AboutMichael FitzGerald Expertise I am an expert in German history between 1918 and 1945, particularly with regard to the Nazi era. I am also very knowledgeable about most areas of philosophy (I have an honours degree in the subject) and am able to answer questions on that subject too. In addition, I am very knowledgeable about poetry. One of my hobbies is also politics, mainly British and European though I follow the US political scene as well. Another one is the history of crime and punishment and British social history (the two often overlap!) I am willing to answer questions on all the above issues.
Experience Author of two published works, 'Storm Troopers of Satan,' an account of the lunatic fringes of Nazi ideology, and 'Adolf Hitler: A Portrait,' a biography of the German dictator. 'Adolf Hitler' was published in July 2006 by the top history publisher Spellmount and was named historical biography of the month by the Good Book Guide. I correspond with Ian Kershaw, Peter Stachura, Jeremy Noakes, Roger Moorhouse and Stan Lauryssens. I have undertaken research for radio, television, newspapers and magazines
Organizations Society of Authors
Education/Credentials I have an Honours degree in philosophy.
Awards and Honors LT prize for poetry
Historical Biography of the month, Good Book Guide
This is not really a factual question and is more aimed at gauging your opinion. I have been sat at work this morning with a question on my mind. The question is this, how different would the outcome and judgements of the Nuremberg trial have been if the Defendants were tried in a German Court which did not have its legal sovereignty impinged by the victorious powers? Like I said I would welcome your opinion on a question that has been buzzing around my head all morning!!! Thanks for your time,
Phill
Answer Good evening Phill
Thank you for your fascinating question. I apologise for not replying to you before but I was away on business for a few days recently and only picked up my messages tonight! Sorry.
I think there is no doubt that there were a number of highly dubious legal aspects to the Nuremberg Trials. In the first place, ONLY the Axis powers were on trial whereas in fact the British, Americans and especially the Russians were also guilty of war crimes for which they were NEVER put on trial.
Senator Robert Taft opposed the trials at the time (which cost him his chance of getting the Republican nomination in 1948) on the grounds that some of the charges (particularly waging an aggressive war) were not reasonable to make criminal offences and that it was not just that only the Nazis and their allies should be on trial rather than ALL combatant nations.
Under the Nazis, justice was anything but fair, of course. Had a German court which was genuinely independent been even remotely possible after the destruction of the country by the war and the minds of the German people by twelve years of Nazism, I suspect that the likes of Goering and Hoess would still have been sentenced to death, that Hess might have been found unfit to plead, that Speer and von Schirach would have received longer sentences, and that Papen would almost certainly NOT have been acquitted.
