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
Rome: Republic vs Empire (27 BCE)
Accept Principate (Empire) vs Restore the Republic
Constantine: Adopt Christianity (312 CE)
Embrace Christianity vs Maintain Traditional Roman Paganism
Sydney Opera House: Utzon's Design (1957)
Utzon's Sail Design vs Conventional Concert Hall
Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott Strategy (1955)
Economic Boycott vs Legal Challenge Only vs Violent Resistance
Florence: Medici Banking Innovation (1397)
Financial Innovation (Bills of Exchange) vs Traditional Lending
Great Wall: Build or Negotiate with Nomads (3rd Century BCE - 17th Century)
Build the Great Wall vs Heqin (Marriage Alliance and Tribute)