Interview Transcript: Professor Bruce M. Stave
Start Recording
Stave: ...4 of these individually at the university of Connecticut, Had a return to union I think of … Nuremberg Trials. And it was using those lists that we identified individuals to seek out. And that, it developed from there, initially I don’t think had the approach that we would do, well, x number of (...) et cetera. But when we found them on the list they began to make a useful grouping. This is how we did it. But there was really, to get the sense of what the effect would be, on individuals who were there, and those who were definitely looking at the legal questions. 1:05
Nicole: Okay. So I know that you got a lot of really diverse perspectives, so it’s probably hard to categorize all of those together, but if you were asked, like, for the average American, do you think the trials were an emotionally charged event, or do you think it was more interesting and easy to look at from legal terms? In, like, a less personal way.
Stave: Well I think for the average American who was not there, the trials were something that may have been abstract at that moment. And the issues were clear in one sense and unclear in another sense. There was obviously a lot of emotion after the war, but people didn’t know exactly what happened in terms of the concentration camps and such. This became revealed, and the trials were part of the process of revealing what occurred. It was a way to educate the American public. So, that was one aspect of it. And a lot of people may not have paid attention to it, unfortunately. Because when the individuals we interviewed came along, and many of them began to tell their stories to others, there was often indifference to them, as well as excitement. ‘Oh, you were at the Nuremberg Trials, that’s important,’ kind of thing. So we have to keep that perspective on it. And I think the Nuremberg Trials can be (...) more over time than I think they were in 1945 and 46 to 49 when the smaller trials were completed. 3:13
Jen: Even when the Nuremberg Trials, like, shed light on the Nazi atrocities that happened during the war, did people react to that?
Stave: There was some shock. There was some shock. But, I think the reaction developed over time (...) as opposed to immediately. Now at the trials for instance, one of the prosecutors, Thomas Dodd, brought in a shrunken head from one of the camps, from one of the experiments done by the Nazis. And this, obviously, was something emotional. And the notion of lampshades that were made of human skin, this is emotional. And, obviously, there’s a gripping component to that. But Holocaust survivors, as you may know from your research, don’t really start talking about the Holocaust until a number of years afterwards. At least not in the numbers, in the aspect of the public. 4:42 So, there’s high emotion, there’s shock, but there is also, I think, at the end of World War 2, an (...) for individual Americans to get back to their lives, to come back to (...).
Jen: I read that Thomas Dodd used the skull of the Polish prisoner to, in his prosecution, it was a big thing. Do you think that the prosecution relied a lot on the emotional side, and the personal side of the evidence of the Nazi atrocities?
Stave: I think he was one of the individuals, of the prosecutors who did. I think there were many other prosecutors who were less dramatic in a stance, and were trying to stick to the law. 5:59 Because the purpose of this whole thing was to show that there is a rule of law. Potentially, the Nazis had destroyed the notion of rule of law, or they had perverted it, and the trials are a way of emphasizing human rights, or emphasizing the rule of law, and this is why when Churchill, the British and the Russians, among others, they would have wanted summary justice. And the whole point was, ‘No, this has to be something that fairness and equity and justice.’ And not summary justice, where people will just be taken off and hung and killed. (...) They really, they were going to be tried in a legal process. And that was part of what the United States was trying to do, what the lead prosecutor was trying to do. And I think this was an overall purpose of the trial. 7:24
Nicole: So, in your interview with the New York Times, you discussed how some people thought that the trials were maybe too aggressive, while others thought that the courts weren’t going far enough. So, outside of legalisms and international relations, how do you think the Nuremberg Trials shaped the average, normal American’s understandings of legal ethics?
Stave: I think, well, to the extent that the average person followed it, and the average person understood it, it certainly showed that we were trying to be, quote unquote, fair. One of the interesting things in the trials is that not everyone was convicted. Some of the key people in the IMT trial, which was the main trial, International Military Tribunal, were let off. And this, in a sense 8:33 was surprising and like the gravity of what was going on. And so it would seem, if we’re going to talk about the average American, and really know how much they followed it, for the general atmosphere, I think the trials did that (...) of justice.
Jen: For the three acquittals, was there a shocked reaction from journalists who relayed the message to the readers back home?
Stave: Yeah, I think there was some element of that. Of surprise, and shock that they had not been convicted. But I think in the book we have one of our interviewees, was a, I believe a translator, and talked about the fact that he was here, he couldn’t believe the decision, that they all weren’t guilty. And this was a man who himself had left Austria, I think in 1938, and then returned to Nuremberg (as part of the army of the US?) as a refugee, and joined the army, and then went back 10:01 to be at the trial.
Jen: Did most of the translators volunteer to be part of the trials?
