MovieChat Forums > Nuremberg (2000) Discussion > Nuremberg:Fair Trial or Show Trial?

Nuremberg:Fair Trial or Show Trial?

posted 11 years ago by bloody-3
6 replies | jump to latest

I don't know how you can fight a world war against a country and then sit in judgement with impartiality. Why didn't they use judges from neutral countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland? What was the prosecution afraid of? A lot of prominent judges and jurists of the time condemned the trials as victor's justice and an example of a kangaroo court. One standard for the Axis and another for the Allies. US supreme court justice Harlan Fiske Stone referred to them as a "lynching party" and a "sanctimonius fraud".
http://codoh.com/library/document/2369/
http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm
One of the most blatant examples of a double standard would have to be the invasion of Poland. Germany invaded that country on September 1 1939. The Soviet Union also invaded Poland on September 17 1939 in keeping with the nazi-soviet pact and they divided that country between them. But at Nuremberg the prosecution was saying the German invasion was wrong but there was no condemnation of the soviet invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

absolute show trial garbage

[–] shanayneigh 9 years ago

They may have had the intention of it being a fair trial, but history has shown that war crimes tribunals are little more than show trials.

Working in the movie business since -92

[–] ebhaynz (3528) 6 years ago

Why be fair to the worst of the worst Nazi's? They were never fair to their countless victims.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

Why would you need to be unfair? They’re not guilty enough? Why bother pretending to be fair if being unfair is morally superior in your opinion? It makes no sense. I am worried that someone like you may harm innocent people after you run out guilty people and still have a hunger for punishment.

[–] ebhaynz (3528) 6 years ago

I think it's because there was a need to destroy the Nazi ideology. Certainly they couldn't be fair to Goering, he was going to be executed no matter what because he was the highest ranking Nazi on trial. If they found him innocent then he could have gone back out into the German society and do a great part in keeping Nazi-ism alive. For awhile, he thought he would win the trial and do exactly that!

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

both. like all trials, they are meant to instill some kind of faith in the system to those who pay attention, and also bring justice to some of the worst people that ever lived. what i don't get is how a lot of this stuff is still secret, and the whole thing with spandau prison and rudolph hess and why no one was ever allowed to talk to him and he was never allowed to write anything down. same with the kennedy assassinations.

reality at this level is fluid and controlled by powerful people, at least as much as they can.