What do you think?
Rate this book
Der Nürnberger Prozeß. Bilanz der Tausend Jahre
Das Standardwerk zum Nürnberger Prozess. Am 20. November 1945 begann in Nürnberg der vielleicht denkwürdigste Prozess der deutschen Geschichte. In 218 Tagen wurden 240 Zeugen gehört und 16.000 Protokoll-Seiten gefüllt. Am Ende dieser großen Abrechnung mit dem Nationalsozialismus stand die Verkündung von 12 Todesurteilen. Doch der Prozess war nicht nur ein Verfahren gegen die wichtigsten Kriegsverbrecher, angeklagt war ein verbrecherisches System, das international anerkannte Rechtsnormen als Grenze der Machtausübung gänzlich leugnete. Damit gilt Nürnberg auch als Meilenstein auf dem schwierigen Weg zu einem internationalen Strafrecht, das Völkermord und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit zu ahnden erlaubt. Joe J. Heydecker erlebte als einer von wenigen deutschen Berichterstattern den Prozess mit. Nach umfangreichen Recherchen in den Archiven und Interviews mit den Beteiligten schrieb er zusammen mit Johannes Leeb das 1958 erstmalig veröffentlichte Standardwerk, das die zwölf Jahre der nationalsozialistischen Diktatur im Spiegel des Prozesses bilanziert.
613 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1958
37 people are currently reading
358 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 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 30, 2020
Literatura-document mi-a părut întotdeauna cumva stigmatizată. :) Pe de o parte, ea nu se bucură de imaginarul pe care îl posedă beletristica, iar pe de altă parte, nu se poate compara cu o lucrare științifică, întrucât autorul își pune amprenta, oricât de mult s-ar strădui să nu o facă, asupra tendinței ideologice a operei.
Băieții ăștia, Heydecker și Leeb, au depus o muncă uriașă în adunarea mărturiilor postume procesului. Sigur, au plecat de la procesele-verbale alcătuite la cercetările de la Nurnberg, dar nu s-au limitat la acestea, ca niște simpli scribi. Nici nu sunt simpli indignați care vor doar să stigmatizeze și mai mult nazismul, într-o perioada în care aceasta prinsese din nou contur în RFG, întrucât faptele reținute în procesele verbale sunt cele care vorbesc.
Sigur, cu privire la actul de justiție de la Nurnberg s-au adus, încă de la înființare, mai multe critici, printre care nelegitimitatea judecării învinșilor de către învingători sau nerespectarea principiului nulla crimen sine lege, care guvernează materia dreptului penal. Criticile au fost, din punctul meu de vedere -și în teorie!- îndreptățite, dar Nurnberg și celălalte valuri de procese politice postbelice reprezentau singurele posibilități de a încheia războiul cu acești odioși criminali. :)
Caracterul de proces politic reiese din faptul că nu s-a urmărit tragerea la răspundere penală a lui Goring, a lui Rosenberg sau a lui Seyss-Inquart. Iată, de pildă, pe banca acuzaților a luat loc Fritsche (care a ținut locul lui Goebbels, sinucis, pentru propagandă de război) și Kaltenbrunner (care a ocupat poziția SS-ului în boxa acuzaților, în lipsa lui Himmler, sinucis).
S-a vorbit, desigur, și despre "jocul influențelor", achitarea lui von Papen fiind nu doar rezultatul tendinței de a crea aparența de credibilitate a tribunalului, dar și intervenția Vaticanului.
În fond, cartea merită citită, întrucât face o radiografie a celor 12 ani de teroare nazistă, bazându-se pe documentele găsite după finalizarea războiului.
În final, rămâne o sublimă senzație "de tăcere a marii", ca în filmul franțuzesc omonim. :)
30 octombrie 2020
Băieții ăștia, Heydecker și Leeb, au depus o muncă uriașă în adunarea mărturiilor postume procesului. Sigur, au plecat de la procesele-verbale alcătuite la cercetările de la Nurnberg, dar nu s-au limitat la acestea, ca niște simpli scribi. Nici nu sunt simpli indignați care vor doar să stigmatizeze și mai mult nazismul, într-o perioada în care aceasta prinsese din nou contur în RFG, întrucât faptele reținute în procesele verbale sunt cele care vorbesc.
