The Trial That Never Was’
Why there was no Second International Trial of Major War Criminals at Nuremberg
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9879880 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Donald Bloxham (0000-0002-1719-2550, University of Southampton, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 87 |
| Issue | 285 |
| Pages | 41-60 |
| Publication date | 2002-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0018-2648 • E-ISSN: 1468-229X |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-229x.00213 |
| OpenAlex | W2104812323 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
This article examines the foreign policies of Britain and the United States in the contexts of the occupation of Germany and the growing cold war to explain the abortion of a proposed second international trial of major war criminals at Nuremberg. It then illustrates and explains why, while the American legal authorities attempted to reinforce the principles established at the trial of Hermann Göring et al. by further trials of major war criminals within their zone of occupation, the British looked only to try ‘lesser’ war criminals, and to phase out their punishment programme altogether
Abortion · Cold war · Criminology · International law · Nuremberg trials · Political science · Punishment (psychology · Sociology · Spanish Civil War · War crime · World War II · Communism, Protests, Social Movements · European history and politics · Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,13 |
| Citation span | 2003 - 2014 (12) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |