Postwar Trials for the Crimes  Against  Peace, Humanity and  War Crimes, Germany, 1945 – 1949, 1945-1949 | Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust

These three collections reflect on the new principles of international law, as long as crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes are concerned. On the other hand, these materials serve as a valuable historic source on the criminal activity of the National Socialist government of Germany and specifically on the role of the leading figures of this Government in multiple crimes in the course of the Second World War.

This record group contains three collections, namely a David Lippert Collection, Jim and Jessica Watson Collections and Collection of trial records from the Nurnberg Trials Against Peace, Humanity and War Crimes. All collections deal with the postwar trials organized and administered by the Allies in Germany. Largely these trails embedded crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. The culprits were individuals from a high echelon of the Nazi authorities including NSDAP, SS, Gestapo, SA, SD and Wehrmacht.  The trials, conducted in the American zone of occupation in Germany, were administered by the international team of judges, prosecutors and lawyers.

Jim and Jessica Watson
David Lippert

Postwar trials symbolize a new era in international jurisprudence. The international team of theorists of law and practicing jurists introduced a new conception of guilt and accountability for the crimes against peace, humanity and the war crimes per se. In this light, the David Lippert Collection is of theoretical nature, corroborating the new principle of the international law. The Collection comprising a series of Nurnberg Trials against Peace, Humanity and War Crimes embeds the narration of the new theoretical provisions in international administration of justice together with the materials of proceedings heard in Nurnberg in 1946 – 1948. The Jim and Jessica Watson Collection contains pure court proceeding that took place in Nurnberg in 1948. These materials record in detail the court sessions from February to May 1948. These documents are of pure investigative and judicial nature recorded in German language. By and large, the new theory of jurisprudence applied to the crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes and the records of court sessions introduce us to the postwar dealing with the ideology and crimes of German National Socialist regime.

RG-30.01.01, David Lippert, A Preliminary Examination of the Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind

RG-30.01.02, David Lippert, The Codification of the Nurnberg Principles

RG-30.01.03, David Lippert, The Codification of the Nurnberg Principles, rough copy

RG-30.01.04, David Lippert, Some aspects of the laws of the war in light of the war crimes trials

RG-30.01.05, David Lippert, How Were the Nazis Punished, analysis

RG-30.01.06, David Lippert, footnotes

RG-30.02, JIM AND JESSICA WATSON COLLECTION OF THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PAPERS

This is a multi-level collection of court proceedings of the crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. Most of the trials and pre-trial deliberations took part in Nurnberg. The wide array of Nazi governmental and military high-ranking officials stood trials for various crimes including perpetration of murder by command and for the conspiracy.

Overall, there are 922 pages of the original documents in German. This is a typewritten text.

There are two evidence folders.  The first is marked on top, in pencil "Master Copy".  Below this, it is another note, namely "Military Tribunal NO. Case number VIII Prosecution Document Book No. VIII A.  The Case number and Book number are written in pencil. There are 150 pages in this packet.

The second folder is marked in the same way. It differs by the mark "German" and "8B".  Remarks are made in pencil. There are 143 pages in this packet.

Additionally there are 13 packets of German typewritten texts. They are not in folders but are stapled together and described as follows,

Subsequent Nuremberg Trials - High Command Trial , officially named as

The United States of America vs. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al.

Military Court No. V-A, case XII

Nuremberg, Germany

All documents are in German.

<ol> <li> 15 transcripts of 10 days of trial:</li></ol>

Personal data:

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Defendant: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

RG-30.02.01, Trial Proceedings on February 11, 1948, from 9:30-12:30

Personal data:

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Witnesses: Nikolaus Schemmel, Erwin Lahousen

Defendant: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp

Summary:

Defendants Sperrle and Hollidt were absent on that day. The examination of the witness Nikolaus Schemmel by Mr. Dobbs commences. The prosecutor asks for confirmation of receipt of an order, which is affirmed by the witness. He further questions Schemmel about his responsibilities as the Commander of a POW camp and about the employment of Russian POWs.  Specific questions are asked of him about their hard work and the mortality rate among the Russian POWs.

