When Individual Accountability Changed International Justice Forever

Before 1945, no one had ever tried to put individuals on trial for starting a war.

States fought. States negotiated peace. Leaders remained untouchable. The Nuremberg Trials shattered that precedent, establishing a principle that still governs international law today: individuals, not just nations, can be held accountable for wartime atrocities.

The trials began in November 1945 in Nuremberg, Germany. The location wasn't random, the Allies chose Nuremberg deliberately. The city had been a focal point of Nazi propaganda rallies before the war. Massive gatherings celebrated Hitler's regime in the same streets where prosecutors would now dismantle it.

The symbolism mattered. The Palace of Justice, expanded by German prisoners to hold up to 1,200 detainees, became the setting for something unprecedented. Twenty-two major Nazi leaders faced charges including crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These terms sound familiar now. In 1945, they were being defined for the first time.

The Evidence That Built The Case

The prosecution strategy broke new ground, rather than relying primarily on witness testimony, Allied prosecutors based their case on thousands of documents written by the Germans themselves. The Nazis had documented their own crimes extensively, orders, memos, reports, all became evidence against their authors.

Over 403 open sessions spanning nearly a year, more than 100 witnesses testified. Prosecutors presented photographs, charts, maps, and films. The goal was to make incredible crimes believable through overwhelming documentation. This approach established a standard, modern war crimes prosecutions still prioritize documentary evidence over testimony whenever possible.

On September 30 and October 1, 1946, the tribunal announced its decisions. Twelve defendants received death sentences by hanging, three got life imprisonment, others received sentences ranging from ten to twenty years. Three were acquitted. Ten of those sentenced to death were hanged on October 16. Hermann Göring killed himself the day before. The executed were cremated at Dachau, their ashes scattered in the Isar River.

But the numbers tell only part of the story. The tribunal's reasoning mattered more than the sentences, the court declared that initiating a war of aggression was "the supreme international crime" because it contained "the accumulated evil of the whole." Starting an unjust war wasn't just one crime among many, it was the root cause of all subsequent atrocities. This groundbreaking principle established hierarchy in international criminal law. The trials also rejected the "just following orders" defense, acting under superior orders didn't eliminate individual responsibility.

These concepts seem obvious now. In 1946, they were revolutionary.

From Courtroom To International Law

The immediate impact was significant. By October 1946, more than 79 percent of Germans polled by American occupation authorities had heard about the verdicts and considered the trial fair. Seventy-one percent reported learning something new from the proceedings.

American authorities had worked to ensure widespread awareness. They re-established a German press to report on the trials, erected billboards depicting Nazi atrocities, and commissioned documentary films. The trials served as both justice and education. The broader legal impact took longer to materialize. On December 11, 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the principles of international law recognized at Nuremberg. In 1950, the International Law Commission drafted the Nuremberg principles to codify international criminal law.

Then the Cold War froze progress for decades.

The Legacy That Endures

The 1990s brought a revival, international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda applied Nuremberg's principles to new conflicts. In 2002, the permanent International Criminal Court was established.

Modern prosecutors still reference Nuremberg precedent, the concept of crimes against humanity, the rejection of the superior orders defense, the emphasis on documentary evidence, all trace back to those courtroom sessions in 1945 and 1946. The trials weren't perfect. Critics noted that only Axis powers faced prosecution, while Allied atrocities went unexamined. The victors' justice argument carried weight, but the legal framework survived its imperfect origins. The principle that individuals bear responsibility for wartime actions, regardless of their official position or orders received, became foundational to international law.

The Nuremberg Trials represented more than justice for specific crimes. They established that international law could reach individuals, not just states. They demonstrated that documentary evidence could prove systematic atrocities. They showed that legal accountability could follow even the most powerful leaders. These weren't abstract legal theories, they were practical applications that created precedents still cited in international courts today.

The trials transformed how the world approaches accountability for wartime conduct. Before Nuremberg, leaders operated with effective immunity. After Nuremberg, that immunity had limits. The change didn't happen overnight, it required decades of development, codification, and application. But the foundation was laid in that Nuremberg courtroom between 1945 and 1946.

Understanding this history matters because the principles established then continue shaping how international justice functions now. Every modern war crimes prosecution, every international tribunal, every debate about accountability for atrocities connects back to those groundbreaking trials.

The Nuremberg Trials proved that individuals could be held accountable for starting wars and committing atrocities. That principle, established nearly 80 years ago, remains central to international law today.