Maxwell Fyffe did an excellent job in cross examination after Robert Jackson gave such an appalling one was essential. The prosecution team were dismayed with Jackson - Goering ran rings around him because he was skilfull.
There must never have been a ‘gotcha’ moment in these proceedings - else it would be shown in every other history channel wwii documentary. Also, is this and a very few similar others all there is of video of the proceedings? Shouldn’t we have video of direct examination as well? These proceedings went on for weeks and months but didn’t anyone recognize that later generations might wish to see it for themselves anyway? I’m afraid to say it but is the video we do get to see ‘packaged’ by the government?
My opinion on this is: just read the court transcripts. Assuming the translations are correct, all the executed nazis self implicated themselves in some form related to war crimes. It’s really that simple. Mostly because their names were on documents related to said war crimes, either mistreatment of populations or POWs, and in cross exams they don’t really ever deny that those documents were valid. In terms of the final solution, you would have to look at the eichmann trial where eichmann verifies the authenticity of a quote about him talking about 6 million corpses when he was responsible for the logistics of the camps. Really, all the information is there, from the own words of the nazis to piece everything together. There is no “yes Hthe holocaust happened and yes Hitler did it” moment.
It is, without a doubt, the most significant honor that power has ever paid to reason. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was, by far, the most exceptional trial attorney among the allied prosecution teams. What a pleasure it is to watch him skewer Goering.
Herman was the "star" of the show. Free from drugs and with nothing to lose he gave his accusers the run around. However,late in the trial British prosecutor Maxwell-Fyffe got the upper hand. HG, still had the last laugh when he committed suicide just hours before his execution.
The comments made by soviet prosecuter about the last question about Bodenscharz's comment is kinda sinister and unlawful. He asks Göering why Bodenscharz thought they would pay dearly if Germany lost the war and he asks "because you murdered those people?" Why is there a presupposition of crime at the trial? It only goes to say the outcome of these trials was predetermined...
Dhananjay Rele trials of that nature are adversarial not inquisitive. Göring's lawyer should have objected. But since he didn't, the questions were fine.
Soviet prosecutor, Rudenko, was nothing but a bolshevik executioner who scribbled false sentences on Stalin's enemies, sentencing them to be shot 😂 Of course he did not have the skills for an adversarial trial
As Sir Hartley Jackson subsequently said about cross examinations: “ never ask a question of which you do not already know the answer”. This was Jackson’s downfall and why Sir Maxwell was so effective and destructive to Goering’s stance.
Most people cannot remember what they have said in the past, at least not to the word. I struggle to remember what I had for dinner yesterday. If you repeat a question long enough, it becomes maybe, maybe not. And in the end it becomes sure, as long as you stop asking that question. Move on. Everyone present must have known that the purpose of the trial was just to do it correctly. The outcome was certain.
There is zero chance that he would have been found not guilty, however badly the case was argued - and whether or not any evidence had actually been presented - because these trials had zero to do with law. It should be remembered that finding a defendant guilty has nothing to do with whether he actually committed a crime, and everything to do with whether that is proven in court, meeting the required burden of proof, with all admissibility of evidence and legal procedure correctly followed. In any case, I don't think the death penalty was ever appropriate. There was too much left to learn, lost to history by death. The punishment of life in prison would probably have been more severely felt, and they kept a prison open for Hess anyway!
I read the transcripts for the cross examination of Goering, and it seems like he self incriminated himself multiple times, for example, admitting to signing off on decrees of mass confiscation of property of Jews in occupied territories, which today would be considered a war crime and a form of ethnic cleansing, as well as signing off on very lenient punishments on certain cases of murders of Jews or POWs. The record is clear that Goering, while probably never actively trying to mass murder, did aid and abet it, and any court in the land today would probably give him a severe sentence, whether a long prison sentence or execution.
@@redarrowhead2 I was not defending Goering at all. I was suggesting that the burden of proof was always irrelevant because the outcome was always pre-determined. Any evidence - that could survive litigation in court - was simply icing on the cake, for posterity. And I maintain that all death penalties were inappropriate. There was too much to learn, to teach. Also worth pointing out that laws regarding conduct during war, which were written years later, clearly cannot be used here. Again, I am simply expressing an opinion - and that opinion is not in support of Goering for a second. It is merely to suggest that the trials could, and should, have been better conducted. Perhaps there was too much of a rush.