Cross examination begins: Dr. Surholt, defense lawyer,  asks more precisely about the orders, whether the defendants Reinecke and Breyer implied humane treatment of POWs. The question correlates with the statement by Schemmel who indicates his commitment of treating the Russian POWs with humanity and  dignity.

Further questions of the prosecution concern with the organizational provisions within  the German armed forces and specifically of the role of  the “Einsatzkommandos” in mass killings of the Russian POWs.

Examination and testimony  of Erwin Lahousen

Erwin Lahousen served in the Austrian army and after the Anschluss joined the Wehrmacht (German Army). He testifies about the relationship between Admiral Canaris, Chief of the Abwehr (German military intelligence), and the defendant Reinecke. A meeting, in which the treatment of Russian POW’s was discussed, is being explained by the witness. He testifies that the head of the <em>Allgemeine</em> Wehrmachtsamt Reinecke considered POWs as Bolsheviks, therefore they were not POWs as such but the greatest enemies of the National Socialism. The department of Foreign Defense, whom Lahousen was then representing, rather preferred a proper treatment of the Russian POWs. In this session there were also high ranking officials present, among them was Graf von Moltke. The latter further analyzes approaches of dealing with Russian POWs outside of the German Empire.

RG-30.02.02, Court Session on February 11, 1948 from 13:30-16:30

Personal data:

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Witness: Erwin Lahousen

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer: Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyer: Dr. Leverkuehn;

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp

Summary:

The court resumes the trial after lunch break. The witness Lahousen is being questioned about issues relating to his position in the Department of Defense of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (Wehrmacht High Command) or OKW. He testifies about Admiral Canaris’s opinion about the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia. He believed it this operation would result in casualties inflicted on the Czechs then Great Britain may declare war on Germany.  Admiral Canaris supposedly predicted the end of Germany the night before it invaded Poland.

Further questions concern Lahousen’s superiors Feldmarschall Keitel and General Walter Warlimont and the “Operation Himmler”, the staged attack of Gleiwitz.

The next questions posed deal with the Kommandobefehl (Commando Order) and about the witness’s awareness of euphemistic terms. He reveals that General Warlimont and Admiral Canaris seemed to have had a friendly relationship.

In the examination by Dr. Surholt, defense lawyer, Lahousen is confronted with a question about the Führerbefehl of January 1940, which mainly called on every officer only to have a certain portion of information about his or her specific work, not more, not less. The witness further confirms that he knew about the procedures in the field, concerning killing squads and mass executions.

This copy appears to be incomplete.

RG-30.02.03, Court session on February 13, 1948 from 9:30-12:30

Personal data:

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Witnesses: Paul Ohler

Defendant: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyer Dr. Leverkuehn; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky

Summary:

The witness answers questions regarding his former position as SS-Obersturmfuehrer and inspector with the Gestapo. He took over the commando of Hammelburg in November 1941, which was to examine POWs in so called Oflags (Camps for officers captured as POWs). He summarizes the way how the Soviet politruks (political commissars) were identified and later deported to concentration camps.  Under his watch it was from Hammelburg to Dachau concentration campp, where the POWs were instantly shot. He then identifies the maps of the organizational structure.

Cross examination by Dr. Surholt, defense lawyer, who only asks the witness about some orders, afterward dismissal of the witness ensues.

Mr. Honecky presents evidence of how and where the Kommandobefehl was carried out in the light of various documents.

RG-30.02.04, Court Session on February 13, 1948

Personal data:

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyer Dr. Leverkuehn; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein,

Summary:

Due to the fact that the defense did not receive a copy of a documentation, the trial is adjourned, so both sides would have the same possibility to know what documents will be presented.

RG-30.02.05, Court session on February 16, 1948 from 9:30-12:30

Personal data:

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer: Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary:

The exhibits are reviewed and discussed piece by piece.

RG-30.02.06, Court session on February 16, 1948 from 13:30-16:05

Personal data

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyer Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer: Dr. Gollnick

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary:

The exhibits are continued to be reviewed and discussed piece by piece.

RG-30.02.07, Court session on February 17, 1948 from  9:30-12:30

Personal data

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer: Dr. Gollnick

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary

The exhibits are continued to be reviewed  and discussed piece by piece.

