Nuremberg Trial

by Ann Tusa, John Tusa

Here is a gripping account of the major postwar trial of the Nazi hierarchy in World War II. The Nuremberg Trial brilliantly recreates the trial proceedings and offers a reasoned, often profound examination of the processes that created international law. From the whimpering of Kaltenbrunner and Ribbentrop on the stand to the icy coolness of Goering, each participant is vividly drawn. Includes twenty-four photographs of the key players as well as extensive references, sources, biographies, and an index.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War II, Audiobook, Holocaust, Germany, War

528 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1984

Reviews

[Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of the ten plus books I have read on the Nuremberg Trials I would consider this once the best researched and most authoritative.It loses a star for the beginning which tends to drag and contains a bit of superfluous detail,however once we reach the trial itself it becomes a much more absorbing read.A reader with a more casual interest in the topic might prefer a smaller overview of the process which can be found in a number of other books.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Actually by Ann Tusa and John Tusa)
Published in the 80ies, with access to huge archives which included films of the proceedings, this may be the best general interest book on the subject. Not sure. I've only read one other and this was much better. The Tusas are British, he a Czech immigrant who became a BBC news reporter. At first I was a bit put off with the Britishisms (like the "curate's egg") but also because they criticized the American prosecutors and lauded the British...but after awhile I decided they were right. The book is long and detailed and attempts to understand the people involved, the 22 defendants (including Martin Bormann who was never found and presumed dead) the prosecutors from the US, Britain, France and USSR, the defense attorneys, the witnesses, the judges from the four powers, as well as many others--the jailers, the doctors and psychiatrists, the military officers and men, etc., altogether an enormous cast of characters. And don't forget the press. Inevitably I was having to look up who even major players were and many just faded into other defendants, or other prosecutors, or other judges.

The US organized the effort and paid for all the facilities, including building a courtroom in the former Nazi Palace of Justice, at a time when building materials were hard to even find in a severely bombed out city. The physical and procedural details were as interesting as the people. Early on there were "Ashcan" and "Dustbin" the two prisons for potential defendants one of which was in Luxembourg in a former luxury hotel which lead to news stories about ex-Nazis living in the lap of luxury until the head of the prison organized a visit for the press. IBM provided the first version of the simultaneous translation system now so critical to the UN and other organizations. A document center wrestled with the HUGE amount of documentary evidence, authenticating documents and getting them copied (photostats I think, there not being other copy technologies available) and distributed, in the correct language (English, French, German, Russian) to often huge numbers of participants.

Because the Germans documented everything and because the Allies captured records on a huge scale, the documents were the main evidence in the trial, witnesses accounting for relatively little impact. There were many legal and philosophical issues to deal with: law procedures that were similar in the US and Britain, but different on the continent. The US wanted to convict the whole gang on "conspiracy to conduct aggressive war" but conspiracy was not a usual charge in the other countries. Each country had pet issues they wanted to prosecute specifically, as did the occupied countries who were not directly represented. Russia wanted to prosecute the Nazis for the Katyn Forest massacre, even as most in the West were pretty sure the Russians had done it themselves.


There were personality clashes. Some lawyers and judges were more interested in developing international laws and precedents—in other words, theory, while others were better at practical matters, say, cross examining the witnesses. The Americans were preoccupied with theory while the British were better prosecutors—in general. The trial lasted from November 1945 to the end of September 1946. The hangings took place in October (can't remember date; the book could have used a reference timetable). They all lived in nearby makeshift accommodations. They socialized together and lived in a world separate from the bombed out city. Even in long recesses, few could go home. The Americans did not usually travel home though occasionally wives came over. Travel was difficult on the continent so mostly only the Brits got much time at home.

One issue, though, predominated. While Göring sneered that whatever conclusions came out, it would be just "victor's justice", in fact, most agree now that it was a legitimate trial (no show trial). Three (Schacht, von Papen, and Fritsche) were acquitted altogether while five got prison sentences from 10 years to life. The rest were hanged—they even hanged Göring's body after he'd swallowed a cyanide capsule that even today no one is sure where he got. Many Germans were angry that they were not all hanged!

Altogether a very interesting book about a very interesting legal experiment. I highly recommend it.

[Paige · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

Considering how many World War II books I have read, it's surprising that I went into this knowing virtually nothing about the Nuremberg Trials. And after this book, I don't think I'll need to revisit it.

