Subscribe now for full access and no adverts
The Nuremberg Trials, held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, saw leading Nazi war criminals brought to justice following World War II. These groundbreaking trials were the first occasion on which an international court was convened to hold individuals, rather than states, directly accountable for grave violations of international law, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. It was a move that also represented a shift from vengeance to legal accountability for the accused.
The rationale for selecting Nuremberg as the trial site was multifaceted. The Bavarian city was symbolic, of course, as the site of the infamous Nazi rallies, and the Allies wanted Nuremberg to symbolise the death of Nazism. Additionally, it had a large, undamaged courthouse and prison facilities suitable for such a significant undertaking. It was thus that Courtroom 600 of Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice was chosen as the venue for these historic trials. Furthermore, standing as it did at the heart of the newly designated US-occupied zone of Germany (see MHM 148, October/November 2025), the choice of Nuremberg took on additional significance, considering the emerging post-war tensions between the Allies.
Historic shift
The Nazi regime orchestrated some of the most heinous crimes in human history. It is estimated that almost 16 million people were killed as a result of its actions between 1933 and 1945 – including the systematic extermination of six million Jews in the Holocaust, along with political dissidents, disabled individuals, and a variety of other minorities. The scale of these crimes highlighted the need for accountability and justice as never before. The Allied powers, comprising the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France, recognised the necessity of a formal tribunal to address the atrocities.
Planning for the tribunal commenced prior to the conclusion of World War II, with significant discussions being held at the Moscow Conference of foreign ministers in October 1943. Here, the Declaration of Atrocities was signed, committing the leading Allied powers to pursuing the prosecution of major war criminals at the end of the fighting. The first unified Allied commitment to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, the declaration marked a historic shift towards personal responsibility in international law, and showed a clear difference from previous agreements, such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions (see box below), which had established norms for warfare. The message was clear: major war criminals would now face legal justice rather than collective punishment or retribution.
The procedures for the Nuremberg Trials, and the framework for the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which established the legal framework, were subsequently detailed in the London Agreement, signed on 8 August 1945. This brought the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France together under common rules, ensured the impartiality of proceedings, and set procedural safeguards for the accused. The agreement’s structure influenced later international tribunals, and helped to shape modern international criminal justice.
In the days before the German surrender on 8 May 1945, the new US President Harry S Truman appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H Jackson to represent the country as chief prosecutor. Jackson was an influential lawyer and jurist who had also served as US Attorney General. Combining high-level government service with judicial leadership, this made him highly qualified to lead the prosecution of Nazi leaders. Appointed to work alongside Jackson as the chief British prosecutor was Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General for England and Wales, who brought a reputation for integrity and legal acumen to the proceedings. François de Menthon, a distinguished lawyer and statesman, served as France’s chief prosecutor, while the Soviet Union was represented by Procurator General Roman Rudenko. Together, these leading figures from the Allied powers played pivotal roles in delivering justice at Nuremberg.
Moral choices
The legal foundations outlined in the IMT charter defined three main categories: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. ‘Crimes against peace’ included the planning, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression. ‘War crimes’ encompassed violations of the laws and customs of war, such as the mistreatment of prisoners of war and the killing of hostages. ‘Crimes against humanity’ involved widespread atrocities committed against civilians, including genocide, enslavement, and deportation. These definitions provided a clear legal framework for prosecuting the war’s most egregious acts.
The Nuremberg Trials introduced other innovations in international law that reshaped global justice. Most notably, they established the principle of individual criminal responsibility, affirming that leaders and officials could be held accountable for international crimes regardless of their rank or state authority. This was a radical departure from previous norms, which largely shielded individuals behind state sovereignty. The Trials also rejected the defence of ‘just following orders’, ruling that obedience does not absolve a person from responsibility where a moral choice exists. These principles would later be codified as the Nuremberg Principles, endorsed by the United Nations, and became the cornerstone for future international tribunals.
The influence of Nuremberg extended far beyond the courtroom. It laid the groundwork for modern human-rights law, and inspired key instruments such as the Genocide Convention, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over time, these developments led to the creation of global criminal tribunals, and ultimately to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. By demonstrating that justice could transcend borders and political power, the Nuremberg Trials transformed international law from theory into enforceable practice, setting a precedent that continues to shape accountability for atrocities today.
Major figures
The Trials featured 24 high-ranking Nazi officials as defendants. The prosecution presented a comprehensive case against the defendants, utilising a vast array of documentary evidence, first-hand witness testimonies, captured Nazi records, and film footage to demonstrate the extent of the crimes committed. Among the most important testimonies was SS General Otto Ohlendorf’s admission of leading Einsatzgruppen, or ‘mobile death squads’, which confirmed the systematic nature of mass executions in Eastern Europe; while Rudolf Höss, former commandant of Auschwitz, detailed the industrialised killing process, including the use of gas chambers and crematoria.
