Editing Nuremberg trials (section)

==Course of the trial==
The International Military Tribunal began trial on 20 November 1945,{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=138}} after postponement requests from the Soviet prosecution, who wanted more time to prepare its case, were rejected.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=124}} All defendants [[plea (law)|pleaded]] not guilty.{{sfn|Mouralis|2019|p=23}}{{sfn|Weinke|2006|p=40}} Jackson made it clear that the trial's purpose extended beyond convicting the defendants. Prosecutors wanted to assemble irrefutable evidence of Nazi crimes, establish individual responsibility and the crime of aggression in international law, provide a history lesson to the defeated Germans, delegitimize the traditional German elite,{{sfn|Mouralis|2016|loc=paragraph 3}} and allow the Allies to distance themselves from [[appeasement]].{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=159}} Jackson maintained that while the United States did "not seek to convict the whole German people of crime", neither did the trial "serve to absolve the whole German people except 21 men in the dock".{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=133}} Nevertheless, defense lawyers (although not most of the defendants) often argued that the prosecution was trying to promote [[German collective guilt]] and forcefully countered this [[Straw man|strawman]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=133}} According to Priemel, the conspiracy charge "invited apologetic interpretations: narratives of absolute, [[totalitarian]] dictatorship, run by society's lunatic fringe, of which the Germans had been the first victims rather than agents, collaborators, and [[fellow traveller]]s".{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=149}} In contrast, the evidence presented on the Holocaust convinced some observers that [[Contemporary knowledge of the Holocaust|Germans must have been aware of this crime]] while it was ongoing.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=150}}

===American and British prosecution===
[[File:Nazi Concentration Camps.webm|thumbtime=2|thumb|''[[Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps]]'' (1945)]]
[[File:Proces Neurenberg, Bestanddeelnr 901-2078.jpg|thumb|Presenting information on German aggression, 4 December]]

On 21 November, Jackson gave the opening speech for the prosecution.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=106}} He described the fact that the defeated Nazis received a trial as "one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason".{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=107}} Focusing on aggressive war, which he described as the root of the other crimes, Jackson promoted an [[functionalism and intentionalism|intentionalist]] view of the Nazi state and its overall criminal conspiracy. The speech was favorably received by the prosecution, the tribunal, the audience, historians, and even the defendants.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=107–108}}

Much of the American case focused on the development of the Nazi conspiracy before the outbreak of war.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=111}} The American prosecution became derailed during attempts to provide evidence on the first act of aggression, [[German annexation of Austria|against Austria]].{{sfn|Douglas|2001|pp=20–21}} On 29 November, the prosecution was unprepared to continue presenting on the [[Occupation of Czechoslovakia|invasion of Czechoslovakia]], and instead screened ''[[Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps]]''. The film, compiled from footage of the [[Nazi concentration camps#Death marches and liberation|liberation of Nazi concentration camps]], shocked both the defendants and the judges, who adjourned the trial.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=104–105}} Indiscriminate selection and disorganized presentation of documentary evidence without tying it to specific defendants hampered the American prosecutors' work on the conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=116}} The Americans summoned {{lang|de|[[Einsatzgruppen]]}} commander [[Otto Ohlendorf]], who testified about the murder of 80,000 people by those under his command, and SS general [[Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski]], who admitted that German [[anti-partisan warfare]] was little more than a cover for the mass murder of Jews.{{sfn|Douglas|2001|pp=69–70}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=118–119}}

[[File:Evidence about Ernst Kaltenbrunner's crimes is presented at the International Military Tribunal.jpg|thumb|Evidence about [[Ernst Kaltenbrunner]]'s crimes is presented, 2 January 1946.]]

