribunal agreed with the prosecution that aggression was the gravest charge against the accused, stating in its judgment that because "war is essentially an evil thing", "to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=165}}{{sfn|Sayapin|2014|p=150}} The work of the judges was made more difficult due to the broadness of the crimes listed in the Nuremberg Charter.{{sfn|Musa|2016|p=375}} The judges did not attempt to define the crime of aggression{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=161}} and did not mention the retroactivity of the charges in the verdict.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=142}} Despite the lingering doubts of some of the judges,{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=371}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=142–143}} the official interpretation of the IMT held that all of the charges had a solid basis in customary international law and that the trial was procedurally fair.{{sfn|Tomuschat|2006|pp=840–841}} The judges were aware that both the Allies and the Axis had planned or committed acts of aggression, writing the verdict carefully to avoid discrediting either the Allied governments or the tribunal.{{sfn|Sellars|2013|pp=164–165}}

The judges ruled that there had been a premeditated conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, whose goals were "the disruption of the European order" and "the creation of a [[Greater Germany]] beyond [[Territorial evolution of Germany#World War I|the frontiers of 1914]]".{{sfn|Sayapin|2014|p=150}} Contrary to Jackson's argument that the conspiracy began with the founding of the Nazi Party in 1920, the verdict dated the planning of aggression to the 1937 [[Hossbach Memorandum]].{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=372}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=109, 144}} The conspiracy charge caused significant dissent on the bench; Donnedieu de Vabres wanted to scrap it. Through a compromise proposed by the British judges, the charge of conspiracy was narrowed to a conspiracy to wage aggressive war.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=144}}{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=371–372, 387}}{{sfn|Musa|2016|p=378}} Only eight defendants were convicted on that charge; all of whom were also found guilty of crimes against peace.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=387}} All 22 defendants were charged with crimes against peace, and 12 were convicted.{{sfn|Sayapin|2014|pp=150–151}} The war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants charged on those grounds being acquitted.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=386}} The judges determined that crimes against humanity concerning German Jews before 1939 were not under the court's jurisdiction because the prosecution had not proven a connection to aggressive war.{{sfn|Mouralis|2019|p=25}}{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=383}}

[[File:1946-10-08 21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty.ogv|thumb|right|Newsreel of the sentencing]]

Four organizations were ruled to be criminal: the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the SS, the Gestapo, and the SD, although some lower ranks and subgroups were excluded.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=383–384}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=147}} The verdict only allowed for individual criminal responsibility if willing membership and knowledge of the criminal purpose could be proved, complicating [[denazification]] efforts.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=143–144}} The SA, the Reich Cabinet, and the General Staff and High Command were not ruled to be criminal organizations.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=383–384}} Although the Wehrmacht leadership was not considered an organization within the meaning of the charter,{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=383–384}}{{sfn|Brüggemann|2018|p=405}} misrepresentation of the verdict as an exoneration was one of the foundations of the [[clean Wehrmacht myth]].{{sfn|Brüggemann|2018|pp=405–406, 447–448}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=147–148}} The trial had nevertheless resulted in the coverage of [[war crimes of the Wehrmacht|its systematic criminality]] in the German press.{{sfn|Echternkamp|2020|pp=163–164}}

Sentences were debated at length by the judges. Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death (Göring, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, and Bormann).{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=145}}{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=387}} On 16 October, [[Nuremberg executions|ten were hanged]], with Göring killing himself the day before. Seven defendants (Hess, Funk, Raeder, Dönitz, Schirach, Speer, and Neurath) were sent to [[Spandau Prison]] to serve their sentences.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=387, 390–391}} All three acquittals (Papen, Schacht, and Fritzsche) were based on a deadlock between the judges; these acquittals surprised observers. Despite being accused of the same crimes, Sauckel was sentenced to death, while Speer was given a prison sentence because the judges considered that he could reform.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=146}} Nikichenko released a dissent approved by Moscow that rejected all the acquittals, called for a death sentence for Hess, and convicted all the organizations.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=147}}{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=380}}