本文討論納粹屠殺之重點有三：納粹執政時期之法律狀態，納粹國家不法於二次大戰後在法律上之處理以及台灣由此值得參考之經驗。為了增進對於歐洲往事之理解，本文首先指出納粹之國家不法行為於規範上之條件何在？若當今稱該規範為一種「違法之法律」，此評價在法學上之依據何在？基於此規範屬性之理解，本文進而指出納粹經由何行為實現其不法政策，此大規模之國家不法行為如何運用納粹及當年德國之黨政軍結構來實現其屠殺政策。對應此對於以往事實之重構，本文說明，納粹所實施之國家不法行為於德國戰敗後獲得何種司法上之評價。在此個別介紹戰勝國經由紐倫堡軍事審判庭以及經由盟軍監督委員會和各佔領區之軍政府所實施之處理模式，前者藉由國際法上之刑事審判來制裁主要戰犯，後者原本期盼藉由行政處分及刑事訴訟之並用加以處理德國之全體人口。相對之下，聯邦德國處理納粹屠殺案件以及納粹之其他國家不法案件主要運用司法之刑事審判程序。基於德國若干刑事判決之分析可以看到判決所列之被害人與納粹依其政策所毀滅之被害人類型不相符。由此得知，德國戰後於司法上對於納粹國家不法之反省，雖然已相當努力，但仍有其特殊盲點。其次，本文依據典型判決之分析加以指出，德國刑事司法在審判納粹國家不法案件所運用之具體論理呈現何特點，尤其解釋判決推理如何經由不法命令、幫助犯等概念之運用來區分及認定案件中之責任分配。基於此，本文反省台灣哪方面值得參考聯邦德國以刑法來處理國家不法行為之問題，並且藉此協助台灣社會能夠共同克服過去歷史所遺留之陰影。

When discussing the Nazi holocaust, this paper focuses upon three major points: the legal situation during the Nazi time, the legal treatment of Nazi state crimes after WWII, and legal aspects that can act as reference for Taiwan. In order to facilitate comprehension of the problem of state crimes committed in the Nazi era, this paper first points to normative preconditions of Nazi state crime, especially possibilities for judging relevant norms as being 'unjust law' or 'legal injustice' are discussed. With this background knowledge, an overview of concrete crimes committed by the NS state and its representatives is given, concentrating upon structural features that enabled the Nazi leadership to utilize party, state, and military for perpetrating criminal policies, i.e. for committing murder on an industrial scale: crimes that later became known as the holocaust. Reflecting this reconstruction of the past, the article goes on and explains different forms of legal evaluation of these state crimes after the war ended. On one hand, we find legal actions of the victorious powers, i.e. the Nuremberg trials of major war criminals and denazification policies towards the whole of Germany of the Allied Control Council and various Military Governments in Germany between 1945 and 1949. Forms of legal actions make use of international criminal procedures (Nurmeberg trials) as well as of a combination of administrative law and criminal procedure (denazification policy). Compared to this, the Federal Republic of Germany clearly tended towards criminal procedures when legally reflecting crimes of the Nazi past. A comparison of types of victims as outlined in court judgments and of the victim typology of Nazi policies (concentration camps), we can make out specific deficiencies within German legal treatment of Nazi state crimes that existed despite numerous achievements. An analysis of a court judgment offers exemplary insights into the line of argument German courts used when convicting individuals of committing crimes against humanity, notably the notions of unlawful orders and of crime participant open ways to make differences in the allocation of criminal responsibility. Finally, the article reflects upon possibilities for Taiwan to make reference of the German example when dealing with state crimes committed in her own past. It does so in the hope of helping Taiwanese society to overcome some of the remaining shadows of history.