What If The Nuremberg Trials Never Happened?

The Actual History

In the aftermath of World War II, as the shocking scale of Nazi atrocities came to light, the Allied powers faced a crucial decision regarding how to handle the defeated Nazi leadership. Between November 1945 and October 1946, twenty-four high-ranking Nazi officials stood trial before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg, Germany, in what would become known as the Nuremberg Trials.

The trials represented an unprecedented approach to holding state actors accountable for war crimes. While summary execution had been considered—Churchill initially favored executing Nazi leaders without trial, and Stalin reportedly suggested executing 50,000 German officers—the American position, championed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and eventually accepted by President Truman, advocated for formal judicial proceedings. The United States' chief prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, articulated a vision of establishing a precedent for international law, famously declaring: "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow."

The legal basis for the tribunal was established through the London Charter of August 1945, signed by representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The charter defined three major categories of crimes: crimes against peace (planning and waging aggressive war), war crimes (violations of established rules of warfare), and crimes against humanity (extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts against civilian populations).

Of the 24 defendants, 12 were sentenced to death (with Martin Bormann tried in absentia), 3 to life imprisonment, 4 to prison terms ranging from 10 to 20 years, and 3 were acquitted. Hermann Göring committed suicide the night before his scheduled execution. The remaining death sentences were carried out on October 16, 1946.

Beyond the main IMT trial, twelve subsequent Nuremberg trials were conducted by the United States from 1946 to 1949, targeting different sectors of the Nazi regime including doctors who conducted medical experiments, judges who perverted legal systems, industrialists who exploited slave labor, and military leaders responsible for atrocities.

The Nuremberg Trials established several crucial precedents in international law. They rejected the defense of "following orders" as an absolute protection, established individual accountability for state crimes, and most significantly, codified "crimes against humanity" as a legal concept. The principles established at Nuremberg directly influenced the development of the United Nations Genocide Convention (1948), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The trials also served a crucial historical function, creating a comprehensive and meticulously documented record of Nazi crimes. The proceedings generated over 25,000 documents and testimonies from 240 witnesses, providing incontrovertible evidence of the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities. This documentation helped prevent widespread denial of Nazi crimes and educated subsequent generations about the horrors of the regime.

The legacy of Nuremberg eventually led to the establishment of ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s and, ultimately, to the permanent International Criminal Court established in 2002. Despite frequent criticisms of "victor's justice" and inconsistent application, the Nuremberg precedent fundamentally transformed international law by establishing that individuals, including heads of state, could be held accountable for acts that shock the conscience of humanity.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Nuremberg Trials never happened? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the Allied powers chose a different approach to dealing with Nazi leadership after World War II, fundamentally altering the development of international law and collective memory of Nazi atrocities.

Several plausible paths could have led to this divergence:

First, Churchill's initial preference for summary execution might have prevailed. In our timeline, Churchill famously suggested that captured Nazi leaders should be "hunted down and shot," avoiding what he feared would become a lengthy legal "circus." Had the British Prime Minister maintained this position more forcefully, or had American leadership been less committed to formal proceedings, a very different approach might have been taken.

Alternatively, the Soviet model could have dominated. Stalin favored quick show trials followed by executions—an approach the Soviets employed in their occupation zone. With different power dynamics among the Allies, this model might have been applied more broadly. Had Soviet forces captured more high-ranking Nazi officials, or had Western leaders been more concerned with expedience than legal precedent, summary "revolutionary justice" might have replaced formal international tribunals.

A third possibility involves pragmatic Cold War considerations emerging earlier and more forcefully. By late 1945, tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union were already building. In our timeline, these tensions were temporarily set aside to pursue the Nuremberg proceedings. However, had Western powers prioritized German reconstruction and anti-Soviet containment earlier, they might have opted to quietly dispose of a handful of "most wanted" Nazis while quickly rehabilitating institutions and individuals useful for rebuilding Germany as a bulwark against communism.

The most likely scenario combines elements of all three: In the fall of 1945, amid growing Cold War tensions, the Allied Control Council adopts a compromise plan where a small number of notorious Nazi leaders (perhaps less than ten) are executed after cursory military commissions, while most former Nazi officials are sorted through denazification processes administered separately within each occupation zone. Without the unifying framework of the IMT, each Allied power handles its prisoners according to its own priorities, with no comprehensive legal accounting of the regime's crimes.

This seemingly administrative decision—to forego a centralized international tribunal in favor of more expedient, decentralized approaches—would set history on a dramatically different course, with profound consequences for international law, collective memory, and global politics.

Immediate Aftermath

Fragmented Justice

Without the centralized framework of the International Military Tribunal, the treatment of Nazi officials varied dramatically across occupation zones, creating a patchwork approach to postwar justice. In the Soviet zone, show trials resulted in quick executions for captured officials, while in the Western zones, a more inconsistent approach emerged:

The American occupation authorities, still committed to some form of legal process, established military commissions that focused primarily on specific atrocities against Allied personnel rather than the broader crimes of the Nazi regime. The "Malmedy Massacre" trials, which prosecuted SS soldiers for killing American POWs, became the template rather than an adjunct to more comprehensive proceedings.

British authorities, initially inclined toward summary measures, established abbreviated military proceedings for a small number of concentration camp officials and military officers directly implicated in war crimes against British forces or civilians in occupied territories. The capture of Bergen-Belsen personnel led to trials focused narrowly on those specific atrocities rather than the systemic nature of Nazi crimes.

In the French zone, proceedings focused almost exclusively on crimes committed during the occupation of France, with little attention to the broader Nazi program. French authorities, consumed with domestic reconstruction challenges, directed minimal resources toward prosecuting German officials except those directly implicated in French suffering.

Accelerated Denazification and Rehabilitation

By 1946, with the comprehensive legal framework of Nuremberg absent, the Western Allies rapidly transitioned from punishing Nazis to rebuilding Germany as Cold War tensions intensified. The denazification process, lacking the moral clarity provided by the Nuremberg judgments, became increasingly perfunctory:

Administrative Expediency: The classification system for former Nazi Party members became increasingly lenient, with the majority quickly classified as "followers" rather than active participants, regardless of their actual involvement.
Technical Expertise Prioritized: German scientists, industrial leaders, and administrators with technical expertise were rapidly reintegrated into positions of responsibility, with their Nazi pasts minimized or overlooked entirely. Operation Paperclip, which brought German scientists to America, expanded significantly beyond its historical scope.
Institutional Continuity: Without the clear moral and legal condemnation of Nazi organizations provided by the Nuremberg judgments, many institutions remained staffed by former Nazi officials. The judiciary, civil service, and educational systems maintained greater continuity with their Nazi-era predecessors than in our timeline.

Documentation and Historical Record

One of the most significant immediate consequences was the absence of the comprehensive documentary record created by the Nuremberg proceedings:

Scattered Evidence: Rather than being centrally collected, organized, and preserved as evidence for the tribunal, Nazi documents remained scattered across various occupation authorities, military units, and intelligence agencies. Many crucial documents were either lost, destroyed, or classified for intelligence purposes.
Reduced Public Awareness: Without the daily newspaper coverage and radio broadcasts of trial proceedings, public awareness of Nazi atrocities remained fragmentary and often focused on specific incidents rather than the systematic nature of the crimes.
Testimonial Void: The absence of victim testimony in a formal, publicized international setting meant that survivors' accounts received less attention and documentation, creating a void in the historical record.

International Law Development Delayed

The immediate legal consequences were profound:

Legal Innovation Forestalled: The legal innovations of Nuremberg—particularly the formalization of "crimes against humanity" as a legal concept—were not codified in 1945-46. Without this precedent, international law continued to treat state sovereignty as nearly absolute in matters of internal affairs.
United Nations Developments Altered: The drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention proceeded with less urgency and specificity, lacking the concrete examples and moral clarity provided by the Nuremberg judgments.
Individual Accountability Questioned: The principle that individuals, including state officials, could be held personally responsible for state crimes remained theoretical rather than established in international precedent.

