Genocide

There are an infinite number of proposals of action in place for the United Nations to consider concerning the Armenian genocide. In 1915, the genocide in Armenia began on April 24th. This genocide was started by the Turks because they wanted to expel and massacre the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. The Turks were showing a strong sense of jealousy regarding the relationship that Armenia had created with the Ottomans.

Due to this, the Turkish government arrested and executed several hundred Armenian scholars on their first day of attack. In the many endless and torturous days to follow, the many ordinary Armenians still remaining were forced to leave their homes and belongings behind and were then taken immediately on death marches in the Mesopotamian desert without any food to eat or water to drink. These marches caused many more deaths because of their malnutrition.

The people who needed to take a rest from walking on this march were shot and killed. Due to the serious problems this genocide has caused in Armenia, and as a member of the United Nations Incident Report Committee, a consensus has been made to send in the United Nations soldiers to fight for the end of the Armenia genocide of 1915.

One of the main and rational reasons to send in the United Nations troops to fight against the Turks is to protect the Armenian individuals and families. Many of the citizens of Armenia have either been or will soon be abused, exported, separated from their family, or put to death by the Turks. During the “Turkification” campaign of the genocide, government squads “…kidnapped children, converted them to Islam and gave them to Turkish families” (History.com).

In order to stop the abductions of Armenian children, the United Nations needs to be sent in to fight against those who are capturing them. These innocent children deserve nothing but the best in their lives and are worthy to have their lives fought for. Another reason to send in troops to fight for the lives of Armenians is because fighting for them verbally is having no effect. During a recent conference held in New York it was brought up that representations have been made to the Ottoman Government by the ambassador for humane treatment of Armenia.

However, “Despite these representations, the slaughter of Armenians had continued” (Kloian). Verbalizing the issue in a peaceful way has made no impact on the minds of the Turks or changed their minds about the activities they’ve been taking to rid all Armenians. This is one reason that the UN should be sent in to fight, for the lives of innocent people.

Moving forward, the United Nations needs to be sent in to Armenia to fight in order to obtain equality for Armenia compared to the countries around it. Armenia is generally known to be an outsider country due to its primary religion being Christianity, not Islam, and also because they didn’t accept the Turkish language. Due to these traits, “…Armenians were seen as the ‘ill’ minorities with poor political influence and were portrayed as sub-humans…” (armenocide.am).

Sending the UN troops in would allow the countries around them to realize that they are supported by other places and that they are not outsiders. This could intimidate the Turks, forcing them to back down the genocide. The Armenians are also soloed out by having discrimination rules. Since the Armenians are non-muslims, they “had to pay to sultan, and were demanded to pay additional illegal taxes” (Genocide1915).

Once again, the Turks would be intimidated by the help received by the Armenians, back down their fight, and potentially get rid of the taxes. Bringing in the UN troops will let the Turks know that the Armenians are not alone and that they should not be obligated to pay taxes because of their primary religion differences. Sending in the UN troops is the only way to intimidate the Turks into backing down from continuing the genocide because they believe that they are much more powerful than the Armenians due to economic status.

The least effective way to go about putting the genocide to an end is by only speaking out. On September 23rd, 1915 the “…Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions visited the State Department…and conferred with Acting Secretary of State Polk and other officials regarding the slaughter of Armenians by Turks…”(Kloian). This was later brought up as a topic in a conference but the slaughtering continued.

Speaking to superior people of the senate does not necessarily mean that any action will take place as seen here. Another example of how verbalizing what needs to be done is not effective is because some places around the world will not describe it as the truth. For example, “The United States has refused to use the term ‘genocide’ to describe what is happening in Armenia until 2004”(Gonchar). The fact that some places still haven’t been able to see it as it is, is the reason that verbalizing what needs to be done, instead of taking action will not work in this situation. Taking physical action is the best way to stop the Armenian genocide.

All in all, the genocide in Armenia needs to be put to an end by sending in the United Nations to fight. The lack of enforcement by speaking out and the terrible actions being done on the Armenians is why the only way to end. There have been many incidents during this event and people around the world want to help the Armenians. Overall, there are many different approaches to stop genocides and each one has a different best choice depending on the situation.

Armenian Genocide Power is a five letter word that continues to exist since the time of creation up until now. It has stirred human emotions from exultations to greed. To be above and be of great power over something or someone is a part of human nature. Power has seen the acquisition of great wealth, the growth of empires, the birth of nations and heroes. But the search for power has also been the biggest downfall of men. A great example is the Mass Murder of the Ottoman Empire, also known as the Armenian Genocide. It commenced during and Just after World War 1 and it is one of the most rutal and excruciating mass murders in history.

