The Nuremberg Trial: A Landmark Event in International Law and the Prosecution of Nazi War Criminals.The Nuremberg Trial is one of the major events that happened in the 20th century as far as international law and international criminal law within international crimes are concerned. For the first time in the history of mankind, a tribunal, I mean a military tribunal of international nature, that means the first International Military Tribunal, was constituted to try war criminals of mainly Nazi Germany, and they were indicted, they were charged for committing crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, also with the conspiracy to commit these crimes. So basically, the Nuremberg Trial was constituted after the end of the Second World War. We all know that Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, before 1945, that was the unconditional surrender, and already the Allied leaders, namely Winston Churchill of Britain, Franklin Delano Roosevelt of USA, and Joseph Stalin of USSR, agreed to constitute a military tribunal to try the Nazi criminals. Unfortunately, President Roosevelt suddenly died in April 1945, and he was succeeded by US Vice President Harry S. Truman, who appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to be the chief prosecutor representing the United States in the proposed trial for the European Axis power. So Robert Jackson helped the Allies, Americans, British, France, and Soviet governments, to an agreement called the London Charter. Again, I am repeating, the London Charter, setting the procedure for the Nuremberg Trial. The London Agreement created the International Military Tribunal on August 8, 1945, where each of the four Allied nations, namely USA, USSR, Great Britain, and France, appointed judges and a prosecution team. Now I am telling you the list of judges: Francis Biddle, John Parker, Edward Carter, these three were American judges; Colonel Charles Geoffrey Lawrence, he was a British, he was the president of the tribunal; Sir Norman Birkett, another British; Henry Donnedieu de Vabres, France; Robert Falco, France; and Major General, I mean, there were two military officers of Soviet Union who were part of that list of judges of the tribunal. And the prosecutor, the main prosecutor, was Associate Justice Robert Jackson, and he was supported by Attorney General of UK, Sir Hartley Shawcross, and there were also two other prosecutors, France and one was France and other was USSR. So we all know that Hitler committed suicide on 30 April 1945, and we also know that Hitler was fully responsible for initiating the World War II in Europe and across the globe, where more than six crore people perished, including combatants and non-combatants. And just before his death, I mean committing suicide, Hitler executed his last will, and he appointed Admiral Karl Dönitz, Admiral Karl Dönitz, as his successor. So he was the last dictator of Nazi Germany. So basically, he was a hand-picked successor of Adolf Hitler, and his career was not a bright career, I mean mainly he was responsible for U-boat operation in the Atlantic Ocean. So Adolf Hitler was the man who led the Nazi, I mean the National Socialist German Workers' Party, to power in Germany and created the Third Reich, I mean Third Empire. So he was the first dictator of Germany. So he promised that the Third Reich, I mean Third Empire, would last for thousand years. So that was his prediction. So Hitler before committing suicide appointed Karl Dönitz as his successor. We all know that in 1945 the German capital Berlin was encircled by Russians, and Russians were rapidly advancing towards the Hitler's bunker, and Hitler committed suicide. So now I will discuss the main events of the trial briefly. So Nuremberg Trial was held by Allies against the leadership, defeated and humiliated Nazi Germany, for committing war crimes, crimes against, against peace, okay, genocide, and conspiracy to commit those crimes, war crimes, et cetera. So between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany invaded many countries of Europe. The Nazi Germany was responsible for inflicting 270 lakh deaths of Soviet citizens, and after the war, proposals were made to punish the defeated Nazi leaders as already being told by me. So in early 1942, representatives of nine governments in exile from German-occupied Europe issued a declaration to demand an international court to try the war criminals of Nazi Germany. So I already told you that the London Conference held from 26 June to 2nd August 1945, where representatives of USSR, USA, France, and UK met, and they negotiated to form that the trial would take, and the place was chosen as, I mean the place was selected in Nuremberg of Germany. So war crime was already existed in international law as criminal violation of the laws and customs of war, but this did not apply to government statement of his own citizen. So in this respect, I must tell you that after the First World War, I mean the First World War officially ended in 1918 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in France, but the Allied powers did not occupy the Imperial Germany physically, and rather the Allied demanded that, and Allied also held that the German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II was responsible for that war. Unfortunately, he fled to Netherlands, and Netherlands never submitted him for trial. So now who were the accused person? We all know this. Hitler committed suicide, and Hitler's most trusted friend Joseph Goebbels also committed suicide, and Hitler's secretary Martin Bormann fled, and probably he died, and but some Nazis were captured, and notorious Jewish killer, I mean the leader of SS Heinrich Himmler, was captured by the British, and he also committed suicide. So top leaders, top notorious leaders who committed crimes against humanity were not tried because most of them committed suicide. In spite of it, some other notorious Nazis like Franz von Papen, Joachim von Ribbentrop were captured, including that Hitler's second in command Hermann Göring, who was annotated as Hitler's successor, but during the last few days of Hitler's life, he betrayed, and Hitler expelled him, and he was not appointed as German successor. So now point is that what were the evidences against them? So what is summarized? All the national delegations struggled to gather evidence for upcoming trial. The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavit rather than testimony of survivors. This strategy increased credibility of their case since survivor testimony was considered less reliable, and there that that was true because during World War II the everyone was trying to save his or their life. So witnesses' testimony could not be relied, but the prosecution called 37 witnesses, and prosecutor examined 10 lakh, I mean more than 1.2 lakh captured German document, and all were ticketed as evidence. The charter allowed admissibility of any evidence deemed to have probative value, including deposition. The course of trial began on 20 November 1945, after postponement request from the Soviet prosecutor who wanted more time to prepare his case were rejected. All the defendant pleaded not guilty, and that was surprising, but after a long trial, I mean there were France, British, Americans, and Russians, and the accused were provided with defense council. The principle of natural justice, I mean the two basic principle of natural justice were followed, and finally the International Military Tribunal agreed with the prosecution that the aggression was the gravest, asserting in its judgment that because war is essentially an evil thing, to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is a supreme international crime. So most of the accused were found guilty, and some were given death sentence, some were awarded with life imprisonment. Hermann Göring was given death sentence, Hitler's successor Admiral Karl Dönitz was given life imprisonment, but Hermann Göring according to me was the main culprit of that war after Adolf Hitler, and few days before his hanging, few days before his hanging, Hermann Göring committed suicide. So again I am repeating, according to me, Hermann Göring, Reichsmarschall of Nazi Germany, who was believed to be the second in command after Adolf Hitler, was the main war criminal, and he was rightly given death sentence, but few hours before his execution, he committed suicide by consuming a cyanide pill. That is still a mystery who supplied him that cyanide capsule. And Hitler's successor Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz was given life imprisonment. Ribbentrop was hanged, and Keitel, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, was also hanged.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more