As I have demonstrated in chapter 10, numerous heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed during World War II. There were enough crimes of enough magnitude to warrant the establishment of the International War Crimes Court to properly investigate these crimes, prosecute the criminals, try these cases in open court, reach and pronounce the verdict and administer the appropriate punishment.
Hence, in chapter eleven of my book, I will cover the war crimes trials in Europe (the trials of Japanese war criminals are for obvious reasons outside the scope of this book).
First, I will demonstrate how it should have been done to make sure that (1) the justice have been served; (2) that the genuine criminals have been identified, persecuted, convicted and received the appropriate punishment for their crimes and (3) that there have been no miscarriages of justice.
Then I will show, analyze and discuss how it has been done (what was done right and what was done horribly wrong) starting with the ‘main’ Nuremberg Trial and subsequently covering other war crimes trials. Mostly in Germany and mostly in the immediate post-war period.
I will prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the ‘main’ Nuremberg Trial was a typical example of ‘victors’ justice’. And although some justice has been served (some criminals did get what they deserved and some innocent defendants have been acquitted), that trial was essentially a political tool that the victorious Allies used for their own political purposes. Which, alas, resulted in several cases of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
To right these wrongs of the ‘main’ Nuremberg Trial, I will conduct my own investigation of the defendants and will pronounce my own verdicts. Which in some cases are identical to the ones by the judges of the Trial and in some cases are markedly different.