November 20, 1945. >> >> The Palace of Justice on Fürther Straße in the city of Nuremberg, Bavaria. The building was chosen partly because it survived the Allied bombing raids largely intact, and partly because it contained the largest prison facility in occupied Germany adjacent to a functioning courtroom.
It was also chosen, though this was not stated in the official communications, because of where it was. Nuremberg was the city where the Nazi Party held its annual rallies. It was the city that gave its name to the racial laws of September 1935 that stripped Jewish people of German citizenship and defined them in the precise administrative language of the Reich’s legal apparatus as biologically separate from the German nation.
Trying the men who built that system in the city that gave the laws their name was a decision that contained its own argument about how history should be answered. The courtroom on the second floor of the Palace of Justice is full this morning. The prosecution teams are at their tables. The defendants are in the dock.
The international press gallery is standing room only. At a smaller table to the left of the main prosecution bench, a 23-year-old American private in a pressed uniform is sitting with a stack of of evidence folders in front of him waiting for the session to begin. He grew up four streets from this building. >> >> He has not been back to this city since he was 13 years old.
Private First Class Nathan Weiss was 23 years old. He was born in Nuremberg in 1922, the only son of a man named Leopold Weiss, who had practiced civil and commercial law in the city for 19 years from an office on Königstraße, two blocks from the central market square. Leopold Weiss was a methodical, >> >> careful attorney with a reputation for thorough preparation and a client list that included both Jewish and non-Jewish businesses across the Franconian region.
He was a man who believed in the law in the specific way that people believe in things they have spent their adult lives studying and practicing. Not as an abstraction, but as a set of tools and hold the powerful to account if applied with sufficient precision and courage. His son Nathan grew up in the particular world of a serious lawyer’s household.
Dinner table conversations about precedent and procedure, >> >> his father’s library of legal texts filling an entire wall of the study, the understanding absorbed from earliest childhood that language mattered, that the words in a document had real consequences for real people, and that the difference between a just outcome and an unjust one often resided in a single clause.
Nathan was 11 in 1933 when his father came home from the courthouse and sat down in the kitchen without taking off his coat and told his wife that the government had passed a law removing Jews from the civil service and the legal profession, and that his license to practice was being revoked. Nathan was 13 in September 1935 when the Nuremberg Laws were announced at the party rally 2 miles from their apartment.
His father read the text of the laws that evening at the kitchen table slowly in the careful manner of a lawyer parsing language, and when he had finished, he folded the newspaper precisely in half and placed it on the table and said nothing for a long time. The family left Germany in November 1935. They arrived in New York through Ellis Island in January 1936 with four suitcases, Leopold’s law certificates, and the address of a colleague from his university years who had emigrated 3 years earlier.
Leopold never practiced law again. He worked as a bookkeeper for a textile firm in lower Manhattan for the rest of his working life, keeping accounts in the same careful handwriting he had once used for legal briefs. Nathan enlisted in March 1942 at the age of 19. The Army’s legal support administration found him during processing, noted his fluency in German, noted his background, noted his specific knowledge of Nuremberg’s geography and institutions, and assigned him to the Allied legal section support staff being assembled
for the proceedings. His job title was document management specialist, which meant he received the evidence folders from the archive each morning, maintained their chain of custody, and carried them to the courtroom table at the start of each session. He carried the evidence. He sat at the table where the evidence was laid out.
And he did both of these things every day in a courtroom that had been built in the city where those laws were written, 40 m from the dock where the men who wrote them were sitting. Dr. Ernst Rautke was 58 years old, a senior official of the Reich Ministry of Justice who held a doctorate in jurisprudence from the University of Heidelberg, and had spent his career in the theoretical >> >> and drafting work of German constitutional law.
He was not a party ideologue in the crude sense. He was a legal technician, a man who believed that the law was a precision instrument, and that his skill lay in wielding it with exactness. He had joined the NSDAP in 1933, >> >> not from enthusiasm, he would later say, but from the professional recognition that the party’s legal reform program required men with genuine expertise.
And that expertise was a currency that needed to be invested where it would be used. Between 1934 and 1937, he served on the technical drafting committee of the Reich Ministry of Justice responsible for translating the racial policy objectives of the Nazi leadership into legally enforceable statute. He had worked specifically on the language of the first supplementary decree to the Reich Citizenship Law.