RG-30.02.08, Court session on February 17, 1948 from 13:30-16:30

Personal data

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor: Mr. Dobbs

Witnesses: Hans Erich Schoenig

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer: Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary:

The prosecution calls Hans Erich Schoenig to the witness stand to testify about the killings in Poitiers in 1944. There, the 34 British soldiers were taken prisoners of war and soon after 31 of them were executed under the Commando order. The witness urges his innocence about the verdicts.

The cross examination is being conducted by Dr. Leverkuehn. He questions Schoenig about the connection of the British unit to the Maquis, which is affirmed by the lattter. He also tells the court that the British soldiers who were not executed were transferred to the Wehrmacht prison in Pontiers, where they died in the following days – an execution had  not been reported.

After the afternoon break the witness General Hans Juergen Stumpf takes the witness stand. He served in both world wars. He was transferred to the newly established German Luftwaffe (air force) in 1933. His further testimony mostly concerns the organizational structure and history of the Luftwaffe.

RG-30.02.09, Court Session on February 18, 1948 from 9:30-12:30

Personal data

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Defendants,  Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary

The prosecution presents documents containing information about the slave labor and the presiding judge approves them as evidences.

RG-30.02.10, Court session on February 18, 1948 from 13:30-16:30

Personal data

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Witness, Walter Bruns

Defendants, Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer: Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary

The prosecution presents a few more documents and then a witness Mr. Walter Bruns is called to the witness stand. He had been an officer in the Wehrmacht since 1941. He testifies that while being stationed in Riga, the Jews were employed as slave laborers for the army. Then, on one day, he received information that all Jews were supposed to be shot. Bruns tried to postpone the execution or prevent it, but with no success. On the execution day he reported to his superior Oberstleutnant Richter trying to halt the slaughter,  but it was too late. When he returned to his station the mass killing was finished.  Approximately 42.000 - 45.000 Jewish women and children had been killed. He then gives testimony about the organizational structure of the army’s unites stationed in and the city of Riga and its vicinity.

RG-30.02.11, Court session on April 12, 1948 from 13:30-16:30

Personal data

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Witness, Generaloberst von Halder

Defendants,  Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary

The questioning of Generaloberst von Halder continues. He is asked about the structure of the Wehrmacht and its relation to the Waffen-SS (Combat SS divisions). He is further asked about the disposition of the army command to the National Socialist ideology. Von Halder affirms that they were not in favor of National Socialism, the general trend was rather of disapproving mood.  In particular, the army command disapproval related to the racist and religious hatred and the incompetence of the Nazi party members. The witness then testifies about the intellectual resistance of Generaloberst Fritsch and General Beck. Von Halder was then promoted to the post of Generalstabschef (Chief of General Staff)  with a perspective, as he testifies, “to fight Hitler and his regime”. Their plans had been thwarted partially because the Regime succeeded with the Munich agreement. The military command cherished the idea of preventing the war with the West. He continues with a description of the German leadership of military operations, emphasizing that Adolf Hitler would not accept any objections. He then answers several questions about the command structure of the army.

RG-30.02.12, Court session on April 28, 1948 from 13:30-16:30

Personal data

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Witness, Georg von Kuechler

Defendants,  Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein, Dr. Behling, Mr. Niedermann

Summary

Feldmarschall Georg von Kuechler is questioned about his role in the war. He testifies that after his defense plans for the Army Group North had been rejected by Hitler, he wanted to resign from the chief position of this army group. Hitler was irritated of  Kuechler’s repudiating sentiments towards the ‘Soviet commissar order’ and eventually relieved him from his post. When confronted Kuehler denies having known about shootings of Soviet political commissars in the armies under his command. Then the prosecutor asks him about the invasion of Poland.  Von Kuechler emphasizes that he had only obeyed  orders, which came from the OKW (Wehrmacht High Command), and personally back then did not believe that the mobilization would result in invasion. The defendant is further questioned about various orders related to his service.

