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
Want to make your own version?
Sign up to create your ownMore in History
Apple: iPhone Touch Screen vs Physical Keyboard (2007)
Full Touch Screen (iPhone) vs Physical QWERTY Keyboard (BlackBerry)
William the Conqueror: Invade England or Stay in Normandy (1066)
Invade England vs Press Diplomatic Claim vs Accept the Situation
Bismarck: Social Insurance vs Laissez-Faire (1883)
State Social Insurance vs Laissez-Faire Capitalism vs Socialist Revolution
Wright Amendment: Protect DFW or Free Southwest Airlines (1979-2014)
Restrict Love Field (Wright Amendment) vs Open Competition
Moon Landing: Apollo 11 Landing Site (1969)
Sea of Tranquility vs Sinus Medii (Central Bay) vs Ocean of Storms
European Coal and Steel Community: First Step to EU (1951)
Supranational Authority (ECSC) vs Traditional Bilateral Treaties