Public Perception and Memory

By 1947-48, the public narrative about Nazi crimes began to take a different shape:

Fragmented Understanding: Without the coherent narrative provided by the comprehensive Nuremberg proceedings, public understanding of Nazi crimes remained more fragmented, with focus on individual atrocities rather than the systematic nature of the Holocaust and other crimes.
Early Revisionism: The absence of a definitive legal judgment and comprehensive evidence presentation created space for early forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism, particularly in Germany and Austria.
Localized Memories: Memorialization became more localized and less universal, with different countries focusing primarily on crimes committed against their own nationals rather than recognizing the broader patterns of Nazi criminality.

By 1950, as Germany was rapidly being reintegrated into Western economic and defense frameworks, the window for comprehensive accountability had effectively closed. The absence of the Nuremberg precedent meant that postwar justice was more fragmented, less visible, and ultimately less impactful on both global legal norms and collective memory.

Long-term Impact

Evolution of International Law

The absence of the Nuremberg precedent profoundly altered the development of international legal frameworks throughout the latter half of the 20th century:

Delayed Development of Human Rights Law

Without the moral and legal foundation established at Nuremberg, the development of international human rights law proceeded more tentatively and with less binding force:

Weaker Genocide Convention: The United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, lacking the concrete precedent of the Nuremberg judgments, emerged as a more abstract document with fewer mechanisms for enforcement. The absence of proven legal strategies for prosecuting crimes against humanity led to a convention with stronger reservations and weaker implementation provisions.
Sovereignty Barriers Maintained: The principle of non-interference in domestic affairs remained a more formidable barrier to international accountability. Without Nuremberg's precedent-setting rejection of the "acts of state" defense, domestic sovereignty continued to shield perpetrators of mass atrocities from international accountability well into the 1990s.
Geneva Conventions Limitations: The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their subsequent protocols maintained a narrower focus on conventional warfare between states, with less development of provisions addressing crimes against civilians in internal conflicts.

Absence of International Criminal Tribunals

The institutional architecture for international criminal justice emerged decades later and in significantly altered form:

Cold War Impunity: Throughout the Cold War period (1947-1991), the absence of the Nuremberg precedent meant that atrocities committed by both Western-aligned and Soviet-aligned regimes faced even less international legal scrutiny than in our timeline. The legal machinery and vocabulary for addressing crimes like those in Cambodia, Indonesia, Latin America, and elsewhere remained underdeveloped.
Delayed Ad Hoc Tribunals: In this alternate timeline, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (established 1993 in our timeline) faced much greater legal and political hurdles without the Nuremberg precedent. Similar tribunals emerged only in the early 2000s, with narrower mandates and greater procedural challenges.
Weaker International Criminal Court: The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), rather than being adopted in 1998 as in our timeline, faced protracted negotiations into the 2010s, resulting in an institution with jurisdiction limited to a narrower range of crimes and with fewer signatory countries.

Holocaust Memory and Denial

The absence of the Nuremberg Trials fundamentally altered how the Holocaust was remembered, documented, and sometimes denied:

Fragmented Historical Record

Without the centralized collection and authentication of evidence at Nuremberg, the historical record of Nazi crimes developed differently:

Delayed Documentation Centers: Major Holocaust documentation centers emerged decades later than in our timeline. The systematic collection and preservation of testimonies, documents, and physical evidence proceeded more slowly and with less international coordination.
Scattered Archives: Rather than being centralized and organized according to the needs of prosecution, Nazi records remained scattered across military and intelligence archives of multiple countries, with many documents remaining classified for extended periods for intelligence purposes rather than being made public.
Testimonial Gaps: The absence of the public platform provided by Nuremberg meant that survivor testimony was collected more sporadically and received less public attention in the crucial early postwar years when memories were freshest.

Stronger Denial Movements

The absence of authoritative legal judgments created more fertile ground for Holocaust denial and revisionism:

Earlier Mainstream Denial: Holocaust denial moved from the fringe to semi-respectable circles earlier and more extensively than in our timeline. By the 1960s, "historical revisionism" questioning the extent, intent, or methods of Nazi extermination policies gained traction in academic circles in several European countries.
Weaker Legal Countermeasures: Laws against Holocaust denial, which exist in many European countries in our timeline, emerged later and with more limited scope, as they lacked the foundational legal judgments of Nuremberg to reference as established fact.
Politicized Memory: The memory of Nazi crimes became even more politicized during the Cold War, with both Western and Soviet blocs selectively emphasizing aspects that served their geopolitical narratives while downplaying others.