Eye-witness accounts added powerful human dimensions to the evidence. Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, a French resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor, vividly described conditions at the camp and the horrors of the gas chambers. By combining documentary evidence with personal accounts, these testimonies secured convictions and established lasting precedents for accountability.
The defendants employed several key strategies to avoid any admission of personal responsibility. One common argument was that of ‘superior orders’, whereby defendants claimed they were merely following commands from higher authorities. For instance, Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of the German High Command, insisted he had no choice but to obey Hitler’s directives. Another strategy was the ‘ex post facto law’ argument, whereby figures such as propaganda official Hans Fritzsche contended that charges such as ‘crimes against humanity’ were not recognised under international law during the war, making the Trials retroactive.
Some defendants invoked state sovereignty, arguing that their actions were the result of official policy rather than personal decisions. Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Nazi foreign minister, claimed that his role in diplomatic agreements was part of his state duties. Others opted for denial or minimisation – including Albert Speer, the architect who served as minister of war production. He admitted moral guilt, but played down his knowledge of the Holocaust, portraying himself as a technocrat focused on armaments. Finally, some, such Hitler’s chosen successor Hermann Göring – portrayed by Russell Crowe in the recent film Nuremberg (see our review in MHM 150, February/March 2026) – argued that the Trials represented political motivation or victor’s justice, asserting that the Allies were punishing Germany for losing the war rather than applying impartial law.
The various defence strategies employed at Nuremberg failed chiefly because the Tribunal made clear that individuals could not avoid responsibility by claiming they were following orders, acting under state policy, or being judged by retroactive laws. The judges held that everyone had a moral choice, and that international law could punish grave crimes even if not codified at the time. By dismissing these arguments, Nuremberg set a lasting precedent that leaders could be held personally accountable, shaping the approach of later international tribunals.
Verdicts delivered
The verdicts were delivered on 1 October 1946. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death, three were acquitted, and the others received varying prison sentences. The executions were carried out on 16 October, with the bodies being cremated and their ashes scattered on the Isar River, near Munich, to prevent any memorialisation.
Göring, once the head of the Luftwaffe, was the most prominent defendant. He had played a central role in the militarisation of Germany and the plundering of occupied territories; he was convicted of all charges but committed suicide before his execution. Ribbentrop had been instrumental in negotiating the Nazi-Soviet Pact and facilitating the invasion of Poland; he was convicted of all charges and executed. Keitel, who was also hanged, signed numerous orders that led to the execution of prisoners and civilians. These included the infamous Commissar Order, a directive issued by the German High Command in 1941, instructing that captured Soviet officials be killed immediately. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the highest-ranking SS officer tried at Nuremberg, oversaw the Gestapo and concentration-camp system. He was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. These men symbolised the bureaucratic and ideological machinery behind Nazi aggression and genocide.
Some prominent figures escaped the hangman’s noose. Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s long-time deputy, who famously flew solo to Scotland in 1941 on a failed peace mission, was found guilty of crimes against peace, and sentenced to life imprisonment in Spandau Prison, near Berlin. He was joined by Admiral Karl Dönitz, Commander of the German Navy, who had succeeded Hitler as head of state in the final days of the war, overseeing Germany’s surrender. Also there was Speer, who as Minister of Armaments and War Production had been instrumental in sustaining the German war effort through efficient industrial management, despite the collapsing Reich. Dönitz was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for war crimes and crimes against peace, while Speer received a 20-year sentence for his role in the Nazi regime and its use of forced labour. Speer stood out by admitting moral guilt and expressing remorse, countering the narrative of total denial among Nazi leaders. In contrast, Fritz Sauckel, who was responsible for providing slave labour to support German war production, was executed – a decision that was striking given his close association with Speer, who received a much lighter punishment.
Legal questions
The Nuremberg Trials were turning point in international justice, establishing principles of individual accountability and defining crimes against humanity – the foundations of modern international law, inspiring institutions such as the International Criminal Court. However, they did not escape criticism.
One of the most fundamental complaints was around the retroactive application of legal principles. The crimes for which the Nazi leaders were prosecuted, including ‘crimes against humanity’, had not been formally codified in international law at the time they were committed. This raised concerns about fairness and legality, as defendants were judged by standards created after the fact. While the Trials aimed to establish enduring norms, critics argued that punishing individuals under newly defined laws violated the principle of ‘nullum crimen sine lege’ or ‘no crime without law’.
Another allegation centred on the complaint that the Trials represented no more than victor’s justice. The proceedings were conducted exclusively by the victorious Allied powers, leading to accusations of bias and moral hypocrisy. While Axis leaders were held accountable, similar scrutiny was not applied to Allied actions. For example, the firebombing of Dresden by British and American forces killed tens of thousands of civilians, and was never addressed. These omissions fuelled the perception that justice was selectively applied to the defeated, and not to the victors. US Admiral Chester Nimitz disputed Dönitz’s conviction, noting that his own country had employed similar submarine tactics against Japan.
