History Extra Podcast: Did the Nazis Get a Fair Trial?

Episode Date: November 30, 2025

Host: Dave Musgrove
Guest: Philippe Sands, specialist in international law, author of East West Street and The Ratline

Overview

This episode delves into the dramatic conclusion of the Nuremberg War Trials (1945–46)—specifically, the delivery of verdicts, the immediate aftermath, the legacy of Nuremberg for international law, and the complex question: “Did the Nazis get a fair trial, or was it victor’s justice?” Philippe Sands joins Dave Musgrove to offer insights grounded in both historical record and personal research, including the intergenerational effects on families of both perpetrators and victims.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Drama of the Verdicts

• [03:08] The verdict’s announcement was a moment of global attention—the climax of holding Nazi leaders accountable. Four judges ruled on foundational acts of war and atrocity that shaped contemporary international law.
• The comprehensive judgment addressed many, but not all, of the crimes, laying out detailed facts.
• For the 21 defendants:
  • Many received death sentences.
  • Three were acquitted—regarded as surprising at the time, which “tended to support the idea that the trial had some legitimacy” (Dave Musgrove, 04:55).
  • Focus on prominent figures: Hermann Goering, Hans Frank, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Rudolf Hess.

Reactions from the Dock & Delivery of Sentences

• [05:58] Defendants’ public responses were kept subdued, but private reactions varied, as chronicled by court psychologist Dr. Gustave Gilbert.

  • Some, like Hans Frank, accepted their fate with resignation.
  • Others were elated to be acquitted (or not sentenced to death); some, like Rudolf Hess, “was just in a state of confusion, doesn't realize what has happened.”
  • For military men, the method of execution was controversial—they requested to be shot rather than hanged for reasons of “honor,” but were denied (07:24).

• [08:17] Goering commits suicide with poison before his scheduled execution, a fact that became a headline and a source of embarrassment for the prosecution.

International and Family Responses

• International response to Goering’s suicide:
  “That was seen to be very embarrassing for the prosecution team. How could they have let this happen?” (09:55)
• There was no appeals process, although pleas for clemency were made to the Pope, who had “no authority whatsoever” (10:54).
• Allied leaders broadly framed the verdicts as the delivery of justice but with some private disappointment about acquittals or escapes.

Execution, Aftermath, and Avoidance of Martyrdom

• [13:06] Executions took place two weeks after sentencing in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice courtyard. Some defendants faced death defiantly, others quietly.
• Bodies were photographed post-execution and images released to reinforce the message that justice was served.
  • Notably, Hans Frank’s son, Nicholas Frank, uses his father’s corpse photo as a daily reminder:
    “The first thing I do every day when I wake up, I look at the photograph to remind myself that my father is well and truly dead.” (Dave Musgrove quoting Nicholas Frank, 15:19)
• To prevent martyrdom, the bodies were cremated and ashes scattered so there would be “no place of pilgrimage or homage” (16:36).

The Fate of the Acquitted and Imprisoned

• [20:05] Those acquitted returned to regular life, surprised and elated, while those imprisoned served their terms—memoirs and post-trial lives continued for figures like Albert Speer.

Ongoing Prosecutions Post-Nuremberg

• Nuremberg’s end didn’t mark the close of prosecutions:
  • The US held further military trials for doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople.
  • Later German and international trials continued into the 1960s, 1970s, and even today for lower-level perpetrators.

The Legal Legacy: From Crimes Against Humanity to Genocide

• [22:56] Nuremberg influenced foundational international law:
  • United Nations resolutions enshrined “genocide” as a distinct crime—shockingly, the Nuremberg judgment did not mention “genocide,” greatly upsetting Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term.
  • This directly led to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the wider development of international human rights law.

Was it Victor’s Justice?

• [26:25] Philippe Sands acknowledges Nuremberg was a form of “victor’s justice”—the victors set and enforced the rules, and “didn’t apply the rules to themselves.”