Sigur, cu privire la actul de justiție de la Nurnberg s-au adus, încă de la înființare, mai multe critici, printre care nelegitimitatea judecării învinșilor de către învingători sau nerespectarea principiului nulla crimen sine lege, care guvernează materia dreptului penal. Criticile au fost, din punctul meu de vedere -și în teorie!- îndreptățite, dar Nurnberg și celălalte valuri de procese politice postbelice reprezentau singurele posibilități de a încheia războiul cu acești odioși criminali. :)
Caracterul de proces politic reiese din faptul că nu s-a urmărit tragerea la răspundere penală a lui Goring, a lui Rosenberg sau a lui Seyss-Inquart. Iată, de pildă, pe banca acuzaților a luat loc Fritsche (care a ținut locul lui Goebbels, sinucis, pentru propagandă de război) și Kaltenbrunner (care a ocupat poziția SS-ului în boxa acuzaților, în lipsa lui Himmler, sinucis).
S-a vorbit, desigur, și despre "jocul influențelor", achitarea lui von Papen fiind nu doar rezultatul tendinței de a crea aparența de credibilitate a tribunalului, dar și intervenția Vaticanului.
În fond, cartea merită citită, întrucât face o radiografie a celor 12 ani de teroare nazistă, bazându-se pe documentele găsite după finalizarea războiului.
În final, rămâne o sublimă senzație "de tăcere a marii", ca în filmul franțuzesc omonim. :)
30 octombrie 2020
July 13, 2024
The book was an eye opener for me regarding how the process went. Firstly the accusations were:
1. Conspirancy. Suspects had the target to acquire absolute power.
2. Felonies against peace, 36 international treaties were violated in 64 cases, attacking wars were started and had a world war as consequence.
3. War crimes. Suspects created a bloodbath, mass murder, torture and looting.
4. Felonies against humanity suspects Suspects prosecuted minorities and with regard to race, religion and genocide.
The aim of the process was to prove for all suspects )21) their personal responsible with (pert of or all) of these 4 accusations ). By the way the iq of all suspects was measured and on average quite high: e.g. Göring 138; Seys Inquart 143. All prisoners state they are innocent.
A difficult issue was the war crimes committed by the allied force instance bombing of cities with civilians and torture and rape the Russians did. That is why the air attacks were not part of the accusation. Further only the deeds done by the accused were part of the trial.
The process starts and almost all plead not guilty.
The coming to power is the first item: the fire in the Reichstag was a conspiracy which ended the opposition and the vote of the parliament to give Hitler absolute power by preventing parliament members to attend the decisive vote. A witness confirms that Göring conspired to light the fire but Göring denies it. The enemies were brought to the concentration camps. Göring started with these. Also the killing because of theso called Röhm putsch and his men was according to Göring based on proof. Also the Anschluss with Austria is looked upon in detail which was done to make this happen and Sudetenland, Tjechoslovakia and Poland are discussed in detail and how international treaties were violated by f.i. Göring and von Ribbentrop who stated ‘we want war’ which comes from witnesses at tthe time(count Ciao) and eventually Russia were a peace was made only shrtly before. Also Paulis was aware that while he attacked that this treaty was violated.
After this the tribunal did not speak about the war itself and concentrated on war crimes and crimes against humanity. The propagandists of the nationalsocialism were on the stand: Rosenberg, Streicher, Von Shirach and Fritsche. Rosenberg was the ideologist of the party. He became secretary of the occupied territories. He wrote that Germany will take care of freeing Europe from the Jews. Streicher who was less academic denies that he knew of the mass executions even if confronted with magazines at the time he read were numbers were mentioned and atrocities were described. Von Shirach wrote pamphlets condemning the Jews stating not to spare them. He as one of the few admitted that he had raised to young in faith to Hitler a man he acknowledged in the process proved to be a mass murderer.
Next the fight against the churches which was seen as the enemy is discussed and the program to kill the mentally ill which resorted under Frick. Hess signed laws against the churches and pogroms of the Jews. Moreover he played an important role in the arming of the army for the attacks. Von Papen and Schacht were not fanatisc and had less direct impact, Schacht ended in an kz lager They were acquitted.