The British prosecution covered the charge of crimes against peace, which was largely redundant to the American conspiracy case.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=102}} On 4 December, Shawcross gave the opening speech, much of which had been written by Cambridge professor [[Hersch Lauterpacht]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=89, 108}}{{sfn|Musa|2016|p=384}} Unlike Jackson, Shawcross attempted to minimize the novelty of the aggression charges, elaborating its precursors in the conventions of [[Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907|Hague]] and [[Geneva Convention|Geneva]], the [[League of Nations Covenant]], the [[Locarno Treaty]], and the [[Kellogg–Briand Pact]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=108}}{{sfn|Sellars|2013|pp=121–122}}{{sfn|Musa|2016|pp=380–381}} The British took four days to make their case,{{sfn|Musa|2016|p=382}} with Maxwell Fyfe detailing treaties broken by Germany.{{sfn|Musa|2016|p=383}} In mid-December the Americans switched to presenting the case against the indicted organizations,{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=185}} while in January both the British and Americans presented evidence against individual defendants.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=199–200}} Besides the organizations mentioned in the indictment, American, and British prosecutors also mentioned the complicity of the German [[Reich Foreign Office|Foreign Office]], [[German Army (Wehrmacht)|army]], and [[Kriegsmarine|navy]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=119}}

===French prosecution===
From 17 January to 7 February 1946, France presented its charges and supporting evidence.{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraph 15}} In contrast to the other prosecution teams, the French prosecution delved into Germany's development in the nineteenth century, arguing that it had diverged from the West due to [[pan-Germanism]] and imperialism. They argued that Nazi ideology, which derived from these earlier ideas, was the ''[[mens rea]]''—criminal intent—of the crimes on trial.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=110–111}} The French prosecutors, more than their British or American counterparts, emphasized the complicity of many Germans;{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraph 16}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=111}} they barely mentioned the charge of aggressive war and instead focused on forced labor, economic plunder, and massacres.{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraph 17}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=115}}  Prosecutor [[Edgar Faure]] grouped together various German policies, such as the German annexation of [[Alsace–Lorraine]], under the label of [[Germanization]], which he argued was a crime against humanity.{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraph 18}} Unlike the British and American prosecution strategies, which focused on using German documents to make their cases, the French prosecutors took the perspective of the victims, submitting postwar police reports.{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraphs 20–21}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=119}} Eleven witnesses, including victims of Nazi persecution, were called; resistance fighter and [[Auschwitz]] survivor [[Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier]] testified about crimes she had witnessed.{{sfn|Douglas|2001|p=70}}{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraphs 20–21}} The French charges of war crimes were accepted by the tribunal, except for the execution of hostages.{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraphs 17–18}} Due to the narrow definition of crimes against humanity in the charter, the only part of the Germanization charges accepted by the judges was the [[The Holocaust in France|deportation of Jews from France]] and other parts of Western Europe.{{sfn|Gemählich|2019|loc=paragraph 18}}

===Soviet prosecution===
[[File:Главный обвинитель от СССР на Нюрнбергском процессе Р.А. Руденко.jpg|thumb|[[Roman Rudenko]] opens the Soviet case.]]
On 8 February, the Soviet prosecution opened its case with a speech by Rudenko that covered all four prosecution charges, highlighting a wide variety of crimes committed by the German occupiers as part of their destructive and unprovoked invasion.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=216–218}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=109}} Rudenko tried to emphasize common ground with the other Allies while rejecting any similarity between Nazi and Soviet rule.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=109}} The next week, the Soviet prosecution produced [[Friedrich Paulus]]—a German [[Generalfeldmarschall|field marshal]] captured after the [[Battle of Stalingrad]]—as a witness and questioned him about the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=221–222}} Paulus incriminated his former associates, pointing to Keitel, Jodl, and Göring as the defendants most responsible for the war.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=223}}

