Talk:Nuremberg trials: Difference between revisions

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1046045 https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1173344 https://twitter.com/FranHirsch/status/1443925053888995358 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/perspectives-on-the-nuremberg-trial-9780199232338?lang=en&cc=us#

• Bloxham, Donald (2001). Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820872-3.
• Salter, Michael (2007). Nazi War Crimes, US Intelligence and Selective Prosecution at Nuremberg: Controversies Regarding the Role of the Office of Strategic Services. Routledge-Cavendish. ISBN 978-1-904385-81-3.
• Mouralis, Guillaume (2019). "Retrouver les victimes. Naufragés et rescapés au procès de Nuremberg". Droit et société. 102 (2): 243. doi:10.3917/drs1.102.0243.
• Nowak-Korcz, Paulina (2021). "Le génocide des nazis dans les témoignages des interprètes et traducteurs au procès de Nuremberg". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. doi:10.1007/s11196-021-09834-w.
• Burchard, Christoph (2006). "The Nuremberg Trial and its Impact on Germany". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 4 (4): 800–829. doi:10.1093/jicj/mql052.
• Jockusch, Laura (2012). "Justice at Nuremberg? Jewish Responses to Nazi War-Crime Trials in Allied-Occupied Germany". Jewish Social Studies. 19 (1): 107–147. doi:10.2979/jewisocistud.19.1.107.
• Bloxham, Donald (2013). "From the International Military Tribunal to the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings: The American Confrontation with Nazi Criminality Revisited: International Military Tribunal". History. 98 (332): 567–591. doi:10.1111/1468-229X.12024.
• [1]

No access

• Pratt, Valéry (2018). Nuremberg, les droits de l'homme, le cosmopolitisme: pour une philosophie du droit international (in French). Le Bord de l'eau. ISBN 978-2-35687-400-9.
• Seliger, Hubert (2016). Politische Anwälte?: die Verteidiger der Nürnberger Prozesse (in German). Nomos. ISBN 978-3-8487-2360-7.
• Tisseron, Antonin (2014). La France et le procès de Nuremberg: inventer le droit international (in French). Prairies ordinaires. ISBN 978-2-35096-095-1.

