7/28/2019 Lessons From Nuremberg

1/1

Lessons from NurembergTIlE CATHOI:.IC WORKER

inals," bu twhatwas their crime?The effoftheir acts are visiblean d terrible, but wi s the i r responsibility, their perceptiotheirwill? It iseasier to push a buttoQ anunleash an atomic bomb that kills 100people than to plungea knife into the stach of your adversary. It is easier t o s igdecree than to lean on a button, one signaamong a thousand an administrator maevery day. In the enormous abstractioou r dvilization, life and dea th havebecome abst rac t . Decis ions madeabstract; they are no longer hum.m plems but technical problems.In such an absence of responsib(whichwas demonstrated in the Nurembtestimony) that could not be overcomelegal theories, nobodycould sayin the nof what it w as possible to convicNuremberg [except a vague ideology oferaldemocracy which was impossible todown]. In the name ofwhat is theact ofvictoran act ofjustice?Thus, the judgmeNuremberg leads to an impasse we canavoid. .The onlypart ofthis storythat is reallyof l ife is the public opinion that demancensure. Itwas a spontaneous revolt, a cryvengeance, that could not be denied, fexpressed a genuinesentiment, albeit torather than tojudge.This public awarenhowever, did go further than a cr yvengeance; it also made a claim, demanthat thingsrespond toa certain justice. Bas we haveseen, the law theyasked forimpossibleto realize in the absence ofable scale ofpublicvalues.And, for this, I object to Nuremberg,ciselyfor having betrayed the thirst forjusthat is found in the people.

M a r c h ~ A p r i l , 20

True ConfessionsNo doubt this Commissionhad its limtions; e.g., the need for the right t ime

the right conditions in a single society, wthe final guarantor being the force ofState. Still, a t t h e e nd of a brutal confthey tried toestablishjusticeon a se t ofpciples that could be called th e CommGood.The Commission stands as a beacohope.

If we want to hold to such a hopeNorthAmericans, though, we wouldmamistake ifwe then gave up analysesof posuch as jacques Ellul made. ArchbisTutu's doctrine depends on some soconfession by the powerful, and, as DorDay said in 1967, 'We are, among natithemostpowerful andthe most armed,we ar e supplying arms and money torest of the world where we are not oursefighting.We are eatingwhile there is fiuin the world." Such confessions are ishort supply now as they wereNuremberg. -Katharine Tem

jacquesEllul'scritique of the Nurembtrial is more radical than the claim thatitself is a crime against humanity. Hisfoon relat ions of power (with the claritywould mark his best known sociologstudy, The TecllllolOfiical Society, 19exposes war asthe,sign ofa deepermalaour confusions about what it means tohuman.Catholic readers might expect a turNatural Law (perhaps with the concluthat all violence is contrary to the natorder).This was notJacques Ellul's pathwasa Protestantin the French Reformedd it ion, and in 1946 had wr it ten TTheological Foundations of Law, whremains an enormous challenge to allnatlaw theorists-who really should not sideit. .Unfortunately, over the years, there hbeen very fewphilosophical, practical endors toground law differentlyfromNurembOne exceptional attempt hasbeentheTrand Reconciliation Commission in SoAfrica, called by then Pres ident NelMandelain 1994and headed bytheAnglArchbishopDesmondTutu,who wrote abthisworkin No HopeWithout Forgive(1999).

Brian Kavanagh

vengeance, for this is indeed the state ofaffairs that provides thestartingpointforalllaw.We should be scandalized atthe spectacle that says, "This isjustice"where there isviolence, or "This is r ight" where there isvengeance. This situation of violence andvengeance has to be surpassed; we shouldconsider ourselves as being atthe sourceoflaw.We haveto ask what conditions are necessary forlawto be worked out; ifthose necessary conditions are currently in place;"itthisdemand for law does not challengemorethan war and peace,butgoes further toposea decisive question for human beings, pushing us into an impasse?We come back to what has been called acrime against humanity. The abomination ofconcentration camps, torture, executinghostages,deportations, bombing civilian populations, total war, looting ofconquered peoples-ail thisis well known, bu twhat exactlydoes itrepresent? It isa bitsimplistic to seeitas the result ofdictatorship (though thatwouldalso be true), a particularor national sadism,etc. What makes i t so immense is tha t it isnot a single episode conditioned by politicsor war. AIl this murderous activity is basedon a conception oftheworld thatcomes directlyfrom the givensof our civilization. Humanbeings are only matter. Why have morerespectfor this matterthan for any other?

New Moral CriterionItis enough to pushthis assertion ofmaterialism to its ordinary (and not outrageous)conclusions, which are both scientific andpopular, to find out that we do not have torespect the human person, who is only aninstrumentthat itis necessary toknowhowto, use. It is e nough to have a r ea son to do it,and the nation/state appears asthe supreme

value-in the USSR aswell as in the USA Itisthe newmoral criterion thatgoverns our time.The primacyof the useful is the first political virtue. This realism i s only a rat iona lapplication that leads to the concentrationcamp, to total war, etc. We do not have toappeal particularly to nazi ideology to findthe basis for crimes against humanity. Withanother ideology, it would be only a changein the category ofvictims (e.g., negroes, thebourgeois, the physicallydeformed, drunks)butnot a change in the crime. In reality, thenazis pushed to logical conclusions ideascontained in basic principles that a re universally accepted.In order for the Nuremberg verdict tobe valid, it should have applied not only tothe visible consequences, to the obviousscandal, bu t a lso to the causes. It shouldhave called into questionnot just nazi concentration camps, but the concentrationcamp itself, including those of Russia, Spainor France. It should have called into question no t only antisemitism bu t racism,including that of England and the USAand so on, up to the values of a civilizationthat manufactures thesewidespread facts. Itwould appear obvious that it is a spiritualattitude thathas made thesecrimes againsthumanity possible.

Success is the criterion for everythingand replacesjusticeand truth. Weare throwninto a system with laws independentof individual willing.We call the nazi leaders "crim-

to charge itto the representativesofthis par- ,ticular one.Crimes against Humanity, for example, genocide. In this area, the judges feltt hey were on such shifting legal groundsthat, in actualfact, they retreated before theenormity of the thing and limited a crimeagainst humanity to a war crime. This decision means they wanted to safeguard thesovereignty of nations, and that a crimeagainsthumanity can be onlyinternational. Itis exactly the opposite ofwhat had to happento open up hope.[Sectionson judicialtheories ofresponsibility, the choiceo fAngl