This was detailed, to the point of exhaustive. The audiobook is about 26 hours long, but doesn't really get bogged down in detail - at least for me.

Bullet point time:
• Very clear depiction of the attitudes of all the defendants and council, but without spending too much time on the character of each. Which leads me to my next point...
• Very fair and as impartial as it is possible to be. Stuck to facts about what did and didn't happen, without diverging into emotional tirades about the character of the men who did those things. I give big points for his one, because it's very hard to give an impartial, non-judgmental take on Goering. (Who was one of the worst people to ever live, in my opinion. (See what I mean? Even I editorialize.))
• Gave credit where it was due to people/countries that history hasn't been kind to. For example, even though Russia wasn't always terribly helpful, and was almost always acting on the Kremlin's orders, it was explained why they did the things they did, instead of going into the Cold War or "down with the Soviet Union" sentiment.
• Honestly just a bit too long. Which I'm not sure is a fair criticism since there is no section I can point to that I would've pruned.
• I would've liked to know more about the defendants who lived. All but Hess were released early, but it is never explained why. I'll have to google.

[مُهنا · Rating 5 out of 5]

مع انه الكتاب مجرد سرد تاريخي لأحداث محاكمة قادة النازيين بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، إلا أنه كان سرد ممتع ومرتب اكثر من اغلب الكتب التاريخية اللي مرت علي.

الكتاب في بدايته تحدث عن صعوبة الوصول الى اتفاق على محاكمة النازيين بعد الحرب بدلا من ان يتم اعدامهم بشكل مباشر (وهذا الكثير كانوا يتوقعوا انه يصير). صعوبة الوصول الى الاتفاق بين الحلفاء كانت لها عدة اسباب من ضمنها الاختلاف على موضوع المحاكمة والجرائم ضد النازيين، الى اشياء مثل موقع المحاكمة وطريقتها.

الكتاب طرح مشكلة عدم وجود اي قانون دولي في هذاك الوقت يتضمن الكثير من التهم اللي تم توجيهها ضد النازيين وكيفية الوصول الى حل لعدم وجود قانون دولي، وكيف انه الحل اللي وصلوا له كان حل ضعيف ومستعجل.

الكتاب حكى احداث المحاكمة وناقش تصرفات وشخصيات المتهمين المختلفة وردات فعلهم اللي تراوحت من انكار حق الحلفاء بمحاكمتهم الى الاستسلام للي صاير ومحاولات إلقاء اللوم على غيرهم رغم الكم الهائل من الادلة ضدهم.

في نهاية الكتاب لما بدأ يوضح اكثر انه عديد من المتهمين سيتم الحكم عليهم بالاعدام حسيت ببرودة في عروقي. بدأت افكر في عدل حكم الاعدام ضدهم. ما لأني اشوفهم بريئين بأي طريقة او كان عندهم الحق في اي شيء من اللي سووه، لكن لانه بشاعة الجرائم اللي سووها واللي البعض منهم كان يشوفها انها مصدر فخر له خلتني احس انه الموت لبعضهم رحمة ما يستحقوها.


بكل صراحة من اكثر الاشياء اللي عجبتني في الكتاب هي مناقشة الجانب القانوني لكل اللي كان يصير هناك في قاعة المحكمة وخارجها. لكن ما اعرف اذا هذا كان بسبب عملي او لانه كان طرح ممتع ومثير للي صاير.

[Nikola Jankovic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Šest godina 2. svetskog rata je vreme strahota, naravno, ali i vreme u okviru kog treba proučavati zlo, etiku i tražiti razloge zašto su pojedinci (i nacije) radili to što su radili. Mene taj period fascinira iz tih razloga, a mnogi su se bavili time - banalnost zla Hane Arend je temelj svega, ali preporučujem i sjajnu Platu za krivicu : uspomene na rat u Nemačkoj i Japanu Jana Burume.

Ova knjiga o suđenju fašistima je teško štivo. Kombinacija dubokih pravnih pravila, počevši od razumevanja razlike između rimskog i kontinentalnog prava (često se tu gube i sudije ili advokati), ali i pitanja filozofije i morala, kao i svakakvih emocija koje isplivavaju za vreme suđenja. Iskreno, ova knjiga je ipak preobsežna - ali s obzirom da je pred suđenje samo iz dokumentacije nemačkog Ministarstva spoljnih poslova trebalo proučiti 485 tona dokumentacije... Možda je i ovo nedovoljno.

