Day #11: Sunday, February 24, 2019 (Nuremberg)

How do we judge actions? This is the question of the day.

Today was marked most heavily by three concepts: legacy, power, and justice.

As I know that at least person will be addressing concepts of memorials today, I will allow them to do such. I also believe that concepts of propaganda and the Nazi’s rise to power have been quite prominent themes on this trip. Therefore, the most powerful theme will be discussed here: justice.

This morning, while driving to Nuremberg from Prague, we watched a film titled Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. Sophie Scholl was a fighter who was in the White Rose resistance movement and she was found distributing leaflets which educated the general public on what the Nazis were doing so that their crimes would not be unknown. Having been discovered and interrogated, Sophie, at the climax of the film, appears before a court in order to be judged by the law. The leading judge screams at all the defendants and makes it clear that he is unwilling to be unbiased. He announces his opinions of each defendant before his questions begin.

Eventually, Sophie and much of her group are either tortured or, as in the seen case, killed. This is a key example of how lady justice cannot breathe under a corrupt system. Here, the accused are guilty until proven dead.

[N.B. from Ms. Freeman: Today (2/22) was the anniversary of the executions of the members of the White Rose group.]

The second situation took place alongside the Nuremberg trials and was mentioned briefly in the museum dedicated for such trials. The trials in question here are the Tokyo trials which sought to prosecute the Japanese officers who committed genocide in the east. Very little time was spent in such a topic, but what was shown talked about the idea that those who were prosecuting were in search of a punishment to a crime which they did not believe needed to be proven. Those tried may be seen guilty until a punishment was chosen.

The final situation concerns the crimes of the Nazis. These are judged from two angles. The first angle is that of the public and the world, such as evidenced by the Nuremberg trials. The other is in the eyes of the Nazis themselves.

The Nazis destroyed much evidence, and many high ranking officials of party committed suicide. Many of the Nazi documents were burned or destroyed. I have been thinking a lot about this recently, because the destruction clearly evidences that the Nazis knew that what they were doing was wrong. They knew that there was clear proof that they had committed great crimes and broken the laws of the land, such as the Geneva conventions. They weren’t delusional in thinking that they were perfect and in thinking that the world could approve of their actions. They were guilty in their own eyes.

The other perspective, that of the rest of the world, offers the conventional approach to justice. The world knew that these crimes were morally wrong, but they nevertheless proceeded to hold a trial for all high ranking, living Nazi officials. Whether or not such a trial was truly fair is debatable, with te defense side having fewer opportunities to research and present evidence. However, this model consisted of forcing criminals to truly admit to their crimes.

​What also makes this specific event notable, as we learned at the courthouse, was that media coverage sought to insure that all believed that the Nazis still had to undergo a genuine trial, and that the mob did not swamp any potential for discussion. I found this concept of a media, which seeks to humanize and equalize, quite intriguing. Now, much of the news, from both sides, seeks to create its own verdicts and does not seek to offer transparency. I think that a network which provides as many genuine facts as possible nearly unheard of, except for C-Span.

The defendants of the Nuremberg trials were presumed, as best as possible, to be innocent until proven guilty.

However, one thread ties all these clothes together: death.

Sophie Scholl. Japanese leaders. Nazi leaders. All of these groups were killed for their actions, whether by themselves or by the law.

​How can this be justice? How can we have a system in which, if one kills enough people, they no longer need to face time to repent? How is this fair to those whose lives the perpetrators had taken?

—Sam C

Hallo!

​We’re back in Germany and it’s Lucia blogging tonight! It’s so crazy to think this morning we were in Prague, one of the most beautiful cities I’ve ever seen and exactly what you expect when you think of Europe: the architecture, the art, food and the people. I’m so glad we got to spend time there, but also glad that today, the second to last day we looked at the Nuremberg trials, as a way to complete the circle. We spent important time learning more details about the horrors committed and then we saw how justice was served. I learned a lot of how these trials were to set a precedent of international law and how to deal with global war crimes. This was all good and well but what I want to comment on is the small we had debate of whether to let the Nazi rally grounds in Nuremberg rot and fall to ruin or to preserve them. I was all for letting them rot. Since it is stone it will still be around for a long time people can still learn from it through information at the site and other monuments as well. It will take a while to deteriorate and people will still be able to imagine the scale. I don’t believe that people’s money should be spent on commemorating the ‘villains’ in the story but rather remembering the victims and survivors, their suffering, strength and perseverance. There are many other sites, museums and memorials to the Holocaust to learn about the rally grounds and what happened there. It is of course important to know what happened but we should let the site of celebration of Nazi ideals be forgotten and make way for spots of human survival. Indifference is the worst punishment as E. Wiesel says, and that is the least of what these people deserve for all that they did to others, as in giving them a taste of their own medicine is exactly what they deserve.

—Lucia

The conclusion of our trip featured the attempt of a conclusion for the tragedy that was the Holocaust and WWII. As someone who holds the strong opinion that jail is only detrimental to society, learning about the Nuremberg Trials was intriguing. I found myself extremely angry that the defendants were not given heftier sentences and were often let loose when they had obviously aided in the death of millions of innocent people. For example, at the museum I learned that there were 12 trials against the chemical companies that provided Cyclone B, but only 7 of them were given punishment, and even then it was lenient.

By instinct, I kept reverting back to my personal belief that locking someone away isn’t going to bring the millions of lost lives back to earth. I didn’t see the point in ruining and taking more lives when an extreme human tragedy has already occurred. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the Allies (America, France, Soviet Union, Britain) have a responsibility to set an example for the future, and without the trials, they would have failed to do so. Nevertheless, by giving lenient sentences and punishments that people watched with outrage, they did not send a strong message to future generations about how to treat other people. Going to the courtroom and learning about the trials led me to open my own perspective on punishment and when it is necessary. From my experience with and knowledge about the American criminal justice system, I don’t understand why we as a society don’t work harder to better people rather than locking them up and dehumanizing them. But as I strolled through the museum, I felt that the perpetrators of the Holocaust had to be punished somehow — in what way, I’m not sure. Because even though their actions were pure evil, who’s responsibility is it to act in the same way as they did and decide what happens to another person’s life? In fact, I found it interesting that the U.S. knew about concentration camps during the war, didn’t do anything about them, and then assumed leadership in the Nuremberg Trials.

The courtroom itself was also different from the courts in Boston. For one, there was a giant cross with Jesus at the front behind the judge’s bench. It was interesting to me that the France, Britain, Soviet Union, and the U.S. all combined their law systems to seek the most fitting punishments for the defendants. I think this is a prime example that if we wanted to, the world is capable of effective cooperation.

After learning about the Nuremberg Trials, we all went to see the dome where Hitler had military parades. It was massive and very familiar because he modeled it after the Colosseum in Rome. The museum had a lot of information about how he gradually gained power. He would do it slowly, so as to not frighten the people and eventually, he was Reich president, Reich chancellor, and the fuhrer. It scared me how complicit people were to him slipping into their minds and taking control. I was reminded of many present day situations, and that made me fearful and emotional in a different way.

After the museum, we climbed the steps outside and took a walk. The sun setting was beautiful, and I felt at peace. That was an interesting contradiction given the setting.

For dinner, we all went to one of the oldest restaurants in Nuremberg. There are a lot of BLS Theater students on this trip, so of course we had a talent show after dinner. There were stories, songs, monologues, bird calls, and even a “strong” act. Everyone laughed so much, it was hard for me to breathe at some points. It was a great day!
​
—-Cynthia