The Second World War has ended and the Allies are putting the remaining Nazis to trial….those that did not take the easy way out by committing suicide.
The trials were show trials for the world…the spin it was to help the world heal from the war but in reality it was nothing short of retaliation and revenge.
So now I ask…was justice served?
Do not get me wrong I am not saying that these people are guiltless….but rather that the trials were not carried out in an democratic and unbiased way.
Yes these accused were bastards and barbaric bunch….but I think the trials should have been handled in another way to prove that democracy and the rule of law prevailed.
For instance the judges were from Allied countries….UK, USA, USSR and France….4 judges and 4 alternates……the victors if you will. A case could be made the the judges were biased.
This was just a low key Versailles Treaty….it is designed to inflict revenge on a defeated people…just as the WW1 treaty did to the German people.
“If in the end there is a generally accepted view that Nuremberg was an example of high politics masquerading as law, then the trial instead of promoting may retard the coming of the day of world law.”
Was the trials as fair as they were billed to be?
The Nuremberg War Trial has a strong claim to be considered the most significant as well as the most debatable event since the conclusion of hostilities. To those who support the trial it promises the first effective recognition of a world law for the punishment of malefactors who start wars or conduct them in bestial fashion. To the adverse critics the trial appears in many aspects a negation of principles which they regard as the heart of any system of justice under law.
This sharp division of opinion has not been fully aired largely because it relates to an issue of foreign policy upon which this nation has already acted and on which debate may seem useless or, worse, merely to impair this country’s prestige and power abroad. Moreover, to the casual newspaper reader the long-range implications of the trial are not obvious. He sees most clearly that there are in the dock a score of widely known men who plainly deserve punishment. And he is pleased to note that four victorious nations, who have not been unanimous on all post-war questions, have, by a miracle of administrative skill, united in a proceeding that is overcoming the obstacles of varied languages, professional habits, and legal traditions. But the more profound observer is aware that the foundations of the Nuremberg trial may mark a watershed of modern law.
Before some person decides to attack let me say….I do believe there should have been trials but that the judges should have been from Neutral countries during the war like Switzerland or Sweden…..
“Lego Ergo Scribo”