Interesantno je kako se ti ljudi brane. Ima tu ajhmanovskog "samo sam radio svoj posao", ali osim što pokušavaju da se opravdaju pred sudom, osećaj je da se često pravdaju i pred sobom. Nekako im je stalo da se osećaju kao dobri ljudi, koji nisu imali izbora. Ili barem da su radili ispravnu stvar. Ne verujem da su Hitler ili Gebels za sebe smatrali da su loši ljudi?

Kajtel: "Nisam ja kriv, ja sam samo pisao naredbe, ali na osnovu onog što sam dobio od nadređenog. Nisu, naravno, krivi ni vojnici, koji jesu ponekad preterali, ali zaboga, bio je rat, šta očekujete od običnog Nemca? Kriv je Hitler, a nemačka doktrinacija, u kojoj su se naređenja jednostavno morala poštovati, dovela je do neželjenih događaja. Hitleru se nije moglo protivrečiti, a nije mi palo ni na pamet, s obzirom na njegovu poziciju." Ispada da je Kajtel bio samo daktilograf, a vojnici su samo pratili naredbe i državnu politiku, bili oruđe političara. "Ne smete kriviti vojsku!"

Suđenje je masivno. Gomila dokumentacije, svaki dokument se štampa, pa prevodi na barem 5 jezika - svaka država želi da učestvuje i da se dokaže, pogotovo kad se radi o dešavanjima na njenoj teritoriji (Francuska, Sovjetski savez). Ako sudije ne dozvole da se ponavljaju slične optužbe, da li na taj način pokazuju nepoštovanje prema francuskim (ili sovjetskim) žrtvama? Ponekad ih jednostavno treba pustiti da ispričaju svoje.

S druge strane, odbrana se hvata za svaku slamku, želi detaljno da uđe u svaku tvrdnju, ponavljaju se svedočenja, a suđenje se ponekad koristi i za nastavak propagande iz rata. Tako odbrana u jednom trenutku traži da se o trošku suda prekopira i prevede na stotine stranica antisemitske propagande i dostavi novinarima (?!), kako bi se objasnilo zbog čega takvo ponašanje prema Jevrejima.

Međutim, optuženi se stalno hvataju u laži - treba prečešljati svu tu nemačku dokumentaciju, ali ako optužba to uradi, nalazi svakakve izjave i dokumenta koji pobijaju tvrdnje odbrane. Sjajna državna birokratija jednostavno je učinila svoje, ponekad je tim vrhunskim administratorima bilo jednostavno žao da spale dokumentaciju u koju su ulagali toliko ljubavi i truda.

Ima tu i onih optuženih, manje doduše, koji ni ne traže moralna opravdanja. Frik nastavlja da se drži filozofije da je "ispravno ono što pomaže nemačkom narodu, a pogrešno ono što mu šteti."

Neki dijalozi su, ipak, teški, i pokazuju da često nema crnog i belog. Nakon potapanja broda Lakonije, admiral Donic daje naredbu da nemačke podmornice ostanu na licu mesta 4 dana, kako bi se pomoglo žrtvama. Podmornice čak šalju i stalne pozive savezničkim brodovima da dođu i pomognu - pojavljuje se samo jedna francuska krstarica. Četvrti dan, puca se na nemačke podmornice koje pomažu utopljenicima - i tada Donic daje naredbu da se prekine sa daljim spasavanjem žrtvama. I ovo ne temelji samo na njegovim izjavama, većinu ovih stvari u stanju je i da dokaže.

Fascinanatan istorijski dokument, ali osim što je opširan, prilično je i zamoran - i sa moralne, a pogotovo sa pravne strane. Potreban ti je baš dubok interes za temu kako bi dogurao do kraja.

[T.R. Preston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely enthralling from start to finish. I stand by the fact that my favourite history book of all time is The Sacred Band by James Romm, but this book is now in second place.

The immediate aftermath of the deadliest war in human history is an extremely fascinating time. It was the haphazard forming of a brand new world that we still live in today. The Nuremberg Trial is one of the most important pieces in the foundation of that new world.

[Vonema · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here I am, a Russian Jewish with a Ukrainian husband, reading this book during the Russian invasion in Ukraine and recognizing every single piece of argumentation and justification the Nazis tried to give: the Russian politicians are saying the exact same phrases.
Besides that, the book is amazing. I wish I read it earlier in life.

