The Nuremberg Trials
Justice is an elusive thing in the world and it is usually undermined by those in power. Consistently in history the victor is the one who determines their own justice. However, after WWII the allied powers of the United Kingdom, United States of America and the Soviet Union set a precedent for convicting war criminals and the means of doing so. The Nuremberg trials sought to bring credible justice, not just victor's justice, to the men responsible for the atrocities committed against humanity during the Holocaust. Twenty-four of the most prominent Nazi figures, who were still alive, were put on trial for various war crimes and crimes against humanity. Though the …show more content…
A few years from now the lawyers of the world will condemn this trial. You can’t have a trial without law.” -Joachim von Ribbentrop. Today the Nuremberg trials receive a lot of criticism for simply being victors justice. Many lawyers from around the world have enumerated flaws that were present at Nuremberg. Moreover, the biggest flaws at Nuremberg were the double standards the Allies used throughout the trials. First the Allies charged the German defendants with conspiring to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. However, no one from the Soviet Union was charged with this crime despite evidence suggesting they did. Furthermore the Germans were charged with mistreatment of prisoners of war, while France and the USSR both mistreated German prisoners of war. Once again no one from France nor the USSR were put on trial for these crimes. Moreover the United States of America was not held responsible nor was anyone put on trial for the two atom bombs that were dropped on Japan killing thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Also the the London Charter allowed the use of evidence that was normally inadmissible in court. The tribunal was allowed to use any information they deemed to have probative value as evidence. Furthermore the court agreed to dismiss Soviet personal from the trials in order to conceal their own war crimes. A British weekly newspaper called The Economist summed up the hypocrisy and double standards of the trials stating, “nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the allies own justice. … Among crimes against humanity stands the offense of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? … The nations sitting in judgement have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered” To summarize, the Allied
Justice is an elusive thing in the world and it is usually undermined by those in power. Consistently in history the victor is the one who determines their own justice. However, after WWII the allied powers of the United Kingdom, United States of America and the Soviet Union set a precedent for convicting war criminals and the means of doing so. The Nuremberg trials sought to bring credible justice, not just victor's justice, to the men responsible for the atrocities committed against humanity during the Holocaust. Twenty-four of the most prominent Nazi figures, who were still alive, were put on trial for various war crimes and crimes against humanity. Though the …show more content…
A few years from now the lawyers of the world will condemn this trial. You can’t have a trial without law.” -Joachim von Ribbentrop. Today the Nuremberg trials receive a lot of criticism for simply being victors justice. Many lawyers from around the world have enumerated flaws that were present at Nuremberg. Moreover, the biggest flaws at Nuremberg were the double standards the Allies used throughout the trials. First the Allies charged the German defendants with conspiring to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. However, no one from the Soviet Union was charged with this crime despite evidence suggesting they did. Furthermore the Germans were charged with mistreatment of prisoners of war, while France and the USSR both mistreated German prisoners of war. Once again no one from France nor the USSR were put on trial for these crimes. Moreover the United States of America was not held responsible nor was anyone put on trial for the two atom bombs that were dropped on Japan killing thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Also the the London Charter allowed the use of evidence that was normally inadmissible in court. The tribunal was allowed to use any information they deemed to have probative value as evidence. Furthermore the court agreed to dismiss Soviet personal from the trials in order to conceal their own war crimes. A British weekly newspaper called The Economist summed up the hypocrisy and double standards of the trials stating, “nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the allies own justice. … Among crimes against humanity stands the offense of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? … The nations sitting in judgement have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered” To summarize, the Allied