Mr. Cronkite compares the Nuremberg trial to Saddam Hussein's trial. Also, he explains in this trial modern trial the criminals may not be punished as it occurred in the Nuremberg trials.
The Nuremberg trials were a set of trials that aimed to punish those involved in the crimes against Jews during the Second War World. In these trials, important military officials were indicted for serious crimes including crimes against humanity.
These trials were quite controversial because only some were condemned, and there were multiple issues such as some criminals claiming they did not know about the crimes against Jews and even some killing themselves to avoid punishment.
This controversial topic is explained by Walter Cronkite who covered the trials as a reporter. In this interview, Cronkite shows the inefficiency of these trials and he compares them to the modern Saddam Hussein trial.
About this, Cronkite explains the Iraqui court that is in charge of judging Hussein might act unexpectedly, and therefore the crimes might not be punished appropriately as it occurred in the Nuremberg trials.
Learn more in: https://brainly.com/question/18278915
Answer:
Sam Hussein's trial.
Explanation:
Why?: Because both the Nuremberg trials and Sam Hussein's trial were considered to be inefficient and not enough punishment. This makes them both controversial in the same way, and compared to each other in modern days.