Only high-ranking Nazi officials from a narrow group were prosecuted, leaving many others involved in the regime’s crimes untouched. There was a sense that the victorious powers were trying lesser individuals who represented Nazi organisations because the senior figures had fled or committed suicide. Moreover, the Trials focused solely on German atrocities, ignoring earlier abuses and colonial violence committed by Allied nations. For instance, British colonial repression in India, French actions in Algeria, and American internment of Japanese-Americans were not considered. Such selectivity was seen by some to undermine the universality of the Tribunal’s moral authority, and suggested that accountability was contingent on political convenience. Compounding this, numerous junior Nazis and technical experts were quietly absorbed into Allied countries to provide strategic benefits, particularly in scientific and military fields, as tensions escalated during the early Cold War. This highlighted how geopolitical priorities often outweighed the pursuit of comprehensive justice.
Yet another issue centred on the application of inconsistent legal standards. The Trials blended legal traditions from different countries, resulting in procedural inconsistencies. Some defendants were convicted on conspiracy charges with limited direct evidence, while others received lighter sentences despite significant involvement in Nazi policies. The lack of a unified legal framework prompted accusations of an uneven application of justice. Additionally, the participation of the Soviet Union – despite its own record of mass deportations, political purges, and civilian massacres – raised questions about the legitimacy of its role as a judge. For example, the Soviet massacre of more than 20,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forest, near Russia’s modern-day border with Belarus, was falsely blamed on the Nazis during the Trials.
Lasting impact
The Nuremberg Trials represented a watershed moment in the evolution of international law and the global human-rights framework. This is evident in the subsequent development of key legal instruments and institutions. The principles articulated at Nuremberg directly influenced the expansion of the Geneva Conventions, which set out comprehensive standards for the humane treatment of civilians and prisoners during conflict. Moreover, the Nuremberg precedent inspired the creation of ad-hoc tribunals in the later 20th century, such as the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), both founded in the 1990s. These bodies sought to ensure accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in the wake of mass atrocities, reinforcing the idea that such acts would not go unpunished, regardless of where or by whom they were committed.
Beyond its impact on global legal norms, Nuremberg played a pivotal role in Germany’s post-war transformation. The Allies’ denazification campaign, of which the Trials were a crucial part, exposed the depth of Nazi criminality to the German public, many of whose members had been shielded from the full extent of the regime’s atrocities. The Trials were followed by educational reforms incorporating their findings into school curricula, and public discourse gradually shifted toward acknowledging collective responsibility. However, the process was uneven and met with resistance. Many Germans continued to view the Trials as imposed justice, and some war criminals reintegrated into society. Nonetheless, Nuremberg laid the foundation for Germany’s eventual embrace of democratic values and human rights, influencing the country’s legal system, contributing to the development of constitutional protections, and to the establishment of institutions such as the Federal Constitutional Court.
This progress ultimately culminated in the establishment of the ICC, through the 1998 Rome Statute. Headquartered in The Hague, the court was envisioned as a permanent institution capable of prosecuting individuals for the most serious international crimes, thereby fulfilling the vision first articulated within the Nuremberg Principles. However, despite these advances, the ICC has faced significant challenges that have limited its effectiveness. Its jurisdiction is restricted to member-states, meaning that major powers such as the United States, China, India, Israel, and Russia are not bound by its rulings or required to cooperate with its investigations. These exclusions often undermine the court’s authority and reach, especially in relation to powerful non-signatory nations.
Additional criticisms have been levelled at the ICC regarding its perceived political bias, particularly the disproportionate focus on cases from African countries. This has led to accusations that the court is influenced by the interests of certain states or regions, rather than serving as an impartial arbiter of justice. Furthermore, the ICC lacks its own enforcement mechanism and relies on member-states to arrest and surrender suspects, which can result in lengthy delays or outright non-compliance. The court’s proceedings are often criticised for being slow and cumbersome, with relatively few convictions achieved since its inception. Such limitations highlight the ongoing need for reform to bolster the ICC’s credibility, efficiency, and universal applicability, ensuring that the ideals first championed at Nuremberg can be fully realised in the pursuit of global justice.
With hindsight, Nuremberg was a landmark moment in the evolution of international justice, underscoring the principle that individuals regardless of rank or authority can be held responsible for criminal actions. An international tribunal brought leaders to account for atrocities committed on an unprecedented scale, establishing a precedent that resonated far beyond the immediate aftermath of World War II. As lead prosecutor Robert H Jackson famously asserted, ‘We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.’ This sentiment encapsulates the enduring significance of the Nuremberg Trials: they were not only a reckoning with the horrors of the past, but also a foundation for the future protection of human rights and the ongoing pursuit of justice.
Despite the criticisms, the Trials remain a powerful reminder of the necessity for vigilance, accountability, and a universal commitment to justice in the face of humanity’s gravest crimes.
Ben Goodlad is currently a serving RAF Engineering Officer and has a keen interest in military history.
All images: Wikimedia Commons, unless stated otherwise
You must be logged in to post a comment.