What do you think?
Rate this book
Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg: The Untold Story of How the Nazi War Criminals Were Judged
s/t: The Untold Story of How the Nazi War Criminals Were Judged
30 years after the event, the historic judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried Nazi Germany's major war criminals continues to haunt us. Was justice done or are the critics right when they point to the continuing persistence of crimes against the peace & against humanity in Russia, Vietnam, South Africa & elsewhere--as proof that the whole enterprise was doomed from the beginning to be nothing more than the judgment of the victors over the vanquished? What went on in the minds of the judges as they listened to the sickening evidence, heard the interminable wrangling of the lawyers, looked at the arrogant, humble, defiant & penitent defendants before them--& tried to render a verdict?
30 years after the event, the historic judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried Nazi Germany's major war criminals continues to haunt us. Was justice done or are the critics right when they point to the continuing persistence of crimes against the peace & against humanity in Russia, Vietnam, South Africa & elsewhere--as proof that the whole enterprise was doomed from the beginning to be nothing more than the judgment of the victors over the vanquished? What went on in the minds of the judges as they listened to the sickening evidence, heard the interminable wrangling of the lawyers, looked at the arrogant, humble, defiant & penitent defendants before them--& tried to render a verdict?
367 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1977
3 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 7, 2013
One of the last papers I researched in high school was about the first Nuremberg trial held in 1946 by victorious Russian, French, British and American forces to judge those who were deemed major German war criminals. Since then I've read biographies and autobiographies of some of the principals, the memoirs of the US army psychiatrist who analyzed the defendants and hosts of books about the war and its aftermath. Consequently, this reading was far more informed--as well as it should have been, the author presupposing knowledge of the war, its setting and its resolution.
When this book was published in the last seventies a mass of material had recently been released to the public which exposed many of the deliberations behind the formation of the Tribunal, the strategies of the prosecutors and the judgments of the eight justices representing the four powers. This, then, is virtually an insider account of the whole affair up until the execution of the sentences.
The structure of the book is as follows. The first major section is about the formulation of the concept of such a court and its instantiation. The second is about the trial itself. The third is about the major grounds of the indictments. The fourth is about the individual verdicts.
What was most impressive about this book is its evenhandedness. When I'd previously studied Nuremberg the tone of the sources was triumphalist: The Nazis were bad, very bad, and the allies were good. Here the lines are not so clear. While the Nazis certainly committed heinous crimes, so too did the allies, and much of the work of the court was to so formulate indictments and judgments so as to highlight German crimes and sidestep allied ones. However, while author Smith allows for the injustice of the tribunal in many respects, he also evinces substantial appreciation for the moderation of the justices who, in his opinion, did in fact advance the cause of international law and international arbitration.
When this book was published in the last seventies a mass of material had recently been released to the public which exposed many of the deliberations behind the formation of the Tribunal, the strategies of the prosecutors and the judgments of the eight justices representing the four powers. This, then, is virtually an insider account of the whole affair up until the execution of the sentences.
The structure of the book is as follows. The first major section is about the formulation of the concept of such a court and its instantiation. The second is about the trial itself. The third is about the major grounds of the indictments. The fourth is about the individual verdicts.
What was most impressive about this book is its evenhandedness. When I'd previously studied Nuremberg the tone of the sources was triumphalist: The Nazis were bad, very bad, and the allies were good. Here the lines are not so clear. While the Nazis certainly committed heinous crimes, so too did the allies, and much of the work of the court was to so formulate indictments and judgments so as to highlight German crimes and sidestep allied ones. However, while author Smith allows for the injustice of the tribunal in many respects, he also evinces substantial appreciation for the moderation of the justices who, in his opinion, did in fact advance the cause of international law and international arbitration.
January 3, 2017
I got this book out after watching a BBC documentary on Nuremberg. The documentary only covered 3 of the defendants. Thought filled with a lot of technical language, the author does a pretty good job of explaining why the 8 tribunal judges voted the way they did. He showed no biases and explained the verdicts through a legal POV. I'd recommend this one for those looking into the legal side of the trial. I would caution those with merely mild interest though.
March 9, 2020
While at times the book reads a little like an after action report, it is full of information I did not previously know. Worth your time to read if you, like me, wonder how one system (e.g. Nuremberg) can seemingly produce legitimate results, while another (e.g. Guantanamo) can’t.
July 28, 2007
I came to this and the other book by Smith from the Ward Churchill archive of footnotes. The central issue at Nurmeberg was two fold: How to get get the Brits, French, and Soviets on board for convicting in steading of just executing Nazi leaders; and how to create retroactive laws by which to perform the convictions given that legally, the Nazis seemed to have broken no laws.
The fact that the US made all this happened tells something not only about law but about way in which humans create nooses, which they think they build for others, to hang themselves.
Bradley Smith is not a lacanian -- but you couldn't tell a lacanian that!
I cannot recall which of the two is the better, but both are dramatic reads in the context of 9/11 and US rampaging.
The fact that the US made all this happened tells something not only about law but about way in which humans create nooses, which they think they build for others, to hang themselves.
Bradley Smith is not a lacanian -- but you couldn't tell a lacanian that!
I cannot recall which of the two is the better, but both are dramatic reads in the context of 9/11 and US rampaging.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews