WI: Additional Nazi leaders surviving to be tried at the Nuremberg Trials

[Johannes Parisiensis]

OTL, the International Military Tribunal had 24 accused persons and 7 organizations.

Of course, as it often happens, absent persons were involved in the crimes, leading to them being used by some accused to reduce their own guilt and responsability, as Justice Robert Jackson complained on July 16, 1946.

But let me for a moment turn devil's advocate. I admit that Hitler was the chief villain. But for the defendants to put all blame on him is neither manly nor true. We know that even the head of the state has the same limits to his senses and to the hours of his days as do lesser men. He must rely on others to be his eyes and ears as to most that goes on in a great empire. Other legs must run his errands; other hands must execute his plans. On whom did Hitler rely for such things more than upon these men in the dock? Who led him to believe he had an invincible air armada if not Goering? Who kept disagreeable facts from him? Did not Goering forbid Field Marshal Milch to warn Hitler that in his opinion Germany was not equal to the war upon Russia? Did not Goering, according to Speer, relieve General Galland of his air force command for speaking of the weaknesses and bungling of the air forces? Who led Hitler, utterly untraveled himself, to believe in the indecision and timidity of democratic peoples if not Ribbentrop, Von Neurath, and Von Papen? Who fed his illusion of German invincibility if not Keitel, Jodl, Raeder, and Doenitz? Who kept his hatred of the Jews inflamed more than Streicher and Rosenberg? Who would Hitler say deceived him about conditions in concentration camps if not Kaltenbrunner, even as he would deceive us? These men had access to Hitler and often could control the information that reached him and on which he must base his policy and his orders. They were the Praetorian Guard, and while they were under Caesar's orders, Caesar was always in their hands.

If these dead men could take the witness stand and answer what has been said against them, we might have a less distorted picture of the parts played by these defendants. Imagine the stir that would occur in the dock if it should behold Adolf Hitler advancing to the witness box, or Himmler with an armful of dossiers, or Goebbels, or Bormann with the reports of his Party spies, or the murdered Rohm or Canaris. The ghoulish defense that the world is entitled to retribution only from the cadavers is an argument worthy of the crimes at which it is directed.

So, what if more Nazi leaders survived the war?

One of the easiest ways to pull this would be Robert Ley having additional security to prevent his suicide. Having Bormann and Goebbels caught alive would be harder, along with Heinrich Mueller (the Gestapo leader, not the general), but Himmler could be done more easily, by searching him to find poison pills. Was Adolf Eichmann's role as well-known when the final indictement was made? If so then maybe the POW camp authorities realizing quicker who he really was might do the trick. Finally, given Roland Freisler's role in the "trials" of foreign fighters and the racial laws, maybe he might be indicted too, had he survived the bombing.

Witl all these additional accused, how would the dynamics of the trial be affected?
For exemple, with Goebbels present, Hans Fritzsche might be even more likely to be acquitted or even not indicted, excepted on a trial for propagandists; OTOH, his employer might give enough additional evidence against him that he ends convicted. Similarly, Max (lawyer of Streicher) might say his anti-Semitic propaganda newspaper had less influence on the German public than Goebbels' propaganda machine; it might be enough to spare him hanging, apart if he is still as odious as OTL.
Ley and Sauckel might play ping-pong for the mistreatment of slave workers, with Ley's lawyer arguing his alcoholism made him lose more and more control. Alternatively, both might gang up on Speer.
Things might he hotter between Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and Mueller over the question of police repression; Frank frequently cited Himmler as responsible of part of the atrocities in the General Government, and Himmler might defend himself, giving also informations about the use of inmates for war economy, thereby harming Speer.
Bormann had files on every NSDAP leader: more occasions to bring fellow accused with him to the gallows.
And with Hitler present and healthy enough to assist his defense (very difficult), John C. Woods might have even more work after all the evidence delivered at the trial.

What's your opinion on the question? Which additional accused might be added?

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

If Hitler ends up at Nuremberg and openly acknowledges the Holocaust while defending it (which wouldn't shock me), it could prevent the rise of the David Irving historiography among Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers (aka: the claim that Hitler did not order or know about the Holocaust).

 

[Sasalele]

If Hitler ends up at Nuremberg and openly acknowledges the Holocaust while defending it (which wouldn't shock me), it could prevent the rise of the David Irving historiography among Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers (aka: the claim that Hitler did not order or know about the Holocaust).

As much BS as that claim is, it’s an interesting “theory”. Seems akin to Nixon and the Plumbers.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If Hitler ends up at Nuremberg and openly acknowledges the Holocaust while defending it (which wouldn't shock me), it could prevent the rise of the David Irving historiography among Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers (aka: the claim that Hitler did not order or know about the Holocaust).

Doubtful. They'd claim as they do now about others at the trial that the confession was coerced through torture.

 

[Lalli]

If Hitler ends up at Nuremberg and openly acknowledges the Holocaust while defending it (which wouldn't shock me), it could prevent the rise of the David Irving historiography among Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers (aka: the claim that Hitler did not order or know about the Holocaust).

Very doubtful. Hitler apologists would say that Hitler was tortured or somehow pressured to say that he knew and accepted that.

But many defedents would are hanged.

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

Doubtful. They'd claim as they do now about others at the trial that the confession was coerced through torture.

Very doubtful. Hitler apologists would say that Hitler was tortured or somehow pressured to say that he knew and accepted that.

But many defedents would are hanged.

To be specific, my thought was that David Irving's claims would not get the same window of respectability they got historically. In OTL, Irving's claims, while never earning widespread acceptability by any means, initially were not totally outside the bounds of acceptable academic discussion on World War II. Of course, as new evidence emerged and Irving became more explicit in his support for Nazism that changed, but here if Hitler admits to ordering the genocide at Nuremberg there wouldn't even be this slim veneer of academic credibility for Holocaust denial.

 

[33k7]

The USSR would gladly lose its position in the Nuremberg trials just to have Hitler no International trial for him he will be judge by the Soviet people.