History Extra Podcast: "The Nazis’ Crimes Laid Bare" (Nov 23, 2025)

Host: Dave Musgrove
Guest: Philippe Sands (author, international law specialist)
Episode Focus: Dissecting the Nuremberg Trials — from courtroom logistics, treatment of defendants and legal teams, to the impact of shocking evidence and testimony on global understanding of Nazi crimes.

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode—part two in a four-part series on the Nuremberg Trials—investigates the trial's pivotal moments as they unfolded in late 1945 and 1946. It explores the courtroom environment, the conduct and treatment of Nazi defendants, the profound effect of witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the trials’ role in dramatically shifting global awareness of the Holocaust and Nazi atrocities. The dialogue reveals both the human and procedural dimensions of this landmark in international law.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The Nuremberg Courtroom

• Opening Statements:

  • The episode delivers Robert Jackson’s powerful opening as US Chief Prosecutor, emphasizing the gravity of the proceedings:

    “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. … That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.”
    — Robert Jackson (03:15)

  • Philippe Sands notes the importance of Jackson's words, highlighting a deliberate effort to distinguish Allied justice from Nazi vengeance. (04:30)

• Courtroom Layout & Atmosphere:

  • Philippe describes a surprisingly intimate court (“maybe a couple of hundred people, max”) with a distinctive arrangement: judges, prosecutors, defendants in a wooden dock, and a conspicuous screen for film evidence. (05:19)
  • The environment was “intimate” despite the weighty events.

2. Defendants & Their Legal Teams

• Treatment of Defendants:

  • Defendants entered individually, often appearing “jovial” at the day's start, but “stunned” and “shocked” after being confronted with evidence. (08:03, 09:43)
  • Unexpectedly, the atmosphere was not overtly hostile; there was an air of forced normality, at least initially.

• Defense Lawyers:

  • All defense counsel were German (or Austrian), not members of the Nazi Party, and performed their roles out of professional duty. (09:59)
  • English barristers were notably barred from representing defendants, a unique rule that disadvantaged the defense because German tradition excluded cross-examination—impacting the trial dynamics.

• Fairness and Perception:

  • Defendants believed they received a fundamentally “fair process.” Records from the attending psychologist (Gilbert) confirm this sense of a just hearing. (10:49, 15:09)

3. Exposing Crimes: Shock, Evidence & Public Impact

• Film as Evidence:

  • Early courtroom drama occurred when the prosecution showed documentary films of concentration camps. Intense lighting insured defendants’ reactions were visible—a calculated move for propaganda and moral impact:

    “You are able to see the defendants looking really rather shocked at vast mounds of corpses. I mean, terrible images that... we're now familiar with. And that was all done in the first weeks.” — Philippe Sands (11:59)

  • This was identified as a “pivotal moment” for public awareness—extending beyond courtroom to the world, with films crafted by acclaimed directors (Alfred Hitchcock, John Huston). (17:02)

• Personal Experience:

  • Robbie Dundas (daughter of chief judge Sir Geoffrey Lawrence) described witnessing these films as “one of the most shocking days of her life,” illustrating the profound, lasting emotional impact even on those not directly targeted by Nazi crimes. (13:18)

4. Trial Structure & Defence Strategies

• Trial Phases:

  • Prosecution presented first, with hundreds of witnesses and massive volumes of evidence; films shown early. Each defendant was tried and sentenced individually. (15:22, 17:55)

• Defense Approaches:

  • Main lines of defense:
    • “We didn’t know.” (lack of knowledge of atrocities)
    • “We were just following orders.” (obedience to authority)
  • Hans Frank briefly acknowledged responsibility, causing outrage among co-defendants, later retreating from any admission of guilt—illustrates peer pressure and the refusal to break collective denial. (18:40)
  • Only Albert Speer’s defense—admitting some responsibility but claiming ignorance—stood out positively, influencing some judges. (28:02)

• Effectiveness and Outcome:

  • Despite prosecutors’ expectations, only about half were sentenced to death, three acquitted—ironically boosting the perceived legitimacy of the trial. (28:02)

• Counterfactuals:

  • No defendant pled guilty; Philippe muses on whether such a plea might’ve reduced sentences, referencing modern war crimes tribunals where guilty pleas have affected sentencing. (21:13)

5. Gender & Press in the Courtroom

• Women’s Roles:
  • All principal actors (judges, lawyers, defendants, guards) were men; women appeared only as interpreters and secretaries. (23:03)
  • Notably, female journalists (Rebecca West, Martha Gellhorn, Janet Flanner) produced some of the richest and most atmospheric trial reportage, especially highlighting the weaknesses of some prosecutorial performances. (24:12)

6. International Relations and Social Life

• Growing Tensions:

  • Per Sands, relations among Allied teams soured as Cold War lines hardened—reflected in everything from film collaboration breakdowns to cool social interactions. (36:00)

• Life Outside the Trial:

  • Participants socialized at Nuremberg’s Grand Hotel. Judges and prosecutors occasionally mingled, something never permitted today. (33:31)
  • Despite the seriousness, “a lot of hanging out, a lot of drinking, a lot of music, a lot of singing, and by all accounts, a lot of sex.” (35:29)

7. Judgment and Sentencing

• Deliberations:
  • Four judges made decisions; majority required for death sentences. (37:52)
  • Internal dynamics included personal connections influencing attitudes.

    “Hans Frank is convicted and will be sentenced to death. But one of the judges... was ‘curiously tender’ toward Hans Frank.” (38:13)

  • Verdicts delivered privately to each defendant; cameras excluded to “protect dignity.” (42:40)
  • The process maintained a careful, if rudimentary, fairness and decorum, aligning with Jackson’s vision of reason triumphing over vengeance. (44:58)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Robert Jackson’s Opening Address:

  “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility… That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.”
  (03:15)

• On Defendants’ Reaction to Evidence:

  “Every morning when they come in, they're looking pretty jovial, pretty jocular. By the end of the day, when the evidence has been read out or shown on the screen, on some days, they're looking pretty stunned.”
  — Philippe Sands (09:43)

• First Time the World Saw the Evidence:

  “It was a huge moment… the Americans made a film, the British made a film, the Soviets made a film… This wasn’t purely about touching the judges… The German public and the global audience was incredibly significant.” — Philippe Sands (17:02)

• On Main Defense Arguments:

  “…we didn’t know what was going on… we were just following orders. If we didn’t follow orders, we would be locked up or executed. But the main thing was they claimed not to have known. And I think that was comprehensively demolished.”
  — Philippe Sands (30:29)

• On Gender Imbalance in the Courtroom:

  “All the judges, all the lawyers, all the defendants, all the guards are male… But the reports that are most exciting to read, most illuminating, the ones that open the imagination, the ones that really capture the atmosphere… are by women writers.”
  — Philippe Sands (23:03, 24:12)

• Social Life and Ordinary Humanity:

  “It was post war, people were living their lives and people were getting up to what people get up to.”
  — Philippe Sands (35:29)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Jackson’s Opening Statement (Archival audio): 03:15
• Description of Courtroom Layout: 05:19
• Treatment of Defendants: 08:03
• Nature of Defense Counsel: 09:50
• First Showing of Camp Films: 11:59
• Personal Account from Judge’s Daughter: 13:18
• Trial Process & Evidence: 15:22–16:39
• First Public Realization of Atrocities: 17:02
• Individual vs. Collective Trials: 17:55
• Hans Frank and Pleas of Guilt: 18:40
• Counterfactual on Guilty Pleas: 21:13
• Women’s Roles & Female Reporters: 23:03–24:12
• Goering’s Cross-Examination Story: 24:12
• Social and Gender Dynamics at Trial: 33:31
• Cold War Tensions Among Allies: 36:00
• Decision-Making & Judges’ Deliberation: 37:52–42:40
• Dignity in Sentencing: 42:40
• Episode Wrap-up: 45:57

Conclusion

This episode captures the unique blend of formality, shocking revelation, and deeply human moments that defined the Nuremberg Trials. Philippe Sands and Dave Musgrove provide clear-eyed analysis, first-hand accounts, and incisive historical commentary, conveying both the courtroom’s drama and its enduring legacy. The discussion foregrounds Nuremberg as a turning point: a legal, moral, and cultural watershed whose reverberations are still felt today.