The things you find on the internet! Profiles in Courage was a television series that aired on NBC in 1964-1965. The historical dramatizations lauded figures from American history who took unpopular stances based on principle. The springboard for the series was the book attributed to the recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy, but actually ghost-written by his aide Ted Sorenson. The above episode features Senator Robert A. Taft (R.Oh.) and his criticisms of the Nuremberg war crime trials. Taft had four main criticisms:
The trials violated the “fundamental principle of American law that a man cannot be tried under an ex post facto statute.”
The trial of the “vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with forms of justice.”
The trials were based on the “Russian idea of the purpose of trials, government policy and not justice, having little relation to our Anglo-Saxon heritage.”
The trials and its sentences would not “discourage the making of aggressive war, for no one makes aggressive war unless he expects to win”.
Taft made his criticisms at a speech at Kenyon College on October 5, 1946. The reaction to his speech was overwhelmingly negative among both Republicans and Democrats, and it may well have been the deciding factor in preventing him from getting the GOP nomination for President in 1948 and 1952. Henry Clay once famously said, “I’d rather be right than be President.” Taft agreed with Clay, and, like Clay, he never would be President.
Personally I believe it was necessary to punish the Nazi leaders after the War. I agree with Taft that the manner in which it was done was shaky, at best, as a legal matter. However, sometimes it is better to do something essential badly than not to do it at all.
I see some of Taft’s points, but I’m not sure of the first: how can you argue that mass-gassing of innocent citizens was somehow not against the law?
How could our government assassinate these revered high officials of the National Socialists? These are the consummate selfless servants of the people who made the trains run on time! Did the administration take into account the dire consequences that might follow? All letters and memorandums of those involved in the decision to proceed with these assassinations must be made public for the American people. Congress must act, and act now in this urgent crisis, to limit the powers of this government run amuck. Thank God that sometime in future mothers of such children will be able to murder them in their wombs before they take power in our republic. Thank God for us who perceive the danger and can warn the people.
Thankfully we know, without a doubt, that the Clintons had nothing to do with this suicide.
Guy, Texas
PS-Question: Has anyone heard of the conscious decision to keep secret, and not air at these trials, the demonic cult of the National Socialists and its outright satanism?
Under the law that governed, or rather misgoverned, the Third Reich it would have been a hard case to make, as the government had broad latitude to take measures to preserve public order. Nazi jurists also held that the will of Hitler was the primary law of the Third Reich and overrode statutory law when it was in conflict with that will. Then you also have to prove that the accused played a role in ordering the gassings, and that is not easy based on the records which survived the wholesale destruction of records by the Nazis as their thousand year Reich, mercifully, came to an end in its 12th year. The best argument would be that treaties signed by Germany were violated, but that is weak tea for a criminal prosecution.
Hm; an argument based on a recognition of basic human rights to not be killed would be better, but possibly also dangerous– the “international community” isn’t incredibly strong on not abusing precedents, after all.
They needed to be punished because they were obviously wrong.
And then it gets complicated.
“that treaties signed by Germany were violated”. I’m pretty sure that’s not a capital offense and if it was who would be held guilty? Those who ordered it (civilians and military) those who built the arms (civilians), those who crossed the border, etc.? Herr Hilter paid a price for leadership.
I always thought the trial was a charade. The ancient Roman way of capturing the defeated leader, dragging him in chains to the Victorious leader to be executed would have been simpler.
And arguably more honest. Well, at least more forthright.
Well, they could have been put on trial in the countries they invaded without a declaration of war. However, Poland was handed to Stalin and was powerless to do anything.
The NSDAP was a criminal organization and its leaders deserved punishment.
Penguin’s Fan,
Yes, they deserved to be punished, but the trial was meaningless and unnecessary. I think Don’s summary of Taft’s position makes much sense. (I still need to watch it.) But were they the only guilty? Setting aside the events in the Pacific, who were worse, NSDAP and the war they waged and the millions they murdered, the Soviets and the many more people they enslaved and murdered for 70+ years or the Western powers who willingly gave all of eastern Europe to the Soviets?
While it is difficult to second guess the WW2 Allied leadership, they KNEW who the Soviets were and yet they still sold out the people of eastern Europe. Pretty evil in my eyes.
While it is difficult to second guess the WW2 Allied leadership, they KNEW who the Soviets were and yet they still sold out the people of eastern Europe. Pretty evil in my eyes.
There was absolutely no taste among the Allied leadership, except for Patton, to end one bloody war with the Third Reich and to begin another war with the Soviet Union, and it would have taken a war to eject the Soviets from Eastern Europe.
Don, you misunderstand me. I’m referring to the conferences, held during the war, between the Allies that divided Europe, between Western and Soviet “spheres of influence”, specifically in October of 1944 in Moscow. Eastern Europe’s fate was decided for them / handed over to them.
I question why this was necessary. Would the Soviets stop fighting if that wasn’t agreed to? I doubt it.
The conferences merely recognized reality on the ground. If they had never occurred the Red Army would never have withdrawn from Eastern Europe after the War. Of course the Soviets also pledged to democratic elections at the Yalta Conference, a pledge they immediately violated. In Stalin the Allies confronted a clever, and more powerful, variant on Hitler, one who was shrewd enough not to attack the West openly.
It’s probably worth remembering that Stalin played the “we did the heavy lifting (dying)” card and liberal saps were the same then as they are now.
Genocide is not a violation of ex post facto law. “I was ordered to kill.” is no excuse. War crimes must be tried differently from individual persons trials. Yet the war criminals were tried as individuals who made war unjustly on innocent human beings. The Nazi Hunters kept the rise of the Nazis in check.
In searching for Justice, Taft failed.
The Nazis ought to have been tried for treason against Germany. In the words of Claus von Stauffenberg: Sacred Germany.
“It’s probably worth remembering that Stalin played the “we did the heavy lifting (dying)” card and liberal saps were the same then as they are now.”
The Katyn Forest massacre of 22,000 Polish, truly genocide, done by Stalin and blamed on Hitler for over a half century since 1940 tells of a war within a war.
You got my avatar right.
I see some of Taft’s points, but I’m not sure of the first: how can you argue that mass-gassing of innocent citizens was somehow not against the law?
Suppose, in the future when the US is invaded and conquered by some other country or coalition of countries, they hold the Fairfax trials and decide that anyone who approved abortion laws, committed abortions, or procured them were tried for crimes against humanity, even though such actions were legal (in the US) at the time? I can see Taft’s point. Is it wise to let the heinousness of the crime trump fair proceedings? Isn’t that skirting with ends justifying the means?