Photographs in the origins section

The Soviet prosecution specifically introduced films depicting the German destruction of Soviet cities and German atrocities in the USSR. Although I'm unable to confirm if these exact photographs were entered into evidence, similar ones surely were. There are other photographs that can be confirmed to be among the 25,000 entered into evidence at the IMT, including c:Category:Deportation_of_Jews_from_Würzburg and the entire Stroop Report. However, these photographs are less relevant to why the trial was launched in the first place, for which the #1 reason is probably the war destruction and atrocities in the USSR. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree with separating "background" and "origins" since every RS says that the trial was launched specifically because of the wars of aggression and other crimes of Nazi Germany, therefore this is the origin of the trial. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuremberg trials/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• A note that I"m going to be reviewing more in line with FAC for prose, figuring you're taking this to FAC soon. I'll note those things that aren't needed to be fixed for GA, however.
• Lead:
  • "21 of the most important surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in the political, military, and economic spheres, and six German organizations" not required for GA, but if you're heading to FAC, you'll need to have either "21 of the most important surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in the political, military, and economic spheres, and 6 German organizations" or "twenty-one of the most important surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in the political, military, and economic spheres, and six German organizations" since you're comparing things and the MOS says use the same style for the numbers.
    • Done
• Origin:
  • "waged wars of aggression across Europe, invading among others Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Low Countries, France, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the Soviet Union.[2] The war saw immense brutality" ... which is it ... "wars" or "the war"?
    • Reworded
  • "In contrast, the United States suffered very few civilian casualties and many Americans were unaware of the scale of the devastation." ... I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell us about the trial background? To be honest, it kinda feels like "we have an opportunity to bash the US for not being in Europe and them not getting damaged much so let's take a swing at them"
    • Hirsch states this in order to highlight the different situation that the four powers were in, but I guess it's not adding much so I removed it.
  • "considering the failure of war crimes prosecutions after World War I." This is unclear to me. I think you mean something along the lines that the US and UK felt that the WWI war crimes prosecutions backfired badly and so were leery of doing it again after WWII?
    • I have rephrased to hopefully be more clear. There is basically agreement in sources that the WWI-related trials are to be considered a failure, so it is not just a US/UK perception.
  • not required for GA, but I think "similar to the Moscow trials in order to demonstrate" would benefit from a bit more context - maybe "similar to their pre-war Moscow trials in order to demonstrate" ?
    • Done
  • "The Western Allies also considered a trial, but in their vision it would be a fair trial where the defendants were presumed innocent. The British, who could not see a benefit from such a trial, proposed summary execution." If the British couldn't see a benefit to a trial, then it wasn't the "Western Allies" considering a trial, but just the US and France?
    • Clarified
• Legal basis:
  • "the negotiators did not discuss historical narratives" - I have no idea what this means?
    • Removed
  • link for "international law"?
    • Done
  • Was the Nuremberg Charter promulgated at the London Conference? It's implied but not stated explicitly
    • Clarified
  • "there had been no provision for individual criminal responsibility for going to war" in previous internation law? Or in the charter?
    • Clarified
• Judges:
  • I think you need to point out that each of the four allies appointed a prosecutor (or more?) and two judges? It's not made explicit.
    • Done
  • "crimes of the Nazi regime as a aberration of Westernness and sought to correct " ... I'm not sure what "aberration of Westerness" means?
    • Clarified
  • Suggest "At Jackson's recommendation, the United States appointed judges Francis Biddle and John Parker to the US delegation. As the largest team, the US contingent would take on the bulk of the prosecution effort."
    • Since the trial was mainly based on US/common law procedure, the judges didn't participate in the prosecution effort. I think this ordering could be misleading, confusing the prosecutors with the judges.
  • "answer to Andrei Vyshinsky in Moscow via secret channels" who is Vyshinsky?
    • Redid this bit.
  • link for "attorney general of France"?
    • Reworded
  • "he resigned in January 1946 and was replaced" resigned as attorney general or from the IMT?
    • This is now clarified
  • "The French government tried to appoint jurists who were not tainted" Are we meaning just the judges and prosecutors here or all the French appointed to the IMT ... i.e. the staff of the prosecutors/judges?
    • The staff, clarified
• Defendants:
  • "and were therefore ineligible for trial" not required, but suggest "and were therefore available for trial".
    • Done
  • "German military, economy, and politics" politics fits a bit odd there ... perhaps "German military, economy, and political life"?
    • Done
  • "leaving 21 in the dock." seems a bit informal/jargony.
    • Removed
  • Should list all the defendants here, even if just a quick mention.
    • Done
• Course:
  • "while the United States "not seek to convict the whole German people of crime"" I think you're missing a verb before the quote?
    • Fixed
• American prosecution:
  • "The film shocked both the defendants and the judges, who immediately closed the trial." Since there isn't an article for the film, why it was shocking is very unclear to the reader. We should probably give some idea why it was shocking. It's also unclear who made the film - was it a Nazi film or something else?
    • Added information
• British prosecution:
  • "both the British and Americans presented evidence against individual defendants" so we list the individuals the British presented evidence against but not who the Americans did?
    • Removed for now, as I can't find confirmation of the defendants that the Americans tackled.
• Soviet prosecution:
  • "from their interrogations of senior enemy officers and Extraordinary State Commission reports" reads a bit odd - it almost seems like it's saying that the Soviets interogated the reports. Suggest "from the Extraordinary State Commission reports and the Soviet's own interrogations of senior enemy officers"
    • Done
  • "By early 1946, Western prosecutors were uneasy about these charges" ... all of the charges mentioned before (murder of children, attempts to cover up atrocities,[124] systematic plunder of occupied territories, and confiscation or destruction of cultural heritage" and Katyn) or just uneasy about Katyn?
    • Clarified—the latter
  • "The inclusion of Katyn in the charges undermined the credibility of Soviet evidence in general." conflicts with "The Soviet prosecution case was generally well-received and presented compelling evidence about the suffering of the Soviet people and the Soviet contribution to victory."
    • Both of these are from Hirsch and I don't think it's a contradiction. She states:

      For the Western powers, Pokrovsky’s presentation undoubtedly raised even more questions about the general veracity of Soviet evidence. The American and British governments already had information pointing to Soviet responsibility for Katyn. If the Soviets had fabricated evidence and coerced witness testimony in order to implicate the Nazis in this crime, what did this mean for the rest of their case?

      and

      The Soviet presentations, documentary films, and witness testimony had been emotionally wrenching and deeply disturbing. Some American and British observers suspected the Soviet prosecution of exaggeration and in some instances even fabrication—but this did not diminish the power of their case. Taylor later wrote that in spite of some apparent flaws in the Soviet evidence, no one (except for Goering) questioned its overall veracity in painting a picture of Nazism in the occupied East.