Next the honour of the soldiers is discussed. Keitel knew of the plans (acc1) and had an active role in war crimes killing pow’s and civilians and workers. Nevertheless he denied ans states he just was a soldier. Keitel signed many Hitler orders. After questioning Keitel admitted that he gave orders that were contradictory to his soldiers honour. (acc. 3). Jodl despised Keitl for betraying his honour. But Jodl was responsible for the conspracies that led to the attacks (according to 1) He was responsible for shooting pow’s in uniform but denied that he knew it at the time. Further he stated that it was not his task to be the judge over his commander-in-chief thus denying his own repsosibility in the killing of 50 British pow’s who escaped since Hitler commanded the killing. Also Raeder and Dönitz as Navy commanders were confronted with that they had ordered to kill sailors of hostile ships who were torpedoed. That was against war law. The court ruled that it was not clear whether Dönitz ordered it or not so he was concemned to 10 years jail, his defense found that also Nimitz ordered not to save drowning people. Rader got life long prison because of his role during the attacks.
With regard to the extinction attempt to the Jews Göring denied that he had anything to do with this. It is a fact that untill mid 1941 there was no systematic mass killing on the Jews. Hans Frank, suspect, wrote in his diary: migrate to the east what should we do with them there, liquidate them. Kaltenbrunner was confronted with a witness, Stroop, who testified that he had ordered to destroy the getto in Warschau, he denied this.
At the end of the trial the suspects have the last word. Some examples: Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop have no regrets and plead innocent. Keitel acknowledges that he was abused and should have protested. Kantenbrunner denies his responsibility. Rosenberg states he is innocent on the genocide. Frank acknowledged his guilt. Frick had a clear conscience still.
Overseeing this I wonder why there were no believers among the suspects about the theory of ubermenschen and untermenschen since this was the principle behind the genocide against the Jews. Clearly they did not believe in the national socialist ideas since they did not defend these or brought them in discussion. It remains scaring that rascist ideas like this can have such big an impact. After reading Mein Kampf I can understand why Hitler understood that influencing the masses was the key for his reign. All the intelligentia, military and managers were forced to go along in the stream and loose their influence. This mass influence still is a big issue these days. Some populistic leaders nowadays understand this and use it.
Further is appears very difficult to be really objective to one self looking back and overseeing the evidence, I can agree on that based on my own experience. I admire the tribunal who tried to give the accused a fair trial.
1. Conspirancy. Suspects had the target to acquire absolute power.
2. Felonies against peace, 36 international treaties were violated in 64 cases, attacking wars were started and had a world war as consequence.
3. War crimes. Suspects created a bloodbath, mass murder, torture and looting.
4. Felonies against humanity suspects Suspects prosecuted minorities and with regard to race, religion and genocide.
The aim of the process was to prove for all suspects )21) their personal responsible with (pert of or all) of these 4 accusations ). By the way the iq of all suspects was measured and on average quite high: e.g. Göring 138; Seys Inquart 143. All prisoners state they are innocent.
A difficult issue was the war crimes committed by the allied force instance bombing of cities with civilians and torture and rape the Russians did. That is why the air attacks were not part of the accusation. Further only the deeds done by the accused were part of the trial.
The process starts and almost all plead not guilty.
The coming to power is the first item: the fire in the Reichstag was a conspiracy which ended the opposition and the vote of the parliament to give Hitler absolute power by preventing parliament members to attend the decisive vote. A witness confirms that Göring conspired to light the fire but Göring denies it. The enemies were brought to the concentration camps. Göring started with these. Also the killing because of theso called Röhm putsch and his men was according to Göring based on proof. Also the Anschluss with Austria is looked upon in detail which was done to make this happen and Sudetenland, Tjechoslovakia and Poland are discussed in detail and how international treaties were violated by f.i. Göring and von Ribbentrop who stated ‘we want war’ which comes from witnesses at tthe time(count Ciao) and eventually Russia were a peace was made only shrtly before. Also Paulis was aware that while he attacked that this treaty was violated.
