Written by Michael R. Marrus, “The Nuremberg Trial: Fifty Years After” is a journal article that analyzes the Nuremberg Trial 50 years after its occurrence. As a whole, the Nuremberg Trial stands as a major revision to international law as a system of prosecution. Despite the large scale of the trial, there is much insight to be gained from trying to understand Marrus’s interpretation of Nuremberg not only as a representation of metamorphosis within international policy, but as an opportunity for open critique of the foundations used to construct our current legal systems. Marrus concludes his article with a section that discusses the understanding of the Third Reich, misidentification, and “Tu Quoque.” In this passage, Marrus brings these topics together, through his analysis, to provide his readers with a final unified understanding of the Nuremberg Trials’ goals and drawbacks.
The passage begins placing responsibility, by identifying who is being charged in the trial. The trial identified the Third Reich as responsible for the Nazification of Germany. The Third Reich was the structural hierarchy of the Nazi party, and it consisted of different levels and cohorts. The passage lists each section of the Third Reich, such as “the Reich Cabinet, Party leadership, the SS, the Gestapo, the General Staff, and the SA.” (Marrus 567) Consequently, an important factor of the case was the prosecution of the Third Reich. To clearly establish a distinction between the groups being persecuted is crucial to Marrus’s analysis of how the trial fell short. Understanding this section of the passage, helps put into perspective for readers the difficulty of running a trial this expansive, for an unprecedented crime. Prior to the trial, the law generally tried individuals for crimes, in which they would receive a direct punishment that aligns with their actions, but now an entire system needed to be convicted. Since the current international legal system could not effectively prosecute the entire Third Reich, people were individually charged. Looking at Marrus’ commentary, 50 years later with greater knowledge of the atrocities from the Holocaust, Marrus’s analysis can be used to pose the question of whether these trials were an effective form of justice. This portion of the paragraph helps clarify Marrus’s remarks that, through holding the Nuremberg Trial, the Allied powers were primarily focused on reframing international law rather than securing justice for the Jewish people.
Marrus also states that the Allies misunderstood the Nazi hierarchy as a whole. Numerous Germans who were being tried were misrepresented in their roles in the Third Reich, which meant they were prosecuted inaccurately. He portrays these faulty accusations as a “careless identification” of the people being charged.(Marrus 567) By dissecting the Nuremberg Trial Marrus starts to remove the guise that it was an overly effective entity. In its entirety, it was not, and Marrus acknowledges this even before the conclusion of his analysis. Following Marrus’s technique of closely examining the text, helps lead to the consideration of how nations such as Great Britain and others proposed the lining up and killing of those involved, which would heavily deviate from proper trial procedures, and be considered uncivilized. Yet, how much more just is it to put people on trial and then try them inaccurately? Is that effective justice? Marrus seems to present this trial as a power grab or show of control due to the lack of initial attention given to the Holocaust. The passage does point out that out of the 6 generals charged, 3 were found guilty, so it does seem the juries were conservative in delivering judgment, especially when there were gaps in understanding of the accused. Overall, this section of the passage aids Marrus’s critiques of the trial and whether the chosen method of prosecution was the most effective.
A saying was brought forward “Tu Quoque” or “you did it too”(Marrus 567), which was meant as a way to draw critical attention to the actions of the acting persecutors. The Allied countries were guilty in some ways of the charges they were prosecuting Nazi’s for. The Nazi-Soviet pact was made in 1939, the Soviet Union would be judged for forming this alliance which undermined the credibility of the trial. There was evidence to describe how the Soviet Union had a prevalent history of attacking Finland and the Baltic states. Prosecuted Germans were expressing their concerns of injustice and unfair treatment because their jurors were guilty of similar crimes. This also leads to my earlier point of whether the trial was a properly effective system to judge this case. The trial wasn’t formulated to have the ability to prosecute a system, because if it could the prosecutors themselves would have also been guilty on many counts. Marrus acknowledges this and it’s why I believe he includes this concluding paragraph in his analysis, since it is now much clearer as to why this trial isn’t infallible. It seems filled with many holes and inconsistencies in order to ensure the Allied powers wouldn’t be held accountable. Systems of power are continuous throughout history and in order to keep the hierarchy, there will always be a lack of responsibility on either end. So, as a review of this case, half a century later, there are still issues of power imbalances in current governmental entities and yet the only way society has continued to find stability is in choosing the lesser evil.
“The judgment is distinguished among classes of members and the nature of membership for future determination of individual guilt.” (Marrus 567 ) This quote from the passage sparked interest due to its mention of “Individual guilt.” The idea that guilt can be measured individually even though the problem occurred systematically is inconsistent, a point that’s promoted by Marrus’s initial establishment of the Third Reich. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee was a program that offered amnesty after the cessation of Apartheid in South Africa. Guilt is determined by the TRC through truth and forgiveness rather than a true legal process. Some would argue that the TRC failed because it lacked the ability to judge a system. The TRC had also looked at the Nuremberg Trial for reference and decided it wasn’t the correct framework. 50 years later these two separate trials can be critiqued differently yet likeness can be found where they are both inadequate. Connecting this analysis of Nuremberg to the critique of other judicial council forms is essential because Nuremberg is the building blocks for so many of these cases, that the only way to understand what Marrsus is saying about Nuremberg is to see how it’s been interpreted by other courts.
The Nuremberg Trial helped construct international law, and significantly influences how our current system prosecutes international violence. This passage is vital to the understanding of Marrus’s views, when trying to understand who was judged, the criteria for prosecution, and the end result. Alike Marrus, reviewing and critiquing vital documents will lead to a holistic view of our society and hopeful change within our governmental systems.
Work Cited
Hoffmann, Deborah, et al. Long Night’s Journey into Day. Directed by Deborah Hoffmann, California Newsreel, 2000.
Marrus, MICHAEL R. “The Nuremberg Trial: Fifty Years After.” The American Scholar, 1997, pp. 563–570.