indictment, to offer any relevant explanation to the charges brought against him, and to be represented by counsel and confront and cross-examine the witness" (Britannica 1). Nuremberg only brought twenty-four Nazi leaders to trial, and various groups (such as Gestapo, the Nazi secret police) were charged with committing criminal acts (Britannica 1). The total number of court sessions came to a total of 216, and on October 1, 1946, the verdict on 22 of the original 24 defendants was handed down (one of the defendants committed suicide while in prison, and another became mentally unable to stand trial) (Britannica 1,2). Men were given sentences of either imprisonment or death by hanging, depending on their involvement and actions during the war (2). When these sentences were handed down, the tribunal rejected the Nazis' major defenses. It first rejected the contention that only a state, not individuals, could be found guilty of war crimes (2). And secondly that the Nazis' "argument that the trial and adjudication were ex post facto" (2). The tribunal responded to the defendants that such acts had been regarded as criminal prior to World War II (2). The Nazis were one of the most evil and ruthless groups of people to ever emerge as a power on this earth. They almost eradicated an entire race and committed unmentionable acts of violence against citizens of the human race. But not every German that became a Nazi held their beliefs and ideals. The Germans committed these crimes on people of neighboring countries, and even people of their own country. But how could these men and women carry out these crimes on people that were once their neighbors and possibly even friends? Just because of where they were born, religious beliefs, or color of their skin, people were harassed, beaten, and killed by the Nazis. How could the Nazi soldiers carry out these acts on another human being? This question brings to mind the idea of suggest...
