Answer:
It was very controversial even in allied countries. The different governments all had different opinions on how to trial the criminals.
Step-by-step explanation:
Although the charges brought against the German defendants at Nuremberg largely derived from prewar international treaties, the tribunal was controversial even in Allied countries. Several prominent figures in the Allied governments, including British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, initially favored a much more extreme course of action and advocated for the summary execution of German war criminals. The governments of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and the United States, however, eventually agreed upon a jointly-run tribunal with judges and prosecutors drawn from each of these countries. In order to combat the accusation that the tribunal was merely victors’ justice, the Allies went to great lengths to provide the defendants with counsel of their choosing as well as secretarial, stenographic, and translation services. When it came to some of the more questionable legal issues, such as the ambiguous charge of conspiracy, the Allies ensured that none of the defendants were convicted on this charge alone. Even so, some Germans accused the Allies of conducting an unfair trial with a predetermined outcome. Several of the tribunal’s detractors rightly criticized Soviet participants’ efforts to attribute Soviet atrocities, such as the massacre of Polish officers and intelligentsia at Katyn, to German troops. Other critics of the IMT noted that Nazi defendants could not appeal their convictions. Despite these condemnations, the IMT is widely considered today to have been a remarkably fair execution of justice. Moreover, it achieved several key objectives outlined by its architects.