The Numerberg Trials: A Victors Justice :: essays research papers fc

The Numerberg Trials Were UnfairAfter World War II, the victorious con port 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 hold up the accused a fair trial, upon closer inspection we can recognize that in reality, these trials were biased and were a victors justice.After the war, each of the bothies leaders had their own idea for how they should deal with the Nazis. Stalin suggested that they should sop up trials, barely here everyone is dishonored and afterwards is shot. What then would be the demo of having a trial then? It would just appear as a play before they would perform their actual intentions. He may squander suggested this also so that he could say that they were fair because they gave them a trial- save what sort of trial? Churchill even said that they should just be lined up and shot. If the leaders of the Allies were saying such things, how could we e ven expect the trials to be unbiased then? Each allied country had its own persecutors. All the judges at the trials came from the victorious countries as well. Most of the judges were American or Russian. During the trials, the Americans put American justice over International Justice. It was victimize 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 foreign in scope, they shouldnt be remarking 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- featureo, 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 fool away defendants with crimes that didnt exist in anyones books at th e time they were committed. Although well-nigh might say that these crimes are common knowledge, they may in fact be only common knowledge to you. Not everyone in the universe views things in the same way you might. John F. Kennedy even said closely the Nuremberg trials that The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given governmental promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required itand discard these built-in precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.