[Chrissie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well researched, informative, book for anyone interested in history.

[Maine Colonial · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a terrifically detailed history of the Nuremberg Trial, from its conception through to the execution of the court’s verdicts. I’ve read about the trial (and other WW2 war criminals trials) before, but never read anything with so much background. It is fascinating to read about the long and sometimes contentious efforts of the Allies to decide on what the charges and court procedures should be, which were difficult issues considering the very difference prevailing legal procedures in the Allied countries. They had to decide so much, from how to provide translations and transcript copies, what kinds of testimony would be admissible, all the way down to what the judges should wear and where the defendants should sit and in what order they should enter the courtroom.

I was particularly interested in the Tusas’ comments on the various legal experts. I’d never heard the kinds of criticisms of the US’s Robert Jackson that are in this book. Maybe not surprising, since the Tusas are British, not American.

Once the history gets into the trial itself, of course it becomes even more interesting. If you’ve just seen movies and documentaries about the trial, you will be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the trial consisted of documentary evidence, not witness testimony. There were also films shown, mostly of the death camps. Some defendants claimed ignorance of the Germans’ appalling treatment of residents of conquered territories and of Jews in Germany and the conquered territories, some professed to be appalled, others refused to acknowledge the evidence and, of course, there was always the old “I was only following orders” defense. Though there were some moments of apparent regret, they were usually fleeting and hard not to view as insincere.

The goal of the Allies was to put teeth into the concept that it’s illegal under international law to wage aggressive war. The trial also pioneered the idea of crimes against humanity. If you would like to further explore the development of that idea, and of the notion of genocide as a crime, you may want to read Philippe Sands’s brilliant East West Street: On the Origins of “Genocide” and “Crimes Against Humanity.”

[Jeff Swystun · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my third book on the trials and it is extremely well done. It shows great research and provides exhaustive coverage. Hitler escaped the world’s verdict by committing suicide. When the Nazis surrendered many of its leaders were tried for war crimes.

The International Military Tribunal (IMT) presided over "the greatest trial in history”, so declared by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges present throughout. Held between November, 1945 and October, 1946, the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich.

Where this book distances itself from the others I’ve read and the documentaries I have seen, is the emphasis it puts on international law. That is not a topic I am naturally drawn to, but in the context of this trial, it is utterly fascinating. How the participating nations arrived and agreed to the parameters when their rules varied was a feat of diplomacy and decorum. The authors point out that the world was weary of war and they could have held a rushed, show trial. Instead, they were deliberate but not drawn out.

What guided the proceedings was this thought, “We must make it clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.” Clearly, given the destruction, deaths and ideology, someone had to be punished.

I was impressed by the intellect of the litigators. “We do not accept the paradox that legal responsibility should be least where the power is the greatest.” That came from the American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson and he went on to quote Lord Chief Justice Coke’s rebuke to James I, “A King is still under God and the law.” Unfortunately, in our world the rich and powerful tend to escape responsibility.

The questioning was fascinating. One prosecutor asked Ribbentrop if he knew what a ‘yes-man’ was. “Yes, said Ribbentrop, in German it means ‘a man who obeys orders and is obedient and loyal’. Unwittingly he had produced an epitaph for Nazi officialdom.”

Of the 24, Martin Bormann, Chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery, was tried in absentia and sentenced to death. The body of Bormann was discovered in Berlin in 1972. Hitler’s chief sycophant either committed suicide or was killed by Soviet soldiers. Goering stole the show at the trials as was his way.

He surrendered with steamer trunks of fancy dress and plundered art and jewelry. Apparently, his fingernails were painted and he had an enormous pill-popping dependency. On the stand, he was glib and sarcastic. Rather than face the noose, he took a cyanide pill. Its existence was a mystery given the searches and time that had elapsed since he had been in custody. Some believe a sympathetic American jailer slipped it to him. Eleven would be hung and the others received varying imprisonment, acquittals, or no decision.

I nearly jumped when I read of Ernst Friedrich Christoph "Fritz" Sauckel's last words. He was a Nazi politician found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity mainly for his use of slave labour. As the hood was going over his head, Suackel said, “God protect Germany and make Germany great again.

