Are translations of Nuremberg trial evidence and expert reports publicly available?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Yes — extensive English translations of Nuremberg trial transcripts, evidentiary exhibits and many expert reports are publicly available online through multiple archives; Harvard Law School’s newly released, searchable collection alone offers more than 750,000 pages of English-language transcripts, briefs and evidence exhibits from all 13 trials [1] [2]. Complementary digitized and translated holdings exist at university special-collections projects (Cornell, UND) and curated portals such as Stanford’s Taube Archive and Harvard’s nuremberg.law.harvard.edu [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. What’s newly public — a 750,000‑page English corpus
Harvard Law School’s Nuremberg Trials Project completed a 25‑year digitization and metadata effort and now provides a fully searchable online archive that includes English-language trial transcripts, briefs and evidence exhibits from all 13 Nuremberg trials — described in reporting as more than 750,000 pages and the first complete, keyword‑searchable collection hosted at nuremberg.law.harvard.edu [1] [2] [7].
2. Translations: how complete are the English versions?
Harvard’s archive “includes every English‑language document” and the project team says parallel English translations exist for the library’s online records, though about 30% of the library’s German‑language holdings have not yet been digitized [8]. Reuters and The Guardian note Harvard added analysis and citations to many digitized materials and preserved the documentary trail that links originals, typescripts and translations [2] [9].
3. Multiple institutional sources, not just Harvard
Publicly accessible translated material predates Harvard’s release: Cornell’s Donovan Collection contains typed English translations of defendants’ original German statements and a 42‑volume official English text prepared by the IMT secretariat [3]. The University of North Dakota and other university projects have digitized and transcribed case files and evidentiary documents for specific trials or sub‑cases, such as the Norway‑related materials and the medical (NO) series [4] [10].
4. What kinds of documents are translated and available?
Available digitized holdings include verbatim English transcripts of courtroom proceedings, prosecution and defense briefs, evidentiary exhibits (photographs, maps, captured documents), and some staff evidence analyses and preparatory documents; Stanford’s Taube Archive is described as containing hundreds of thousands of pages plus audio and film materials for the IMT [5] [10] [6].
5. Gaps and caveats — German originals, partial digitization, and metadata limits
Reporters and project staff emphasize that while English translations are widely available, not all German‑language holdings were digitized in the initial release (Harvard notes ~30% remain undigitized) and some evidentiary records have richer metadata than others, which affects searchability and context [8] [1]. The National Library of Medicine’s finding aid shows some collections include “some English translations” but remain incomplete for certain series [10].
6. How translations were produced and why they matter
Contemporaneous Allied practice produced many typed translations (for example, Donovan’s typed English versions prepared by the Allies), and the Nuremberg process itself pioneered large‑scale simultaneous interpretation and formal translation workflows — factors that created multiple documentary layers (originals, photostats, transcripts, translations) cited by Harvard and press coverage as preserving authenticity and traceability [3] [11] [9].
7. Where to go first — practical entry points
Begin with Harvard’s nuremberg.law.harvard.edu for the complete, searchable English corpus released in 2025 [6] [1]. For specialized holdings consult Cornell’s Donovan collection for Allied‑prepared English translations and the University of North Dakota’s digitized cases for Norway‑related documents; Stanford’s Virtual Tribunals/Taube Archive offers another consolidated IMT resource [3] [4] [5].
8. Competing perspectives and sleeper risks for researchers
Archivists frame the release as a democratization of sources and a bulwark against misinformation; journalists and project leads stress the “documentary trail” linking originals to translations [9]. Counterpoints in the reporting note continued gaps — undigitized German originals and uneven metadata — meaning scholars should treat online translations as powerful but not necessarily exhaustive representations of the full archival record [8] [1].
Limitations: available sources do not mention every expert report by name or whether every single expert report from all trials has been translated; for such specifics researchers must inspect the cited archives directly [6] [3].