The decree that defined in precise legal terms who was a Jew, what categories of partial Jewish ancestry created which categories of legal status, and what rights each category of person was permitted to retain. He had drafted that language with the care of a man who understood that precision in a legal definition has consequences that extend outward from the document into every life the definition touches.
He had drafted it well. >> >> The language was precise, and its consequences were vast. He was now in the dock at the Justice Case, one of the 12 subsequent Nuremberg trials conducted by the American Military Tribunal, facing charges relating to his role in constructing the legal architecture of persecution.
He had been in the dock for 4 days. He was composed, attentive, and still recognizably the careful professional he had always been. He had noted the layout of the courtroom on the first day, the prosecution tables, the evidence table to the left, the document management personnel who moved between the archive door and the table before each session.
On the morning of the fifth day, he looked at the document management specialist at the evidence table and looked for longer than he had looked at anything else in the room that morning. By the autumn of 1945, the question of how to prosecute the architects of Nazi criminality had generated one of the most consequential legal debates of the 20th century.
The main Nuremberg trial, beginning in November 1945, and addressed the senior leadership of the Reich. But the men who had built the machinery, the lawyers who drafted the laws, the judges who applied them, the administrators who translated them into operational reality at every level of German civic life, numbered in the thousands, and the question of how the law could reach them was not simple.
The Justice Case, tried before the American Military Tribunal in 1947, was the proceeding specifically designed to answer that question in the domain of legal professionals. It argued that lawyers and judges >> >> who had used their expertise to construct a legal system of persecution were not neutral technicians who had merely followed orders, but active perpetrators who had weaponized the law itself, converting the instrument that was supposed to protect human beings into the instrument of their
destruction. This argument was not self-evident to everyone. Defense attorneys for the accused argued strenuously that legal drafters could not be held responsible for the downstream consequences >> >> of statutes they had written. That the legislators who passed the laws, not the technicians who drafted them, bore the operative responsibility.
The prosecution argued the opposite. >> >> The evidence they intended to use to make that argument was in the folders that Nathan Weiss carried into the courtroom each morning and placed on the table where the prosecutors would pick it up and read from it in front of the men who had written the words being read.
For Major Francis Aldridge had commanded the Allied Legal Section Document Management Unit since the proceedings began. He was a 39-year-old former prosecutor from Baltimore who had been watching the courtroom with the systematic attention of someone trained to notice what witnesses and defendants did when they thought no one was looking at them specifically.
On the morning of the fifth day, he watched Raucher’s eyes follow Nathan Weiss from the archive door to the evidence table and back. He watched for long enough to be certain of what he was seeing. After the morning session, he called Weiss into his office in the administrative wing of the building and asked him directly whether he knew who Rauch was.
Nathan said yes. He said Rauch had been on the drafting committee for the first supplementary decree. He said the decree defined who was a Jew under German law. He said his father had lost his law license in 1933 under the preliminary professional exclusion laws and his citizenship in 1935 under the laws Rauch helped draft.
He said his father’s name was Leopold Weiss and that he had practiced civil law on Königstraße for 19 years before the license was taken. He said all of this in the same flat careful voice in which he answered every procedural question, keeping his face the way his father had taught him to keep it when the words being said in a room were words that required composure to survive.
Aldrich listened without interruption. When Nathan finished, Aldrich asked him one question. He asked whether Nathan was able to continue performing his duties in the courtroom without the work being compromised. Nathan said yes. Aldrich looked at him for a moment. Then he said, “Good.” He said he was reassigning Nathan from the general document courier pool to the fixed evidence table position for the remainder of the justice case proceedings.
He said the fixed position required someone with strong organizational discipline and complete procedural reliability. He said Nathan had demonstrated both. He said the assignment would begin the following morning and would continue for the duration. Nathan Weiss sat at the evidence table in courtroom 600 of the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg >> >> for 111 days because every morning he arrived before the session began, received the evidence folders from the archive, carried them through the courtroom, and
placed them on the table. Every morning he walked past the dock where the defendants sat. He did not look at Rauch when he walked past. >> >> He did not acknowledge him in any way. He sat at the evidence table and maintained the chain of custody of the evidence folders and passed them to the prosecutors when they were requested, and received them back when they were returned, and logged each transfer in the custody register.