After this the tribunal did not speak about the war itself and concentrated on war crimes and crimes against humanity. The propagandists of the nationalsocialism were on the stand: Rosenberg, Streicher, Von Shirach and Fritsche. Rosenberg was the ideologist of the party. He became secretary of the occupied territories. He wrote that Germany will take care of freeing Europe from the Jews. Streicher who was less academic denies that he knew of the mass executions even if confronted with magazines at the time he read were numbers were mentioned and atrocities were described. Von Shirach wrote pamphlets condemning the Jews stating not to spare them. He as one of the few admitted that he had raised to young in faith to Hitler a man he acknowledged in the process proved to be a mass murderer.
Next the fight against the churches which was seen as the enemy is discussed and the program to kill the mentally ill which resorted under Frick. Hess signed laws against the churches and pogroms of the Jews. Moreover he played an important role in the arming of the army for the attacks. Von Papen and Schacht were not fanatisc and had less direct impact, Schacht ended in an kz lager They were acquitted.
Next the honour of the soldiers is discussed. Keitel knew of the plans (acc1) and had an active role in war crimes killing pow’s and civilians and workers. Nevertheless he denied ans states he just was a soldier. Keitel signed many Hitler orders. After questioning Keitel admitted that he gave orders that were contradictory to his soldiers honour. (acc. 3). Jodl despised Keitl for betraying his honour. But Jodl was responsible for the conspracies that led to the attacks (according to 1) He was responsible for shooting pow’s in uniform but denied that he knew it at the time. Further he stated that it was not his task to be the judge over his commander-in-chief thus denying his own repsosibility in the killing of 50 British pow’s who escaped since Hitler commanded the killing. Also Raeder and Dönitz as Navy commanders were confronted with that they had ordered to kill sailors of hostile ships who were torpedoed. That was against war law. The court ruled that it was not clear whether Dönitz ordered it or not so he was concemned to 10 years jail, his defense found that also Nimitz ordered not to save drowning people. Rader got life long prison because of his role during the attacks.
With regard to the extinction attempt to the Jews Göring denied that he had anything to do with this. It is a fact that untill mid 1941 there was no systematic mass killing on the Jews. Hans Frank, suspect, wrote in his diary: migrate to the east what should we do with them there, liquidate them. Kaltenbrunner was confronted with a witness, Stroop, who testified that he had ordered to destroy the getto in Warschau, he denied this.
At the end of the trial the suspects have the last word. Some examples: Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop have no regrets and plead innocent. Keitel acknowledges that he was abused and should have protested. Kantenbrunner denies his responsibility. Rosenberg states he is innocent on the genocide. Frank acknowledged his guilt. Frick had a clear conscience still.
Overseeing this I wonder why there were no believers among the suspects about the theory of ubermenschen and untermenschen since this was the principle behind the genocide against the Jews. Clearly they did not believe in the national socialist ideas since they did not defend these or brought them in discussion. It remains scaring that rascist ideas like this can have such big an impact. After reading Mein Kampf I can understand why Hitler understood that influencing the masses was the key for his reign. All the intelligentia, military and managers were forced to go along in the stream and loose their influence. This mass influence still is a big issue these days. Some populistic leaders nowadays understand this and use it.
Further is appears very difficult to be really objective to one self looking back and overseeing the evidence, I can agree on that based on my own experience. I admire the tribunal who tried to give the accused a fair trial.
April 30, 2023
Dieses Buch befasst sich mit dem Nürnberger Prozess, von der Suche nach den Angeklagten im Nachkriegsdeutschland, bis zur Vollstreckung der Urteile. Einer der beiden Autoren saß sogar als Journalist im Sitzungssaal. Ich fand es sehr gut und interessant geschrieben. Meine einzige Kritik ist das Cover der Ausgabe aus den 60ern, das es wie einen billigen Thriller aussehen lässt.
Ich würde dieses Buch empfehlen!
Ich würde dieses Buch empfehlen!