[Mimi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a review. Reviews of this text can be found on the book page. The top ones are really good.

* * * * *

trigger warning: all of them

Some thoughts so far at 60%

I don't read much nonfiction and rarely historical nonfiction and, even rarer, comprehensive, lit-review style nonfiction about a specific time period, such as the events leading up to the Nuremberg trials, the meticulous documentation of the Holocaust, those documents' role in the trials, and the aftermath of Nuremberg, otherwise known as how we've come to define war crimes and crimes against humanity. You get all of that while you read about how the trials are set up, who's involved, who called the shots, the prosecution side, the defense sides, each person on trial, what they did during the war, and what became of them. So the scope of this book is both macro and micro, covering as much ground as possible, while telling a comprehensive recounting of the trials.

The definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity are a lot more vague and muddled than I'd expected; it's almost like the architects of these terms had foresight and were afraid that one day their own nation/government could be guilty of war crimes and face a similar series of publicized trials. So they left the terms vague to preemptively cover their countries' asses, which negated the whole point of having such a series of publicized trials, yeah? Or maybe my reading of this text is skewed at the moment. Also, the punishment for individuals guilty of documented war crimes is so much less than what they deserve.

Ann and John Tusa have compiled so much information to retell the progression of the Nuremberg trials almost as though they are unfolding in real time for the reader. I say "almost" because the text gives you the benefit of hindsight and the gravity of all the genocides that have happened since WWII and our repetitive inability (unwillingness?) to stop them. So it's surreal to read about Europe after the devastation of the war finding out about the extent of the Nazis' crimes and promising "never again." Yet, we know it happened again and again in every decade since.

This text is a hard read because of the subject matter, but the way in which the book is set up and the straight-forward style of the writing make it easier to follow along and process all the things that happened and all the things that came out of Nuremberg.

* * * * *

I finished reading a few weeks ago, but didn't know how to process the last ~10% of this text or how to take in everything that I'd learned about the Nuremberg trials.

On one hand, I'm glad to have read this book from beginning to end because it's a horizon-broadening kind of experience, and it explains so much about all the hang-ups and posturing of the international court system and, by extention, why nothing ever gets done in that court anymore in recent years. There's a reason why it takes forever (easily over a decade) to try anyone for genocide and even longer if there is a governing body behind that person helping to shield them from not going to trial. And that reason is bureaucracy and the delicacy of international relations. Oh, and also nukes. Can't forget about those warheads. The more nukes a governing body has, the more likely their war criminals get off scot free.

On the other hand, all this knowledge has only made me angrier. When you know how these trials are supposed to go, you naively expect them to play out like Nuremberg but be better than Nuremberg because we're supposed to have learned from those mistakes and fix them. You expect war criminals to be tried, have their crimes presented to the world, and then it's either prison or execution--whatever the court decides. How naive of me to believe in court systems. I should know better and should only believe in the number of nuclear warheads.

(note: believe there are warheads, but don't believe in the creative accounting or reporting of said warheads. There's always a lot more than what the accounting shows.)

I feel like I should say something or at the very least acknowledge the role "victor's justice" played in establishing the boundaries and reach of the international court system and how it remains a precedent but also a hindrance in later war crime trials and an "excuse" guilty parties trot out to fight their charges, but I don't know where I'm going with this and this sentence is getting too long without getting to a point.

Even though the Nuremberg trials were a historic success, they couldn't be replicated for later war criminals. That is the most profound thing I'd learn from this text.

[Beige Alert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. As an academic history book, it's too mired in opinion/editorializing, Brit bias, and a terrible lack of access to any Russian documents from the period.

As a popular history, it's too finely detailed and gets bogged down in minutia.

My knowledge of the Nuremburg Trial prior to this book was the encyclopedia version. I did learn a great deal and mostly enjoyed the doing so. If I were to read it again, I would have started with the defendant bios at the beginning instead of the end. I kept running to Wiki for quick sketches and memory joggers since there were so many people on trial.

It was hard to read this without thinking about the second Iraq war or the current war in Ukraine, particularly within the context of both of those aggressive wars being initiated and waged by prosecution countries. Perhaps there is an alternate universe where GWB and Cheney are finishing out a 20 year sentence somewhere.

[Joe Flynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitive and exaustive history of the famous NAZI war crimes trail following the end of WW2.

Beautifully written, containing detailed descriptive information and cool analysis - with a few wry jokes thrown in to boot!

