The Nuremberg Trials And Oskar Schindler: A Comparative Analysis

With a historic event such as World War Two, it creates a rift between the perception and views of people. The Nuremberg trials, Eichmann trials, and Oskar Schindler’s story all had a large impact on todays society showing the difficult psychological and physiological effects war has on people. In the case of Adolf Eichmann, he was considered a “law-abiding citizen” a person who was just following the rules for the sake of the country. Yet with the surrender of Nazi Germany, he and many other German’s were suddenly considered the “bad guys”. On the other hand there were a handful of people such as Oskar Schindler who decided to follow their morals to save the lives of Jewish people. In either case, World War Two Nazi Germany reveals one challenge facing veterans and survivors; what the difference is between a good and bad person.

    The Nuremberg trials was a series of trials that was carried out from 1945 - 1949 in which former Nazi leaders were indicted and tried as war criminals. Although the Nuremberg trial is now considered a milestone, at the time, the procedure used for the first international trial of war was seen questionable. With the Allies organizing the trial, they established the laws for the Nuremberg trials with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). The charter defined three

categories of crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. During the trial, most of the defendants admitted to their crimes but at the same time emphasized that they were only following orders. What made the trial so controversial was not necessarily the punishment that the defendants received but rather the procedure and logic that was used. As said by Wyzanski:

“The refusal to recognize the superior-order defense not only is not repugnant to the ex post facto principle, but is consonant with our ideas of justice…. And we cannot even admit that individual self-preservation is the highest value. This is not a new question. Just as it is settled that X is guilty of murder if, in order that he and Y, who are adrift on a raft, may not die of starvation, he kills their companion, Z; so a German soldier is guilty of murder if, in order that he may not be shot for disobedience and his wife tortured in a concentration camp, he shoots a Catholic priest. This is hard doctrine, but the law cannot recognize as an absolute excuse for a killing that the killer was acting under compulsion--for such a recognition not only would leave the structure of society at the mercy of criminals of sufficient ruthlessness, but also would place the cornerstone of justice on the quicksand of self-interest.”
Because of the denial of the situation of the defendant, Wyzanski argues that the trial not only dehumanized the Nazi leaders, but also judged them as “bad” in the eyes of the Allied nations when in reality many of the Allied leaders would and had done similar things.
Similarly, in 1961, Nazi atrocities was at the forefront of world news through the Eichmann trial. As the trials proceeded, many Jewish survivors brought compelling testimonies generating interest in the Jewish resistance and the world was once again shocked by the procedure and logic used in the trail. During the trial, Eichmann was presented as a beast who was capable of massacring another few thousand people by being placed in a glass box, however, in reality he was a scrawny old man. Similarly Eichmanns main personal defence was that he was following orders. As a subordinate, he was only a ‘cog’ obeying ‘superior orders’. He also believed that during the Third Reich, Hitler's words meant law, meaning had the Germans won, he would have been decorated and not trialed. This trial was controversial for the same reasons as the Nuremberg trial. Again, the defendant's personal defence was hardly acknowledged as the trial continued.
Hannah Arendt, who was a journalist of the New Yorker, saw the Eichmann Trials in 1941.

Using the word law-abiding citizen, she believed that the people of Germany were just following the law as any good civilian would. She too believed that the flaws that were precedented by the Nuremberg Trial and used in the Eichmann Trial created an unjust trial. In the book Eichmann in Jerusalem, she recounts Eichmanns action and words, revealing that he truly was a simple minded man. A man who had willingly participated in the extermination of millions of Jews and was more disappointed that his career did not advance rather than show any remorse of his

actions.
Although what Eichmann did was more than morally wrong, Milgram's experiment shows another side of human beings. Having been test psychologically normal, Milgram's experiment shows how Eichmann had very little he could have done. In Milgram’s experiment the results showed that if there was a person that had a respectable degree, looked official, and even when people were aware what they were doing would be immoral, there was very little chance that they would stop and think about what was happening. The study found out that this most likely was true because the subject would not need to have full responsibility. This not only proves that it would have been very hard for Eichmann to find his moral standings and use that against the regime, but the chances that Eichmann would have stopped what he was doing and risk his own life was very low. In a society where it was the norm for people to follow orders proved that not only were Germans normal people, but it also showed that anyone could have been in Eichmanns position and done the same thing. In addition, because of the hierarchy in the Nazi regime, the leaders did not feel fully responsible for all their actions as they were always able to blame a “superior.”
On the Contrary, there was a german man named Oskar Schindler. The actions Schindler took was considered treason and yet something intrinsically moved him to save thousands of Jewish people. What he did was not what a law abiding citizen would have done. Had he followed Nazi orders he would have just exploited the Jewish population for his wealth. However the key difference between Eichmann and Schindler was that Schindler got to know the Jewish people. At first Schindler saw the Jewish people as objects, as a means of business. However over time, he started to realize that the Jews were not objects, rather they were humans just like himself. From this epiphany he realized the atrocities that was happening all over Germany. Moreover, with his situation Schindler was the “superior” in the business. Having no one to blame, Schindler had to take full responsibility of every action he and his subordinates took, which could have possibly changed something in his heart.
I personally do agree with the punishments that the trials gave Eichmann and the Nazi leaders. The killing of thousands of innocent Jews should never be forgotten, however, I also agree with Wyzanski and Arendt. I think that placing all the blame and responsibility on a couple of people does not serve justice. Not only does this not give the defendants humanistic traits, it also does not bring justice to those who were affected by the war. As a human we all have personalities and traits that make us who we are, however, by grouping people it dehumanizes them and makes them into a number. Because the trials ended up placing all the blame on a couple of leading Nazi’s, the people who were affected by the war had to blame all their experiences and traumas on a couple Nazis’s.
In conclusion I think that responsibility is what makes a person good or bad especially in the case of war. The Nazi leaders all acknowledged their participation in the crime and yet did not take the responsibility of their actions. In my opinion had they acknowledged their responsibility, they would have noticed the horrible atrocities that was happening right before their eyes.