Was The Nuremberg Trials Fair

“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.” (PBS) This quote was just the start of Justice Robert H. Jackson’s opening statement at the beginning of the Nuremberg Trials, in November of 1945. The Nuremberg Trials were

Before we go over if it is fair, we need to go over what these trials really were. These trials were a mean to bring to justice that was brought in from the atrocities the Nazis in Germany had committed during the course of World War II. This was our way of saying we wanted to bring justice to those Nazi’s, and in a slightly biased way. Unlike the war trials that came from World War I, which were heavily biased as the Germans themselves were commissioned to do these trials. Therefore, the Germans could really not care, imprison a few people for few years just to appease the Allies and then let them go soon after. These trials that took place at Nuremberg were still a tad biased, as it was victors justice, just putting the perpetrators on trial from Germany. But, this was limited to very little, as the lead prosecutor and also had a large part in creating the trials, Jackson urged the judges that we needed to keep this fair. In his words he said, “However unfortunate it may be, there seems to be no way of doing anything about the crimes against peace and humanity except that the victors judge the vanquished … we must summon all that we have of dispassionate judgement to the task of patiently and fairly presenting the records of these evil deeds.” (Pg 48, The Nuremberg Legacy). He knew that victor's justice was wrong, but he also knew it was the best option. To make this up constantly tried to look

Unhappily, it did not end these evils. TheNuremberg lesson has been written. But has it been learned? Americans have expressed great concern as to whether the German people have learned its lessons. But I am even more concerned about whether the American people have learned its lessons.” (The Jackson center) This is a quote that Jackson said at an address to the United Jewish Appeal. By saying this, he reinforced that what happened after the trials matters, which I will now go over. In general, most of the precedents, like superior laws and the like were passed on through generations. The most immediate use of Nuremberg’s legacy was in Tokyo. The allies also set up a trial similarly to Nuremberg in Tokyo, to serve the same purpose as the trials in Nuremberg, except Japanese were tried. Also, faces changed in most roles, like how none of the judges or head prosecutors were involved directly with Tokyo’s trial. Also, the experience and information he gained at Nuremberg was priceless, as he returned back to the Supreme Court. The biggest show of this experience was in Brown versus Board of Education Topeka. This was the case that ended all segregation in schools, a major step for civil rights. This was majorly in part to what Jackson brought to the court. What Nuremberg did also led to the rebuilding of a judicial system similar to our own. In our history, many have thought that the