What people don't seem to grasp was that prosecution was only the secondary purpose of this trial. The primary purpose was to provide a forum, wherein the designs of the Nazi leadership could be exposed. It also allowed the Allies to confront the defendants with the scope and horror of their crimes and make them answer for them. In this respect, the trial was a success, whatever you may say about its procedure.
Alas, you have all missed the point. The purpose of the war crimes process was to keep most Germans alive. There was a general western appetite to prevent any further German wars by simply killing all the Germans through starvation. Would have worked, of course, but was arguably a tad over the top. This juridical process allowed the Western public to ventilate, while axing only a few of the German miscreants. It was an effort of enormous generosity.
Generosity was certainly not the moving spirit of the Nuremberg Trials, rather political calculation and self-righteousness. Blaming the defendants for WW2 and sentencing them to death made the winners of the war look like the good guys who had fought the bad guys. The war against Germany seemed justified - and whatever means used. BTW, as for the spirit of jurisdiction: Find out how the hangings - wisely behind closed doors - were performed!
Are you saying they were put on trial but the prosecutors were unwilling to free them if the case was not proved? To put it another way - there was no way goering would be free no matter what was said it court.? Why call it a trial?
Maxwell Fyffe did an excellent job in cross examination after Robert Jackson gave such an appalling one was essential. The prosecution team were dismayed with Jackson - Goering ran rings around him because he was skilfull.
The translations from german to english are very good!
Old Herman certainly had a good eye for a painting or 2 or 3 or 4
I wish all these videos had the guy translating, makes it much easier than reading and/or making out what they’re saying with my broken German
There must never have been a ‘gotcha’ moment in these proceedings - else it would be shown in every other history channel wwii documentary.
Also, is this and a very few similar others all there is of video of the proceedings? Shouldn’t we have video of direct examination as well? These proceedings went on for weeks and months but didn’t anyone recognize that later generations might wish to see it for themselves anyway? I’m afraid to say it but is the video we do get to see ‘packaged’ by the government?
I hope to see more video, also. In the meantime, I believe transcripts might be available online at the Library of Congress and at Harvard Law.
...and I see on this great channel a listing of Goering's direct examination on Day 80.
Yes
My opinion on this is: just read the court transcripts. Assuming the translations are correct, all the executed nazis self implicated themselves in some form related to war crimes. It’s really that simple. Mostly because their names were on documents related to said war crimes, either mistreatment of populations or POWs, and in cross exams they don’t really ever deny that those documents were valid.
In terms of the final solution, you would have to look at the eichmann trial where eichmann verifies the authenticity of a quote about him talking about 6 million corpses when he was responsible for the logistics of the camps. Really, all the information is there, from the own words of the nazis to piece everything together. There is no “yes Hthe holocaust happened and yes Hitler did it” moment.
Russia did the same but do not come to trial. That is not justice.
It is, without a doubt, the most significant honor that power has ever paid to reason. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was, by far, the most exceptional trial attorney among the allied prosecution teams. What a pleasure it is to watch him skewer Goering.
You take pleasure in the strangest things.
@@sebastianelytron8450 That was Robert H Jackson's opening statement of the Nuremberg trial.
@@Mrs.IndiYoung And he was right. What side are you on?
@@sebastianelytron8450 the Allies, duh.....
@@Mrs.IndiYoung What have you got against Jackson??
Herman was the "star" of the show. Free from drugs and with nothing to lose he gave his accusers the run around. However,late in the trial British prosecutor Maxwell-Fyffe got the upper hand. HG, still had the last laugh when he committed suicide just hours before his execution.
@Sabrina Dugan Well said, Sabrina.
The comments made by soviet prosecuter about the last question about Bodenscharz's comment is kinda sinister and unlawful.
He asks Göering why Bodenscharz thought they would pay dearly if Germany lost the war and he asks "because you murdered those people?" Why is there a presupposition of crime at the trial? It only goes to say the outcome of these trials was predetermined...
Dhananjay Rele trials of that nature are adversarial not inquisitive. Göring's lawyer should have objected. But since he didn't, the questions were fine.
