The Pros And Cons Of The Nuremberg Trials

879 Words4 Pages
In the United States Constitution, it declares that all American citizens have a “right to a fair trial” (HG.Org, par 1). What does the word “fair” even mean? According to Merriam- Webster “fair” is defined, “marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism,” (Merriam-Webster, Par 1). In court terms, that means the plaintiffs and the defendants both deserve an equal trial. This was a huge controversy from November 20th, 1945- October 1st, 1946 a.k.a. the Nuremberg Trials because people all over the world didn’t think that the Nazi’s deserved a fair trial (History Channel, par 7). However, after reading “Nuremberg: A Fair Trial? A Dangerous Precedent” by Charles E. Wyzanski and “Nuremberg In Retrospect” by Robert H. Jackson, I believe the Nuremberg trials was a “fair” trial, but wasn’t a real law trial. Almost a month after Germany surrender and World War II ended in 1945, four representatives of the Allied powers met in London to discuss the plan to deal with the accused captives (Jackson, page 4). The USSR, France, United States, and Britain agreed that the having a trial was the best to deal with the war criminals of the European Axis powers (The Gale Group, par 1). The London Charter created the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which were the four chief prosecutors of the Nuremberg trials (Jackson, page 4). Robert H. Jackson was representing the United States, Francois de Menthon representing France, Roman A. Rudenko
Open Document