With the small, careful handwriting he had inherited from his father, he did this every day for 111 days. On the 111th day, July 14, 1947, the American Military Tribunal delivered its verdicts in the Justice Case. Four of the defendants were convicted of crimes against humanity. Rauch was among them.
He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. At Nathan Weiss was in the courtroom. He was sitting at the evidence table. He received the evidence folders back from the prosecution after the session concluded, logged them into the custody register, and returned them to the archive. Nathan Weiss was discharged from the army in September 1947.
He returned to New York and enrolled at Columbia Law School on the GI Bill, completing his degree in 1950. He was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1951 and practiced civil and commercial law from an office in Lower Manhattan for 38 years, retiring in 1989. He was known among his colleagues for his meticulous preparation and his particular patience in cases that required the sustained, careful accumulation of documentary evidence over long periods.
He never spoke publicly about Nuremberg. He spoke about his father’s law practice often to his children >> >> and later his grandchildren, describing the office on Königstraße with the specific detail of someone preserving a room that no longer exists. His father, Leopold, died in New York in 1961 without returning to Germany.
Nathan visited Nuremberg once after his retirement in 1991, accompanying a group of American legal historians touring the Palace of Justice. He walked through courtroom 600. A young German historian, who was part of the tour group, noticed that he was standing for a long time at the left side of the room near the prosecution tables and asked him whether he had a particular connection to the proceedings.
Nathan looked at the place where the evidence table had stood for 111 days. He said he had done some work here once, a long time ago. He died in 2004 at the age of 81. >> >> His son donated his discharge papers, his custody register from the Justice Case proceedings, and a single photograph to the archives of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The photograph shows a young American soldier in a pressed uniform sitting at a table in a large courtroom with a stack of evidence folders in front of him. He is not looking at the camera. He is looking at the folders. Ernst Rauck served 4 years of his 10-year sentence before being released under the General Clemency Program of 1951, which reduced or eliminated the sentences of many convicted war crimes defendants in the context of West German rearmament and Cold War political pressures.
He returned to private life in West Germany and worked for the remainder of his career as a legal consultant for a commercial firm in Frankfurt. He never gave public statements about the Justice Case or his role in drafting the Nuremberg laws. He died in 1969. The legal framework he helped construct, the first supplementary decree to the Reich Citizenship Law with its precise definitions and careful language, was cited as a primary evidentiary document in the Justice Case proceedings and remains in the historical examples
of how legal expertise can be converted into an instrument of mass persecution when the people who possess that expertise ist chose to place it in service is of a system designed to destroy is rather than protect. And some legal historians who have studied the Justice Case have argued >> >> that the verdicts were insufficiently severe given the scale of the harm that the defendants’ legal work enabled and that the subsequent clemency program effectively negated >> >> what accountability the trials had
managed to establish. They point to the rapid reintegration of many convicted defendants into West German professional and civic life as evidence that the proceedings, however historically significant, failed to achieve meaningful individual deterrence or institutional transformation in the German legal profession.
Others have argued the opposite that the Justice Case that the Justice Case established for the first time in international law the principle that legal professionals can talk claim professional neutrality >> >> when their expertise is placed in service of systematic persecution. The friend and that this principle, however imperfectly enforced in 1947, became the foundation of every subsequent international legal standard governing the conduct of legal and judicial professionals in relation to crimes against humanity.
What is certain is that for 111 days in 1947, the son of a lawyer whose license was taken by the laws being prosecuted carried the evidence of those laws into the room where the men who wrote them were being held to account, and did it with the same careful and composed precision that his father had brought to 19 years of legal practice in the city where those laws were named.
If you had been Nathan Weiss sitting at that table every morning, what would you have felt when you placed the evidence folders down and walked past the dock on your way back to your seat? Leave your answer in the comments. And if you believe the stories of the men who answered history not with a weapon, but with a custody register, and 111 mornings of showing up deserve to be remembered, subscribe because the record still has rooms in it that have not yet been fully described.
Jewish Soldier Grew Up Under the Nuremberg Laws — They Carried Nazi ‘s Officer Into Court Himself
November 20, 1945. >> >> The Palace of Justice on Fürther Straße in the city of Nuremberg, Bavaria. The building was chosen partly because it survived the Allied bombing raids largely intact, and partly because it contained the largest prison facility in occupied Germany adjacent to a functioning courtroom.
It was also chosen, though this was not stated in the official communications, because of where it was. Nuremberg was the city where the Nazi Party held its annual rallies. It was the city that gave its name to the racial laws of September 1935 that stripped Jewish people of German citizenship and defined them in the precise administrative language of the Reich’s legal apparatus as biologically separate from the German nation.
Trying the men who built that system in the city that gave the laws their name was a decision that contained its own argument about how history should be answered. The courtroom on the second floor of the Palace of Justice is full this morning. The prosecution teams are at their tables. The defendants are in the dock.
The international press gallery is standing room only. At a smaller table to the left of the main prosecution bench, a 23-year-old American private in a pressed uniform is sitting with a stack of of evidence folders in front of him waiting for the session to begin. He grew up four streets from this building. >> >> He has not been back to this city since he was 13 years old.
Private First Class Nathan Weiss was 23 years old. He was born in Nuremberg in 1922, the only son of a man named Leopold Weiss, who had practiced civil and commercial law in the city for 19 years from an office on Königstraße, two blocks from the central market square. Leopold Weiss was a methodical, >> >> careful attorney with a reputation for thorough preparation and a client list that included both Jewish and non-Jewish businesses across the Franconian region.
He was a man who believed in the law in the specific way that people believe in things they have spent their adult lives studying and practicing. Not as an abstraction, but as a set of tools and hold the powerful to account if applied with sufficient precision and courage. His son Nathan grew up in the particular world of a serious lawyer’s household.
Dinner table conversations about precedent and procedure, >> >> his father’s library of legal texts filling an entire wall of the study, the understanding absorbed from earliest childhood that language mattered, that the words in a document had real consequences for real people, and that the difference between a just outcome and an unjust one often resided in a single clause.
Nathan was 11 in 1933 when his father came home from the courthouse and sat down in the kitchen without taking off his coat and told his wife that the government had passed a law removing Jews from the civil service and the legal profession, and that his license to practice was being revoked. Nathan was 13 in September 1935 when the Nuremberg Laws were announced at the party rally 2 miles from their apartment.
His father read the text of the laws that evening at the kitchen table slowly in the careful manner of a lawyer parsing language, and when he had finished, he folded the newspaper precisely in half and placed it on the table and said nothing for a long time. The family left Germany in November 1935. They arrived in New York through Ellis Island in January 1936 with four suitcases, Leopold’s law certificates, and the address of a colleague from his university years who had emigrated 3 years earlier.
Leopold never practiced law again. He worked as a bookkeeper for a textile firm in lower Manhattan for the rest of his working life, keeping accounts in the same careful handwriting he had once used for legal briefs. Nathan enlisted in March 1942 at the age of 19. The Army’s legal support administration found him during processing, noted his fluency in German, noted his background, noted his specific knowledge of Nuremberg’s geography and institutions, and assigned him to the Allied legal section support staff being assembled
for the proceedings. His job title was document management specialist, which meant he received the evidence folders from the archive each morning, maintained their chain of custody, and carried them to the courtroom table at the start of each session. He carried the evidence. He sat at the table where the evidence was laid out.
And he did both of these things every day in a courtroom that had been built in the city where those laws were written, 40 m from the dock where the men who wrote them were sitting. Dr. Ernst Rautke was 58 years old, a senior official of the Reich Ministry of Justice who held a doctorate in jurisprudence from the University of Heidelberg, and had spent his career in the theoretical >> >> and drafting work of German constitutional law.
He was not a party ideologue in the crude sense. He was a legal technician, a man who believed that the law was a precision instrument, and that his skill lay in wielding it with exactness. He had joined the NSDAP in 1933, >> >> not from enthusiasm, he would later say, but from the professional recognition that the party’s legal reform program required men with genuine expertise.