To this day, Turks still continue to deny that this event ever occurred, but the destruction of the Armenians exhibits and illustrates various examples of the word “genocide”: The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group (Wikipedia) The massacre in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 is considered Genocide because the Turks displayed great examples of Denial, Classification and Extermination, which are three of the eight stages of genocide. The Armenian genocide could have been prevented with the help of all the allied countries and German officials.

A political group made up of young Turks, the committee of union and progress [CUP], made a secret document which they called “The Ten Commandments”. The Ten Commandments are basically blue prints for the planned mass murder of the Armenians (notes). Explaining the contents of this document a cover note was written by British officials and it said, “My informant declares that messengers were sent to the different [governors] in the provinces with instructions o read these orders to them and then return the originals which were to be destroyed” (Crimes Against Humanity 73).

The secrecy from the beginning is already an attempt to sow the seed of denial. For further proof that these documents were classified, the tenth commandment of the committee of union and progress stated, “Pay attention to the strictly confidential nature of these instructions, which may not go beyond two or three persons” (Crimes Against Humanity 74). Perpetrators found a way to use language to make it sound acceptable to slaughter Armenians and blame hem for their own sufferings (notes). The play of words can not Justify that those who suffered are the ones at fault.

The Turkish government sent billions of dollars supporting congress (notes). ln the beginning of the Armenian Genocide film; the narrator said “Until this day, Turks still deny that the Armenian Genocide ever happened” (“Armenian Genocide film”). One saying goes “where there is smoke, there is fire”. The stench of death is too great to deny. How can one explain the disappearance of a generation, a community, a family? The Turks segregated the Armenians for their suffering and from other countries and also put them into prison.

According to the reading, “At the end of July 191 5, the government began to deport the Armenians of Anatolia and Cilicia, transferring the population from regions which were far distant from the front and where the presence of Armenians could not be regarded as a threat to the Turkish army” (Crimes Against Humanity 85) Armenians were being classified; this is a great example of power at play. Separation was deemed necessary to gather the weak so hat they can easily be crushed by the strong.

Turks first targeted to execute the “Intelligentsia”, the formally educated people which consisted of writers, politicians, poets, doctors, lawyers and etc. (Crimes Against Humanity 84). To get rid of the strong, reliable men, all of them that were 18 and older were shot (note). The Intelligentsia group and men were the first ones killed because they had knowledge and authority; enough knowledge to start revolt and rebellion. A systematic plan was necessary to make sure that the Armenians had no way of getting back their dignity nd their freedom through knowledgeable actions.

Women and children were raped and dehumanized (notes). By the end of 1916, more than half of the populations of the Armenians were slaughtered (Crimes Against Humanity 86). This proves that the Armenian genocide happened because genocide means killing of a certain race or tribe. It is proven that some people did try to prevent more genocide against the Armenians. US missionaries, Turkish officials and friends did try to save some Armenians. (Crimes Against Humanity 85). All these actions were simply not enough r were too late for millions of lives were still lost.

If only the world was vigilant to the beginning signs of oppression, there will be no such word as “genocide”. To quote the German Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau “l shall do nothing whatever for the Armenians” (Crimes Against Humanity 121). Wanting to make a difference Wolff- Matternich tried to do something, but he got shut down and said, “In order to achieve any success in the Armenian question, we will have to inspire fear in the Turkish government regarding the consequences” (Crimes Against Humanity 121).

The differences in opinions overseas did not help in the prevention of the annihilation of the Armenians. While they are debating as to what actions and side to take, the sufferings of the Armenians confounded. One decisive move in the name of what is right and what is Just could have prevented everything. The big question to ask is: WHY? As the Turks continue to deny, the answer to this question will continue to evade history. In conclusion, people should consider everything that the poor Armenians have gone through as genocide.

Think about the istory of a whole family, lost. The future of children one will never get to see and a whole country forever mourning for a generation buried in silence. Even if it happened over one hundred years ago, and Justifications after Justifications were made, the terminology “genocide” is Just but a word to give meaning to a terrifying event. But in simple terms, it is a mass murder of dumbfounding proportions. Many countries and powerful people could have helped and intervened, but they did not.

Human actions matter because the burden of guilt is not carried only by the erpetrator, but also of a silent witness to a horrible crime. We are all a product of our past. If one does not acknowledge their past, and learn from its lessons, then the future will be one bleak horizon of uncertainty. An event such as the Armenian genocide should not remain as Just a story to tell from generation to generation. The whole purpose of retelling their story is to touch the core of human sensitivity over and over. To remind each and everyone to value one human life as a million human lives lost for nothing.

Forgotten Fire is a fictional book that is based on a true life story of a boy’s life that was destroyed by the Armenian genocide. Adam Bagdasarian the author of Forgotten Fire, uses Vahan Kenderian’s life story to show the disaster that the Armenian Genocide had brought on to this race. Forgotten Fire is about a boy named Vahan Kenderian who grew up in a very affluent family and was very well know. Vahan never expected to have to lose everything he had including his family. His father had always told him that lacked character and that sooner or later he would have to wake up and mature in his ways.

He never expected for it to come so soon in the summer of 1950. Vahan had been arrested, malnourished, separated from family, beaten, and had seen his family killed. The Armenian soldiers took his father and then beat up his uncle and shot his older brother. His mother, grandmother, siblings and him were kept in cells without food or water. They were forced to walk miles in a single file line in order to get to the next camp site. They were finally allowed to drink but whoever drank was killed and he witnessed his grandmother die.

He ran away from the camp leaving behind his sister and mother only having his brother left. He later lost his brother to malnutrition. He became the slave of an Armenian governor but later ran away only to find a tribe that thought he was deaf and mute. He fell in love with the chief’s daughter and knew that her father was out to kill him. So he ran away to find refuge in a town that was abandon other than a steel worker who helped him into a girls home. The head mistress, Mrs. Fauld, brought him to a doctor’s home who lived on a farm and worked as a slave towards the Germans.

He met Seta who was in the house of the German governor. She was later kicked out because she got pregnant, Vahan took Seta in and she had her baby but she died a week after she gave birth. The governor later took the baby boy. Later that year the wife of the doctor died. After she passed Vahan decided to leave so he left to Constantinople. That is where he found peace and place where the war had not touched. In the 1950’s there was a lot of prejudice all over the world. This included turkey although it was to a more extreme extent. The 1950’s was right in

the time of the civil rights movement in America. I was surprised to learn that the Turkish were so brutal with the Armenians they had no respect for them at all they would beat them to a pulp with no regard to them. They considered them as trash they did not look at them as people, they were less than people they had no value what so ever. I learned that many of the genocide happen just because a race does not like a specific race because of what they look like or because of what they have in their cultures or they seem to have the idea that one race is superior to the other.

In turkey the Turks ran Armenia they ran the government and the military. Although most of Armenia had a huge population of Armenians they ran many of the shops in small towns. Up until the Armenian Genocide the people had been somewhat settle about their dislike of each other. They had not brutally beaten one another up just for the fun of it they respected each other until the leader decided to promote the violence against the Armenian nation. I also learned that during the genocide they killed all the boys from the age of sixteen and older because they have the possibility of revolting.

They only allowed the women and children to survive because it was easier for the soldiers to overpower them then the men because they were weaker and they tended to cower in fear of them so it was easy to take control once they showed fear. The Armenian culture is very family oriented because of the Armenian Genocide they are very community based they keep themselves within their race like the Hipic culture they are very family oriented and put family at a very high stake.

Armenian enjoy music, dancing, art , and their literature plays a huge role in their race. Over the years many of the stories were passed down this way and are passed down through many generations they have many stories to tell to their families that have been passed from generation to generation. The Armenian culture tries to stay within their race when it comes to marriage they don’t really marry outside of their race The Hipic culture is loves to dance and to have music playing, hanging out with their whole family.

Forgotten Fire is a great book in the way it was written and told. I really liked that they stayed really close to the actual story rather than going on ends trying to make it interesting when they don’t have to because the story is interesting already. It was really cool to see that in real life he was able to reunite with some of his family. He was able to reunite with his uncle I thought it was really cool how they told his end of the story but they also added a twist onto it.

The twist really provided hope for the main character allowing you to see that all his trials are over and that all he had gone through is finally done with and he can be at peace where he is at. Although this book was graphic it really helps you understand only slightly what he is going through even though you may never be able to fully comprehend what had happened to him during his life and during that time period they did a really good job on helping you understand how he was feeling. The only thing I didn’t like about the book was how they split it up into sections it made the book to seem to go on for a really long time.

“The Armenian Genocide” In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention, and in doing so defined the term “genocide” as “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole, or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group” (Totten and Parsons 4). Indeed by many scholars, this is thought to be the case as to what happened to the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Rouben Paul Adalian, author of the critical essay “The Armenian Genocide” published within the book Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts edited by Samuel Totten and William S.

Parsons, claims this belief to be true. In his essay, Adalian describes what life was like before 1915, reasons why the genocide happened, how the genocide was committed, and the impact the genocide left on society. Before 1915 the Armenian people had lived freely in the region of Asia Minor for around 3000 years. However, around the 11th century Turkish tribes invaded the Armenians and took over the area while settling down permanently there.

Because the Ottoman Empire eventually expanded their territory to Eastern Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa, they needed an improved political system in order to govern everyone effectively (Adalian 55). As a result, Adalian notes that the Ottomans “imposed a strictly hierarchical social system that subordinated non-Muslims as second-class subjects deprived of basic rights” (55). In spite of the Armenians being deemed second-class citizens socially, they were actually a middle-class group economically, leaving jealousy amongst the Muslims.

Even though life for Armenians was serviceable, it would soon take a turn for the worst. There are a few reasons as to why the Armenian genocide became certain by 1915. The first reason was because of the decline of power in the Ottoman government. Because the Armenians could see that the government could not guarantee the protection of their property and life, the Armenians looked for reform (59). As a result, this created an increased feeling of hostility and stubbornness between the two.

The second reason was because of the military weakness of the Ottoman Empire. According to Adalian, the military was “prone to resorting to brutality as a method of containing domestic dissent, especially with disaffected non-Muslim minorities” (60). The third and most important reason is because of the formation of the political organization known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). The party originally advocated for constitutionalism, egalitarianism, and liberalism, but when the party overthrew the government in 1913 everything changed.

Radicals within the party were able to gain control and they were influenced by their German ally, leading to the promotion of turkification which was vehemently opposed by the Armenians (61). Shortly after the CUP gained power, they opted to invade Russia in order to gain more land. After the attempted invasion by the Ottoman Empire, they were quickly destroyed by the Russians and ended up losing territory. Because the CUP refused to accept responsibility of the embarrassing defeat, they used the Armenians as a scapegoat.

Adalian goes on to say, “the Young Turks placed the blame on the Armenians by accusing them of collaboration with the enemy. Charging the entire Armenian population with treason and sedition” (62). The genocide officially began on April 24, 1915 and the abuse that the Armenians took while being deported was horrendous. The genocide of the Armenians was a plan carefully devised into three parts: deportation, execution, and starvation. Intellectuals and scholars of Armenian communities were abducted overnight on April 24 to ensure that the plan would go smoothly and reduce the amount of resistance.

Soon after, women and children were ordered by the Ottoman government to leave town in the direction of the Syrian Desert. Most Armenians went by foot and were extremely unprepared for the length of the journey. According to Adalian, “Only a quarter of all deportees survived the hundreds of miles and weeks of walking. Exhaustion, exposure, and fright took a heavy toll especially on the old and young” (58). This happened because the government purposely refused to give food and water to the Armenians.

However, some were able to escape from the convoys of deportees when they stopped at other towns. Also, the government created a special organization made up entirely of convicts whose sole purpose was to rob, kidnap, and murder Armenians along the way. The absence of men in the deportation process was because the Ottoman Government had summoned them ahead of time in which they were imprisoned and tortured (58). The amount of desperation within the Armenians began to grow, “Men and women dying of thirst were shot for approaching the Euphrates River.

Women were stripped naked, abused, and murdered. Others despairing of their fate threw themselves into the river and drowned” said Adalian (59). When the Armenians reached their destination of Deir el-Zor, the remaining survivors were murdered in cold blood. In all, around 1 million Armenians were killed during the deportation, scarring them for years to come. The genocide left a tremendous impact on the Armenian people. Whole communities were destroyed, leaving many in need of food, clothing, and housing (71).

Also, there was incredible trauma placed on the Armenians, and they had to face the fact that they were most likely not going to be compensated for everything they had lost. Even when the few survivors returned back to their homes, they were unwelcomed and forced to leave. Possibly the greatest impact the genocide had induced, was the fact that for the first time in over 3000 years, the Armenians no longer lived in their homeland (71). There is still resentment today between the Armenians and Turks mainly because the Turkish government refuses to acknowledge that the genocide ever occurred.

Adalian concludes, “The experience of the Armenian people in the period after the genocide teaches another important lesson. Unless the consequences of genocide are addressed in the immediate aftermath of the event, the element of time very soon puts survivors at a serious disadvantage. Without the attention of the international community, without the intervention of major states seeking to stabilize the affected region, without the swift apprehension of the guilty, and without the full exposure of the evidence, the victims stand no chance of recovering from their losses.

In the absence of a response and of universal condemnation, a genocide becomes ‘legitimized’” (77). Works Cited Adailian, Rouben Paul. “The Armenian Genocide”. Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eye Witness Accounts. Ed. Samuel Totten and William Parsons. 3rd ed. New York Routledge, 2009. 55-92. Print. Totten, Samuel, and William S. Parsons. “Introductions”. Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eye Witness Accounts. Ed. Samuel Totten and William Parsons. 3rd ed. New York Routledge, 2009. 1-14. Print.

Professor Henry King (2003) declared that, “there is no greater challenge currently confronting the international community than that of defining the scope of international human rights.” And rightly so, as we observe the present day atrocities committed all over the world as well as how the progression of international law has developed systems to adjudicate on these controversial matters. One of the most pioneering landmark cases in international law is the Nuremberg War Trials.

Along with its significance, perhaps, it is also one of the most debatable. Judge Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr. (1946) wrote: “to those who support the trial it promises the first effective recognition of a world law for the punishment of malefactors who start wars or conduct them in bestial fashion” (p.66). On the other hand, Wyzanski argues that, “to the adverse critics the trial appears in many aspects a negation of principles which they regard as the heart of any system of justice under law.” Such a chasm in opinion created several theoretically relevant points in analyzing the history of international criminal law.

It is often said that history is written by the victors. The United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France, victors of the 1939-1945 World War II, organized these trials to implead the Nazi leaders for “aggressive acts and war crimes.” About six million Jews and nearly five million other Europeans were murdered en masse in a phenomenon called the Holocaust.

This is often benchmarked by international organizations as one of the first acts of genocide. This paper aims to:  discuss the international crimes indicted in the Nuremberg Trials, describe the judgment passed on the Nazi defendants, present opposing views and controversies on the matter, and analyze the significance of the Nuremberg Trials in comparison to the current criminal justice system.

Nuremberg Tribunal

On August 8, 1945, the representatives of the four Allied powers formally adopted The Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Establishing the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Two months after, this Agreement and the IMT Charter became the legal basis for the indictment of the Nazi leaders on the four counts discussed below.

Nuremberg Principles: the Four Counts of Indictment

Four Counts of Indictment were the basis of the charge against the Nationalsozialistische Deitsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi party) leadership by the International Military Tribunal. These Counts include: conspiracy to commit aggressive war, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Critics of the Nuremberg Trials maintain that these Counts were in the nature of an ex post facto law, or one that was not a criminal act when it was first committed, yet became punishable later on by statute or legislation (Wyzanski, 1946).

After all, one of the most elementary legal principles is one that holds: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege — there is no crime where there is no law punishing such. Supporters of the Nuremberg Trials contend that international law, natural law and civil law jurisdictions adhere to the agreements between states and are compelled to adopt the internationally recognized standards, including the doctrines enshrined in the Nuremberg Trials.

Count 1: Conspiracy

Conspiracy, commonly stated as, “the act of one is the act of all,” or the collusion of two or more people in the commission of an offense, was established as an additional and separate substantive offense from Counts One to Three. To assert conspiracy is to define that there is a wrong done when, acting together for an unlawful end, he who joins in that action incurs liability not only for the act planned, or participated in, or could reasonably be foreseen to happen, but also for every single act that his co-conspirators committed.

For instance, Julius Streicher was found guilty by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg for direct incitement and encouraging the commission of war crimes in the following: “…a punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that every murderer and criminal must expect. Death sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be exterminated root and branch (Schabas, 2000, p. 278-279).”

Wyzanski (1946) asks: “what is the basis for asserting such a broad and substantive crime in international law? Aside from the notion being new, is it not fundamentally unjust?” He reasons that a trial, when used as propaganda, is to debase justice. This is one of the strongest arguments posited by the critics of the Nuremberg Trials.

Count 2: Crimes Against Peace

Germany was a party to nine international treaties that condemn the plotting and waging of wars of aggression (the type where a state is the instigator of the war, and not merely in defense of national security). The Geneva protocol declared wars of aggression as international crimes — not merely uncivilized ways of waging war but also the waging in any way of uncivilized wars (Wyzanski, 1946).

Count 3: War Crimes

War crimes are in violation of the rules on warfare defined in international conventions, to which Germany was a party. This systematic course of conduct toward both civilians and combatants, excessive destruction of territories, with clear knowledge of the defendants, was deemed to be punishable, according to the 1946 article by Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr. It is aggression itself that was criminalized.

This Count was the most criticized for being retroactive legislation since the history of warfare has not absolved the organizers of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal from their own acts of warfare in their respective colonies. The Allied Forces (United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and France) were also known for committing war time atrocities in their own jurisdictions but critics point out that only the Nazis were held to account for their wartime liabilities. Other aggressive wars prior to World War II were not punished by international tribunals prior to the one constituted at Nuremberg.

Count 4: Crimes against Humanity

The horrors of Auschwitz and other parts of Germany and Europe where Jews, Poles and Gypsies were massacred in cold blood were defined as crimes against humanity, as described in the opening address to the Nuremberg Trials by US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (King, 2003). Despite the innocence of the civilians, they were subject to various atrocities ordered by the Nazi leadership: deliberate and systematic genocide of racial and national groups of certain occupied territories, as charged in the case of France et al. v. Goering et al., 22 IMT 203 (1946) as cited by William Schabas (pp. 37-38).

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal, enumerated the crimes falling under the definition of “crimes against humanity” submitted by the American delegation to the Charter of the International Military Tribunal that heard the Nuremberg Trials (Schabas, 2000, p.36).

Nuremberg Judgment

Nazi defendants Bormann, Goering, von Ribbentrop, and Jodl among others, were sentenced to death by hanging. On October 16, 1946, ten of them were hanged while Goering committed suicide. Bormann was tried in absentia prior to that while Hess, Doenitz, and five others were awarded ten years to life imprisonment in Spandau Prison, Berlin. 185 defendants were tried subsequently by US judges, including Nazi Party officials, judges, business executives, and doctors.

Biographical Sketch

From November 20, 1945 until October 1, 1946, the Nuremberg Palace of Justice in Nuremberg City, Germany became the host of a series of trials fraught with contentious debates. These trials before the International Military Tribunal adjudicated on war crimes. The most prominent was the first trial which prosecuted 24 of the top Nazi Germany (Nationalsozialistische Deitsche Arbeiterpartei) leadership in the realms of politics, economy and military. Of the 23 were originally charged, 12 were meted out death sentences but only 10 were imposed. Even organizations involved fell under the penumbra of these war crimes (Wyzanski, 1964).

Applicable Historical Theory

Historical theories birthed by the Nuremberg trials include international law concepts, the formation of a tribunal, and responses to the defenses invoked by the accused. United Nations member States adopted the four counts of indictment as definitions of internationally punishable acts. These theories were further codified in the Charter of the IMT which acquired jurisdiction over States that ratified the Agreement. Some defenses rooted in customary law were raised: head of State immunity; superior orders; and tu quoque (the adversary committed similar atrocities).

Of these, the IMT at Nuremberg denied the defense of head of State immunity because it was formally provided in the Charter that “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” are liable. The defense of superior orders was also excluded by the IMT to dispel ambiguities. The Nuremberg Trials underscored the moral duty of citizens to disobey inhumane orders that contravene natural law principles of justice. However, the defense of tu quoque was glossed over at Nuremberg since the World War II behavior of the Allied powers would render the legal justifications of the IMT vulnerable to attack (Schabas, 2000, pp. 314-342).

Historical Theory In Comparison to Our Current Criminal Justice System

The United Nations General Assembly Economic and Social Council created an ad hoc committee to draft a convention on the crime of genocide. In this convention, they resolved to formulate Nuremberg Principles into the provisions. Several UN member States raised the ideological angle in linking genocide to “race theories” like Fascism-Nazism. Thus, the Nuremberg principles were adopted in the preamble, by its analogy to punishing war criminals for similar acts of genocide (Schabas, 2000, p. 62-64).

Before the April 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the hate-mongering Radio Mille Collines was broadcasting messages to incite the population to commit massacres of the Tutsi  and some Hutu civilians (Schabas, 2000, p.279). There is a chilling similarity to the situation of Nazi Germany where the Nuremberg court found such direct incitement punishable for direct incitement of acts of genocide, hatred, and violence which led to the Jewish Holocaust, among others. The criminal justice system of today and that of the Nuremberg era are both united in recognizing the criminal nature of hate propaganda and adopting measures to curb incitements to violence by adjudicating against the perpetrators.

The US war on Iraq also raises delicate issues that can be attributable to the Nuremberg precedent. The historical theories and defenses raised would pose a strong ideological challenge to the criminality of certain acts that States commit against other States in the guise of protecting national security and the hegemonic concepts of development. While the US-Iraq war is said to be a fluid legal arena, the IMT of Nuremberg may have much to say on the matter.

