If anything, the Nuremburg trials were overly light. Both the USA and Germany had the death penalty at the end of WW2. If you actually applied the law as you

If anything, the Nuremburg trials were overly light. Both the USA and Germany had the death penalty at the end of WW2. If you actually applied the law as you would in peacetime (as is reasonable because the gas chambers had no military necessity in the way a PoW camp would) then anyone involved in the process, including bringing supplies to the camp, would have been guilty until proven innocent. Evidence of participation is evidence of guilt, and by civilian standards of the time 90% of Germans in uniform and probably 20% of civilians should have been hung. The Nuremburg trials were like Rwanda's Peace and Reconciliation process. Something that was knowingly far from completist, but just enough to stop the bloodshed and retribution. > but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves If you support the right of the state to kill (in War, etc) then what's the problem? Pretty much every Nazi was a criminal and had committed and supported war crimes. Pretty much everyone else was a collaborator. (fwiw, that's the risk of going to war as a democracy. When you have choice, you have culpability.)