The war had ended, but the evidence filled a courtroom. On 1 October 1946, the judges of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg delivered their verdict against leading officials of Nazi Germany. Nineteen defendants were convicted and three acquitted. Twelve received death sentences, including Martin Bormann, who had been tried in absentia. The judgment was the outcome of a trial, not a battlefield victory or a claim that all Nazi crimes had been answered.
Why there was a tribunal
The Allies faced a question after the defeat of Nazi Germany: how should the people who had directed aggressive war and mass atrocities be held individually responsible? The United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union signed the London Agreement and Charter on 8 August 1945. It created the International Military Tribunal. Each power supplied a judge and a prosecution team. A courtroom process would build a record of acts, orders and responsibility that could be tested in public.
The defendants had lawyers and could call evidence and witnesses. They could also cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The trial opened on 20 November 1945 at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. Simultaneous translation made proceedings possible in English, French, German and Russian. The mechanics mattered: the court was trying particular people on defined charges, not treating nationality itself as guilt.
What the prosecution proved
Prosecutors relied heavily on documents created by the Nazi state, along with testimony and films. The indictment covered conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evidence of the Holocaust was presented, including the mass murder of Jewish people, although the wider war was also central to the case. The defendants generally did not deny that many crimes occurred; they disputed their own responsibility. The judges had to distinguish documentary proof from assertions made for or against each person.
The hearings ended on 1 September 1946. The verdict came a month later, on 1 October. The tribunal convicted nineteen and acquitted three. It also declared several Nazi organizations criminal, among them the Gestapo, SS and SD, with important qualifications about individual membership. These findings should not be flattened into the idea that every person associated with an organization was automatically condemned.
Sentences and limits
Twelve defendants were sentenced to death. Ten were hanged on 16 October; Göring killed himself the previous night, and Bormann had been tried in absentia. Others received prison sentences. The date of the verdict must be kept separate from the later date of the executions. The tribunal also limited its consideration of crimes against humanity to acts during the war, even while acknowledging grave prewar persecution.
The court dealt with a select group of senior defendants. It did not try every perpetrator, nor did it bring immediate closure to survivors. Subsequent proceedings at Nuremberg and trials in other countries addressed many more cases. Many perpetrators were never prosecuted. The significance of 1 October lies in the documented judgment and the legal record it created, alongside those limits.
Why the record still matters
The tribunal’s methods showed how captured records and testimony could be assembled into a public account of state crime. Its charter and judgment helped establish crimes against humanity as a matter of international law. That legacy does not require pretending the process was complete or beyond criticism. It asks readers to consider what was proved, what the judges decided and what the judgment left unresolved.
What the judgment did and did not say
The tribunal’s verdict did not treat the prosecution’s four counts as interchangeable. The charter defined crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the indictment also advanced a conspiracy count. The judges rejected parts of the prosecution’s broader conspiracy theory. This is a reminder that a court record is more precise than a later shorthand about ‘war criminals’. The verdict addressed liability under the charter after evidence had been presented for each charge.
The court also considered organizations, but membership alone required careful qualification. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum notes exceptions in the tribunal’s declaration concerning the SS, including people whose membership ended before the war and those drafted who had not participated in crimes. These qualifications did not make the institutions innocent. They show the judges attempting to define the reach of a collective finding without dispensing with individual responsibility.
A record built from perpetrators’ documents
Prosecutors used thousands of captured German records and presented film evidence of the liberated camps. That choice was significant because it limited the case’s dependence on memory or hearsay. Witnesses still mattered, and their accounts could be challenged. The defendants and the indicted organizations had counsel. Over months of proceedings, the courtroom became both a place of judgment and a repository of evidence that historians would continue to examine.
The word ‘genocide’ appeared in the indictment, but the judges did not adopt it in their verdict as a separate legal category. The Holocaust was documented in the trial while not being its only focus. Readers should therefore resist two opposite distortions: claiming the tribunal ignored the murder of Europe’s Jews, or presenting it as a complete trial of every aspect of that catastrophe.
The unfinished pursuit of justice
The International Military Tribunal tried senior figures. Subsequent Nuremberg proceedings under American tribunals examined doctors, industrialists, military and state officials; courts in other countries pursued crimes committed in their own territories. Some perpetrators were convicted, some escaped trial, and survivors did not receive a single, final answer in 1946. The verdict’s legal influence and its historical incompleteness coexist. That is why the anniversary calls for close reading of what happened on 1 October rather than an easy declaration of closure.
Sources and method
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s tribunal history documents the date, procedure, evidence, convictions, sentences and limits of the judgment. Its dated verdict entry provides a second institutional chronology. The U.S. National Archives image shows the dock during the trial, not a proven scene from 1 October itself.
Return to the October 1 edition, read the Calais liberation story, or browse World War II.