Soviet prosecutor, Rudenko, was nothing but a bolshevik executioner who scribbled false sentences on Stalin's enemies, sentencing them to be shot 😂 Of course he did not have the skills for an adversarial trial
As Sir Hartley Jackson subsequently said about cross examinations: “ never ask a question of which you do not already know the answer”. This was Jackson’s downfall and why Sir Maxwell was so effective and destructive to Goering’s stance.
The translator sounds a little bit like Arnold Schwarzenegger
Most people cannot remember what they have said in the past, at least not to the word. I struggle to remember what I had for dinner yesterday. If you repeat a question long enough, it becomes maybe, maybe not. And in the end it becomes sure, as long as you stop asking that question. Move on. Everyone present must have known that the purpose of the trial was just to do it correctly. The outcome was certain.
There is zero chance that he would have been found not guilty, however badly the case was argued - and whether or not any evidence had actually been presented - because these trials had zero to do with law.
It should be remembered that finding a defendant guilty has nothing to do with whether he actually committed a crime, and everything to do with whether that is proven in court, meeting the required burden of proof, with all admissibility of evidence and legal procedure correctly followed.
In any case, I don't think the death penalty was ever appropriate. There was too much left to learn, lost to history by death. The punishment of life in prison would probably have been more severely felt, and they kept a prison open for Hess anyway!
I read the transcripts for the cross examination of Goering, and it seems like he self incriminated himself multiple times, for example, admitting to signing off on decrees of mass confiscation of property of Jews in occupied territories, which today would be considered a war crime and a form of ethnic cleansing, as well as signing off on very lenient punishments on certain cases of murders of Jews or POWs. The record is clear that Goering, while probably never actively trying to mass murder, did aid and abet it, and any court in the land today would probably give him a severe sentence, whether a long prison sentence or execution.
@@redarrowhead2 I was not defending Goering at all. I was suggesting that the burden of proof was always irrelevant because the outcome was always pre-determined. Any evidence - that could survive litigation in court - was simply icing on the cake, for posterity. And I maintain that all death penalties were inappropriate. There was too much to learn, to teach.
Also worth pointing out that laws regarding conduct during war, which were written years later, clearly cannot be used here.
Again, I am simply expressing an opinion - and that opinion is not in support of Goering for a second. It is merely to suggest that the trials could, and should, have been better conducted. Perhaps there was too much of a rush.
Well done to Maxwell Fyffe for finally breaking Goering down, and exposing him for what he really was.
It's göring not goring!
OK boomer
@@danielhewit9319 I mean, he's entirely correct in what he's saying.
What people don't seem to grasp was that prosecution was only the secondary purpose of this trial. The primary purpose was to provide a forum, wherein the designs of the Nazi leadership could be exposed. It also allowed the Allies to confront the defendants with the scope and horror of their crimes and make them answer for them. In this respect, the trial was a success, whatever you may say about its procedure.
@SSJ Oh really? Then perhaps Churchill's first thought-shoot them-should have been followed?
Nemecko mohol o kupovať kľudne a ani nemusela byť armáda veľká na obsadenie napríklad celého Afrického Kontinetu
Easy to blame it ALL on the dead guy.
Nulla poena sine lege
Alas, you have all missed the point. The purpose of the war crimes process was to keep most Germans alive. There was a general western appetite to prevent any further German wars by simply killing all the Germans through starvation. Would have worked, of course, but was arguably a tad over the top. This juridical process allowed the Western public to ventilate, while axing only a few of the German miscreants. It was an effort of enormous generosity.
Generosity was certainly not the moving spirit of the Nuremberg Trials, rather political calculation and self-righteousness. Blaming the defendants for WW2 and sentencing them to death made the winners of the war look like the good guys who had fought the bad guys. The war against Germany seemed justified - and whatever means used.
BTW, as for the spirit of jurisdiction: Find out how the hangings - wisely behind closed doors - were performed!
are you smoking crack ?
Great argument, indeed!
Are you saying they were put on trial but the prosecutors were unwilling to free them if the case was not proved? To put it another way - there was no way goering would be free no matter what was said it court.? Why call it a trial?
22Tiger222 I was j
Justiça feita de encomenda para satisfazer os vitoriosos.