Conclusion

Sixty two years ago until the present, the precedent set by the Nuremberg Trials is still being used as the rallying point for other analogous crimes. The four counts of indictment were codified into a formal Agreement along with the Charter for the IMT. Defenses normally recognized under customary law were denied by express provision of the Charter. Although the criminalization of these counts was still imperfect, provoking legal contentions even, the millions of lives lost during the war deserve the chance to have the scales of justice tilted in their favor. Through the constantly evolving international legal theories, one can only hope that humanity would be able to devise ways to put an end to the abject horror of war.

References

1. Schabas, W. (2000). Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. King, Henry. (2003, May 1). Robert Jackson and International Human Rights. Retrieved  November 20, 2007, from http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/theman2-6-6/
3. Wyzanski, C. E., Jr. (1946, April). Nuremberg–A Fair Trial? Dangerous Precedent. The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 177, No. 4, 66-70.

This book goes into extreme detail describing every facet of the Nazi regime’s various medical experiments, policies and atrocities with the intention of giving the reader an understanding of the past such that it should not repeat itself- as the author suggests it may in today’s atmospheres of modern genocide and “ethnic cleansing.” Lifton draws comparisons particularly to potentially similar situations in Serbia, Rwanda and Cambodia, and draws parallels to the political and societal evolutions that took place in Germany, eventually developing a “genocidal mentality” that resulted in the systematic killing of (and medical experimentation on) millions of innocent victims.

It smoothly describes the growth and development of the overall Nazi medical ideology, beginning with the definition of “life unworthy of life.” Lifton explains the process by which mentally and physically disabled children and adults came to be regarded as detriments to society that needed to be killed- both for their own good and for the betterment of mankind. This twisted view resulted in a state-sanctioned euthanasia program, wherein German doctors were first compelled to break their Hippocratic Oath- the professional promise to do no harm that is as old as medicine itself.

From its beginnings, Lifton further describes the progression of Nazi killings under the guise of science- culminating in the work of Dr. Josef Mengele in the concentration camp Auschwitz. Unlike many studies of Mengele’s work, Lifton does not focus simply on the horrors he perpetrated during his time at the camp. Rather, he attempts to explain how the “camp culture” within Auschwitz and the increasingly brutal practices of the Nazi system resulted in the atmosphere which allowed such horrible atrocities to occur.

Koren, Y. (2005). Mengele and the Family of Dwarfs: Yehuda Koren Tells One Family’s Remarkable Story of Surviving Auschwitz. History Today, 55, 32-33.

This article examines another group of Mengele’s victims, Jews suffering the genetic disease of dwarfism. Specifically, an entire family, all of whom somehow managed to survive not only his experiments but the deadly atmosphere of Auschwitz itself.

Koren provides first-person accounts via interviews of some members of the Ovitz family, a unique clan from Romania that arrived at Auschwitz in 1944. The family of twelve included seven dwarfs and was the largest recorded dwarf family in the world and before their transport to Auschwitz had spent years touring in a traveling exhibition that promoted them as the “Lilliput Troupe.” Mengele was extremely interested in genetic abnormalities, and as such targeted dwarfs and other unusual individuals for experimentation.

Experiments conducted on the family included extensive drawing of blood, high doses of radiation, removal of blood marrow samples, teeth pulled and the women received mysterious injections into their wombs. Despite all of this horrid treatment, Mengele seemed to have a strange fondness for the family and often treated them to special meals and other privileges, so that he could use them as a source of entertainment for other SS officers. This makes their case extremely unique amongst all of his victims. So, while he avoided killing them, he did so for entirely selfish reasons.

The case involving this particular family offers interesting insight into Mengele’s personality.

Freyhofer, H. (2004). The Nuremberg Medical Trial: The Holocaust and the Origin of the Nuremberg Medical Code. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

This book examines and explains the Medical or “Doctors” trial of Nuremberg, by recounting everything that led up to the trial, and the wide-ranging effects it had. Particular care is paid to analyzing the breaches in ethics by members of the medical community that chose to take part in the Nazi euthanasia programs and subsequent medical experimentation on prisoners. These doctors, when charged with war crimes in the face of overwhelming evidence of what went on during the course of the war in hospitals and concentration camps, attempted to prove that the experiments they carried out were justifiable in the name of science.

Though Josef Mengele was on the run and in hiding at the time of the Trial and didn’t face justice alongside his fellow perpetrators, Freyhofer goes into extensive detail analyzing Mengele’s methods and potential  motivations, as well as the ethical implications of Mengele’s work. Instead of focusing on the nature of the experiments performed by Mengele and other Nazi doctors, this text seeks to examine the larger picture of medical responsibility.

Freyhofer explains the nature of the Hippocratic oath and why it failed to endure the pressures brought upon it by Nazi ideology. Coupled with this is a study of how the doctors charged in the trial, many of them highly respected in their fields before the war, could have so thoroughly warped their ethical viewpoints.

