Search

Starting out from the question of how history and law relate to each other, the article traces the influence of historical interpretations in the making of the Nuremberg Trials, taking these as examples for transitional trials more generally. In trying to explain Germany's apparently aberrant historical evolution, special-path explanations forged by historians gained in prominence after 1933. Several schools of historical thought proved particularly influential, among them the Namierites in Britain, the Andler-Vermeil school of Pangermanism in France, and the so-called Kehrites who emigrated from Germany to the US. These ideas then traveled to Nuremberg where they informed the prosecutors' understanding of German history, leaving a discernible impact on the trials' design and dynamics. In Nuremberg's aftermath, these trial narratives would come to inform influential strands in postwar historiography, with the special path both enjoying popularity and inviting heavy criticism to the present day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews recent historical investigations of transitional trials held after the Second World War. It identifies three main strands of historiography. One group of studies has been dominated by the trials' participants who have shaped the perception of the trials' scope, their achievements, and their shortcomings, and pursued political, legal, or biographical agendas. A second group has treated the trials as a mere epilogue to the history of the deceased regimes. A third, more profound approach has conceptualized the trials as places where collective memory was assembled, configured, and shaped. This notion opens the debate to an analysis of how law and history on the one hand, jurisdiction, jurisprudence, and historiography on the other interact and how they impact on one another. The article compares and evaluates the benefits drawn from this research. It finds that historical analyses which take seriously the epistemological premises of the law as well as the courtroom's performativity manage to bypass well-trodden paths of interpretation which either deplore the limited, inadequate punishment meted out, or celebrate the triumphant march from Nuremberg to The Hague. The article concludes that such interdisciplinary readings help to avoid widespread disillusionment with the results of transitional trials. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the attempts to reinforce capitalism within Germany during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials between 1945 and 1949. The author explains that the United Nations Organization was attempting to secure peace through stabilizing economic conditions and had set up an Economics and Social Committee. She discusses the relationship between National Socialism and capitalism, explores how the Nuremberg Trials addressed both political and corporate ideals, and examines the connection between Germany's Third Reich war crimes and its economics.

The article discusses the so-called Sonderweg, or unique path of German history from aristocracy to democracy, as reflected in the Nuremberg war-crimes trial held by the allied powers to prosecute Nazi war criminals following the send of the Second World War. Using the example of the Krupp trial of 1947/1948, the author argues that the trials were employed by the allied powers to break the national socialist hold of the German legal system, and also to bring recent German history to light, arguing that prosecutors used a business history approach to the affair, which precluded true historical debate.