It is very much a history of the trial itself, not the crimes that led to it. I am sure it is mandatory reading for international law students, but maybe not so essential for the lay reader, and I am a major WW2 nerd. It gets granular, with the legal careers of the judges and the parties the staff went too all covered, as well as the boredom of large parts of the proceedings - that comes across all too clearly.

Great on the philosophical underpinnings and international constraints of the very concept, and on how this led to the post war (especially post cold war) international criminal justice systems.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comprehensive overview of the Nuremberg trials including their genesis in the mind of American Justice Jackson and the arduous preparations for and conduct of them in the middle of a devastated, defeated country. The conduct of the trial itself and the characters is gripping - Jackson's disastrous cross examination and Shawcross's saving the day, the smooth chairmanship of Lawrence, the bitterness of judges Biddle and Birkett. Justice is rarely perfect and it wasn't perfect here, with the hanging of the odious Streicher without real justification when he had no hand, act or part in the crimes and the decision not to hang Speer when he was up his neck in it simply because of his limited contrition and charisma. Even the theory is well handled: the innovation of such a trial and the nature of cross examination that tripped Jackson up so badly.

[Betsy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the Nuremberg Trial with lots of details. Unfortunately, serious proofreading was needed for the electronic version. I enjoyed reading about some of prominent judges and defendants, and learning about the lesser known defendants. This was a black period in human history, but this trial made some effort to see that it did not happen again.

[Christian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastically detailed account of the trial, a part of the war I’d never learnt about before. A trial that had so much influence over how international law is now carried out. Good knowledge of both world wars needed.

[Doreen Petersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historical must read.

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is dense, dark, heavy and a slow go. It's also precisely written, elegant and compelling. I took my time reading it, because it is worth reading and reading with care. I feel like this is the last book on Nazi war crimes that I will have to read, but I'm very glad I did. I did not know anything about the Nuremberg Trial, and as a courtroom drama, and a pre-and post-courtroom drama, it was also compelling and even moving. The trial was a massive international undertaking, and the goals of building norms into international law are so noble and ideal. It made me think a lot about the state of the world and collective respose to atrocity. I don't know if what happened at Nuremberg can ever be repeated, simply because there is not the same threshold of ethical high standards, idealism, professionalism and commitment to morality in the 2020s as existed immediately after the war.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Nuremberg Trial was, and remains, an interesting and unique experiment in international justice. It was not intended simply as a trial of 22 Nazi defendants - in many ways it was not about them as individuals at all, but what they represented. It was an attempt to put the entire Nazi system on trial, the individuals and the organisations they were part of, from the Wehrmacht to the SA, the SS and the German Cabinet, the Navy and the Luftwaffe, the Hitler Youth and the diplomatic service. It may have been 'victors' justice', as Goering scoffed, but in a way all justice is victors' justice. One can only try an individual one holds, after all.

It was also an attempt to bring the chaos, disaster and tragedy of the Second World War to some kind of dignified close, to re-establish the rule of law in a shattered Europe. It was an attempt to establish international laws to govern the actions of nations, to make the kind of aggressive war Hitler had unleashed illegal forever-more, to establish that there would be legal repercussions, that individuals could not shirk their responsibilities and hide behind the anonymity of the 'state'. Posterity will determine whether it succeeded in that or not - sadly, I think the answer is negative.

Reading this book one realises what an accomplishment the Nuremberg Trial really was: from the Americans in creating the court in the Palace of Justice, administering the prison, supplying the building materials, food, accommodation; from the Four Powers, America, Britain, France and Russia in creating the Charter that established the framework of the hearing and overcoming much disagreement and dissent along the way; from the German defence counsel tasked with defending the indefensible, in many cases much against their will; and the individual judges on the Tribunal who overturned many expectations that the sentences were predetermined, that it was little more than a show trial. Few could have expected than any of the defendants would escape the noose, still less than any would be acquitted.

This book is an immense achievement, condensing the ten months of trial, hundreds of thousands of documents, thousands of witnesses, hundreds of prosecution and defence lawyers, into little more than 500 pages without losing coherence, relevance or flow. It's an exhaustive read in more ways than one. The authors don't dwell on the gruesome or gory details, but they never lose sight of the human tragedy behind the trial. Their approach is as impartial as the judges of the Tribunal itself, as impartial as anyone who abhors the Nazi party and all it stood for can be. It's a sobering read, and not as easy one - but I don't think anyone could really understand the Second World War without some understanding of its conclusion.

