In Pursuit of Justice: Debating the Statute of Limitations for Nazi War Crimes in Britain and West Germany during the 1960s (original) (raw)

Up until 1979, the ability of West German courts to prosecute Nazi war criminals was hampered by a Statute of Limitations for acts of manslaughter and murder. Throughout the 1960s, the issue generated considerable public discussion, both within the Federal Republic and among the international community. As prosecutors, politicians, journalists and Holocaust survivors (among many others) debated the need for continued war crimes trials, it was clear that there remained significant limits to western understandings of the Nazi genocide. This article analyses public responses to the Statute in both West Germany and Great Britain and argues that the whole affair has had a crucial impact on the development of international justice and today's pursuit of war criminals. In spring 2013, it was announced that 50 former Auschwitz guards would stand trial in Germany for their role in the Holocaust. 1 In July that same year, the Simon Wiesenthal Institute launched a poster campaign with the slogan, 'late, but not too late', appealing for the public's help in identifying and tracing any remaining Nazi war criminals. 2 In each case the message was the same: that the passage of time has not diminished the guilt of these perpetrators, and that old age should not be a barrier to their prosecution. However, the very fact that such trials can still take place at all is highly significant. Indeed, up until 1979, the ability of (West) German courts to prosecute former Nazi perpetrators remained in considerable doubt, hindered by a Statute of Limitations that imposed a strict time limit for investigating cases of murder and manslaughter. This Statute has received relatively little scholarly attention. Works that have been produced focus predominantly on pertinent legal issues such as post facto legislation, rather than exploring the Statute's broader historical significance. 3 Notable exceptions to this trend include recent studies by Frank Buscher and Marc von Miquel, although here the emphasis has, quite legitimately, rested upon the political discussions at the heart of the controversy. 4 This approach, combined with intricate contemporary accounts published by the likes of Rolf Vogel and Karl Jaspers, means that the parliamentary debates on this issue have now been well-documented; their reception elsewhere in society, considerably less so. 5