After much debate during the war years over how best to respond to Nazi criminality, the United States embarked on an ambitious postwar trial program in occupied Germany, which consisted of three distinct trial sets: the International Military Trial at Nuremburg, the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and military trials held at the former concentration camp at Dachau. Within the Dachau military tribunal programme, were the concentration camp trials in which personnel from the Dachau, Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Flossenbürg, and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps were arraigned. These concentration camp trials at Dachau represented the principal attempt by the United States to punish Nazi crimes committed at the concentration camps liberated by the Americans. The prosecutors at Dachau tried 1,045 defendants accused of committing violations of the 'laws of war' as understood through 'customary' international and American military practice. The strain of using traditional military law to prosecute the unprecedented crimes in the Nazi concentration camps was exposed throughout the trials. To meet this challenge, the Dachau concentration camp courts included an inventive legal concept: the use of a 'criminal-conspiracy' charge-in effect arraigning defendants for participating the 'common design' of the concentration camp, 'a criminal organization'. American lawmakers had spent a good deal of time focused on the problem of how to begin the trials (What charges? What courts? Which defendants?) and very little time planning for the aftermath of the trials. Thus, by 1947 and 1948, in the face of growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, the major problem with the Dachau trials was revealed -the lack of long term plans for the appellate process for those convicted. After two scandals that captured the press and the public's attention, the United States Congress held two official investigations of the entire Dachau tribunal programme. Although the resulting reviews, while critical of the Army's clemency process, were largely positive about the trials themselves, the Dachau trials faded from public memory.

Ce mémoire de maîtrise analyse les liens entre les premiers procès militaires alliés en Allemagne occupée et l’opinion publique allemande dans l’après-guerre immédiat. Notre mémoire de maîtrise, à travers la présentation de l’analyse du procès de Belsen, organisé par les forces d’occupation britanniques de septembre à novembre 1945, et du procès de Dachau, tenu par le gouvernement militaire américain entre novembre et décembre 1945, cherche à mettre en lumière l’importance que ces derniers revêtaient dans l’établissement de relations cordiales entre occupants et occupés. Ce mémoire démontre donc, par les exemples de Belsen et Dachau, que les procès se situaient à la croisée entre le besoin des Alliés d’établir des relations positives avec les Allemands et leurs programmes de dénazification et de rééducation. Nous remarquons ainsi que, des premières étapes dans l’organisation de ces tribunaux jusqu’à leur achèvement, les Alliés ont pris en considération les différentes réactions des Allemands face aux procédures judiciaires : d’abord, avec l’ancrage des accusations et des procédures judiciaires dans une législation internationale qui précédait le début de la guerre, puis avec l’autorisation d’une défense pour les accusés qui permettait aux Alliés de revendiquer une autorité morale sur leur zone d’occupation. Ce mémoire de maîtrise, en plus d’examiner les procès d’après-guerre et leurs objectifs, propose également une analyse de la couverture journalistique de ces tribunaux et des sondages d’opinion publique menés après les procédures judiciaires. Notre étude établit ainsi que la couverture journalistique des procès était, souvent, une des premières fois où les Allemands se trouvaient confrontés aux atrocités commises dans les camps de concentration nazis. Finalement, avec l’analyse des sondages d’opinion publique, nous argumentons que les procès, en tant qu’outil politique, ont eu un succès mitigé dans l’établissement de relations positives entre les forces d’occupation britanniques et américaines et les Allemands. / This masters’ thesis analyses the connections between the first allied military trials held in postwar Germany and German public opinion toward the British and American occupation forces. Focused on the Belsen trial, held in the British occupation zone from September to November 1945, and the Dachau trial, held by the American military government in the U.S. occupation zone between November and December 1945, this study seeks to highlight the importance both trials held for the British and the Americans in establishing positive relations with the Germans. Using Belsen and Dachau as case studies, it argues that, while they were essential to British and American denazification and re-education programs, they also had to be conducted in a manner that ensured the best possible relationship the German public and the occupation forces in both the American and British occupation zones. I demonstrate that, from the initial steps implemented to set up the trials through their conclusion, both powers took German concerns and reactions to the judiciary procedures into account: first by anchoring the charges and the trials themselves in international law preceding the Second World War; then by providing the right to a defense to the accused. Both factors, the Allies believed, allowed them to claim a moral authority over their occupation zone. The memoir’s examination of the trials and their purpose is complimented by an analysis of the press coverage of the trials and public opinion surveys taken after the trials. This study states that the press coverage was oftentimes one the first instances in which Germans were confronted to the atrocities committed in the concentration camps. Finally, this study argues that, as a part of larger programs, the trials had a limited success as a tool to implement positive relations between the British and American occupation forces and the German population.