And that expertise was a currency that needed to be invested where it would be used. Between 1934 and 1937, he served on the technical drafting committee of the Reich Ministry of Justice responsible for translating the racial policy objectives of the Nazi leadership into legally enforceable statute. He had worked specifically on the language of the first supplementary decree to the Reich Citizenship Law.
The decree that defined in precise legal terms who was a Jew, what categories of partial Jewish ancestry created which categories of legal status, and what rights each category of person was permitted to retain. He had drafted that language with the care of a man who understood that precision in a legal definition has consequences that extend outward from the document into every life the definition touches.
He had drafted it well. >> >> The language was precise, and its consequences were vast. He was now in the dock at the Justice Case, one of the 12 subsequent Nuremberg trials conducted by the American Military Tribunal, facing charges relating to his role in constructing the legal architecture of persecution.
He had been in the dock for 4 days. He was composed, attentive, and still recognizably the careful professional he had always been. He had noted the layout of the courtroom on the first day, the prosecution tables, the evidence table to the left, the document management personnel who moved between the archive door and the table before each session.
On the morning of the fifth day, he looked at the document management specialist at the evidence table and looked for longer than he had looked at anything else in the room that morning. By the autumn of 1945, the question of how to prosecute the architects of Nazi criminality had generated one of the most consequential legal debates of the 20th century.
The main Nuremberg trial, beginning in November 1945, and addressed the senior leadership of the Reich. But the men who had built the machinery, the lawyers who drafted the laws, the judges who applied them, the administrators who translated them into operational reality at every level of German civic life, numbered in the thousands, and the question of how the law could reach them was not simple.
The Justice Case, tried before the American Military Tribunal in 1947, was the proceeding specifically designed to answer that question in the domain of legal professionals. It argued that lawyers and judges >> >> who had used their expertise to construct a legal system of persecution were not neutral technicians who had merely followed orders, but active perpetrators who had weaponized the law itself, converting the instrument that was supposed to protect human beings into the instrument of their
destruction. This argument was not self-evident to everyone. Defense attorneys for the accused argued strenuously that legal drafters could not be held responsible for the downstream consequences >> >> of statutes they had written. That the legislators who passed the laws, not the technicians who drafted them, bore the operative responsibility.
The prosecution argued the opposite. >> >> The evidence they intended to use to make that argument was in the folders that Nathan Weiss carried into the courtroom each morning and placed on the table where the prosecutors would pick it up and read from it in front of the men who had written the words being read.
For Major Francis Aldridge had commanded the Allied Legal Section Document Management Unit since the proceedings began. He was a 39-year-old former prosecutor from Baltimore who had been watching the courtroom with the systematic attention of someone trained to notice what witnesses and defendants did when they thought no one was looking at them specifically.
On the morning of the fifth day, he watched Raucher’s eyes follow Nathan Weiss from the archive door to the evidence table and back. He watched for long enough to be certain of what he was seeing. After the morning session, he called Weiss into his office in the administrative wing of the building and asked him directly whether he knew who Rauch was.
Nathan said yes. He said Rauch had been on the drafting committee for the first supplementary decree. He said the decree defined who was a Jew under German law. He said his father had lost his law license in 1933 under the preliminary professional exclusion laws and his citizenship in 1935 under the laws Rauch helped draft.
He said his father’s name was Leopold Weiss and that he had practiced civil law on Königstraße for 19 years before the license was taken. He said all of this in the same flat careful voice in which he answered every procedural question, keeping his face the way his father had taught him to keep it when the words being said in a room were words that required composure to survive.
Aldrich listened without interruption. When Nathan finished, Aldrich asked him one question. He asked whether Nathan was able to continue performing his duties in the courtroom without the work being compromised. Nathan said yes. Aldrich looked at him for a moment. Then he said, “Good.” He said he was reassigning Nathan from the general document courier pool to the fixed evidence table position for the remainder of the justice case proceedings.
He said the fixed position required someone with strong organizational discipline and complete procedural reliability. He said Nathan had demonstrated both. He said the assignment would begin the following morning and would continue for the duration. Nathan Weiss sat at the evidence table in courtroom 600 of the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg >> >> for 111 days because every morning he arrived before the session began, received the evidence folders from the archive, carried them through the courtroom, and
placed them on the table. Every morning he walked past the dock where the defendants sat. He did not look at Rauch when he walked past. >> >> He did not acknowledge him in any way. He sat at the evidence table and maintained the chain of custody of the evidence folders and passed them to the prosecutors when they were requested, and received them back when they were returned, and logged each transfer in the custody register.
With the small, careful handwriting he had inherited from his father, he did this every day for 111 days. On the 111th day, July 14, 1947, the American Military Tribunal delivered its verdicts in the Justice Case. Four of the defendants were convicted of crimes against humanity. Rauch was among them.
He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. At Nathan Weiss was in the courtroom. He was sitting at the evidence table. He received the evidence folders back from the prosecution after the session concluded, logged them into the custody register, and returned them to the archive. Nathan Weiss was discharged from the army in September 1947.
He returned to New York and enrolled at Columbia Law School on the GI Bill, completing his degree in 1950. He was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1951 and practiced civil and commercial law from an office in Lower Manhattan for 38 years, retiring in 1989. He was known among his colleagues for his meticulous preparation and his particular patience in cases that required the sustained, careful accumulation of documentary evidence over long periods.
He never spoke publicly about Nuremberg. He spoke about his father’s law practice often to his children >> >> and later his grandchildren, describing the office on Königstraße with the specific detail of someone preserving a room that no longer exists. His father, Leopold, died in New York in 1961 without returning to Germany.
Nathan visited Nuremberg once after his retirement in 1991, accompanying a group of American legal historians touring the Palace of Justice. He walked through courtroom 600. A young German historian, who was part of the tour group, noticed that he was standing for a long time at the left side of the room near the prosecution tables and asked him whether he had a particular connection to the proceedings.
Nathan looked at the place where the evidence table had stood for 111 days. He said he had done some work here once, a long time ago. He died in 2004 at the age of 81. >> >> His son donated his discharge papers, his custody register from the Justice Case proceedings, and a single photograph to the archives of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The photograph shows a young American soldier in a pressed uniform sitting at a table in a large courtroom with a stack of evidence folders in front of him. He is not looking at the camera. He is looking at the folders. Ernst Rauck served 4 years of his 10-year sentence before being released under the General Clemency Program of 1951, which reduced or eliminated the sentences of many convicted war crimes defendants in the context of West German rearmament and Cold War political pressures.
He returned to private life in West Germany and worked for the remainder of his career as a legal consultant for a commercial firm in Frankfurt. He never gave public statements about the Justice Case or his role in drafting the Nuremberg laws. He died in 1969. The legal framework he helped construct, the first supplementary decree to the Reich Citizenship Law with its precise definitions and careful language, was cited as a primary evidentiary document in the Justice Case proceedings and remains in the historical examples
of how legal expertise can be converted into an instrument of mass persecution when the people who possess that expertise ist chose to place it in service is of a system designed to destroy is rather than protect. And some legal historians who have studied the Justice Case have argued >> >> that the verdicts were insufficiently severe given the scale of the harm that the defendants’ legal work enabled and that the subsequent clemency program effectively negated >> >> what accountability the trials had
managed to establish. They point to the rapid reintegration of many convicted defendants into West German professional and civic life as evidence that the proceedings, however historically significant, failed to achieve meaningful individual deterrence or institutional transformation in the German legal profession.
Others have argued the opposite that the Justice Case that the Justice Case established for the first time in international law the principle that legal professionals can talk claim professional neutrality >> >> when their expertise is placed in service of systematic persecution. The friend and that this principle, however imperfectly enforced in 1947, became the foundation of every subsequent international legal standard governing the conduct of legal and judicial professionals in relation to crimes against humanity.
What is certain is that for 111 days in 1947, the son of a lawyer whose license was taken by the laws being prosecuted carried the evidence of those laws into the room where the men who wrote them were being held to account, and did it with the same careful and composed precision that his father had brought to 19 years of legal practice in the city where those laws were named.
If you had been Nathan Weiss sitting at that table every morning, what would you have felt when you placed the evidence folders down and walked past the dock on your way back to your seat? Leave your answer in the comments. And if you believe the stories of the men who answered history not with a weapon, but with a custody register, and 111 mornings of showing up deserve to be remembered, subscribe because the record still has rooms in it that have not yet been fully described.
