I’ve always thought the Nuremberg trials make for an interesting part of history, particularly the charges of “crimes against humanity”. I am much underread on this topic, but my impression is that Nazi crimes against humanity were, for the most part, legal at the time and in the jurisdiction where they were committed.
This stems from my strong theory of national sovereignty. The Nazis were very thorough in their transformation of the German state; they appear to have gone through all the motions with domestic law. The theory of crimes against humanity, from what I can tell, was an invention of the military tribunal, ex post facto; and not a very good one, seeing as their definition did not extend to acts committed before Germany was at war. There were precursors, I’m sure, but nothing like a treaty. WWII was the war that established crimes against humanity as part of international law, by inspiring the United Nations, since a nation signing the charter explicitly surrenders that part of its sovereignty.
There were, of course, violations of existing domestic and international law in Nazi Germany. If you can point to a then-existing treaty, such as the Geneva Convention of 1929, I will agree that those actions were illegal even at the time. And surely there were Nazis who violated domestic statutes without authorization from the chain of command.
I also want to stress the difference between lawful and moral. I have tried to frame this topic so as to discourage debate over the latter, except as it may be necessary in determining the former.
Inspired by arguments of reductio ad Hitlerum, and also a recent post from k9bfriender.
~Max