As early as 1942, the Allies learned from various sources in Nazi-occupied Europe that the Germans were carrying out many atrocities against Jews, prisoners of war, and other groups. On October 7 of that year, the United States and Great Britain established the War Crimes Commission, which made lists of German war criminals. In the Moscow Declaration of November 1, 1943, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union affirmed that they intended to bring German war criminals to justice (“War criminals”).
After the defeat of Nazi Germany in May, 1945, American, British, Soviet, and French leaders met at the London Conference to make more detailed plans for the trials. They made a list of twenty-four Nazi leaders and six Nazi organizations …show more content…
Later, the occupying Allies also held trials of lower-level Nazi officials who had been captured.
Some have criticized the Nuremberg Trials, saying that the International Military Tribunal was not a true court of law, since it did not have the authority of a world government to back it. These critics of the trials view them as a simple act of vengeance-the winners punishing the losers.
Others insist that the trials were legal, however, because the Nazis had committed enormous crimes by any nation's standards. Though there are no international laws that specifically forbid slaughtering and torturing millions of people, such acts are so horrible that they do not need to be formally prohibited. A world state does not have to exist before war criminals can be brought to justice (“War …show more content…
Nuremberg was a foundational event of the postwar era, generating numerous retellings in memoirs, monographs, and films. The classic account of the trials is an Anglo-American tale of liberal triumph in which the high-minded U.S. chief prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, along with representatives of the other Western powers, put the desire for vengeance aside and gave the Nazis a fair trial before the law—marking one of "the law's first great efforts to submit mass atrocity to principled judgment" and ushering in a new era of international human rights.^ This narrative became established in the West during the long decades of competition between the Soviet Union and the United States, when Soviet materials relating to the trials, and to postwar diplomate relations in general, were off limits in the Soviet archives. For politicians and historians who helped create the classic narrative of Nuremberg, the role of the Soviets in the International Military Tribunal (IMT) was, and remains, an awkward fact. Most English-language accounts describe Soviet participation in Nuremberg as "the Achilles' heel" of the trials; regrettable but unavoidable, a Faustian bargain that the U.S. and Britain made in order to bring closure to the war and bring the Nazis to justice^ Popular works that have shaped conventional
After the defeat of Nazi Germany in May, 1945, American, British, Soviet, and French leaders met at the London Conference to make more detailed plans for the trials. They made a list of twenty-four Nazi leaders and six Nazi organizations …show more content…
Later, the occupying Allies also held trials of lower-level Nazi officials who had been captured.
Some have criticized the Nuremberg Trials, saying that the International Military Tribunal was not a true court of law, since it did not have the authority of a world government to back it. These critics of the trials view them as a simple act of vengeance-the winners punishing the losers.
Others insist that the trials were legal, however, because the Nazis had committed enormous crimes by any nation's standards. Though there are no international laws that specifically forbid slaughtering and torturing millions of people, such acts are so horrible that they do not need to be formally prohibited. A world state does not have to exist before war criminals can be brought to justice (“War …show more content…
Nuremberg was a foundational event of the postwar era, generating numerous retellings in memoirs, monographs, and films. The classic account of the trials is an Anglo-American tale of liberal triumph in which the high-minded U.S. chief prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, along with representatives of the other Western powers, put the desire for vengeance aside and gave the Nazis a fair trial before the law—marking one of "the law's first great efforts to submit mass atrocity to principled judgment" and ushering in a new era of international human rights.^ This narrative became established in the West during the long decades of competition between the Soviet Union and the United States, when Soviet materials relating to the trials, and to postwar diplomate relations in general, were off limits in the Soviet archives. For politicians and historians who helped create the classic narrative of Nuremberg, the role of the Soviets in the International Military Tribunal (IMT) was, and remains, an awkward fact. Most English-language accounts describe Soviet participation in Nuremberg as "the Achilles' heel" of the trials; regrettable but unavoidable, a Faustian bargain that the U.S. and Britain made in order to bring closure to the war and bring the Nazis to justice^ Popular works that have shaped conventional