More so than other delegations, Soviet prosecutors showed the gruesome details of German atrocities, especially the death by starvation of 3 million [[German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war|Soviet prisoners of war]] and several hundred thousand [[siege of Leningrad|residents of Leningrad]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=116}} Although Soviet prosecutors dealt most extensively with the [[The Holocaust in the Soviet Union|systematic murder of Jews in eastern Europe]], at times they blurred the fate of Jews with that of other Soviet nationalities.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=116, 118}} Although these aspects had already been covered by the American prosecution, Soviet prosecutors introduced new evidence from [[Extraordinary State Commission]] reports and interrogations of senior enemy officers.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=225}} [[Lev Smirnov]] presented evidence on the [[Lidice massacre]] in Czechoslovakia, adding that the German invaders had  [[anti-partisan warfare|destroyed thousands of villages and murdered their inhabitants]] throughout eastern Europe.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=230}} The Soviet prosecution emphasized the racist aspect of policies such as the deportation of millions of civilians to Germany for [[forced labor in Nazi Germany|forced labor]],{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=115}} the murder of children,{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=230–231}} systematic looting of occupied territories, and theft or destruction of [[cultural heritage]].{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=232}} The Soviet prosecution also attempted to fabricate German responsibility for the [[Katyn massacre]], which had in fact been committed by the [[NKVD]]. Although Western prosecutors never publicly rejected the Katyn charge for fear of casting doubt on the entire proceedings, they were skeptical.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=225–226, 335}} The defense presented evidence of Soviet responsibility,{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=247, 329}} and Katyn was not mentioned in the verdict.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=372}}

{{external media|video1=[https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn616417 ''Atrocities Committed by the German Fascist Invaders in the USSR''], 57 minutes; shown on 19 February 1946|video2=[https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/nuremberg-trial-testimony-of-avrom-sutzkever/collection/the-holocaust-and-the-moving-image Testimony of Abraham Sutzkever], 27 February 1946}}

Inspired by the films shown by the American prosecution, the Soviet Union commissioned three films for the trial: ''The German Fascist Destruction of the Cultural Treasures of the Peoples of the USSR'', ''Atrocities Committed by the German Fascist Invaders in the USSR'', and ''The German Fascist Destruction of Soviet Cities'', using footage from Soviet filmmakers as well as shots from German newsreels.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=180, 202, 233}} The second film included footage of the liberation of [[Majdanek concentration camp|Majdanek]] and the [[liberation of Auschwitz]] and was considered even more disturbing than the American concentration camp film.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=231–232}} Soviet witnesses included several survivors of German crimes, including two civilians who lived through the siege of Leningrad, a peasant whose village was destroyed in anti-partisan warfare, a Red Army doctor who endured several prisoner-of-war camps{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=233, 236–237, 239}} and two Holocaust survivors—[[Samuel Rajzman]], a survivor of [[Treblinka extermination camp]], and poet [[Abraham Sutzkever]], who described the murder of tens of thousands of Jews from [[Vilna]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=119}}{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=237, 239}} The Soviet prosecution case was generally well received and presented compelling evidence about the suffering of the Soviet people and the Soviet contributions to victory.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=240, 242}}

===Defense===
[[File:Goering on trial (color).jpg|thumb|[[Hermann Göring]] under cross-examination]]
[[File:Soviet-called witness addresses the International Military Tribunal.jpg|thumb|A member of the Soviet delegation addresses the tribunal.]]

From March to July 1946, the defense presented its counterarguments.{{sfn|Mouralis|2019|p=23}} Before the prosecution finished, it was clear that their general case was proven, but it remained to determine the individual guilt of each defendant.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=121}} None of the defendants tried to assert that the Nazis' crimes had not occurred.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=125}} Some defendants denied involvement in certain crimes or implausibly claimed ignorance of them, especially the Final Solution.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=126}}{{sfn|Douglas|2001|p=20}}  A few defense lawyers inverted the arguments of the prosecution to assert that the Germans' authoritarian mindset and obedience to the state exonerated them from any personal guilt.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=132}} Most rejected that Germany had deviated from Western civilization, arguing that few Germans could have supported Hitler because Germany was a civilized country.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=132}}

The defendants tried to blame their crimes on Hitler, who was mentioned 1,200 times during the trial—more than the top five defendants combined. Other absent and dead men, including Himmler, [[Reinhard Heydrich]], [[Adolf Eichmann]], and Bormann, were also blamed.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=127–128}} To counter claims that conservative defendants had enabled the [[Nazi rise to power]], defense lawyers blamed the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany]], trade unions, and other countries that maintained diplomatic relations with Germany.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=130–131}} In contrast, most defendants avoided incriminating each other.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=135}} Most defendants argued their own insignificance within the Nazi system,{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=133–134}}{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=287}} but Göring took the opposite approach, expecting to be executed but vindicated in the eyes of the German people.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=133–134}}

