I decided to read Nuremberg after the trial got only a short mention in All Hell Let Loose, which I read a few days ago. I knew the basics of the trial, of course, but wanted to know a bit more. The book was fairly interesting, as it is mostly a collection of trial transcripts and diaries written by the participants, with a few short descriptions interspersed by Owen. As a result of it being largely court transcripts, there are moments when the books drags a bit, but it was quite interesting nonetheless.
On a number of occasions Owen makes interesting points about how groundbreaking the trials truly were in terms of setting standards for war crimes and international tribunals. It required, as pointed out by Owen, an enormous amount of negotiation in order for the four powers to even agree on a set of charges, let alone who should face them and what the punishment should be (especially as the Soviet judges were determined to vote for the death penalty in all cases). It is also interesting to note that because the Allies rushed to get the trials started a number of important figures in the Nazi war effort were missed entirely (such as Adolf Eichmann) and in some cases were not even known until their involvement was mentioned at Nuremberg.
Perhaps the most riveting part of the book is the excerpts from the cross-examination of Goering by Robert Jackson, the lead American prosecutor. Jackson was woefully inadequate to the task of crossing swords with Goering, whose wits had recently been restored to full function after he was weened off of his dependance on drugs. Goering managed to avoid answering almost all of Jackson's questions, and Jackson couldn't seem to take control as Goering launched into long-winded defences of the Nazi regime and his part in it. It was actually somewhat uncomfortable to read as Goering took complete control (perhaps I'm too used to seeing defendants taken apart on the stand by Jack McCoy on Law and Order).
There were a number of interesting passages in the transcripts involving a considerable amount of hypocrisy. For example, in his memoirs that are quoted in Nuremberg, Albert Speer claims to have been angry at Goering for whitewashing Nazi crimes and lying about his involvement. Given Speer's own willful ignorance about anything within the regime that made him uncomfortable, this statement seems somewhat ridiculous. In a similar vein, it seems the height of hypocrisy for the Soviets to have presumed to judge the Nazis for crimes such as the execution of prisoners of war or the mistreatment of civilians, given the atrocious war crimes that they were guilty of themselves (especially the Katyn Forest massacre, in which they slaughtered over 20,000 Polish officers). The outrage affected by the Soviet prosecutors struck me as particularly ridiculous.
One thing that disappointed me about Nuremberg was that in several cases it skipped the testimony of defendants, notably Seyss-Inquart. Although it is likely that this was done because the testimony contained nothing of particular interest or import, it would have been nice to read their arguments in their own defence. The book also largely skips the transcripts of the cases against the various Nazi organizations that were on trial. I would have particularly liked to read the evidence the prosecutors gave against the Gestapo and the SS.
Despite missing a number of things that I would have liked to read, Nuremberg made particularly interesting reading. It contains enough background information on the crimes and people involved that it is accessible to all audiences, and I would highly recommend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment