1. What words and phrases in Robert Jackson's opening statement help you understand why he believed the Nuremberg trials were important? What did he mean when he said the trials are one of the most important tributes power has paid to reason

2. Some people at the time believed that the Nazis should be judged by neutral parties instead of by representatives from the countries that defeated Germany in the war. How did Jackson respond to this possible criticism of the tribunal? Is his response persuasive?

3. The tribunal deliberately chose to prosecute the most prominent Nazi leaders in the first trial. Why might it have made that choice? Should other people who supported the Nazis have been brought to trial, even if they did not actively participate in the crimes?

4. Why did the tribunal convict Julius Streicher and sentence him to death? Should individuals who spread messages of hatred be held accountable for the actions their words inspire?