Talk:Nuremberg trials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Nuremberg Trials)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Nuremberg trials was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Overview of the trial[edit]

I added a timeline for the major events of the trial, but I am really bad at formatting. If anyone can come up with a more pleasing format...

Defense counsel - unclear[edit]

The section now ends with: "The defence council included several men who took part in the war crimes during World War II. The men testifying for the defense hoped to receive more lenient sentences, but that did not happen often. In fact, all of the men testifying on behalf of the defence were found guilty on several counts." This requires clarification. Does this mean that the defence counsel called on witnesses who were involved in war crimes? Or that the attorneys themselves were involved in war crimes. If the latter, could we name these guys so as not to cast a spell of suspicion on all of them? I entered the detailed info on the names, but the way this is phrased now is a problem in my view. Why were those testifying for the defence hoping for more lenient sentences? Usually, if you testify for the prosecution they may offer you leniency... Finally, what's this about "all of the men testifying for the defence were found guilty"?? That is obviously untrue, unless it refers only to other defendants. Drow69 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That in this case "defense counsel" includes the witnesses should definitely be pointed out explicitly. I created the section on the defense lawyers and meant it to focus just on the attorneys and their staff. There is also the question of Nimitz. His written testimony was sought by the defense to show that the Americans also did some of the things that the defendants were accused of. So "All of the men testifying on behalf of the defense were found guilty on several counts" obviously makes no sense if we read it to include Nimitz. Drow69 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trial or Holocaust Trial?[edit]

It is to my mind incorrect to narrow the Nuremberg trials article down to being "part of a series on the Holocaust", the Holocaust being only one of the topics dealt with at the Nuremberg trials.

I understand what you're saying, but inclusion in that series doesn't mean that the trials are purely a Holocaust issue - merely that they're germane to it. Barnabypage (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Auschwitz Trial which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Narrative Structure[edit]

Could it be possible to ad a section which provides a historical narrative of the bulleted points and the information summarized in the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone object to if I proceeded with this idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography (addition of Brennecke)[edit]

This was recently added to the bibliography, but doesn't seem to be referenced. Was it used as a source, or does it belong under ==Further reading==?

  • Brennecke, Gerhard. Die Nürnberger Geschichtsentstellung. Quellen zur Vorgeschichte und Geschichte des 2. Weltkriegs aus den Akten der deutschen Verteidigung. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für deutsche Nachkriegsgeschichte, Vol. V. 2nd Ed. Tübingen: Verlag der Deutschen Hochschullehrer-Zeitung, 1970.

--Boson (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

it should be dropped. it is very old; it was not used; it is almost impossible for English language users to obtain. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not only "very old", it's revisionist. It has been published by Herbert Grabert, who named his publishing house after himself Grabert Verlag in 1974. The "Institut für deutsche Nachkrieggeschichte" is also one of Grabert's creations. He founded that when he published David Hoggan's Der erzwungene Krieg. Is there noone who follows up on these things? --Assayer (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuremberg trials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Variety of English and formatting[edit]

The spelling and date formatting seem to be a mixture of US and European conventions. I was intending to do some minor copy-editing to fix other problems (commas, etc.). Any objections to standardising on British/European spelling and date conventions? --Boson (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd support that standardisation. The activity took place in Europe, where British English would be the nearest geographical "standard" for English, and the non-American date format prevails. Although some of the references cite American sources, which of course use American spelling and date formats. Nick in syd (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


The article has sections on the accused, judges, prosecutors and defence counsel, just like we have sub-categories for most of the before mentioned in Category:International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg but it is almost completely missing any information on the witnesses and has no category for those either. Some of the witnesses were high-ranking or prominent Nazis, among them Rudolf Höss and Karl Wahl, to name just two. Would a Category:Witnesses at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg be a good idea? Calistemon (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiglessness of British lawmen at the Nuremberg show trials?[edit]

Since the statue adopted for the war-crime proceedings was drawn-up mostly by the Americans in collaboration with the world Jewish Congress under the guidance of the Robinson brothers, guessing the great British 'insularwear' of the court wig got itself vorboten as not to outshine, overshadow, 'uber it' over the weaker-looking in-house court clothes of both the Americans and French. Or mayhap, without an wig to doff, it was British lawmenry's deft yet straightfordward way of flagging to the world that Nuremberg was nowt but a showtrial? Nevertherless, at least the Russians turnt up rightfully clad in high millitarywear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:5599:345D:C259:EFBC (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


There should be more mention of the fact that the trials were widely criticized as the Allies - especially the Soviets - were guilty of many of the same war crimes for which former high-ranking Nazi officials were being tried. (AnatoleTremso (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC))

True. The charges of anti-Semitism were regarded as hypocritical as many of the British, French, American and Soviet officials and commanders held the same views. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:20B5:4881:D006:D247 (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC))
Our Nuremberg trials#Criticism section already mentions the fact that while in 1939 Nazi-Germany and the USSR attacked Poland in coordination with each other, no one from the USSR was charged with this crime of aggression. Our article also mentions how the USSR attempted but failed to shift to Germany the blame for the Katyn massacre, and that the trial failed to serve justice for this crime, and that in 1990 the Soviet government admitted that this atrocity was carried out by the USSR. As for additional criticism, please make specific suggestions for improvements and make sure to back them with a WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Criticism" section is largely original research[edit]

I took a look at the "Criticism" section, and it's overwhelmingly WP:OR.

It needs considerable modification to meet Wikipedia standards against original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keybarb (talkcontribs) 11:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)