Introduction
The Nuremberg trials have been defined by many historians and scholars as a form of historical justice. This is the case because the Allies arrested and prosecuted many defendants for their crimes against humanity during the Second World War. Despite such achievements, numerous criticisms have been associated with these trials. For instance, the Allies used Count Methods during the trials despite the fact that they were non-European. Many culprits were tried for conspiracy. Incidentally, the conspiracy was not a crime in Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
Criticisms of the Nuremberg Trials
On top of the above criticisms, several concerns have been presented by experts that question the validity of the Nuremberg trials. To begin with, the Nuremberg Court was invalid because of a number of contentious issues. For instance, the defendants were not allowed to appoint judges during the process. The Nuremberg court was not impartial since the judges were selected by the victors of the war. Similarly, German spies were tried and prosecuted while those of the allies were not.
The court went ahead to relieve Russian leaders from attending the trials. Consequently, the decision made it impossible for the world to examine the crimes against mankind committed by the Soviets. This criticism is usually supported by the fact that the Soviet Union had attacked Finland and Poland. That being the case, it becomes quite clear that the trials were guided by inappropriate procedures and rules of engagement. It is therefore agreed that the trials were aimed at perpetuating victor’s justice.
The other undeniable concern about the proceedings is that the court applied double standards. The Allied Forces were observed to starve many civilians in different occupied territories. Many civilians in countries such as Germany were forced to provide labor. The Soviets had starved many elderly people and children to death. The bodies of over 12,000 victims were uncovered after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Despite such crimes, the perpetrators were never questioned during the trials.
It is also notable that the Nuremberg trials were biased. During the trials, the outlined crimes against humanity included all offenses against populations. The Americans, who used atomic bombs during the war, should have been prosecuted during the trials. Similarly, the British soldiers who destroyed several cities and killed civilians should have also been tried. The Anglo-Saxon officers who expelled millions of German citizens from their homes held themselves innocent throughout the trials.
Immediately after the Second World War, the Allies were observed to commit most of the malpractices targeted during the Nuremberg trials. For example, France treated many prisoners of war negatively. The malpractice was observed to violate the Geneva Convention. Similarly, the United States arrested many German engineers and provided refuge. Such engineers were allowed to participate in the country’s space exploration projects.
Conclusion
In conclusion, many historians have argued that the Allies committed numerous offenses by substituting power for principle during the Nuremberg trials. This is true because such trials were unprincipled and biased. The idea of the quilt was never taken seriously throughout the trials. Although many defendants were held accountable and even prosecuted, the victors failed to consider the validity of the law.
Bibliography
Healey, Sharon. “Searching for justice in an unjust world.” Human Rights & Human Welfare 2, no. 2 (2010): 23-30.
Hirsch, Francine. “The Soviets at Nuremberg: internal law, propaganda, and the making of the postwar order.” American Historical Review 1, no. 1 (2008): 701-730.
McKeown, Tessa. “The Nuremberg trial: procedural due process at the international tribunal.” Procedural Due Process at the International Military Tribunal 1, no. 1 (2014): 109-132.