The Allied War Crimes Programs and the Struggle to enact Justice in Germany 1945-58: Prisons, Prisoners, and the Fight for Legitimacy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Historians have extensively studied post-Second World War Allied war crimes trials and have also examined how the intensification of the Cold War and the desire to have West Germany rearm and join NATO led to the release of all German war criminals in western Allied custody by 1958. However, the aims, implementation, and evolution of the war crimes program between sentencing and amnesties remains understudied. If historians want to understand postwar justice, how it was meted out, and how it was received by the German public, it is as important to understand the nature of the German war criminals’ incarceration as it is to understand their sentencing and trials. My dissertation examines the three western Allied prisons for war criminals in Germany: Landsberg, Wittlich, and Werl. It examines how the penal regimes were designed, what goals they were meant to achieve, how they were implemented and evolved over time, and how the prisons were defended against misinformation and criticism that threatened to undermine the legitimacy of the war crimes program. It examines how the war criminals understood the system and used that understanding to fight for their release. Finally, as the war crimes programs’ crisis of the legitimacy reached its peak, this dissertation examines how the amnesties were carried out while still attempting to preserve the appearance of judicial legitimacy. Much attention has been paid to the broad political fight over the fate of the war criminals, including studies of their supporters in government, the Church, the press, legal circles, veterans’ groups, and various other interest groups. However, no one has examined what the war criminals themselves were doing during their incarceration – they are completely left out of the narrative. The war criminals did not passively resign themselves to their fate – they did not know that amnesties were coming in the 1950s and so fought vigorously to secure their own release. Therefore, in order to compliment existing scholarship on the debate about war criminals in wider society, I am writing a history that is centered on the war criminals themselves – their prisons, their lives as prisoners, and their fight to be released.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».