Stave: Some of them did. But some were just assigned to it. It depends on the function. So, I think the translators would, some of them signed up for it, but others were assigned. The guards were definitely assigned for the trial.
Nicole: And I know you referenced earlier that it was kind of considered impressive to be at Nuremberg. Do you think that was considered, like, an honor for most people, then? Do you think that most people working as translators or in attendance had an idea of the gravity of the trials or the effect they were going to have on legal precedents in the future?
Stave: That’s a very good question. And I actually think, not in terms of the really major, long-range effect. I think they understood that they were there at a very dramatic time, and that they wanted to see justice being done. 11:32 But, I would be surprised if they, at least, you know, it would be very hard to have an understanding that this was going to be the precedent for the future, and so forth.
Nicole: So, to get a little more specific, I know you interviewed specific groups of people. Would you say that, I guess, most journalists were doing their most accurate job in portraying Nuremberg? Like, do you think there was any kind of ‘yellow journalism,’ I suppose?
Stave: I can’t answer that, because, I’m not sure I investigated enough of the journalists at the time, other than the people that we spoke to. And the people that we spoke to, I think, were not doing that. But it very well may have been the case, but I really can’t give you a definite answer to that.
Nicole: Okay, this following question might be too much of a generalization as well, 13:18 so you don’t have to answer if it you feel the same, but I feel like I might as well ask: Do you think that most of the defendants were pretty much well-treated by the guards? Was there a level of respect, or were there obviously hostile feelings?
Stave: I think that they were both. And I think we have examples of, you know, one guard who actually broke the rules and allowed the defendants to sleep under a blanket, and things like that… So they were treating them well, and, as you know too, attempts to get photographs of these people, which they weren’t supposed to do. So, in a sense, there was a feeling that these were celebrities. And there were others, of course, who felt much more harsh (...)
Nicole: Alright, well, I think that’s actually all of our specific questions. I mean, I guess I’d just finish with asking if there’s anything that you think would be interesting to add?
Stave: The only thing I would say is that, we talked about it in trial (...) the element of justice, and fairness, and such… there’s also the question of victor’s justice. The trials were unprecedented, they had talked about the trials after WWI, but did not carry it through. And when you think about it, what might have happened if the Nazis had won? What kind of… would they have the trials? Would there have been (...) justice? Was there a, you know, was there a law that was being changed? Because we were the victors, and this is one of the things that is often debated about this. But I think the long term effect is (…) the evolution of human rights.
End Recording
Stave: ...4 of these individually at the university of Connecticut, Had a return to union I think of … Nuremberg Trials. And it was using those lists that we identified individuals to seek out. And that, it developed from there, initially I don’t think had the approach that we would do, well, x number of (...) et cetera. But when we found them on the list they began to make a useful grouping. This is how we did it. But there was really, to get the sense of what the effect would be, on individuals who were there, and those who were definitely looking at the legal questions. 1:05
Nicole: Okay. So I know that you got a lot of really diverse perspectives, so it’s probably hard to categorize all of those together, but if you were asked, like, for the average American, do you think the trials were an emotionally charged event, or do you think it was more interesting and easy to look at from legal terms? In, like, a less personal way.
Stave: Well I think for the average American who was not there, the trials were something that may have been abstract at that moment. And the issues were clear in one sense and unclear in another sense. There was obviously a lot of emotion after the war, but people didn’t know exactly what happened in terms of the concentration camps and such. This became revealed, and the trials were part of the process of revealing what occurred. It was a way to educate the American public. So, that was one aspect of it. And a lot of people may not have paid attention to it, unfortunately. Because when the individuals we interviewed came along, and many of them began to tell their stories to others, there was often indifference to them, as well as excitement. ‘Oh, you were at the Nuremberg Trials, that’s important,’ kind of thing. So we have to keep that perspective on it. And I think the Nuremberg Trials can be (...) more over time than I think they were in 1945 and 46 to 49 when the smaller trials were completed. 3:13
Jen: Even when the Nuremberg Trials, like, shed light on the Nazi atrocities that happened during the war, did people react to that?
Stave: There was some shock. There was some shock. But, I think the reaction developed over time (...) as opposed to immediately. Now at the trials for instance, one of the prosecutors, Thomas Dodd, brought in a shrunken head from one of the camps, from one of the experiments done by the Nazis. And this, obviously, was something emotional. And the notion of lampshades that were made of human skin, this is emotional. And, obviously, there’s a gripping component to that. But Holocaust survivors, as you may know from your research, don’t really start talking about the Holocaust until a number of years afterwards. At least not in the numbers, in the aspect of the public. 4:42 So, there’s high emotion, there’s shock, but there is also, I think, at the end of World War 2, an (...) for individual Americans to get back to their lives, to come back to (...).