March 31, 2025
4,8☆ One of the most interesting and informative books I have read
Read
November 4, 2021I read this book mostly because I picked up a novel dealing with one of the later Nuremberg trials and realized I didn’t really know much beyond the utter basics of what they were. The authors give a good overview of how the trials came about and the procedures during and after. The main focus is on recapping the actual crimes, though, and I will say if you need a refresher about the horrors of the Third Reich, this is not a bad choice, as long as you’re aware that it’s not always entirely up to date when it comes to the research (I found Speer’s portrayal way too sympathetic, for example). Also, the language is a bit dated at time and you have to watch out for the German N-word at times (not used in quotations).
Nazi Germany is a topic every German student is confronted with regularly while at school, and as a student I also read a lot about it on my own. I also went to a Befreiungsfeier at Mauthausen and various other places of remembrance. History was one of my A-Level subjects. I’m saying this to give an idea of my previous relatively detailed knowledge of it, but even so I felt it was necessary to refresh it, and I’m glad I did. “Never forget” indeed.
Nazi Germany is a topic every German student is confronted with regularly while at school, and as a student I also read a lot about it on my own. I also went to a Befreiungsfeier at Mauthausen and various other places of remembrance. History was one of my A-Level subjects. I’m saying this to give an idea of my previous relatively detailed knowledge of it, but even so I felt it was necessary to refresh it, and I’m glad I did. “Never forget” indeed.
March 13, 2019
Czytałem wiele pozycji na temat procesu norymberskiegio, ale jeszcze żadna z nich nie była tak kompleksowa i tak doskonale napisana oraz zredagowana. Wychodzące co kilka lat wznowienie danej pozycji świadczy niewątpliwie o jej walorach naukowych, dydaktycznych i treściowych, jednak często jest tak, iż każde kolejne dodanie treści zaburza te walory. Nie czytałem oczywiście wcześniejszych wydań, ale to które trafiło w moje ręce, w mojej opinii jest dziełem ze wszechmiar kompletnym. Znakomicie przedstawiona strona samego procesu, doskonale, rzeczowo przekazany rys historyczny, (czyniący z niej doskonałą formę także dla zupełnego laika w temacie) to elementy, które czynią z tej książki najlepsze dzieło na temat Norymbergi jakie czytałem kiedykolwiek oraz jedną z najlepszych książek historycznych, która trafiła w moje ręce, nie tylko w zakresie historii II wojny światowej, ale generalnie historii jako całości.
January 11, 2023
Een beschrijving van hoe de overlevende Nazi top voor haar vreselijke misdaden werd berecht en bestraft. Het is echter ook het verhaal over hoe de overwinnaar de verliezer berecht na een oorlog en de misdaden die ook begaan zijn door de overwinnaars - bijvoorbeeld het bombarderen van burgers, massaexecuties door de Sovjets - onbespreekbaar worden.
May 28, 2024
No es una novela pero tampoco puedo decir que es un ensayo, un compendio de lo sucedido en forma escueta en dichos juicios, los grandes ausentes lógico los jerarcas nazis que se suicidaron incluyendo al propio Hitler. Y otro ausente que debio sentarse en el mismo fue Stalin pero todo es como siempre política y diplomacia. Y faltaban otros más. Interesante.
October 15, 2018
Decent history overall of Nazi Germany, making use of the large volume of testimony published during the Nuremberg Trial. This was written in 1958, so there aren't exactly any new revelations, but it's still an interesting read.
November 5, 2021
Very easy to read, is a resumé of the Nuremberg Trial.
It describes the all international political situation before 1933 and the developments since then.
The main cases and evidences are presented and we can find a monstrous scenario.
It describes the all international political situation before 1933 and the developments since then.
The main cases and evidences are presented and we can find a monstrous scenario.
October 7, 2022
Guter Aufbau, nicht schlecht erzählt. Ein einziges Mal wäre mir ein Satz aufgefallen, der sehr ungeschickt und unprofessionell formuliert war, sonst allerdings nicht wirklich zu bemängeln. Insgesamt solides Werk.
July 23, 2021
Es un buen libro con la información más relevante del proceso de Nuremberg.
October 5, 2024
Incredibilă
October 28, 2025
Recomand!
December 13, 2012
Espectacular.
May 10, 2013
Not particularly well written.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews