I am having an online dispute with one pal over the legal aspects of the Nuremberg Trials right now. We are trying to find out if the principle of the presumption of guilt was applied to all SS membersby the Tribunal but seems like we are both lacking evidence. My point is that it was applied and here is why:

During our discussion, I surprisingly found the following wording in the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal of October, 1946, in the section dedicated to ‘The Accused Organizations:

“Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph* who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the participation of the organisation in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organisations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1st September, 1939.”

* “all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS”, except for the so-called SS riding units, and the SD, which was dealt with separately.

While the beginning of the paragraph seems to be very clear about the collective guilt of all SS members, including those who just had knowledge of its crimes, I have never heard of people being prosecuted simply for membership in the organization. At the same time, a number of open sources indicates that the exception for those whose membership was involuntary was used by defense attorneys in disputes over the criminal status of Baltic SS legions’ members, so, as far as I understand, the principle of collective guilt itself was never questioned. Thus, questions arise about about the enforcement of the Tribunal’s decisions in this part. Actually, I would split my title question down into two separate questions:

1. There seems to be a contradiction between the beginning of the paragraph, which establishes collective criminal liability for members of the SS, and its end, which exempts those who did not commit crimes from liability. This may even sound a bit absurd, but only if we look at it from the perspective of the presumption of innocence. However, if we use the optics of the presumption of guilt, it starts to look quite logical: SS members are presumed guilty until they can prove that they membership was involuntary or they did not commit any crimes. So, the question is am I right to understand that the principle of the presumption of guilt was applied to all SS members and thus the judgment implied that all of them (tens of thousands of people at the moment) should be prosecuted for the membership? I found an article by Beth Van Schaack, the US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, indicating that the theory really was that “any individual member of one of the criminal organizations would face a presumption of guilt”, but I’m not sure if this interpretation is absolutely correct. Were the presumption of guilt really applied?
2. If yes, what real consequences did it have for SS members? I mean not for high-profile individuals, but for those ordinary members who were obviously neither Nazi leaders nor complicit in war crimes. Were they tried in national courts, so we probably haven’t heard of these cases due to their insignificance? Or maybe they were brought to justice selectively, say, only when they came into attention in specific cases? Or perhaps there were special by-laws giving that exempted them from serving actual prison sentences, while still recognizing them criminals? Were there people charged simply for the fact they were members of the SS?

Would be grateful if you respond with references to specific court documents, legislative acts or analytical papers/scientific works/historical books based on them.

Thank you!

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts.

Hello Reddit,

I’m A.J. Jacobs. I’m an author. I wrote a book several years ago called “The Year of Living Biblically” about following the rules of the Bible as literally as possible. 

My new book is a semi-sequel to that, and is called “The Year of Living Constitutionally.” I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning.

I bore my musket on the Upper West Side of New York.

I gave up social media in favor of writing pamphlets with a quill pen.

I agreed to quarter some soldiers in my apartment.

The book is (I hope) entertaining, but it also has a serious purpose: To explore how we should interpret this 230-year-old document. How much should we stick to the original meaning, and how much should we evolve the meaning? 
I do a deep dive into democracy, SCOTUS, originalism, and much more.

Booklist calls it "fascinating  and necessary" and Harvard's Laurence Tribe says "everyone should read it." 

Learn more on THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/622521/the-year-of-living-constitutionally-by-aj-jacobs/

I have also written some other books, such as

“Thanks a Thousand” — where I went around the world and thanked a thousand people who had anything to do with my morning cup of coffee.

“The Know-It-All” — where I read the Encyclopedia Britannica (when it still existed in physical form)

“Drop Dead Healthy” — where I tried to be the healthiest person alive.

“It’s All Relative” — where I tried to throw a family reunion for eight billion of my cousins.

Ask me anything!

Proof here: https://imgur.com/DbNubZp

This is a list of every historical detail portrayed incorrectly by the movie Tombstone in their portrayal of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. This is being done to educate people on what the actual showdown may have looked like. The list will not include film-wide historical errors, nor inconsistencies in the plot. They are only what is in the film's gunfight scene. They are separated by two categories. The first are the objective inaccuracies: what cannot be argued, due to reliable testimony or the coroner's report. The second are the less reliable inaccuracies: we don't know exactly what happened, but it most likely wasn't what was shown.

[The movie scene] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpEkaGJnkAk&t=226s

First, the objective errors.

1. The Earps were not walking all together in a straight line. It was two-by-two, with Virgil and Wyatt in the front, and Doc and Morgan in the back.
2. Doc Holliday should have been wearing a gray coat and hat, as opposed to black.
3. The cowboys' wardrobe does not match the history. Frank and Tom McLaury were wearing buckskin pants, which was noted in the coroner's report. Tom McLaury’s wardrobe was recorded in the coroner’s report as a blue shirt, black vest, and a hat with a silver rimband. All of which were absent. Furthermore, the day was blustery and cold, so all of the cowboys should have been wearing dusters or some other coat.
4. For some reason, the Earps round the corner of Fly’s Boarding House twice.
5. At some point, one of the Earps said to Doc Holliday "Let them have it", to which Doc responded "Alright". They never did this in the film.
6. Johnny Behan met them much earlier, when they rounded the street corner.
7. Behan is shown ducking into Fly’s Photography Studio. That building was actually behind the vacant lot. The correct building should have been Fly’s Boarding House, which actually bordered the lot and was the true building Behan went into. Though, the exterior of the building matches the boarding house better than the small studio.
8. The vacant lot should be about a third the size of the movie lot. There was no fence separating the lot from the O.K. Corral. As well, all the stable accouterments in the movie lot were not there, leaving the vacant lot exactly that: vacant.
9. Fly's Boarding House is depicted accurately, but the building on the other side of the lot was a house owned by William Harwood. Whatever that building was in the movie, it didn't represent the way the small pre-manufactured cottage really looked.
10. A couple of witnesses took refuge and watched the gunfight from Addie Bourland’s dress shop across the street, including Addie Bourland herself. But in the film, the building across the street is under construction.
11. Tom McLaury is correctly shown with a horse, but Frank should have one as well.
12. The bearded cowboy wearing blue is credited as Johnny Barnes, which is confirmed later. The real Barnes had nothing to do with the gunfight, and it causes the exclusion of Billy Claiborne, who was actually there.
13. The Earps are seen walking forward up until the cowboys go for their guns. In reality, the Earps had stopped in their positions once they got to the lot.
14. Doc Holliday did not advance on the cowboys on his own. He stayed out on the street with the shotgun. Likewise, he did not remove his duster once he had the shotgun out, or anytime during the gunfight.
15. Virgil’s exact words were “Hold! I don’t mean that!” before the first shots, possibly (and probably) in an attempt to stop his brothers and Doc.
16. The Earps are seen firing at Frank midway through the fight, who is still in the middle of the lot halfway through the battle, until he collapses again. By this point in the gunfight, Frank almost certainly was up and trying to get out of the vacant lot. He was seen leading his horse towards Fremont Street, where he would eventually die.
17. Tom McLaury, after he was shot by Doc Holliday, ran to the end of the block until collapsing against a telegraph pole on the street corner. He is never seen running away in the film.
18. The shot that hits Virgil hits him in the wrong leg.
19. The angle of Morgan's wound is considerably off. The shot ripped across both of his shoulder blades, meaning that the shooter was to Morgan’s side. Billy in the film shoots Morgan from the front.
20. Billy Clanton is shot far too many times. In reality, he was only hit twice in the final volley.
21. Once Billy was gunned down in the film, he was basically down for the count. The truth can be stranger than fiction, as Billy really hit the wall of the Harwood House, landed in a sitting position, and just kept shooting until he ran out of ammo. He did not lose consciousness and die until well after the gunfight was over.
22. The whole bit with Ike stealing a gun and shooting out the window? Yeah, none of that happened.
23. Doc is seen wielding two revolvers in the film. He only brought one to the actual gunfight. He may have had a Derringer on him, but he never used it in the fight if he did.
24. The confrontation between Frank and Doc should have been in the middle of the street, with the two of them much further away from each other. As well, Frank grazed Doc in the hip, causing him to exclaim, “I’m shot through!”. It isn’t shown in the film.
25. Frank is seen bearing a wound to his shoulder in the film. In actuality, he only suffered two throughout the gunfight. He took Wyatt’s shot to the gut, and Morgan’s shot to the head.
26. Speaking of that head wound, Morgan is seen shooting Frank in the forehead. The coroner found the wound below the right ear and passing through his head. However, as accurately portrayed, Frank died instantly.
27. After Frank McLaury's death, Doc Holliday said "That sonofabitch has shot me, and I mean to kill him.", speaking of Frank. He does not do this in the film.

And now, things get muddy.

1. No one really knows what the cowboys were doing in the vacant lot when the Earps arrived. Some believe they were waiting to ambush Doc Holliday, who lived in Fly's Boarding House. Others claim that they were simply trying to get out of town. Still others say the group couldn't decide what to do. Whatever their actions, they were not just dawdling in the lot. They were talking and/or preparing when the Earps came.
2. According to the Earps, the cowboys were not all spread out in the lot, but were instead against the wall of the Harwood house. When the confrontation started, it was then that they moved away from the house.
3. Also, Barnes/Claiborne are shown exiting as soon as the Earps arrive. Claiborne in actuality may have stayed up until the shooting started, but no one knows for sure. According to Johnny Behan, he grabbed Claibourne as he went into the boarding house, but again, we’re not sure what happened.
4. This also causes the other cowboy who leaves early, which we can assume to be Wesley Fuller, to leave once the guns come out. In reality, Fuller was seen by the Earps, but left first.
5. While nobody can entirely agree on where each Earp brother stood, it is agreed that Morgan should have been in Virgil’s place, on the west side of the group. Wyatt should have been close to or up against the boarding house for reasons we’ll get to in a little bit, and Doc should have been out on the street in the back of the group.
6. The phrase Virgil utters to try and disarm the cowboys is accurate to Wyatt’s testimony, but the general consensus is that he said: “Throw up your hands. I want your guns.” , which corresponds to his own testimony.
7. The cause of the gunfight was not Doc Holliday winking, but was actually Holliday cocking the shotgun. It was this that made the cowboys reach for their weapons.
8. It is unclear if there was a moment where everyone hovered over their guns, but if there was, it didn’t take that long.
9. Almost everyone’s gun is correct, but in the movie, Wyatt pulls out a long Colt called a Buntline Special. It is unknown if Wyatt ever really owned this gun, much less used it in the confrontation. In addition, he said he put the gun in his coat pocket, which would have been much harder to do with a longer weapon. He probably used a wood-handled Smith and Wesson 1869, the same model that Virgil had.
10. The tradition of revolvers was to leave the hammer on an empty chamber in case the gun jostled, causing it to go off. Therefore, most of the participants should have only fired five shots out of their six-shooters, unless they threw an extra bullet in for the occasion. (My bets would be on Frank McLaury to do that.)
11. The most reliable testimony from the gunfight, that of the Earp brothers, said that Wyatt and Billy fired the first two shots. This was corroborated by others, but we can't be sure.
12. According to Wyatt's testimony, the film correctly shows Wyatt firing first and hitting Frank in the gut, but his and Billy Clanton’s shots were simultaneous. It took a moment for everyone else to start shooting.
13. Wyatt testified that only four shots were fired before Ike Clanton ran to him. In those shots, Frank and Billy should each have been hit once, and no more.
14. Morgan Earp is seen hitting Billy in the first volley, which would be correct. However, it most likely was the shot to Billy’s wrist, which would not have knocked him to the ground.
15. The reason that Wyatt is placed next to the boarding house is because, according to his testimony, when he grappled with Ike Clanton, he threw him around the corner of the building. He also did this before saying “This fight has commenced. Go to fighting or get away.” Wyatt spoke those words while his revolver was in Ike’s face.
16. Tom McLaury is shown with a revolver, like most adaptations of this event. However, the general consensus is that Tom was unarmed. He had checked his pistol into a hotel beforehand, as was custom, and no gun was found on his body. Most of the testimony that says Tom was armed was from the Earp brothers. However, due to the smoke, the chaotic movements, and the fact that Billy and Frank were shooting around him, it is inferred that a bullet from Frank or Billy was mistakenly believed to be from Tom.
17. This changes the manner of his death. He is seen in the film firing his pistol until Doc scares his horse away with a shotgun blast, then using the remaining ammo to kill Tom. In reality, Tom was seen frantically trying to get a Winchester rifle out of the scabbard on the saddle when the horse either bucked or was nicked by a bullet. This caused Tom to be left open for Doc to blast him with both barrels.
18. Billy Clanton is shown dying in a volley from Wyatt and Doc. No one knows if such a volley really happened or if the shots that killed him were isolated. However, Doc probably only contributed one or two shots, and Virgil was likely the other man to kill Billy.

Adennum: The history behind the second category's notes are less firm, but still more viable than what the film portrays. What is written above is informed by the sources. Many people have drawn different conclusions about what happened that day on October 26th, 1881, all from the same information. I recommend you read/watch up and do the same.

Sources/Further Reading

Books

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Gunfight-Shootout-K-Corral/dp/1439154252

https://www.amazon.com/Tombstone-Earp-Brothers-Holliday-Vendetta/dp/1250214580

Documentaries

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1330518/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6499682/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_3

Websites (coroner's report included)

https://tombstonehistory.tripod.com/examnov1.html

https://www.coopertoons.com/merryhistory/okcorral/okcorral.html

https://www.ok-corral.com/

Hi everybody,

Welcome to our weekly book recommendation thread!

We have found that a lot of people come to this sub to ask for books about history or sources on certain topics. Others make posts about a book they themselves have read and want to share their thoughts about it with the rest of the sub.

We thought it would be a good idea to try and bundle these posts together a bit. One big weekly post where everybody can ask for books or (re)sources on any historic subject or timeperiod, or to share books they recently discovered or read. Giving opinions or asking about their factuality is encouraged!

Of course it’s not limited to *just* books; podcasts, videos, etc. are also welcome. As a reminder, r/history also has a recommended list of things to read, listen to or watch

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts.

Hi everybody,

Welcome to our weekly book recommendation thread!

We have found that a lot of people come to this sub to ask for books about history or sources on certain topics. Others make posts about a book they themselves have read and want to share their thoughts about it with the rest of the sub.

We thought it would be a good idea to try and bundle these posts together a bit. One big weekly post where everybody can ask for books or (re)sources on any historic subject or timeperiod, or to share books they recently discovered or read. Giving opinions or asking about their factuality is encouraged!

Of course it’s not limited to *just* books; podcasts, videos, etc. are also welcome. As a reminder, r/history also has a recommended list of things to read, listen to or watch