[David Orenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book: a history of the entire Nuremberg trial, written by a British historian (Ann Tusa) and her journalist husband (John Tusa), covering details from the planning of the trial to all aspects of the trial, highlighting personal approaches and both agreements and disagreements of the prosecutors from each of the 4 countries represented (US, Britain, France, Russia), histories and personalities of the main defendants, discussions before the trial as to what charges should be brought, what even should be counted as prosecutable crimes. The book stresses the lengths the judges and the prosecutors went to to assure the fairness of the proceedings. It is a long book, but never bogs down. I listened to the Audible version, in which the narrator/reader is good, but he does drop the end of words fairly frequently, though not so much as to interfere with the story. Very highly recommended.

[Aleena · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this for the most part, but it is rather dense and not written with the most cohesive narrative. Chapters seemed to be organized vaguely by topic, rather than chronologically, which could be rather off-putting on a cover to cover read. I think this book would work well as a reference text for a college class, where only excerpts are read, but if that was the intention when it was written, it would benefit from titled chapters. As it was, I'd go in to each new chapter not quite knowing what to expect and it made it more difficult to keep a good flow while reading. This book has a lot of great information, but I was very conscious the entire way through of how much time it was taking me to get through it, and I'm usually a very quick reader.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I found most fascinating was the administrative management details - running huge trials with vast swathes of documents/paper evidence in multiple languages, multiple simultaneous translations in court - right down to issues with providing enough copies of documents because there simply weren't enough physical supplies. Knowing there are no computers is different to internalising it!

It's also upsetting that the decision to scatter the ashes of the executed Nazis in an undisclosed location to avoid pilgrimages is becoming more relevant again because of the resurgence of neo-Nazi fuckheads.

[Denise · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive, based on thorough research, and well written - almost three decades after its original publication, this extremely detailed (a little too much so in the beginning, one might argue) account of the Nuremberg Trials remains the definitive work on this important historical subject and should be required reading.

[Aard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the events of the trial, and the people and crimes in question. Especially interesting is the discussion of the difficulty in navigating the different legal systems of the involved nations, most notably British & American Common Law vs Continental Civil Law.

[Parameshwar Ramanan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the most publicised trial of modern days, I was expecting this book to be more of a court room chronicle. But it went well far and beyond to shed light on the act of the defendants to ostracise and commit genocide of an ethnic population blinded by utmost obedience to the patronising nationalistic ideas of a fascist leader. Though there were emotions ranging from repentance to unabashed condoning of the acts from the defendants, this book holds a mirror to the past and to the future on what happened and can happen when a hate filled ideological group idolising a fascist leader can bring to the society.

[John Hawksworth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finished this book at the end of May, apologies for the delay in the review.
A fascinating insight into some of history's most evil men. Can get a bit heavy going with the legal jargon, but still a great book.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

"If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, that there are no slain, that there has been no crime." — Robert Jackson, Chief US Prosecutor

Sobering, weighty, era-defining. This gripping account of the Nuremberg Trial is essential reading for anyone interested in ethics or 20th century history. The story telling is captivating without being sensational.

From a theological point of view, the discussions around the trial's methodology and rules, along with its limitations as a result of workload, language barriers, and even the lawyers' misjudgments and inadequacies will really get the cogs turning and prompt questions about what an "ideal trial" would look like. Equally fascinating are the defendants' attempts to excuse/justify themselves with excuses that come up over and over to the point where it's difficult to decide whether they become cliche or comical ("I didn't know!" "I was only following orders!" "I was only giving orders!"). I'd recommend it to any Christian wrestling with divine justice and judgement day.

[Ali Etrati · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you don't learn from history....

[David Highton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A mammoth and comprehensive account of the international military tribunal held from November 1945 to September 1946, with 22 senior Nazi defendants. Totally fascinating and incisive account.

[Minerva · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a phenomenally well-researched and detailed explanation of how Nuremberg came to be and the processes used throughout. It’s free of some of the more biased opinions you get in some of Telford Taylor’s writings and is candid about shortcomings of all parties. A must read for anyone interested in war crimes, law of war, national liability, and national decision making, or who thinks Nuremberg was rubber-stamped victor’s justice.