The charter did not recognize a [[tu quoque defense|''tu quoque'' defense]]—asking for exoneration on the grounds that the Allies had committed the same crimes with which the defendants were charged.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=131}} Although defense lawyers repeatedly equated the [[Nuremberg Laws]] to legislation found in other countries, Nazi concentration camps to Allied detention facilities, and the deportation of Jews to the [[expulsion of Germans]], the judges rejected their arguments.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=131}} {{ill|Alfred Seidl|de}} repeatedly tried to disclose the secret protocols of the German–Soviet pact; although he was eventually successful, it was legally irrelevant and the judges rejected his attempt to bring up the [[Treaty of Versailles]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=131}}{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=148}} Six defendants were charged with the [[German invasion of Norway]], and their lawyers argued that this invasion was undertaken to prevent a [[Plan R 4|British invasion of that country]]; a cover-up prevented the defense from capitalizing on this argument.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=148}}{{sfn|Sellars|2013|pp=149–150}} Fleet Admiral [[Chester Nimitz]] testified that the [[United States Navy]] had also used [[unrestricted submarine warfare]] against [[Empire of Japan|Japan]] [[Allied submarines in the Pacific War|in the Pacific]]; Dönitz's counsel successfully argued that this meant that it could not be a crime.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=131–132}}{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=178}} The judges barred most evidence on Allied misdeeds from being heard in court.{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=144}}

Many defense lawyers complained about various aspects of the trial procedure and attempted to discredit the entire proceedings.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=126}} In order to appease them, the defendants were allowed a free hand with their witnesses and a great deal of irrelevant testimony was heard.{{sfn|Douglas|2001|p=15}} The defendants' witnesses sometimes managed to exculpate them, but other witnesses—including [[Rudolf Höss]], the former commandant of Auschwitz, and [[Hans Bernd Gisevius]], a member of the [[German resistance to Nazism|German resistance]]—bolstered the prosecution's case.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=129–130}} Over the course of the trial, Western judges allowed the defendants additional leeway to denounce the Soviet Union, which was ultimately revealed to be a co-conspirator in the outbreak of World War II.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=10}} In the context of the brewing [[Cold War]]—for example, in 1946 [[Winston Churchill]] delivered the [[Iron Curtain speech]]{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=148}}—the trial became a means of condemning not only Germany but also the Soviet Union.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|p=14}}

===Closing===
On 31 August, closing arguments were presented.{{sfn|Mouralis|2019|pp=23–24}} Over the course of the trial, crimes against humanity and especially against Jews (who were mentioned as victims of Nazi atrocities far more than any other group) came to upstage the aggressive war charge.{{sfn|Sellars|2013|p=171}}{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=119, 150}} In contrast to the opening prosecution statements, all eight closing statements highlighted the Holocaust; and the French and British prosecutors made this the main charge, as opposed to that of aggression. All prosecutors except the Americans mentioned the concept of [[genocide]], which had been recently invented by the Polish-Jewish jurist [[Raphael Lemkin]].{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=62, 120}} British prosecutor Shawcross quoted from witness testimony about a murdered Jewish family from [[Dubno]], Ukraine.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|p=120}} During the closing statements, most defendants disappointed the judges by their lies and denial. Speer managed to give the impression of apologizing without assuming personal guilt or naming any victims other than the German people.{{sfn|Priemel|2016|pp=138, 141}} On 2 September, the court recessed; and the judges retreated into seclusion to decide the verdict and sentences, which had been under discussion since June. The verdict was drafted by British deputy judge [[Norman Birkett]]. All eight judges participated in the deliberations, but the deputies could not cast a vote.{{sfn|Hirsch|2020|pp=370, 372}}{{sfn|Sellars|2013|pp=160–161}}