The man who ordered the murder of my grandmother never stood trial for the crime. Nor did he stand trial for any of the other 137,000 murders he ordered during five short months in 1941.
I know who he was. His name was Karl Jager, and he was the commander of a Nazi execution squad in Lithuania, where my 44-year-old grandmother had been deported from her home town in Germany.
He is just one of several hundred thousand men and women who were never brought to justice for the part they played in the Nazi Holocaust. It is estimated that up to 1 million people were directly or indirectly involved in Holocaust atrocities, yet only a tiny fraction — perhaps no more than 1 percent — were ever prosecuted.
Illustration: Mountain People
Next month marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal at which 24 of the most senior Nazi leaders stood trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was the first such trial in history, described at the time as “a shining light for justice.”
A dozen other trials followed — of bankers, lawyers, doctors and others — but according to Mary Fulbrook, professor of German history at University College London, once the Nuremberg process was over, the West Germans prosecuted only 6,000 people for their part in Nazi crimes, of whom about 4,000 were convicted.
Most Holocaust perpetrators, such as Jager, a music-loving SS colonel who ordered the murder of my grandmother and so many others, simply melted back into their community.
Jager, for example, led a quiet, inconspicuous life as a farmer in the German town of Waldkirch, not far from the borders with France and Switzerland, until he was finally arrested in 1959. He hanged himself in his prison cell with a length of electric cable before he could be brought to trial.
So why was Nuremberg, and the handful of other war crimes trials that followed, the exception rather than the rule?
First, because by 1945, large parts of Germany were a smoldering ruin. Millions of people were homeless, so the emphasis was primarily on reconstruction, and who was available to take charge in the “new Germany” if not the very same officials (supposedly de-Nazified) who had served under the Nazis?
Second, because with the start of the Cold War and fears of Soviet domination in Europe, the US and the UK believed that confronting the Soviet threat was more important than hunting down thousands of Nazis. Justice would have to take a back seat.
None of which excuses why, even today, so few perpetrators of the most egregious crimes against humanity are pursued and convicted. It is true that Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are both serving long prison sentences for their role in the atrocities of the war in Bosnia. Former Liberian president Charles Taylor is incarcerated after being convicted of what the judge at his trial in The Hague called “some of the most heinous and brutal crimes in recorded human history,” and former Chaidan president Hissene Habre died of COVID-19 last month while serving a life sentence for human rights abuses.
However, like Nuremberg, they are the exceptions. Who has stood trial, or will stand trial, for the appalling abuses committed against the Uighurs in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Yazidi in Iraq, or the people of Tigray in Ethiopia? How many mass murderers are walking free in Rwanda and Syria?
The anniversary of the Nuremberg verdicts offers an opportunity to revisit the debate over war crimes prosecutions, both past and future. It also marks the release next month of a major new documentary film called Getting Away With Murder(s), which shines a spotlight on some of the thousands of unpunished Nazi war criminals who escaped after 1945 and lived the rest of their lives undisturbed, some of them in Britain.
(Full disclosure: After the film’s director, David Wilkinson, read an article I wrote in the Observer three years ago, he invited me to appear in the film, visiting the site of my grandmother’s death.)
Seventy-five years after Nuremberg, at a time when war crimes are still being committed with shameful alacrity, it is more important than ever to re-emphasize the need to collect evidence when such crimes are committed, and to reaffirm the principle that they should never go unpunished.
History matters. We can learn from past mistakes, which is why in Germany, under the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction,” a Syrian doctor is now on trial charged with crimes against humanity for torturing people in military hospitals. In the Netherlands, another Syrian was sentenced in July last year to 20 years in prison, accused of being a member of the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate. In Sweden, a former Iranian deputy public prosecutor is on trial over the mass execution and torture of prisoners in the 1980s.
It is sometimes argued that the need for justice must take second place to the need for peace and reconciliation. In South Africa and Northern Ireland, countless crimes have gone unpunished in the name of peacemaking. It is not always an argument without merit.
However, fast forward a few years. Imagine that another international war crimes tribunal is under way in The Hague. In the dock, accused of a long list of human rights abuses, are the leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Is it unlikely? Perhaps, but it is not impossible — if evidence is collected and political will exerted. In 1995, after the Srebrenica massacre, when Bosnian Serb forces slaughtered an estimated 8,000 Muslim men and boys, who would have imagined that one day those responsible for the atrocity would be prosecuted and convicted for their actions?
Yet today, both Karadzic and Mladic are behind bars. (The former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was also prosecuted in The Hague, but died before the end of his trial.)
It can be done. There should be no excuse for allowing more war criminals to get away with murder.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.