What objections were made to the Nuremburg trials after WWII?

Most people know that after the close of the Second World War, the victorious Allied powers put some of the Third Reich's most heinous leaders on trial for war crimes. In what became known as the the Nuremberg trials, the Allied Tribunal convicted 19 defendants and acquitted three. In the process, the world saw and heard graphic evidence of the Nazis' worst war crimes, including footage of Nazi concentration camps and detailed description of Hitler's inhuman "Final Solution."

The trials were widely considered a victory for democracy and the rule of law - and a warning to future dictators that the civilized world would not tolerate hateful behavior. 

But not everyone felt that way. Just as there are Republicans who object to the Democrats' "Jan. 6th Committee" investigating the Capital insurrection of 2021 (even as they push for investigations of Anthony Fauci and Hunter Biden's laptop), many critics opposed the work of the Nuremburg tribunal.

To give some perspective, I asked ChatGPT's AI platform to write out: "What objections were made to the Nuremburg trials after WWII?" Here is the response:

There were several objections made to the Nuremberg trials after WWII. Some of the main objections included:

1. Lack of jurisdiction: Some critics argued that the Allied powers had no legal authority to hold the trials, since they were not recognized as an international court by the defeated powers.

2. Double standards: Some argued that the Allies were applying double standards by punishing the defeated powers for crimes that they had also committed during the war.

3. Ex post facto laws: Others argued that the defendants were being punished for crimes that were not illegal at the time they were committed, in violation of the principle of ex post facto laws.

4. Victors' justice: Some argued that the trials were merely a form of "victors' justice," in which the Allies were using their victory in the war to punish the defeated powers.

5. Lack of due process: Some critics argued that the defendants did not receive a fair trial, as they were not given adequate time to prepare their defense and were not allowed to call certain witnesses.

Despite these objections, the Nuremberg trials are generally considered to have been a fair and just proceedings, and they set an important precedent for international criminal law.