The most significant contribution of this work is the explanation of the Nuremberg Medical Code that resulted from the trial, in which the courts set a legal international standard for medical experimentation. As a result of this landmark decision, doctors could never again claim to have performed experimentation on unwilling subjects for the good of science.

Riordan, C. (1997). The Sins of the Children: Peter Schneider, Allan Massie and the Legacy of Auschwitz. Journal of European Studies, 27, 161-180.

This article examines the repercussions that Nazi war crimes have had on the descendants of both the perpetrators and the victims. Countless sources recount the stories of Holocaust survivors and the stories of their children, but few examine the effects the war had on the equally innocent children of many top Nazis. These children grew up with the heart-breaking weight of their fathers crimes, which in turn generated a degree of self-loathing.

One particular figure of interest in this article is Rolf Mengele, the son of Dr. Josef Mengele. Mengele, having disappeared after the war into hiding in Brazil, lived out the rest of his days in relative peace and quiet, never meeting retribution for his terrible crimes. Six years after the death of his father, Rolf finally came forward and recounted his story of what it was like to have to live in obscurity under constant fear of discovery, and coping with the knowledge that his father never regretted any of his barbaric doings.

The primary purpose behind analyzing the stories of the children of Nazi war criminals is to determine where historians draw the line between understanding and acceptance. To accomplish this, Riordan references two fictionalized accounts of these father-son relationships in order to gain insight into how the children of war criminals deal with the knowledge of their fathers’ actions, and what action (or lack thereof) they take to attempt to atone for those crimes. Why, for example, did Rolf Mengele never turn his father in to the authorities? The motives are varied, and in the end it’s up to the individual to weigh perceived loyalty to family, or loyalty to justice.

Hinton, AL. (2002). Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide. Berkeley: University of California Press.

This book seeks to examine the larger picture of genocide and what drives humanity to single out and persecute specific groups of people within society. By studying various cases where genocide has occurred, such as the Holocaust, the author hopes to bring about an understanding of what causes these shameful events and how we might strive to prevent them in the future.

Hinton states that genocide cannot occur without a basis of ideology that the perpetrators feel justifies their behavior. Clearly this makes the Holocaust a prime example, and Hinton places great emphasis on the supposed anthropological basis for many Nazi ideologies. Primarily amongst these are those regarding the Jews, who were defined by the Nazis as a lesser breed of humanity due to their stereotypical ethnic features, which differed in some ways from the “ideal” Aryan.

This anthropological view that Jews were sub-human played a major role in Nazi justification of their treatment of the Jews, from basic imprisonment to systematic killing and use in ghastly medical experiments like those carried out by Josef Mengele.

Hinton also discusses the psychological blocks put in place by the Nazis themselves in order to avoid full comprehension of their misdeeds. This included the frequent use of obscure terms and code words that were used in place of clear descriptions of the atrocities carried out on prisoners by Mengele and other Nazis. This suggests that even ideology couldn’t fully convince even the Nazis that what they were doing was right, and subconciously they corrected for this by softening the appearance of their crimes, at least in writing.

Baumel, JT. (2000). “You Said the Words You Wanted Me to Hear But I Heard The Words You Couldn’t Bring Yourself To Say”: Women’s First Person Accounts of the Holocaust. The Oral History Review. 27, 17-18.

This article offers a unique view of some of Mengele’s forgotten victims, the mothers of many of the children used in his experiments. It’s well documented that Mengele was highly interested in performing experiments on twins, and he took great care to sort twin children out from the rest of the Jews brought to Auschwitz by train. Twins were often yanked from their mothers grasps and the mothers sent off to their deaths never knowing what became of their children, while other times the mothers themselves were also involved in the experiments.

This article examines both situations, with particular attention paid to the later group- Mengele was interested in what caused the twin phenomenon, and did tests on the Jewish mothers of twins in hopes of discovering the cause of twin births. Other mothers were forced to take part in the tests conducted on their own children, sometimes forced to inject their children with unknown substances, many of which had terrible effects. This had an obvious severe psychological effect on these mothers, which Baumel explores in detail through first hand accounts.

Other times, pregnant women were selected by Mengele for experimentation, such as one mother that had her newborn child taken from her and was forced to watch it starve to death as Mengele sought to determine how long a newborn could survive without its mother. Other pregnant women were experimented on, with injections and surgery. Through this and other terrible descriptions, Baumel illustrates not only the horrors of Mengele’s experimentation, but also the terrible effect it had on the women they involved.