Prosecuting key leaders of both countries deemed most responsible for the war and its horrors as well as many of the perpetrators who executed those policies. To discuss this, we will hear from dr. Peter mcguire, who will discuss the prosecutions that took place in europe. Weinberg,dr. Gerhard who will be covering the trials in asia. I inviteake of timing, you all to read their biographies in the back of your programs as my doing so from the podium takes up our presenters valuable speaking time as well as your opportunity to ask them questions afterwards. Please find your cell phones now and make sure the rigors are turned off so as not to disrupt the presenters or your neighbors experience could affor. Before dr. Mcguire takes the podium, it is my pleasure to give you the first oral showcase of the 2016 conference. Ande are archival footage images with oral history interviews in the museum collection. Conductingrk from the interviews to editing and producing the final piece we are about to see is done by members of my team in the research department. Ishout any further ado, here front row seat at the nuremberg trials. [video clip] \ officersone of three that were assigned to the courtroom of detail of the internal security detachment. Internal security detachment comprised of prison detail and courtroom detailed. The officer would stand by the main door and i would handle just whatever had to be done. Coming into the courtroom, i had to see if they were supposed to be there. I just had to make sure the prisoners didnt talk unless they were allowed to at times. Communications with their attorneys who sat in front. Just had to keep order and had to get everybodys attention when the tribunal mark steyn marched them. When the tribunal came in, i had everybody sat down. Manyer did have too problems except with goering he was always a headache. Hess never was. Hess was asleep most of the time. The one that i enjoyed talking to westerns. I stood next to him during much of the proceedings. When there was a lull during the proceedings, i would check back and forth. , mostlywas just sitting he was ok during the trial. Out when somebody said something he didnt like. He was very arrogant, the only way you can describe it. Initially he was trying to get everybody to team up as a team and act jointly to oppose everything. Nobody really wanted to listen to him. They were not under his command or anything. As much power as he had during the war, that power was gone and they all do it. They didnt listen to him. They ignored him. I like title because he was the prescient chief of staff prescient chief of staff. He was just a yes man to hitlers. None of the orders that came down to the troops from the they were all hitlers orders, but they all had the come through ke itel. He was military prussian bearing through a through. Tenant at the time and the officers after the wars over have to salute the victorious houses. L got a kick out of keite having to salute every time when saluting was required. He would have to salute me. It was sort of fun. Had a couple years where they enlisted me and ive a couple years as an officer. Amount of combat experience and i have a history making assignment at the very end in nuremberg. I got to see all the guys that finally be held accountable. It was sort of a nice wrapup of everything. Sorry for that pause. All right, thank you to the World War Ii Museum for your invitation to speak. Broadly aboutpeak the nuremberg trials, but also a very littleknown secret lease of the convicted not sees as well during the 1950s. Decades after the nuremberg trials, the former prosecutor observed that nuremberg is both what actually happened and what people think happens. He added prophetically that the second is more for the first. The legacy of their bird became a rhetorical tool used to justify any and all war crime trials and a long march toward International Criminal court with universal jurisdiction. A new generation of human rights advocates and journalists pointed to the allied war crimes trials, especially her bird as the centerpiece nuernberg is the centerpiece of the effort. They did more than determine legal guilt or innocence to trials brought about a national catharsis. Important parts of the legacy of nurnberg like the american war and the validity of the trials in 1952 were ignored and omitted. The idea that war crimes trials can reeducate societies is based on the assumption that the did more thanls punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Rather than face profound about sovereign entity and jurisdiction, human rights advocates focused their resources on legal questions and my nation my new show. They believed that trials could succeed where the diplomacy and halfhearted use of military force had failed. International legal activity came in the wake of the cold war. U. N. War crime courts were established. Sitting leaders were indicted during wartime. There was the alien tort claims act to try yugoslavian leaders in absentia. Treatedrican trade testimony and there were even cases considered against Henry Kissinger and ariel sharon. Reached arights era shrill climax in the spring of 2001, notable examples Christopher Hitchens trying Henry Kissinger in the pages of harpers magazine. Samantha powers for the senate or u. N. An investigation of bob perrys atrocities during the vietnam war. The emergence of these new heralds of the human rights era was enough to make one nostalgic for the cold war. Of septemberhadow 11, the 1990s looked more like the rome treaty and the International Criminal court looking to suffer the same fate as the treaty of versailles and the league of nations. If nothing else, the time has come to consider the legacy of nerve bird for what it was and not what we would like it to be. If nuremberg provided the legal and symbolic framework for the war crimes trials, its lessons and legacy are unclear because the name represents a series of contradictory trials with no single lesson to be learned. While the nuremberg trial is referred to in the singular, there were three major trial programs all different in scope and meaning. The nuremberg Trials International military