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
VHS vs Betamax (1975-1988)
VHS (JVC) vs Betamax (Sony)
Tokugawa Shogunate: Close Japan (Sakoku) (1633)
Closed Country (Sakoku) vs Continue Open Trade
Panama vs Nicaragua: Interoceanic Canal Route (1902)
Panama Route vs Nicaragua Route
South Africa: Negotiation vs Armed Struggle (1990)
Negotiated Transition vs Continued Armed Struggle vs Maintain Apartheid
Bismarck: Social Insurance vs Laissez-Faire (1883)
State Social Insurance vs Laissez-Faire Capitalism vs Socialist Revolution
Battle of Midway: Ambush Strategy (1942)
Carrier Ambush vs Defensive Posture at Midway vs Withdraw to Hawaii