Nuremberg Trials: Prosecute or Amnesty (1945)
by Anonymous
After WWII, the Allies debated whether to try Nazi leaders for war crimes or simply execute/imprison them. The decision to hold formal trials established the precedent of individual criminal responsibility under international law.
International Criminal Trials
1945-1946
year
Formal prosecution with evidence and defense
approach
Crimes against humanity, individual responsibility
legal innovation
Chosen — established international criminal law
outcome
Summary Execution (Morgenthau's Preference)
1945
year
Shoot top leaders without trial
approach
None — victors' justice
legal innovation
Not chosen — Churchill initially favored this
outcome
General Amnesty
1945
year
Forgive and rebuild
approach
None
legal innovation
Not chosen — atrocities demanded accountability
outcome
Like this comparison? Make it your own.
Sign up to use as templateMore in History
American Expansion: Seward's Purchase of Alaska (1867)
Buy Alaska vs Decline the Offer
Council of Nicaea: Nature of Christ (325 CE)
Homoousios (Same Substance as God) vs Arianism (Christ is Created)
Tesla: Build the Expensive Car First (2008)
Top-Down (Expensive First) vs Bottom-Up (Cheap First)
Camp David Accords: Land for Peace (1978)
Land for Peace vs Continued Conflict
Genghis Khan: Unite the Mongol Tribes (1206)
Unite All Tribes as Genghis Khan vs Rule as Regional Clan Leader
Channel Tunnel: Rail Tunnel vs Bridge (1986)
Rail Tunnel (Chunnel) vs Suspension Bridge vs Bridge-Tunnel Hybrid