The release of the movie Nuremberg, currently showing in theatres, could hardly have been more timely, particularly with Remembrance Day imminent. This gripping story from the immediate postwar era, featuring Academy Award winners Russell Crowe as Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Goring and Remi Malek as Douglas Kelley, the psychiatrist assigned to determine Goring’s fitness to stand trial, raises virtually all of the ethical dilemmas that confronted the Allied forces, and the world, in the aftermath of the Nazi regime’s defeat.
Many of these ethical dilemmas are with us still, for example in the form of Vladimir Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine, and in the recent past with Slobodan Milosevich’s ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, the horrors of Rwanda and Pol Pot’s Killing Fields in Cambodia. But one significant difference in the ability to prosecute perpetrators of these more recent stains on humanity is that there have been both internationally agreed upon rules and an international court to adjudicate, courtesy of Nuremburg.
This is particularly important given how much time has elapsed since the world watched spellbound as the trials in the German town of Nuremberg unfolded. For many citizens in North America the Second World War is only a dim memory, and the most likely aspect of that conflict for individuals under forty to have explored is that of the major battles fought and military leaders immortalized. Obviously nothing should take away from the many valiant efforts of the Allies, or the importance of the sacrifices made by individuals and countries in their lengthy, brutal six-year struggle to defeat the enemy. But how the Allies handled the surviving leaders of the Nazi regime after the war is arguably an equally important lesson that needs to be underlined and not forgotten.
As the movie makes abundantly clear, Nuremberg was far from being a sure thing when it was first proposed. There were numerous political and legal problems posed by this first-ever attempt to bring perpetrators from another country – in this case key leaders of the Nazi regime — to justice. Where to hold the trial, what set of laws/procedural rules to use, and who would prosecute, on what charges, were all a source of considerable debate.
The argument in favour of a trial was obvious, namely to demonstrate to the world what had happened, who these individuals were and what they had done. At the same time, it was viewed as the definitive way to demonstrate that justice had been done and that the process was legitimate, since these individuals would receive a trial and be entitled to a legal defence. Moreover it was agreed that the court would be composed of representatives of the four allied countries – the U.S., Britain, France and Russia – rather than simply be perceived as an American initiative. Nevertheless it was an American judge sitting on the Supreme Court, Robert Jackson, who took the lead in establishing both the law and procedure, and was the initial chief prosecutor, aided by a British colleague.
The arguments in opposition to the trials were twofold. Some were practical, based on concerns that those charged, and particularly Goring, would use the opportunity of an international platform to promote the Nazi cause and hope for a resurrection. Others were concerned that the trials might fail to convict some or all of the defendants under due process, thereby allowing known “war criminals” to emerge unharmed. For much of the world this was the first time they had become aware of the full extent of the Nazi atrocities, and prosecutors made extensive use of live footage from the liberation of various concentration camps to help make their case very effectively.
The second set of objections were essentially philosophical. Can there be such a thing as a “war crime”? If so, how to define it? And who can be held responsible for such acts, only those giving the immediate orders, those higher up in charge of the overall campaign, or those at the bottom of the totem pole whose defence would be that they were “just carrying out orders.”? And who can legitimately sit in judgment?
Despite these various challenges the trials were a political and ethical success.. In the end, Goring and 19 other defendants were convicted Of those convicted, 12 were sentenced to death, while others received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. Three defendants were acquitted, and two (including Goring) managed to commit suicide before the death sentence could be imposed.
The success of the Nuremberg trials in bringing to light such heinous acts, and in attempting to solve the philosophical concerns raised by drafting the rules under which they operated, arguably led to a variety of subsequent positive developments, such as the 1949 Geneva Convention on the rules of war. The Convention and Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
By 1960, when the Israeli secret service captured notorious Nazi official Adolph Eichman hiding in Argentina, it was considered de rigueur to transport him to Israel, where he was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for his war crimes.
Shortly after the end of the Nuremberg trials, an initiative was launched to form a permanent international court to handle any such matters in future. Canada was among the leaders in promoting this body, which finally received sufficient support after the atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia had become well-known. Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy took a lead role in the final push to achieve this objective, and the result was the International Criminal Court, (ICC) “an independent, permanent court of last resort with jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression.”[i]
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“the Rome Statute”) was adopted by a vote of 120 States in favour, 7 against and 21 abstentions. On December 18, 1998, Canada was the 14th country to sign the Rome Statute. On June 29, 2000, Canada enacted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and became the first country to adopt comprehensive legislation implementing the Rome Statute. In addition, “the Government of Canada sponsored two Canadian organizations to produce a detailed technical manual on how to implement the Rome Statute. The manual is designed to encourage and enable other countries to ratify and implement the Rome Statute in support of the ICC.”[ii]
Over time the Court, located at the Hague in the Netherlands, has held groundbreaking trials, for example regarding ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Bosnian Serb military commander Radovan Karadzich (the “Butcher of Bosnia”) was convicted of genocide and sentenced to life in prison.
The Canadian connection with the Court has continued to be strong. In February 2003, Canadian Philippe Kirsch was elected as judge of the International Criminal Court. He was subsequently elected president of the ICC and served until 2009.In December 2017, Canadian Kimberly Prost was elected as judge of the International Criminal Court for a nine-year term.[iii] (Interestingly, the United States had not signed the Rome Statute nor participated in the Court. In April 2025 President Trump sanctioned Justice Prost for allowing the ICC to launch an investigation into the actions of American military stationed in Afghanistan.)
In 1948 the Americans spearheaded one of the great post-war projects of all time when they launched the Marshall Plan, which delivered approximately $13.3 billion in aid to 16 countries in Europe, including Germany, and was alternately known as the European Recovery Plan. Having learned the lesson of the overly punitive Treaty of Versailles after World War I, the plan’s primary goal was to achieve political stability and establish democracy in Europe, in part by reviving industrial and agricultural productivity, creating stable markets and counteracting the spread of communism. By the time it ended in 1953 its success was widely recognized, and its creator, American Secretary of State George C. Marshall, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Many historians argue the Plan also led to the evolution of the European Economic Community which subsequently became the European Union, and to the more than six decades of peace that followed.
Although it may not be an achievement on the same scale, the contribution of the Nuremberg Trials to the establishment of a recognized world order with internationally accepted rules and prohibitions in the conduct of war might be recognized as having increased awareness of and perhaps limited the repetition of the types of crimes against humanity committed by the defendants in those trials. Perhaps one demonstration of the effectiveness of their successor, the ICC, will be the eventual trial in the Hague of Vladimir Putin.
[i] https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court
[ii] Op cit
[iii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-judge-icc-trump-1.7613704