tribunal, be thest continues to central object of inquiry for most folks on the subject. Andeen november 1945 seeber 1946, 22 not germany officers were indicted that included charges of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy. The tribunal sent 12 to death and acquitted three. The trials were hypocritical, but in the end, the collective judgments were conservative and on the whole sound. The soviets president s tainted and there was proceedings in the eyes of germans, but the soviets did not turn the trials into the farce. Truman asked the prosecutor to create and Staff American courts in nuremberg to try the remaining highlevel war criminals. Armed with a charter o modeled after tribunals, american lawyers and judges tried 177 men and 12 cases between 1946 and 19 49, my,. My greatgrandfather was an attorney in one of the trials. These are far more interesting cases because the courts were forced to address these vexing issues in far less certain cases long after the passions of war had cooled. The american nuremberg trials resembled the imt in many ways in addition to punishing the guilty. They intended to create an irrefutable record of hitlers third reich. Defendants were not civilly charged with violations of the customary laws of war, but the same unprecedented standards of international conduct as the imt. Diplomats,aders, ethics leaders, politicians, lawyers, doctors, executioners, businessmen, and bankers faced charges of aggression, conspiracy, and crimes against humanity. Auto fendants included oshea, and rudolph many other highranking third reich officials. Each case produced voluminous Historical Records composed of documentary evidence and testimony. Although the tone and tactics of the prosecution may have seemed vindictive, the american member trials ultimately provided a sound document the record of the nazi dictatorship. On the whole, the judgments were conservative. In the cases involving capital punishment, the defendants were sentenced for violation of the traditional laws of war. The overwhelming majority of judges rejected or avoided the contentious or some might argue ex post facto aggression or conspiracy charges. The decisions in the high command cases, if anything, make the nuremberg america trials appear somewhat lenient in retrospect. Wheree capital sentences for violations of the traditional laws of war. When the final trial ended in april 1949, 142 of 177 were found guilty of those 24 sentenced to death. The nuremberg trials had no existing Appellate Court to review the sentences. Initially this was done inhouse by u. S. Military governor lucius clay. Overlooked by contemporary commentators is the vast majority of war crime trials prosecuted by the United States after world war ii were tried by traditional military tribunals in europe and the pacific. The nuremberg approach tried barely 200 while the military commissions in europe and asia tried close to 3000. And the manilal trials of japanese generals were examples of traditional postwar justice. The idea that victor has the historical publication to extend a wide latitude of civil rights to the vanquished is a recent one. During the second phase of american war crimes policy, 1950 to 1958, american and west german leaders struggle to find ways to release convicted war criminals without challenging the validity of the original sentences. Convicted war criminals in west germany during the 1950s carried out by the u. S. Army for lowlevel criminals and the state department for highlevel criminals highlights the class between the geopolitical need for reconciliation with new and important allies and the recent claims of universal human rights. Many west germans leaders included have the nuremberg management of parole confusing, unprecedented and ultimately illegitimate. In the end the u. S. And the federal republic found a facesaving way of resolving the question to west germanys advantage. Was i legal, nonjudicial posttrial sentence reductions about the state department to ship directions of american war crimes policy 180 degrees without contradicting the prior policy. It is widely known that rudolph hess and other imt defendants were shown little mercy under control that how did the war criminals in ally prisons fair. The west german leaders forcing american patients to release convicted war criminals in exchange for a new german army during the 1950s. In the process, a very basic debate was reopened. Instead of discussing the shocking atrocities committed by many of the highranking convicts, american officials were forced to defend illegal legitimacy of the trials. The nuremberg prosecution supplied documentary evidence succeeded in refuting nonsensical excuses and winning convictions by the public was not one over. Won over. In many ways the gap that was supposed to be established between the regular german body leadersand their actually drew them closer together. In some ways the nuremberg trials he came a contemporary version of the versailles treaty shame paragraphs. The attacks on nuremberg was the same as those offered in 1945 but the political context changed. The new american plan required german goodwill and cooperation. Hitlers former bodyguard reminded American Occupational authorities of this in 1950 when he said, in good faith, even with enthusiasm, we have put ourselves at your disposal. Yet i repeat in the name of all german officers who are working for the future victory in the dies, we will not lift a finger to help but will yield to the opposite point of view. By 1950, all the war criminals convicted by american courts in germany were incarcerated in bavarias landsberg prison. U. S. High commissioner for germany john mccoy announced the First American war crimes releases in january of 1951. One third of the american prisoners were immediately freed and all but seven of the death sentences commuted to prison terms. The primary beneficiaries of the high commissioners largess were german industrialists. With one stroke of his pen all the remaining lawyers and executives and industrialists convicted in the trials were released. The final section of his report with the decisions of the u. S. Army in the dock