• Verdict:
  • "were based on a deadlock between the judges and surprised observers" this reads as if the deadlock was between the judges and observers - suggest "were based on a deadlock between the judges; the decision surprised observers."
    • Done
  • Should give a breakdown of who received what sentence.
    • Done
• Nuremberg Military Tribunals
  • Suggest using the {{main}} template here to the correct article
    • done
• Contemporary reactions:
  • "Almost all prisoners were released by the end of the 1950s." Please give some sort of breakdown of who got released when and where they spent their sentences.
    • Add more info on amnesty.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Thanks so much for your detailed review! I hope I've addressed your comments adequately. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

These all look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Charges: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

Jaredscribe Thanks for attempting to improve the article, but

• Terms such as "aggressive war", "crimes against peace" etc. are somewhat technical terms that we can't expect all readers to understand. That's why I went with "invasions" in the first sentence, since it's fully accurate and more understandable.
• The "Nuremberg trials" refers especially to the first Nuremberg trial (the IMT) but is inclusive of the NMTs. There were more than 21 defendants all told.
• The phrasing "The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies, who brought charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and instigating a war of aggression against 21 leaders of Nazi Germany after World War II." is difficult to parse.
• It could be misleading to talk about one war of aggression, when the Nazi defendants were charged with several aggressions launched against different countries. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD the lead must summarize the entire article, including background info. The world is a big place and not all readers will know much about WWII. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents that while Jaredscribe's edits were good faith and understandable, I do find the current (i.e. buidhe's) version easier to read. Endwise (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The lede sentences ought to state the charges and the name the accused. The accused are "21 representatives of...", this is more accurate than the indefinite "representatives of..¨ The charges were: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and starting a war of aggression. By omitting this article is currently burying the lede. If you can change the phrasing to make it easier to verbally parse, then please do. We must find a way to state the salient facts in summary in the lede sentence and paragraph. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

starting Wars of aggression (by military invasion). put it in the plural to address Buidheś point that there were multiple invasions. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jaredscribe, please read what I wrote again. The subject of this article is NOT just the first Nuremberg trial, it's in the plural and in total there were more than 21 defendants. The exact charges (technical legal terms that few readers know the exact meaning of) are not necessarily the most important or salient aspect of the topic, so I don't see why they have to be in the first sentence. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The accused were charged with war crimes, and with crimes against humanity. Is @Buidhe denying this? Jaredscribe (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What? I added this to the article with specific explanation of what these charges mean, in the article body. I don't think the average reader of the article could define either of these terms, so I'm not convinced it's something that should be highlighted in the first sentence without any explanation. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

table of verdicts

This article used to have a table of defendants and verdicts similar to the one at High Command Trial#Defendants_and_judgements. I thought it was useful. Could we bring it back? Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The exact breakdown of sentences and verdicts for the IMT is not the focus of coverage in RS, making a giant table is certainly UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 23:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, hmm. What would you think of a sub-article "Verdicts of the Nuremberg Trial" or similar? Adoring nanny (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy anent British judges not donning their trademark court wigs?

Has I understand it, the Soviets had it right in turning up in military wear - since the Nuremberg trials were some kind of ‘military tribunal’, yet it is still markworthy that (unlike the USA and Fr that turn’t up fully kitted out in their traditional courtwear) that the British Nuremberg trial judges courtwear lacked it’s wig - the most distinctivelooking courtwear known to mankind. Could it be that the British judges kit lacked it’s characteristic wig as not to upstage the rather bland (by comparison) French and American court dress at the aforesaid worldwide Nuremberg spectacle. WHY DID NOT THE BRITISH NUREMBERG JUDGES WEAR THEIR TRADEMARK WIGS AT THE AFORESAID SPECTACLE?

• Hi IP, the IMT was called a military tribunal, but one of the sources (I believe Hirsch) points out it functionally wasn't, since almost everyone involved was a civilian. I don't know why the British judges didn't wear wigs but I don't think that's one of the details that needs to be covered in this particular article. (t · c) buidhe 12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)