RG-30.02.13, Court Session on April 29, 1948 from  9:30-12:30

Personal data

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Witness, Georg von Kuechler

Defendants, Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer: Dr. Mueller-Torgow; Karl-Adolf Hollidt with defense lawyer Dr. von Jagwitz

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein, Dr. Behling, Mr. Niedermann

Summary

Cross examination of Feldmarschall Georg von Kuechler by Mr. Niederman continues. The prosecution raises its main questions whether the defendant von Kuehler was aware about the activities and existence of the SD (Security Service) and Sonderkommandos (Special Units) and Einsatzgruppen (Special mobile task units) of the Sicherheitspolizei (Gestapo).  He denies of having known about their mere existence and multiple examples of murderous atrocities committed by these Special Services placed  under his authority in the course of combat operations. The prosecutor tries to prove otherwise by alluding to the documents and narrated orders. Judge Harding raises the question of what was Kuechler’s degree in decision-making during the war. In other words, Judge Harding deliberates whether it was  possible for any chance that the Commander of such rank (Field Marshal) as  von Kuechler was, to have no knowledge about the crimes committed by the armies in his disposition.

After the lunch break Judge Hale questions the defendant  and asks him for his personal assessment of Hitler. An interrogation by Dr. Behling ensues.

RG-30.02.14, Court session on May 28, 1948 from 13:30-14:35

Personal data

Judges, Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Defendants, Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary

The assistant of Dr. Tipp delivers an opening speech for the Karl von Roques. After finishing Dr. Rapp informs the court about the whereabouts of the former Feldmarschall Erich von Manstein, who is imprisoned in England but was supposed to testify in favor of the defendant Woehler. A similar situation is true for the former Generalfeldmarschall von Rundstedt. Dr. Rapp therefore kindly asks the court to use its influence on the Secretary General to open the way for the two witnesses to testify in the case. Due to the schedule the trials are adjourned to June 1.

RG-30.02.15, Court session on June 1, 1948 from 9:30-12:30

Personal data

Judges: Justin W. Harding, Winfried Hale

Prosecutor, Mr. Dobbs

Witness, Karl Schall

Defendants: Hermann Reinecke with defense lawyer Dr. Surholt; Walter Warlimont with defense lawyers Dr. Leverkuehn, Dr. Griese; Hans von Salmuth with defense lawyer Dr. Gollnick; Hermann Hoth with defense lawyer Dr. Mueller-Torgow

Others present: Dr. Laternser, Mr. McHaney, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Horecky, Dr. Frohwein

Summary

Von Roques’s lawyer calls the witness Karl Schall to the witness stand. He was Oberst (Colonel) in the Wehrmacht. He is questioned about his relations with General von Roques. His testimony deals with the authority at the front, for example that the Higher SS- and Police commanders were under the authority of the army group, which did not result in any problems, according to the witness. Schall then explains the administering the camps for POWs and also about the administration of Dulags (temporary POWs’ camps).

RG-30.02.16, Indexes:

RG-30.02.16.01, Military Tribunal No./ Case No. VIII/ Prosecution Document Book No. 8, Kidnapping of Alien Children

RG-30.02.16.02, Military Tribunal No./ Case No. VIII/ Prosecution Document Book No. VII B, Kidnapping of Alien Children

RG-30.02.17, Subsequent trial after the Nuremberg major trial: United States vs. Joasias Prince zu Waldeck, et. Al. Case No. 00-50-9

Review and Recommendations of the Deputy Judge Advocate for War Crimes trials

Period of the trial April 11, 1947- August 14 1947

Language, English

Location, Dachau, Germany

Accused: Josias Prince zu Waldeck, Otto Barnewald, August Bender, Anton Bergmeier, Arthur Dietzsch, Hans Eisele, Werner Greunuss, Philipp Grimm, Hermann Grossmann, heinrich Hackmann, Gustav Heigel, Hermann Helbig, Edwin Katzen Ellenbogen, Josef Kestel, Ilse Koch, Richard Koehler, Hubert Krautwurst, Hands Merbach, Peter Merker, Wolfgang Otto, Hermann Pister, Emil Pleissner, Guido Reimer, Helmut Roscher, Hans Schmidt, Max Schobert, Albert Schwartz, Walter Wendt, Friedrich Wilhelm, Hans Wolf, Franz Zinecker.