how another military trials. General thomas handy stayed the execution of all perpetrators of the massacres including set the trick americanstatesman hope these generalists ask generous acts with mullah five, and civic setting guilt for the criminal acts of the third reich, many stepped up their policy and focused the wrath of the legal validity of the nuremberg trials. As germans inflected attention away from the crimes of the convicted and forced the americans to defend the validity of their trials, the very nature of the debate shifted. After five years of occupation and reeducation many germans refused to distinguish between the treatment of those who deserve to be punished and those who did not. These challenges were not allowed in the nuernberg trials. Article three of the london agreement charter for a that forbid legal challenges in the court. German weres, criminals had a powerful lobby group working on their behalf. The heidelberg was founded by former nuremberg defense , and their attorney. Also included representatives from german churches, political parties, and leading jurists. Franz bueller told me how and why it was established. When the trials were finished in 1949, me and a lot of other lawyers had taken part felt an obligation to see the defendants sentenced would get out as soon as possible and principles would not be recognized by the coming government. The same defense attorney who devised a way to enter admiral chester nimitzs testimony and nuernberg began a search or a way to reject the legal validity of the allied war crimes trials. There was a treaty settling matters of war and occupation. In this, all the acts of the military government were recognized by the German Government. In the document we prepared for the central German Government, we recommended a war crimes trial should not be recognized. In a private meeting with he and all, convinced him it was not about accepting guilt or not. Excepting special offer germans and not anybody else. No government could do this. He agreed with this and he was astonishing. Not only did the Heidelberg Service a clearinghouse for information, they drafted the strategy adopted by west germany. Seestructed bueller to the leading politicians who will follow your views. You have to see and instruct them, and that is what i did. Shortly thereafter, german lawmakers made an interesting semantic shift and began to refer to the war criminals as war sentenced or prisoners of war. The most numerous german veteran organizations shared the view that the convicted war criminals were prisoners of war. Sentenced to death by the british in 1947, field marshal lring was freed in 1951. He appealed to general Matthew Ridgway in a letter, and urged him to look beyond the petty spite of politicians. Sir, opposite officer, i appeal to you in whose hands many germans lay. Politics has its limits in military matters and vice versa. The war criminal cases should be separated on political matters. The state Department Public opinion surveys in the weeks following the first war crimes limits the pointed out the lessons of nuremberg had been lost. The survey concluded a fair number of the general public sees all the decisions as political movers maneuvers as rather than expressions of justice. There was a confidential report entitled west german reactions to the lands for decisions. It is clear in the interpretation of these actions they are by and large propagating views varying from the legit american retreat to outright political expediency. Legalistic distinctions like the ones between and is the and parole meant very little at this point. Amnesty and parole meant little at this point. Why is visited their loved one for the final 10 on may 5, 1951. Those who would be executed where commandos and concentration camp cards. Guards. They were hanged at the prison on june 7, 1951. According to german historian, the outcry over this execution in germany proved and provided more evidence that the lessons of nuernberg had not gotten through to war weary germans. The public uproar over the hanging of these blood tainted butchers underlines nuernbergs failures. While the americans were eager to transfer the convicted war criminals to west german authorities, it was not that simple. The state department was aware the western west German Government wanted physical custody but they cannot have it without recognizing the legal validity of the sentences. It provided the loophole that allowed the west German Government to reject the legal validity of the allied war crimes trials. According to bueller, it was drafted after we had a conference with adenauer. The contract will agree with restoring west german sovereignty were signed by the allies in may of 1952 and became known as the vaugn agreements. West german official pollution position on the validity of the trials can be found in article six 6 and seven. There were representatives from each allied power and freedom germans to make parole recommendations. Without calling into question the validity of the sentences. Article 7 appears to be a straightforward endorsement of the legal validity of all the trials. All judgments in criminal matters here to four or hereafter rendered in germany by any tribunal or Judicial Authority of the three powers shall remain final and valid for all purposes under german law. It shall be treated by such as german courts and authorities. Although the west German Government appeared to endorse the trials principles, buried in article 6, section 11 was an exception. Sevenrovisions of article shall not apply to matters dealt with in this article. A good lawyer would never do it like that, with the exception in a different place than the rule. Euler told me it was intended to conceal, no press mentioned it and nobody noticed it. Nuernbergrly as 1952, critics in west germany had succeeded in shifting the debate away from the crimes of the convicted and to the legal validity of the trial. The finding of the most depressing west german public announced inre september 1952. Only one in 10 west germans approved the handling of the war crimes issue. While 59 oved disapproved. The most widely disapproving our populat