Yes, it was a wake up call to the people. Let them see the punishment being metted out to their leaders. (no one was a Nazi, but their neighbor was). The war criminals came from the population, and the population supported their heroes. Any one who has ever visited a concentration camp will not belive that the townsfolk did not know what was going on. Prisoners came in, supplies and services came in, guards dated/socialized with the population as well as frequented the shops and stores.

..........There were no precedents for anything of that sort because nothing as outrageous as waht the Nazis did had ever happened in civilized times.....

A common belief is that the wehrmacht only conducted military operations while the SS were responsible for all the horrors...
The wehrmacht did take part in the slaughter of prisoners and of civilian population.
Some soldiers did give the account of how they made firing plots for villagers. Such actions happenend on the eastern front, simply because people were supposed to be inferior . And you can't tell me : "it was war...", because the reason was political.
So should the military leaders be judged ? I'm glad they were !
But now my question is : why were so few judged ? Many criminals were left out of the trial, mainly those involved in intelligence bacause they were too useful for the beginning cold war.
Of course, it may seem unfair to see the winner judge the looser, but it was a real trial.

Also, there are many people I'd have liked to see judged : many japanese leaders... and on the winners side, many soviet leaders... and why not those responsible for the fire bombings of german and japanese population centers ?

Well, just a few thoughts...

Japanese war criminal were also trialed, Tiger of malay was hung because of the Rape of Nanking. However, I held a belief that in the time of war, the worst as well as the best of human nature were brought out, it served a mean to boost morale or strike terror in your enemy's heart. Bombing indiscrimanatly against enemy city, sinking merchant shippings, burn down a village, etc, etc, they were are terrible, but each nation claims it to be a way to win. German U-Boot arm sunk merchant shipping, so are the American silent services, anyone whom read some about the Sub warfare from both sides know that sinking merchant shipping is what it counts to control the sea lane. Warships are just shepherds, you want to get to the sheeps.

War is a terrible thing, those nazi leader whom conspirated for the holocust should be punished, but Military commanders were just following orders and made decision on the spot which served only one purpose that is to win. Unfortunately there is no black and white here, only gray...

Kill one person, you are a murder, kill one million and not get caught you are a conquerer and military genius. Sad but true.

no, they violated the rules of war. they were also a vendetta against the German people. the allies also covered up their war crimes: Japanese in American concentration camps, Russia's unlawful treatment of German POW's and British assassinations of German officers after the war(SOE agents weren't covered under the Geneva Convention). and the arbitrary executions of German POW's in the US. Don't use the Jewish killings as a example, the Russians butchered 3x as many people during the same time and i am sick to death of Allied hypocrisy and think that we should look at all the evil things we did to people in the so-called fight to save democracy. the bloody Russians came into Eastern Europe and subjugated all of that area and killed many pro-democratic people. so while the Nuremburg Trial are a fact of history, to me they were illegal and hypocritical.

Chris

PenPen-

"military necessity" is a broad and liberally applied standard in the Conventions. It is not hard to make a good argument for "military necessity" in many of the cases you cite. What is a target is clear, but the available weapons often turn it from a bullseye to a county. However, mis-treatment of POWs is not a necessity, and wholesale executions of non-combatants isn't either. Thus, many of the items described by anti-war types as 'war crimes' are not actually 'war crimes'. This includes the Dresden Raid (although the necessity of this is subject to debate), and various raids on Japan during the war.

The interment of Americans of Japanese heritage is considered an internal issued by the Conventions. Sad, shameful, bigotted and un-necessary...yes. War Crime...no.