Nuremberg Trials In Criminal History

The Nuremberg Trials is the best-known trail regarding World War II and the Holocaust. This trial took place from November 20th, 1945- October 1st, 1946, and was not the only trial for prosecuting those involved with the horrific acts of the Holocaust. This trial tried major war criminals of being responsible for what happened during the Holocaust. The prosecution and defense attorneys followed the American and British law. The legal proceedings followed the 4 Allied countries that made up the judge tribunal: The British Empire, France, America, and the Soviet Union. Each Allied power had 2 judges, 1 main judge, and an alternate. The Defendants were also allowed to choose their own lawyers. 24 individuals and 6 Nazi’s organizations

The Nuremberg Trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany from the 20th of November 1945 to the 1st of October 1946, 24 of the Nazi leaders were tried for their crimes against humanity, however only 22 trials were officially carried out due to Robert Ley committing suicide and Gustav Krupp von Bohlen deemed unfit for trial before their hearing. It was considered to be controversial as all Nazi officials at one time claimed that they were simply following orders from a higher power and that they weren’t to blame for their crimes because they were acting in self defence. Hermann Göring also committed suicide the day before his scheduled execution. Also a few of Hitler’s accomplices committed suicide before they had a chance to be trialled. These adjustments to the expected outcome of the Nuremberg Trials caused controversy amongst everyone who knew of the Nazi’s treatment of others, especially Jews. There was also some bias towards the Nazi party from the people conducting the trial as they were mostly from Allied descent and had personal reasons to persecute Nazis simply because they were Nazis without fairly considering their crimes against humanity.

According to Justice Lawrence, author, the purpose of the Nuremberg Trials, later known as the Doctor’s Trial, was to “not only the punishment of those who were guilty but the establishment of the supremacy of international law over national law and proof of the actual facts” (Lawrence, p. 153) of the atrocious mass genocide known now as the Holocaust. This means that point of these trials were not only to punish the murderous doctors but also to show the world that international law is the highest form of power. A separate form of trials initially took place in Germany, however, it was a “farce” according to Lawrence. “The majority got off and such sentences as were inflicted were derisory and were soon remitted” (Lawrence, p. Yo27153). Due to the growing tension between the German court of law and other countries the Doctor’s Trial was then moved to Nuremberg, and the evidence was eventually over-turned to the United States who would eventually indict 23 doctors on a number of crimes

The Nuremburg Trials were trials held by allied forces to accuse a system of government for war crimes after World War II. These crimes dealt with invading nations, violating the Treaty of Versailles, and primarily “crimes against humanity.” They were later known as the Holocaust, where many victims were deported, enslaved, and executed. The victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jewish, Polish, Gypsies, and handicapped elderly who were considered dangerous. The International Military Tribunal, called the prosecutors consisted of lawyers and judges from the United States, France, and Soviet Union. The purpose of the trial was to decide how to prosecute the judges that did not do their job of serving justice to a multitude of innocent individuals

The Nuremberg Trials may have been awful but now researchers are aware of the difference between right and

When the war finally ended after six long years, the was fell into a period of complete and utter chaos. So many people were so angry, shocked and horrified that they didn’t know where to begin. After dealing with the initial problem of helping the victims in the concentration camps, many people wanted to find the people who were responsible and make them pay. This is where the Nuremberg Trials come into the picture. The Nuremberg Trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany in 1945 and 1946 where Nazis were put on trial for their role in the Holocaust.

Back in the times of the Holocaust, after the war took place, some of those who were responsible for the crimes committed, were taken to trial. Those trials took place on 1945 and 1946 in Nuremberg, Germany. The Nuremberg trials conveyed to open consideration the most noticeably bad of the Nazi abominations. “Judgment at Nuremberg” breathes life into those trials. Right up until today, the Nuremberg trials remain as a model for universal criminal tribunals, due in huge measure to the spotlight tossed at them by Mann's emotional translation of the notable occasions. Mann's staggering sympathy strikes at the heart of human, enduring his accomplishment has been to reaffirm humankind and equity in the wake of unspeakable malice; as the world remembers

From 1942 until now there have been many criminals of the Holocaust brought to trial and punished. “Between December 1946 and April 1949, US prosecutor tried

During your lifetime, have you ever wanted to bring someone to justice for something bad that they had done? The Nuremberg Trials were a series of trials held between 1945 and 1949 in which the Allies prosecuted German military leaders, political officials, industrialists, and financiers for the crimes they had committed during World War II. The Nazis who participated in doing those terrible things to the Jews were brought to justice. Most of them were executed for the sickening crimes they commited. The Nuremberg Trials were a significant aspect of the Holocaust because this event was held for the purpose of bringing Nazi war criminals to justice.

" The creation of the IMT was followed by trials of lesser Nazi officials and the trials of Nazi doctors, who performed experiments on people in prison camps. Critics of the Nuremberg trials argued that the charges against the defendants were only defined as "Crimes" after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid as a form of "Victors' justice". The activities of those institutions have frequently been vigorously criticized by positivistic jurists ... [who] have asked: How can principles enunciated by the Nuremberg Tribunal, to take it as an example, be of legal value until most of the states have agreed to a tribunal with jurisdiction to enforce those principles?

The main idea behind the Nuremberg Trials following World War II was to set an international precedent for how war crimes should be persecuted following wartimes. Part of the motivation for the Nuremberg Trials was in the way the Germans were treated after World War I. Harsh sanctions were imposed on Germany and huge debts were accumulated – this inevitably crippled the German economy and bred unrest. During a period of time when anti-allied sentiments were high it was easy for a charismatic Hitler to gain power and lead the Germans to WWII. With the hopes of finding a way to punish those directly responsible for the war, rather than the whole nation, the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia joined together to create an international

The consequential winners of The Second World War decided that Germany's war leaders should take their appropriate blame for having caused severe damage to the injured states as documented in the Holocaust. However, these specificities occurred after WWI. Already paying generously for their invasion, even more Nazi leaders received punishment. The victorious powers contemplated what repercussions would be fair towards the persons who created the world's fear of the Nazi individuals. In November 1985 the world’s first International trials, the Nuremberg Trials, began. These trials concerning Nazi leaders’ punishment included the prosecution of 13 Nazi

As Mr. Harlan, who was the chief Justice of the Supreme Court of United States, criticized the Nuremberg trials before, the idea that stands behind establishing the Nuremberg trials was a “conviction” or “revenge” for German by victorious nations. This trial was not an actual trial that we can see in the domestic courts nowadays. Rather, its legitimacy was quite suspicious because of some reasons.

This paper seeks to canvass the legacy of the Nuremberg Trial; the legal justifications and procedural innovations that were once controversial and which through the turn of the century have now come to be regarded as a milestone towards the application of principles of international law, establishment of a permanent international criminal court enshrined under the Rome Statute and setting new precedents for the international community. Furthermore, the author seeks to juxtapose the legal and political justifications given for the

The Nuremberg Trials were a critical point in the history of international law because it established the fact that humanity has the need of an international shield to shelter and protect. This event was responsible for contributing in the ongoing process of developing rules that are binding between states and nations also known as international laws. The judgment of the trials may be one of the most important events in the history of international law due to the fact that it assisted in establishing laws against war crimes. One of the biggest questions raised was whether causing a war was an international crime that would be punishable or not. Many believed there was no