Mr Wear continues to repeat the same old theme of how the Nuremberg were a travesty of justice and quotes relatively unknown sources who have doubts about certain aspects of the trial. As I have mentioned before, the people Mr Wear does not have objections from is the very people who were the same nationality as the defendants at the trial: The Germans themselves.  

Maybe I should refresh Mr Wear’s memory:

Charles A. Horsry: Review of “Nuremberg: German Views of the War Trials.”

“None of the papers, even those by former defense counsel which are critical
of the concepts of international law which were applied, criticizes the conduct
of the proceedings. That some of the procedures were unfamiliar to German
defense counsel is obvious; but lawyers of the ability of those who participated
in the trials as defense counsel were able, with remarkable facility, to adapt themselves to, and to utilize, the procedures which were innovations in continental criminal practice. Dr. Dix, a German attorney, speaks of the “great and for the defense frequently very favorable-significance before the Tribunal [of] the far-reaching powers of the prosecution and the defense in the interrogation of witnesses, which under Anglo-Saxon law rests almost totally in their hands.”

There is also abundant evidence that the trials were conducted with impartiality and a sense of justice-that they were trials in the real sense. “Nobody dares to doubt,” says one attorney,3 that the International Military
Tribunal “was guided by the search for truth and justice from the first to the
last day of this tremendous trial.” Or, as Dr. Ehard puts it, “Within the framework
set by the Charter all participants were obviously endeavoring to be
objective. Occasional deviations from this rule were stopped immediately by
the President.”‘4 There are, significantly, no complaints to the contrary.
But perhaps most importantly, the papers recognize the significance, for
Germans and for non-Germans alike, of the fact that there have been judicial
proceedings which have examined the evidence and stated the facts on what
happened under Hitler. It is not only, as Dr. Ehard puts it that “A prosecution
‘in court’ of the criminally induced world catastrophe just could not be avoided
unless recourse was to be had to considerably more far-reaching methods,
methods of punishment more questionable for the development of law which
necessarily would have entailed a higher degree of arbitrariness.”5 It is also,
as Dr. Ehard says earlier, that, “The indictment, the protocols of the proceedings
and the judgment described the fateful course of National Socialism in Germany
and in the world as objectively and impressively as hardly any German description
could have done…. One would like to tell every German to read these
documents, particularly those people who forgot too soon and would like to
avert their eyes from the horrors of the near past.”6 Or, as another author
puts it “There scarcely exists a more effective means of extinguishing whatever
Nazi ideas and efforts may still exist among the people than the reading of this
Judgment.” 7″

Perhaps the final paragraph of the excellent article posted above sums up the whole affair.

Comments such as these, from German sources, are more significant than
disagreements with legal concepts. That the defense agrees that the trial, given
its legal concepts, was fair, and that the judgments are true judgments is high
tribute to both the judges and the prosecution.