Nuremberg Trials

11 were hanged and one (Goering) comitted suicide the night before his execution.

Individuals can be punished for their part in state-sponsored crimes.

People were protected from being tested on without full knowledge of it, it's repercussions and that the person must be able to understand it full well, that what test is being administered. Nothing Like Every one Being Tested on today as far as Chem-trails Billions in Barium, Aluminum, Strontium. Some 49 Chemical with 300 times the legal limit in our atmosphere. along With The Microwaves Being transmitted by H.A.A.R.P. upon this planet at their will. a 40 year period 500,000 people were tested successes is to cause all kinds of head and body function problems. This is on Every one NOW!

Robert H. Jackson served as the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. He was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen, Hans Fritzsche, and Franz Halder were some of the prominent figures who were acquitted at the Nuremberg trials.

No, the Nuremberg trials established that individuals are responsible for their actions, even if they were following orders. The principle of "just following orders" is not a valid defense for committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.

yes, they were a propaganda tool. That is not to say that the war criminals should not have been tried, but rather that the Nuremberg trials were made to be as public as possible to show that the Nazis were over and that justice was seen to be done.

The cost of the Nuremberg Trials was around $1.5 million. The expenses covered various aspects such as personnel salaries, court proceedings, and logistics.

The Nuremberg trials were created in response to the atrocities committed during World War II, aiming to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. They sought to establish a precedent for international law and ensure that those responsible for these crimes faced justice.

The chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of war criminals was Robert H. Jackson, an American Supreme Court Justice. He led the prosecution team in presenting evidence against top Nazi officials for crimes against humanity.

The Nuremberg trials held after World War II established the principles of individual accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It set a precedent for prosecuting individuals responsible for atrocities, regardless of their official positions. The trials also brought attention to the horrors of the Holocaust and helped in shaping international humanitarian law.

The Nuremberg trials held after World War II established the principle that individuals can be held accountable for committing crimes against humanity. This laid the foundation for modern international criminal law and helped shape the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The trials also highlighted the importance of upholding human rights and seeking justice for victims of atrocities.

Hjalmar Schacht was acquitted at the Nuremberg trials and was not sentenced to death.

The Nuremberg trials were crucial in establishing legal precedents for prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These trials helped bring Nazi war criminals to justice and aimed to ensure accountability for their actions during World War II. Additionally, the trials highlighted the importance of international cooperation and the rule of law in addressing atrocities committed during times of conflict.

The Nuremberg Trials are considered successful in establishing the principle of individual accountability for international crimes and laying the foundation for modern international criminal law. They held senior Nazi officials responsible for their roles in atrocities committed during World War II, setting a precedent for holding individuals accountable for such crimes.

The outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials included the condemnation of top Nazi officials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death, three were acquitted, and others received varying prison terms. The trials established the principle that individuals could be held accountable for committing atrocities under international law.

The Nuremberg trials established the principles of international law. One of the principles states that anyone who commits a crime under international law is responsible for their actions and liable to punishment. Another says that if a person carries out an act on orders from his or her government or superior, it doesn't mean they are not liable for what they did if they were able to make a moral choice.

No, because we all have to accept responsibility for our own actions. I accept this is not an actual parallel: I was once in a group given a command to do something and another member of the group said to us that this command was illegal. There was a 'discussion' for want of a better description. Views were exchanged. The outcome was that we decided to obey what we knew was an illegal command & argue about it later. In other words we did what we were told. We obeyed orders. No I am not condoning what the Nazis did in any way. But the reality was that they had no real choice. It was the same in the recruitment for the Soviet prisoners into the Whermacht: 'Will you sign up to join the Whermacht ?' 'No' and he gets shot dead..... the remainder sign up. No, I do not agree with the defence. Yes, I am saying the reality was that there were no realistic alternatives to doing what they actually did. The orders were illegal & immoral & indefencible but they were unavoidable.

The main legal principles applied at the Nuremberg Trials were that individuals can be held accountable for committing crimes against humanity, even if they were following orders from a higher authority, and that war crimes are punishable under international law. The trials also established the concept of "crimes against peace" as a basis for prosecuting individuals who initiate aggressive wars.

The Nuremberg trials began in 1945 following the end of World War II. The trials were held to prosecute prominent leaders of Nazi Germany for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Nuremberg Trials were important because they held key Nazi officials accountable for their roles in the Holocaust and World War II. The trials established the precedent that individuals could be held responsible for committing atrocities under international law, paving the way for future prosecutions of war crimes. Additionally, the trials helped bring a sense of justice and closure to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust.

Yes, there was a jury at the Nuremberg trials. The International Military Tribunal consisted of judges from the Allied powers who acted as both judges and jurors for the trials of major war criminals from Nazi Germany.

There were no jurors. Instead, there was a panel of judges nominated by Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the US, with a presiding judge (Lord Justice Lawrence). Each of the four powers also nominated an alternate judge).

The Nuremberg trials had a great influence on the development of international criminal law. Some effects of WW2 include the redrawing of European borders, and the communist takeover of china.