Q on Nuremburg Medical Trials WWII....

They had a great defense... they were "just following orders".
They were granted clemency because they were obedient servants in thrall to a greater Evil.

Please check this out:

The Doctors Trial/Nuremberg Code Excerpt

Also this:

Sentences


American judges (top row, seated) during the Doctors Trial. Presiding Judge Walter B. Beals is seated second from the left. The trial was held in Nuremberg, Germany, from December 9, 1946, to August 20, 1947.

Thanks for the Help
Thanks for the useful info......It's still mindboggling to me that some of those people were let off free.....it just seems so unfair
But thanks again for the info it will help with my project

Re: Thanks for the Help


You are welcome for my contribution.

Yes, it is mindboggling, however, I think it is just wonderful that you have taken on this project.

As they say, NEVER AGAIN. However, that won't prevent it without people continuing to study and write and learn from the past.

Thank you for doing so.

There are few points that you should consider:

1. The nature of the trial. The idea of prosecuting vanquished citizens and soldiers in a formal tribunal was without precedent. Previously, either the punishment was dealt out summarily, extended to the entire enemy nation, or not pursued at all. Slaughter of battlefield survivors was not uncommon in ancient times, and still persists in some parts of the world. Troy, Carthage and the Versailles Treaty are examples of punishing the entire enemy population. The decision not to punish the defeated, but to rebuild and nurture them, is mostly an American concept and examples are pretty limited. Some legal scholars, both then and now, argued that there was no preexisting international law to cover some of the crimes charged and that no proper jurisdiction existed. So why were the war crimes trials held at all?

Most important of course, is that the crimes of the Nazis and Japanese were so horrific and repugnant to the world that something had to be done to demonstrate for all time that such behavior would not be tolerated. The simple term for that is Justice. vengeance played a role, as did the need to quarantine some individuals who were perceived as presenting an ongoing threat to world peace. The Tribunal was conducted by the four leading Allies, and each had a Justice to hear the evidence. The legal system might have been on the Soviet model (lets get on with the hanging), the Code Napoleon (guilty until proven innocent, and based strictly on the written law), or the Anglo-American model (innocent until proven guilty after a fair trial). Nuremburg was a compromise. The defendants were individually innocent until proven guilty and were afforded every opportunity to defend themselves, there was no jury but the four Judges, and there was no appeal from the sentences handed down. The Soviet Judge was the most adamant that the punishments be hanging, but the British, American and French Judges worked very hard to be as fair as their disgust with the defendants allowed.

The number of potential defendants was extremely large, and in the chaos that accompanied the end of the war, many of the most guilty disappeared. Evidence appropriate to trial was secondary to winning the war, and often wasn't even thought of. Witnesses were traumatized, dead, or missing. Documents were destroyed in the fighting, or by Nazi's covering their tracks, or simply lost in the literally billions of documents that were captured (some of which have yet to be translated). The trials had to go on in a timely fashion before what evidence that did exist was lost. So the tribunal brought to the bar only those individuals for whom they had "good evidence", and who were still believed to be alive.

In the site you were referred to there are 16 doctors at trial, seven of whom were sentenced to death by hanging. Five were sentenced to life in prison. Four received lighter sentences (20 years for two. 15 and 10 years for the last two). Given the difficulties of fairly trying the defendants, those sentences seem pretty reasonable. The worst offenders, like Dr. Mengle, either didn't survive the war or escaped to remain fugitives from justice the rest of their lives. There can be little doubt that the more infamous would have been hanged if captured.

2. What was the evidence against each of those who escaped death? For this you will have to research the full trial by reading the transcripts. The prosecutors pushed for death, and presented the best evidence they had available at the time. The Soviet Judge presumably took the harshest view, and the French Judge probably took the position of "guilty unless shown otherwise". We will never know for sure what it was in the evidence, or lack of evidence, that convinced the American and British Judges that these 9 defendants should not be hung. What persuaded the tribunal to sentence four of the defendants to sentences of 10 to 20 years instead of life? We can not know for certain, but a careful review of the transcript of the evidence against those who escaped the noose should give you a better idea. Good luck with your research, and I hope that you will share your findings with us here.

3. Carrying out the sentences. Those sentenced to hang, were hung without delay. Those sentenced to imprisonment were imprisoned. Why weren't the full terms of inprisionment served?

Some did serve their entire sentence, or died in prison. I don't have specific information, but of the 9 doctors who escaped the noose I would think that four with less than life probably served their full sentences, or substantially served them. It would be interesting to know what happened to the four serving life, but that's for you to research for your paper and I hope you will inform us in due time.

Some probably were released early, why? Probably the most important reason is that time moves on. The Allies, who were jointly responsible for carrying out the sentences, ceased to be allies. The Cold War split put the Britain and the United States at direct odds with the Soviets, and France under DeGaul decided to take an independent direction. Agreements on how the imprisoned would be held fell apart, and disagreements were common. Prisoners were released for good behavior, or because they were gravely ill. The cost of maintaining the system skyrocketed, especially as the number of prisoners died off from old age, or required expensive medical treatment. Only the most notorious continued to be held.

I believe that generally in the Nurmberg war crimes trials, some defendants were found guilty, some innocent, and some not guilty by virtue of insufficient evidence. Once the decisions is made to hold a trial, those holding the trial are immediately obligated to release anyone the prosecution can't make a case against, even if they can smell the blood on them.