Law after Auschwitz : towards a jurisprudence of the Holocaust

Disputes the view that Nazi Germany was a "criminal state", arguing that it was a state of law. The law defined "the Jew" as a new legal entity, one that could and should be killed, since he or she was viewed as subhuman. Consequently, judges and lawyers in Nazi Germany were involved in an immoral, but not an illegal, process that was based on eugenics and racism. Law after Auschwitz cannot judge Nazi law since there was continuity between them, as there was between Nazi law and previous German and Western law. Stresses the inability of war crimes trials, discussed in detail in regard to Germany, France, the USA, Great Britain, and Australia, to do justice to the victims. Their fate in the Holocaust was often marginalized in the trials, which focused on legal technicalities regarding the accused perpetrators. Emphasizes the continuity between Nazi laws, including those relating to euthanasia, and postwar eugenic practices in the West. Notes how post-Holocaust politics, including national images and Cold War rivalries, contributed to "amnesia" about aspects of the Holocaust (like collaboration). Some arguments in favor of dropping judicial proceedings against accused war criminals were antisemitic; for example, contrasting the Christian belief in forgiveness with the implicitly Jewish desire for vengeance, as argued both in England and Australia. Includes bibliographical references and index. xi, 451 pages ; 24 cm