         

Summary

All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of subjecting the prisoners of  the Buchenwald concentration camp to killings, beatings, tortures, starvation, abuses and indignities. The review is organized as follows:

I.                  Trial, detailing the who, what, when, where and why in regard to the proceedings.

II.                Charge and Particulars, This section names the accused, their charge and pleas.

III.            Findings and Sentences, There is a list of the accused and what punishments they received, all of whom were found guilty.

IV.            General Statement of Evidences, This is split into first (A.) For Prosecution and second (B.) For Defense.

(A.), The Prosecution includes the following subdivisions: 1. Organization, 2. Sub-camps, 3. Inmates, 4. Special Features, 5. Reception, 6. Housing, 7. Food, 8. Clothing, 9. Suppression of Religious Worship, 10. Medical Treatment, 11. Medical Experiments, 12. Human Skins(dealing at great length with Isle Koch’s morbid interest in human hides) , 13. Killings and Mistreatments, 14. Exterminations, 15. Death Rates, 16. Evacuation Marches

(B.), The Defense includes the following subdivisions: 1. General conditions, 2. Sub-camps, 3. Housing, 4. Food, 5. Clothing, 6. Medical Treatment, 7. Medical Experiments, 8. Killings and Mistreatment, 9. Punishment, 10. Executions, 11. Injections, 12. Outgoing Transports, 13. Death Rates, 14. Evacuation Transports

V. Questions of Law: A. Jurisdiction, B. Legal Sufficiency of Charge and Particulars, C. Judicial Notice, D. Motion for Findings of Not Guilty, E. Superior Orders, F. Executions, G. Conduct of Trial,

        VI. Evidence and Recommendations, details each of the accused cases.

        VII. Conclusions, This section establishes that the accused were tried with justice      and that they received their due punishments.

In general the defense’s case was about softening the actions of the accused. The defense attorney’s tried to play up “good” and “beneficial” policies that the accused enacted while in control of the camp or in their various positions.

The punishments were approved on June 8, 1948. However many of the death sentences were reduced to life imprisonments and many of the life imprisonments were reduced to the shorter sentenced from 4 and 15 years.

RG-30.03, Nurnberg Trials Against Peace, Humanity and War Crimes, Collection of Papers

This Collection comprises guiding documents complied by the International Military Tribunal and evidential records of the particular trials concerning mass killing of Jews perpetrate by German agencies and armed forces.

RG-30.03.01, International Military Tribunal, principles

RG-30.03.02, Judgment of the International Military Tribunal

RG-30.03.03, Military Tribunal IV

RG-30.03.04, Murder of the Jews of Europe Count V, part II

RG-30.03.05, Report and Recommendation on War Crimes and Punishments

RG-30.03.06, Report on the International Status of the War Criminals

RG-30.03.07, Murder of the Jews of Europe Count V, part III

RG-30.03.08, Murder of the Jews of Europe, Count V, part IV

RG-30.03.09, Murder of the Jews of Europe, Count V, part V, final

RG-30.03.10, Complete List of War Crimes Case and Trials, 1

RG-30.03.11, Complete List of War Crimes Case and Trials, 2

Complicity in the Holocaust
David Lippert, judge advocate, military and civil jurist, postwar Germany
denazification
Denazification in postwar Germany, analysis and reflection by David Lippert, judge advocate
Documentation of Nazi German warcrimes, postwar
Guiding documents issued by International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1947, 1948
Jim and Jessica Watson Collection of the Nurembert International Tribunal proceedings, 1948
Judicial and political conclusion regarding postwar trials against humanity over Nazi Germany
Judicial codification of the Nuremberg Principles, article by David Lippert, judge advocate, postwar
Military Tribunals of International Crimes, references in David Lippert narratives, postwar Germany
Postwar trials against humanity, war crimes, postwar Germany
Second World War, 1939 -- 1945
Transcripts of warcrime proceedings, Nuremberg, 1947, 1948
Trials of high profiles by the Allies jurists, Nuremberg, 1947, 1948
war crimes trials

German
English