Each week we bring you quotes from the many fine men and women of various nationalities and professions, including senior military personnel, who were openly appalled by the dispensation of normal military and/or criminal evidentiary processes expected in a trial. These people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the Nuremberg trials.
Frank A. W. Lucas, Judge of Appeal, High Commission Territories, Union of South Africa Judge, Transvaal Division, Supreme Court of South Africa:
…When they [the Nuremberg Trials] were instituted, I felt that they were setting a very dangerous precedent…it seems to me that the victorious Allies, who admittedly indulged in the same practice (unrestricted submarine warfare), had no legal, logical, or ethical justification for prosecuting or condemning Admiral Doenitz. In doing so, they laid themselves open to a charge of hypocrisy and an abuse of the power which victory had placed in their hands. It does not seem to me an adequate answer for them to say that they prosecuted the Admiral because the Germans began the unrestricted warfare.
General Olof Gerhard Thornell, Royal Swedish Army, Commander-in chief, Armed Forces of Sweden, 1940-1944, Chief of Military Staff to His Majesty, King Gustav V, 1944-1950:
You are perfectly right in branding the Nuremberg “war crimes trials” in general as violating the common principles for civilized jurisdiction. There seems to be more of vengeance–“vae victis”—than of impartial justice. Especially from a military standpoint is the conviction of such men as Doenitz and Raeder as criminals revolting, and this can be a very dangerous precedent in the future. I think that the Nuremberg Trials did not honor the Western Powers. About unrestricted submarine warfare, I can’t see any moral difference between this form of war and the dropping of bombs over undefended cities.
All quotes above are from the book Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal edited by H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, 2nd edition, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1993.
British Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Champion de Crespigny also stated “Doenitz is no more guilty of a war crime than others on our side…” Read Nuremberg Farce #14
Admiral Doenitz: “During 1941 and 1942 Doenitz’s U-boats nearly won the war for Germany, sinking a large percentage of the allied ships carrying essential supplies to Britain and the Soviet Union… In April 1945 Doenitz became Head of State and proceeded to formalize the surrender of Germany. After the surrender, Doenitz was tried for War Crimes at Nuremberg and was sentenced to ten years for “Planning Aggressive War”, “Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War” and “Crimes Against Peace”, among other false allegations. It should be noted that Admiral Chester Nimitz of the United States Navy testified on Doenitz’s behalf during the Nuremberg Trials.” Karl-Doenitz.com