With the 80th anniversary of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), more commonly known as the Nuremberg Trials, on the 20th of November, we were privileged to have a conversation with Dr Caroline Sharples, an expert in the field of post-war justice. The discussion provided a fascinating insight into a range of questions including why the Nuremberg Trials have dominated public memory and discourse; which other trials took place in the post-war years; and in terms of pedagogy, how and why teachers and educators might look to include lessons on the legacy of the trials in their schemes of work.
The Nuremberg Trials were not all about the Holocaust, nor were they the first post-war tribunal
An insight to start the conversation is that whilst public memory may be dominated by the IMT, the Nuremberg Trials were not the first example of post-war justice being handed down to Nazi war criminals. Instead, the Belsen Trials of September to November 1945 set the precedent for further military tribunals. Professor Sharples made an important point that the Nuremberg Trials were not, contrary to popular opinion, focused on holding the Nazis to account for the crimes of the Holocaust, instead, it was a multi-faceted tribunal which included trying perpetrators for a range of crimes including: crimes against peace, conspiracy to wage an aggressive war, war crimes and of course, crimes against humanity. The focus on crimes against the victims of the Nazi regime, namely Jews, comes beforehand at the Belsen Trials, which were more directly focused on the events at Bergen-Belsen itself.
Furthermore, Professor Sharples explained that whilst Nuremberg focused predominantly on perpetrator narrative, it was the Belsen Trials which first brought public attention to witness and victim testimony. Thereby, in terms of usage in the classroom, there is a case that the Bergen Belsen Trials are a more useful case study for students and teachers who are trying to learn about the Holocaust, due to the clear focus of the tribunal, rather than the wider scope of the IMT. Furthermore, Professor Sharples explained that whilst Nuremberg may have dominated public discourse, post-war justice continued into the 1950s and 1960s. When the two German states were formed from 1949, the mood, especially in Western Germany, was actually one of trial fatigue, with some calls for a general amnesty mooted. There was a general belief that the ‘obviously guilty’ had been dealt with already, however, in 1958, this myth would be shattered. A survivor happened to spot one of their former tormentors and reports them, this person is then investigated, and it is found to have been part of the Einsatzgruppen (Mobile killing units) tasked with following the German army into occupied territories and killing political and ‘racial’ opponents. Another nine members of the unit are unearthed and a trial at the West Germany city of Ulm is formed. Professor Sharples contends that the impact of this trial is two-fold: firstly, this is the first trial of its kind taking place before a German court. Therefore, the decisions made could not be dismissed as ‘victor’s justice’, unlike at Nuremberg. Secondly, it raised questions surrounding where these perpetrators had been since the end of the war. The truth to many observers was quite disturbing – people who had committed mass atrocities were able to assimilate back into the public sphere, masking their crimes during the war. When day one of the Ulm trial comes and the media report these perpetrators for who they were – very ordinary looking, middle-aged men, the public are shocked, with one newspaper headline stating that ‘their faces do not fit their crimes’. It is here when the idea of the ‘murderers among us’ starts to enter public discourse.
Public opinion towards the post-war tribunals differed
A fascinating insight that Professor Sharples provided is to challenge the public perception that the trials were akin to a courtroom-drama, as often depicted by Hollywood. Rather, most of the time was spent on vital, yet somewhat menial, tasks involving the vetting and numbering of documentation, discussions surrounding the correct use of legal terminology and translation issues. For the layperson attending the proceedings, it was extremely dry and sterile. It is not until the Eichmann Trial of 1961, where you have survivor testimony much more front and centre, where it captures the world’s attention. Professor Sharples goes on to explain that contrary to popular belief, public support for the trial in Britain starts strong, but wanes somewhat over time.
In the summer of 1945, there is a growing sense of frustration that the trials have not occurred yet, with a member of the House of Lords commenting – “We are six months since the day, and not one execution has happened yet”. This desire for retribution from the general populace is somewhat demonstrative of the popular mood at the time. When the Trials begin in November there is a consensus that things will start to progress quickly and that justice could be served swiftly and efficiently. However, Professor Sharples explains that the fact the process then lasts for a whole year means the appetite and interest in the Trials soon fades away. There is a general sense of war fatigue in Britain after the ending of the Second World War, and this notion of the need to punish perpetrators is soon replaced by a desire to move on and rebuild lives. With lasting damage to Britain’s infrastructure, bombed out cities and the loss of lives during the conflict, people begin questioning the necessity of the trials, and why so much time, money and manpower is being spent dealing with these Nazi figures – soon, war fatigue would evolve into trial fatigue. Over the process of the Nuremberg Trials, even the press starts to disappear and are not covering it fully. Seemingly, it is not until September/October 1946, when the sentences are handed down, that public interest returns, and even then, it is not wholescale, but rather smaller pockets of opinion. By 1946, it appeared that the British public had lost their appetite for revenge and instead wanted to move on.
The use of the trials in the classroom – then and now
Professor Sharples explained that in the example of education in post-war Germany, students from Western Germany were taken on school trips to view proceedings in various trials against Nazi war criminals in the 1950s and 1960s. Teachers started to appreciate that there was an educational value in the proceedings, and if you happened to live in a city like Frankfurt, where there is a war crimes trial happening on your doorstep, it became an opportunity to take students, particularly for those studying history, but also for legal students, too. Taking students to these proceedings was pedagogically to get a sense of what a trial looks like, along with hearing testimony. However, Professor Sharples contends that there are some observations which suggests that these trips are not always successful. There are instances of students sat in the gallery, talking, eating sweets and giggling, challenging the idea that these trips resulted in some form of moral awakening for students. Nonetheless, there are also examples of spin-off school projects that follow, concentrating on the events of the trials, focusing on sites of perpetration, along with prosecutors visiting students in schools and universities.
Professor Sharples argues that there was a real sense of the potential for outreach in these visits, where teachers, educators and legal professionals were trying to tell students why these proceedings were important, that these are the issues that were being dealt with and why they must not be forgotten. Contextually therefore, the experiences of teachers in post-war Germany – looking to expand understanding and knowledge through trips, highlighting the moral implications of the events of the Second World War and how to avoid repeating them in the future, may well resonate with contemporary educators today.
Watch the Seminar recording:
