Customer Reviews

The Trial of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-two Defendants before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you are looking for a day-by-day account of the proceedings of the Nuremberg tribunal, then you will be somewhat disappointed by this book. (If that is what you're after, try Gilbert's "Nuremberg Diary.") An introductory chapter certainly outlines how the tribunal came into being, and Davidson deals with the jurisprudence of Nuremberg (i.e. Was it really a trial? Or was it revenge?) in his concluding chapter, but the bulk of this book is not given over to a daily account of the proceedings at Nuremberg.

Instead, this book is literally an "Account of the twenty-two defendants at Nuremberg." Taking each defendant in turn, Davidson gives us a neatly potted account of their history, their involvement in the Nazi regime, their relationships with other high-ranking Nazis and ultimately, decides the extent of their guilt. In short, the reader is provided with 22 "mini-biographies." The conduct of many defendants at the trial is occasionally discussed, but that usually takes second place to the historical data.

This books does contain some fascinating insights on the working relationships between the various Nazi officials. In almost every case, one is struck by the realisation that any given minister was in conflict with almost everyone else. For instance, Speer got along admirably with Hitler (until 1944, at least), but he distrusted almost everyone else in the Nazi hierarchy. Likewise, Kaltenbrunner appeared to regard almost everyone except the Fuehrer as his enemy. It seems that all of these defendants were trying to zealously protect their own sphere of interest and fend off all those who attempted to enroach upon them.

In general then, this book makes for stimulating reading. As for Nuremberg itself, Davidson concludes: "In a world of mixed human affairs where rough justice is done...Nuremberg may be defended as a political event if not as a court." and "In a certain sense, the trial succeeded in doing what judicial proceedings are supposed to do: it convinced even the guilty that the verdict against them was just."

Author Eugene Davidson has provided the reader with a 600 page account detailing the responsibilities of the 22 defendants who were tried in Nuremberg, Germany, for war crimes in World War II. The book is not a question and answer session of each one. Rather, it provides us with an account of what each man was responsible for in regard to Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Most of the defendants were merely anti-semetic flunkies who parroted the beliefs of Hitler. Hjalmar Schacht had the highest I.Q. with 141 and Herman Goering was second with 139. I found the defendants to be a curious lot with each one openly disliking, jealous of, or not trusting the other. Had they pursued other endeavors rather than follow Hitler, some of them may very well have gone on to successful careers. These once powerful men appear to be a rather grandfatherly collection while sitting in the courtroom at Nuremberg. I did find the book to be kind of long, but if you are interested in learning about this cast of characters this would be a good book for you to read.

A thoroughly detailed portrait of the Third Reich and its internal politics and power struggles between the various players.
The only criticism is that the author tends to lean toward an attitude of "acquital due to technicality". He believes that the system was unfair & that the leaders deserve a pass, of sorts, due to the elementary stage of internat'l law & the impromtu procedures. Opinion is fine, but I was expecting an unbiased read.

From a man who was there. Is there a better way of getting a first hand account of the trial. The book allows for a good read on the trial. It is in-depth and eventful and it is easy to read. This is a good reference book to have in any European History collection after 1945.

This book was released in 1966 seeing its fourth printing as late as 1969. I was still in college in those days and obtained my Macmillian & Company hardcover print through The History Book Club.

I had read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (who hadn't) while yet in the military, and about the time of returning to civilian life, Professor Davidson's book appeared. His book was the only one I can recall of those times, being the forerunner of others to follow. Today I also have Persico's study on my shelf, however, I value Davidson's book equally.

The book is a large volume in excess of 600 pages that will more than acquaint any reader on the Palace of Justice and the ensuing tribunal proceedings. And between pages 304-305, are some of the better photographs of the 22 Nazi criminals appearing before the court.

If one is to read on this trial, Eugene B. Davidson's book of 40 years past should still be considered. No matter the passage of years, his book still matters. And it is good to see it yet extant through this recent publishing event.

Still recommended.

Semper Fi.

Needless to say, as others have stated here, this book is NOT about the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. It is, simply, a book containing 22 mini-biographies of the major Germans who were tried at Nuremberg. However, some of the bios were quite good. Others were quite boring. The stories about Schacht, Funk, Von Shirach were uninteresting reading. But those on Kaltenbrunner, Hess, and Goering were good and kept my interest. However, only the last two chapters of the book (The Organisations and 20 Years Later) were exceptional. It is only these last two chapters that pull the men and their criminal pasts together. If you want to read about the actual trials, do NOT read this book. There are many others which do a MUCH better job discussing the day to day events of the trial than this book does.

One of the most important trials in history of Mankind.The lies,the pain ,anguish,the pupets in a strange chess game.One of the boos to understand modern history.

How can you be guilty of a crime that was specifically invented for your prosecution? Since when has losing a war been illegal? When have wars ever not been barbaric and cruel? When have officers and diplomats ever not followed their orders?
If the allies had lost the war, it would be Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin with their heads in a noose and very rightly so.