After World War II, the victorious Allies decided to hold a trial for the defeated

Nazis. These trials lasted from November 20, 1945 till October 1, 1946. Although the
victors claimed that they would give the accused a fair trial, upon closer inspection we
can see that in reality, these trials were biased and were a victors justice. When it
comes to war everybody has blood on their hands. Some crimes have a higher
punishment than others. The Trials that took place were different in the fact this was
the first time in history that acts of war culture were determined crimes.
I dont blame German nation for electing Hitler and the Nazis into power...like
said I understand very well what kind of situation and despair Germany was in after
WW1 and if I had been German back then, its likely that I too would have jumped into
that ship that would later sink. I mean when you just look at these images of Nurnberg
rallies, and those massive "arenas" and structures full of people and Swazika flags
everywhere, you can get pretty clear picture how high Hitler managed to raise the
nationalistic feeling and pride of German people and just imagine that Germany was
heading into a bright future...unless you happened to be those unfortunate ones who
were either Jews, communists, gays or disabled people. Overall it just such a shame
under all that all glory, lied the terrible ideology of Hitler and the Nazis. It also needs to
be understood that the way Germany was setup is to always Obey no
questions asked. Its like that with teacher, parents, officers for many years.
So no different when anti-Semitism took a more force full effect they just
complied. Keep in mind during these trials that this is how things were.
During the trials, the Americans put American justice over International Justice. It
was wrong and unfair however to do such a thing because those who were guilty didnt

even come from the United States? Since the trials were supposed to be international in
scope, they shouldnt be following the justice of one country, but rather international
justice. Although the Americans were applying American justice to the trials, they didnt
even follow their constitution while doing so. The US constitution states that laws cannot
be made post-facto, but in Nuremberg, they created these laws (for example, crimes
against humanity, and waging aggressive war) after the Germans had committed
them. It is wrong however to charge defendants with crimes that didnt exist in anyones
books at the time they were committed. Although some might say that these crimes are
common knowledge, they may in fact be only common knowledge to you. Not
everyone in the world views things in the same way you might. John F. Kennedy even
said about the Nuremberg trials that The Constitution was not a collection of loosely
given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing
platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it[and] discard these
Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.
Nuremberg showed the prejudices of the Allies and was a victors justice arranged
for seeking vengeance. Several of the Allies were guilty of such crimes themselves, but
they were ignored. For example, the Russians committed the Katyln Forest massacre
where thousands of people were murdered, but they put the blame for this crime on the
Germans. The Americans dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese even though other
options were available. The Japanese knew they were weak, and knew that if the
Russians joined the Allies then they were doomed. The US knew about this fact, but still
decided to drop the bomb anyway. Some even believe that the Americans were so

insistent upon dropping the bomb because they wanted to scare the Russians with their
newfound power.
The Nuremberg Trials should have been performed in a more just and fair manner.
They should not have been done through a victors justice and in such a morally
dubious manner. Each side was guilty of the counts that were made. Although some
might say that the atrocities the Germans committed deserve these sentences, we
should look not at the magnitude of the crime, but rather the principle. If one steals a car
for example, while another stole a chair, although these two doings are of different
magnitudes, they are both considered stealing nonetheless, and should be dealt with. A
permanent international tribunal should have been made for war crimes that would be
effective at convicting not only the losers, but the winners as well. If such a thing is not
made, we will continue to follow passing judgement through a victors justice, as seen
in Nuremberg.
The Nuremberg Trials served some purposes. First, it was done that so that people who
committed widespread atrocities and not punished by their own internal systems would
be then face charges and prosecution on the international law. Second, it was to make
sure that war criminals didn't get a free hand anymore. Third, it was the first
international court system to establish procedures regarding countries who also ordered
or having knowledge of atrocities committed under their jurisdiction. Fourth, it is also to
send a message that no war criminals would get off free and they would be punished
anywhere around the world.

Cited Sources
All of the evidence pages given in 1,2,3
"The Numerberg Trials: A Victors Justice." 123HelpMe.com. 10 Apr 2016
<http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=91694>.