The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1946

          Post World War Two outlined the start of a new era where Western European powers declined and the  likes of two new powerhouses ruled over the world, the US and USSR where they would compete in the events of the Cold War. However, to get to this point in history, the Allied powers first needed to respond to the immediate effects of Germany, mainly to pinpoint the mass destruction of countries, murders, and crimes to someone. With their persecution of German-Jewish people amassing to 6 million Jews, the Nazi Germans needed to be brought to justice. Unlike history, however, with previous instances of prosecution of war crimes only through one country,  like the courts-martial in Turkey punishing those responsible for the Armenian Genocide, these trials would be through many different country's powers.

         Named after the city it was held in, Nuremberg was a German state of Bavaria selected for the trials because its Palace of Justice was relatively undamaged by the war and included a large prison area. To set up for these trials, the Allies established laws and procedures with the London Charter on August 8, 1945. In the charter, it defined mainly three categories of crimes: crimes against peace like planning or preparing for wars in violation of international agreements, war crimes like improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war, and crimes against humanity like murder, enslavement, or deportation of civilians. With these crimes, anyone could be trialed from civilians to political leaders. However, at Nuremberg, only major Nazi criminals and high-level German officials were put on the stand.

        The most well known of the Trials held in Nuremberg was the Major War Criminals’ Trial. Held before tribunal (panel of judges) rather than a single judge and jury like traditional trials. It was however still somewhat of a mix of traditions, including prosecutors and defense attorneys coinciding with British and American law, Each of the four major power (France, Britain, the Soviet Union, and the U.S) provided two judges, a main one and an alternative. With 24 individuals being indicted, some had committed suicide before they could be trialed like Hitler and his two top officials. Given the opportunity to choose their own lawyers, common defense strategies were to describe their crimes under the London Charter as "ex post facto law", laws that criminalized actions committed before the laws were drafted; and that the trial was a form of "victor’s justice" and the Allies had too harsh standards for crimes against Germans and were easier on their own soldiers and troops. This did not turn out well for them, as all but three were convinced of being guilty. Twelve were sent to death by hanging, while the rest were given jail time ranging from ten years to life.

     With the results of the Nuremberg Trials, they became controversial over whether they were just right or too harsh. Those who support the trials saw it as promises being the first effective recognition of a world law punishment on international criminals. Those who critiqued the trials saw them negated principles they believed were the heart of any system of justice under law. At the time, many agreed with the trials, but today, it can be debated very widely.     


https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials#section_2
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-trials
https://www.britannica.com/event/Nurnberg-trials
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-trial-a-dangerous-precedent/306492/