Courtroom drama

Seventy years ago today the major powers who defeated the Axis on the battlefield embarked on a novel enterprise: they put the leaders of Nazi Germany on trial for what we’ve come to know as war crimes. The International Military Tribunal, comprising jurists from France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union, opened proceedings against 24 civilian and military figures (one, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia), the ones who had neither committed suicide nor managed to escape into anonymity.

The trial was held in Nuremberg, for both practical and symbolic reasons. Although the Allies had bombed the hell out of the city, the Palace of Justice was basically intact and had enough room for such a massive undertaking. And Nuremberg had been the spiritual heart of Nazism, being the home of the Party’s annual gatherings. Where better to drive a stake into the heart of National Socialism?

There were four charges—unprecedented in the history of warfare and international law:

Conspiring to commit crimes against peace

Planning and waging wars of aggression

War crimes

Crimes against humanity

Ahead lay nearly eleven exhausting months of contentious testimony, unspeakably ghastly evidence, equivocation, defiance, arrogance and behind-the-scenes manipulation. The Soviets had never wanted to conduct a trial—their preference was summary execution upon discovery. Even Winston Churchill had toyed with the notion of rooting out the evil without bothering with legal niceties. But in the end, the Allies pulled together and gave humanity a permanent record of what happens when the rule of law surrenders to ideological insanity.

Yes, the irony of Stalin’s minions sitting on the bench that exposed ideological crimes does not escape me. It was a delicate dance the Western Powers performed, condemning Nazis while turning a blind eye to Soviet atrocities against humanity.

It was also a chancy business—not only charging elected (in some cases) leaders and military commanders with crimes that had not been defined as such at the time of commission, but also naming them as criminal actions. Because if they are crimes when committed by Nazis, they are also crimes when committed by Russians, Japanese, Syrians and Americans.

It’s a slippery slope, no doubt about it. And Lord knows we’ve gone ass over teakettle a few times over many of the principles argued at Nuremberg.

But what a remarkable undertaking, to draw that line in the sand, to say out loud, “This is wrong and it does not go unnoticed.” Even if it does very often go unpunished.

In my opinion, almost more than the actual victory itself, the Nuremberg Trials marked the triumph of good over evil. Pretty much anyone with manufacturing capability, masses of conscripts, good commanders and the will to persevere can win a war. It takes something more than that to turn from places like Babi Yar and Belsen to the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg.