American Justice To The Trials example essay topic

The Numer berg Trials Were Unfair 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 "victor's justice". After the war, each of the Allies leaders had their own idea for how they should deal with the Nazi's. Stalin suggested that they should have trials, but here everyone is guilty and afterwards is shot. What then would be the point of having a trial then?

It would just appear as a 'play' before they would perform their actual intentions. He may have suggested this also so that he could say that they were fair because they gave them a trial-but 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 even 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 wrong and unfair however to do such a thing because those who were guilty didn't even come from the United States? Since the trials were supposed to be international in scope, they shouldn't be following the justice of one country, but rather international justice.

Although the Americans were applying "American justice" to the trials, they didn't 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 didn't exist in anyone's 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. The Allies also said that they would keep away the "hand of vengeance" and give a fair trial, but in reality they didn't follow this. Several rules were established for the Nuremberg trials, but the Allies didn't even bother to follow some of these rules, or perform them fairly. For example, rule 2 (Notice to Defendants and Right to Assistance of Counsel) said that "Each individual defendant in custody shall receive not less than 30 days before a trial a copy, translated into a language which he understands... 3) of any other documents lodged with the Indictment". However, during the actual trials, the defendants and their counsel sometimes didn't receive any documents, or when they did, they were often given the evening before the proceedings in English instead of German.

This has been pointed out by Dr. Laternser and Dr. Fritz Sauter during the proceedings. Dr. Laternser told the President that he "would like to point out the decision of the Tribunal, that every defendant's counsel should receive sufficiently in advance, a copy of all documents which are to be submitted as evidence in the course of the proceedings, has not been complied with... therefore [it is] difficult for the Defense to follow the proceedings because the documents submitted have not been distributed... ". Dr. Sauter also told the President that they did not receive documents in German, and they were often not received the evening of the proceedings.

This thus gave them inadequate time to prepare themselves. The defense were sometimes not even given a copy of the documents, while newspapermen were given 250 copies of every document. This was pointed out also by Dr. Laternser. The forth section of this rule also mentioned that "each defendant has the right to conduct his own defense or to have the assistance of counsel". This however was also ignored during the trials. When Goering tried to defend himself when he was asked if he was guilty or not guilty, he was told to be quiet and just say whether he was guilty or not.

He was not even given a chance to defend himself here. Also, in the trial, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe told the defendants that they were not allowed to question the credibility of any prosecution witness at any time. If they are not allowed to do this though, how can they adequately defend themselves and possibly even prove that the evidence should be refuted? Testimonies were also cut short if they feared that it would contradict a prosecution witness. For example, during the trial, the President stated". ... he says he is in contradiction with Blah a.

We don't want further details". Several of the defendants had to perform their deeds because Hitler told them to do so. No one ever went against what Hitler said openly. When they told the persecutors this however, they were told they shouldn't have followed orders.

But if they did not follow Hitler's orders, then they would have committed a crime against him and Germany, but if they didn't, they would still be accused of breaking the law. Thus they were stuck in a stalemate. Even Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, a President Judge said that "to find patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral". He also pointed out that the majority of the official investigators were "persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants".

Documents were also used as evidence, even though they were known to be false. For example, there is one scene from a Hollywood movie produced by Fox Studios that had a soldier pointing a gun at a child. This scene was used as actual "evidence", even though this movie was an American propaganda movie. The Russians also accused the Germans of committing crimes such as the burning of churches, but in fact the Russians were using the Germans as a scapegoat for these crimes that they did. For example, the Russians claimed that the Germans destroyed St. Peter's Church and the famous Schwarzhaupter House in Riga, but these destructions in fact were by a fire made by the Russians themselves. The Nuremberg trials also brought raised some legal doubts.

For example, the Krupp family had major factories in Germany. The Allies wanted to convict Alfred Krupp, who was controlling these factories, but instead brought his elderly innocent father to trial. They believed that this was justifiable because he should want to defend his son, but they did not think that perhaps an old man would not want to be placed in the shoes of a criminal. Nuremberg showed the prejudices of the Allies and was a victor's 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 Katy ln 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 victor's 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 "victor's justice", as seen in Nuremberg.