The Nuremberg trial’s double standard has been repeatedly condemned across many sections of media and society. Not only in magazines like the British weekly The Economist but also in the far more liberal New Republic magazine which made the following indictment:
The whole majesty of the Western heritage of the law was used to subvert that heritage in the Nuremberg Tribunal. Weighty jurists in every Western country (but not Russia) protested against this travesty of the Western legal system. So did historians. So did merely cultured and moral men and women. If the victors were to “try” the vanquished for war crimes, then they should try themselves for often committing the same crimes. Who would try Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Travers “Bomber” Harris, the architect of the policy of saturation bombing of German cities? But it was not only a matter of our own “war crimes.” If it was right to use the apparatus of the law to punish those responsible for exceptional crimes like the Holocaust, it was wrong to use it to punish errors of judgment and statecraft such as every defeated regime seems to have committed. “We used the methods of the enemy”—and used them in peace at Nuremberg.
Source: Farlie, Henry, “How the Good War Went Bad,” The New Republic, May 20, 1985, pp. 18 ff.