Jen: I read that Thomas Dodd used the skull of the Polish prisoner to, in his prosecution, it was a big thing. Do you think that the prosecution relied a lot on the emotional side, and the personal side of the evidence of the Nazi atrocities?
Stave: I think he was one of the individuals, of the prosecutors who did. I think there were many other prosecutors who were less dramatic in a stance, and were trying to stick to the law. 5:59 Because the purpose of this whole thing was to show that there is a rule of law. Potentially, the Nazis had destroyed the notion of rule of law, or they had perverted it, and the trials are a way of emphasizing human rights, or emphasizing the rule of law, and this is why when Churchill, the British and the Russians, among others, they would have wanted summary justice. And the whole point was, ‘No, this has to be something that fairness and equity and justice.’ And not summary justice, where people will just be taken off and hung and killed. (...) They really, they were going to be tried in a legal process. And that was part of what the United States was trying to do, what the lead prosecutor was trying to do. And I think this was an overall purpose of the trial. 7:24
Nicole: So, in your interview with the New York Times, you discussed how some people thought that the trials were maybe too aggressive, while others thought that the courts weren’t going far enough. So, outside of legalisms and international relations, how do you think the Nuremberg Trials shaped the average, normal American’s understandings of legal ethics?
Stave: I think, well, to the extent that the average person followed it, and the average person understood it, it certainly showed that we were trying to be, quote unquote, fair. One of the interesting things in the trials is that not everyone was convicted. Some of the key people in the IMT trial, which was the main trial, International Military Tribunal, were let off. And this, in a sense 8:33 was surprising and like the gravity of what was going on. And so it would seem, if we’re going to talk about the average American, and really know how much they followed it, for the general atmosphere, I think the trials did that (...) of justice.
Jen: For the three acquittals, was there a shocked reaction from journalists who relayed the message to the readers back home?
Stave: Yeah, I think there was some element of that. Of surprise, and shock that they had not been convicted. But I think in the book we have one of our interviewees, was a, I believe a translator, and talked about the fact that he was here, he couldn’t believe the decision, that they all weren’t guilty. And this was a man who himself had left Austria, I think in 1938, and then returned to Nuremberg (as part of the army of the US?) as a refugee, and joined the army, and then went back 10:01 to be at the trial.
Jen: Did most of the translators volunteer to be part of the trials?
Stave: Some of them did. But some were just assigned to it. It depends on the function. So, I think the translators would, some of them signed up for it, but others were assigned. The guards were definitely assigned for the trial.
Nicole: And I know you referenced earlier that it was kind of considered impressive to be at Nuremberg. Do you think that was considered, like, an honor for most people, then? Do you think that most people working as translators or in attendance had an idea of the gravity of the trials or the effect they were going to have on legal precedents in the future?
Stave: That’s a very good question. And I actually think, not in terms of the really major, long-range effect. I think they understood that they were there at a very dramatic time, and that they wanted to see justice being done. 11:32 But, I would be surprised if they, at least, you know, it would be very hard to have an understanding that this was going to be the precedent for the future, and so forth.
Nicole: So, to get a little more specific, I know you interviewed specific groups of people. Would you say that, I guess, most journalists were doing their most accurate job in portraying Nuremberg? Like, do you think there was any kind of ‘yellow journalism,’ I suppose?
Stave: I can’t answer that, because, I’m not sure I investigated enough of the journalists at the time, other than the people that we spoke to. And the people that we spoke to, I think, were not doing that. But it very well may have been the case, but I really can’t give you a definite answer to that.
Nicole: Okay, this following question might be too much of a generalization as well, 13:18 so you don’t have to answer if it you feel the same, but I feel like I might as well ask: Do you think that most of the defendants were pretty much well-treated by the guards? Was there a level of respect, or were there obviously hostile feelings?
Stave: I think that they were both. And I think we have examples of, you know, one guard who actually broke the rules and allowed the defendants to sleep under a blanket, and things like that… So they were treating them well, and, as you know too, attempts to get photographs of these people, which they weren’t supposed to do. So, in a sense, there was a feeling that these were celebrities. And there were others, of course, who felt much more harsh (...)
Nicole: Alright, well, I think that’s actually all of our specific questions. I mean, I guess I’d just finish with asking if there’s anything that you think would be interesting to add?
Stave: The only thing I would say is that, we talked about it in trial (...) the element of justice, and fairness, and such… there’s also the question of victor’s justice. The trials were unprecedented, they had talked about the trials after WWI, but did not carry it through. And when you think about it, what might have happened if the Nazis had won? What kind of… would they have the trials? Would there have been (...) justice? Was there a, you know, was there a law that was being changed? Because we were the victors, and this is one of the things that is often debated about this. But I think the long term effect is (…) the evolution of human rights.
End Recording