  • However, he emphasizes the necessity of starting somewhere: “Imperfect as it was, it was a vital and necessary starting point.”
  • The question remains: Will the standards set for Nazi leaders ever be applied to the victors themselves? Historically, they have not.

• No Allied crimes were addressed by Nuremberg, even when, as in the Katyn massacre, the blame was wrongly assigned—an enduring flaw.

The Shadow of the Cold War & Nazi Evasion

• [29:34]–[34:55] Sands shares cases of former Nazis escaping justice, such as Otto Wächter and Walter Rauff, the latter of whom worked for Augusto Pinochet in Chile postwar.
  • The shifting threat from Nazism to Communism allowed former perpetrators to find new roles in the West, sometimes unpunished.

Trials’ Flaws and Necessity

• [35:34] Sands reflects on the unique, hasty, and “remarkable” achievement of the Nuremberg trial, but laments imperfect justice:
  • The invention of crimes after the fact.
  • Absence of defense counsel diversity.
  • Exclusion of Allied crimes.
  • Despite this: “Imperfect justice. Yes. Better than nothing. Absolutely... if Nuremberg had not happened, we would not have our modern system of international criminal justice.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On acquittals surprising even the victors:
  “You get the sense in Gilbert's account... of almost a sense of elation for those who've escaped the hangman's noose.”
  —Dave Musgrove, [08:17]

• On Goering’s suicide:
  “He cheated the verdict in that sense and killed himself between the date of the judgment and the sentencing and the date of the hanging.”
  —Dave Musgrove, [09:06]

• Personal, intergenerational impact:
  “The first thing I do every day when I wake up, I look at the photograph to remind myself that my father is well and truly dead.”
  —Nicholas Frank (quoted by Philippe Sands), [15:19]

• On preventing martyrdom:
  “That was why the decision was to dispose of the corpses in that way, to leave no place of pilgrimage or homage. And that was it. That was the end of the matter.”
  —Dave Musgrove, [16:36]

• On the legal legacy of Nuremberg:
  “The legacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal now moves its way into broader international law... and a commitment to develop the principles and practices of international criminal law over the coming period.”
  —Dave Musgrove, [25:15]

• On the question of victor’s justice:
  “It was a form of Victor's justice. It was lopsided. It was the victors that determined the rules, and it was the victors that determined and applied the rules against the losers.”
  —Philippe Sands, [26:25]

• On the necessity of imperfect justice:
  “Imperfect justice. Yes. Better than nothing. Absolutely... if Nuremberg had not happened, we would not have our modern system of international criminal justice.”
  —Philippe Sands, [35:34]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 03:08 — Worldwide response and drama of judgment day
• 05:58 — Private reactions of defendants via Dr. Gustav Gilbert’s interviews
• 08:17 — Goering’s suicide and reactions
• 10:21 — Lack of appeals, pleas to the Pope
• 13:06 — Execution day, photographic evidence, family perspectives
• 16:19–16:36 — Avoiding martyrdom, cremation and scattering of ashes
• 20:05 — What became of the acquitted and imprisoned
• 22:56 — The continued US military trials and their process
• 24:10 — International law legacy: Genocide, UN conventions
• 26:25 — Was Nuremberg “victor’s justice”?
• 29:34 — Postwar fate of Nazis, Cold War politics
• 35:34 — The enduring flaws, necessity, and lessons of Nuremberg

Tone and Language

The tone blends sober legal analysis with striking personal anecdotes, providing historical context alongside emotional resonance. Philippe Sands and Dave Musgrove maintain a reflective, balanced, and occasionally introspective mood, especially when discussing the descendants of both victims and perpetrators.

Conclusion

This episode of History Extra offers an illuminating, nuanced look at the Nuremberg Trials’ outcome—exploring justice, its limits, and its long shadow on families, international law, and our understanding of historical accountability. The legacies of justice and injustice, the avoidance of martyrdom, and the evolving interpretation of fairness remain deeply relevant, and as Sands reminds us, “all roads lead to Nuremberg.”

For more on this subject, the next episode will trace how these trials shaped international justice throughout the rest of the 20th and into the 21st century.