German National Identity and Reconciliation

The absence of Nuremberg significantly altered Germany's post-war development and relationship with its Nazi past:

Delayed Confrontation

Germany's national reckoning with Nazi crimes followed a different trajectory:

Institutional Continuity: Without the formal legal condemnation of Nazi organizations at Nuremberg, German institutions—including the judiciary, civil service, educational system, and corporate sector—maintained greater personnel continuity with the Nazi era. The percentage of former Nazi Party members in key positions remained significantly higher through the 1950s and 1960s.
Later "Memory Work": The difficult work of confronting the Nazi past began in earnest only in the 1970s rather than the 1960s, triggered more by generational change and domestic political movements than by the foundation laid by international legal proceedings.
Different Educational Approaches: German educational curricula addressed Nazi crimes more tentatively and with less specific focus on the Holocaust until the 1980s. The absence of the Nuremberg judgments as definitive reference points complicated the development of educational materials.

Altered Reconciliation Processes

The processes of reconciliation, both within Germany and between Germany and former victim countries, followed different paths:

Delayed Reparations: The Jewish Claims Conference negotiations, which in our timeline secured reparations from West Germany beginning in 1952, faced greater obstacles without the legal foundation established at Nuremberg. Formal reparations began later and with more limited scope.
East-West Divergence: The divergence between East and West German approaches to the Nazi past grew even starker, with East Germany more completely externalizing responsibility (blaming "fascist capitalism") while West Germany emphasized the Cold War present over the Nazi past.
Franco-German Relations: The reconciliation between France and Germany, a cornerstone of European integration in our timeline, proceeded more slowly and tentatively without the clear moral and legal judgments provided by Nuremberg.

Contemporary Global Governance

By 2025, the absence of the Nuremberg precedent has resulted in a significantly different architecture of global governance:

Weaker Accountability Mechanisms: International mechanisms for holding powerful actors accountable for mass atrocities remain less developed, with greater emphasis on political solutions and amnesty provisions rather than criminal accountability.
Alternative Transitional Justice Models: In the absence of the Nuremberg model, alternative approaches to transitional justice gained greater prominence earlier, including truth commissions, traditional justice mechanisms, and amnesty-for-truth arrangements.
Persistent Impunity Gaps: Major powers and their allies continue to enjoy even greater impunity for violations of international humanitarian law, with fewer legal tools available to challenge state violence.

The absence of Nuremberg thus created a significantly different trajectory for international law, historical memory, and accountability mechanisms—one in which justice for mass atrocities remained more aspirational and less institutionalized, memory more contested, and the legal barrier between domestic sovereignty and international accountability more formidable.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London and author of "East West Street," offers this perspective: "If the Nuremberg Trials had never occurred, the legal concepts of 'crimes against humanity' and 'genocide' would likely have developed along entirely different trajectories, with profound consequences for international justice. Without Nuremberg's groundbreaking articulation of individual criminal responsibility transcending state sovereignty, the wall of impunity protecting state officials would have remained much more formidable well into the 21st century. The Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals, and later the International Criminal Court, would have faced not just political hurdles but fundamental conceptual and legal obstacles that might have proven insurmountable. The absence of Nuremberg would represent not merely a delayed development of international criminal law, but potentially an entirely different paradigm of international relations where sovereignty consistently trumped human rights protections."

Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Emory University, provides this analysis: "The Nuremberg Trials created what we might call an 'evidentiary foundation'—a documented, legally validated record of Nazi crimes that has served as a bulwark against denial and distortion. Without this foundation, Holocaust denial would have emerged earlier, spread more widely, and proven more difficult to counter definitively. The trials transformed disparate accounts and scattered documents into an authoritative historical record that has shaped both scholarly understanding and public memory. In their absence, we would likely see a much more fragmented, contested memory landscape where basic facts about the systematic nature of the Holocaust remained disputed in mainstream discourse much longer. The psychological impact on survivors would have been equally profound—denied the validation of seeing perpetrators held accountable, their testimonies might have been marginalized for decades longer."

General Wesley Clark (Ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and military historian, observes: "The absence of Nuremberg would have significantly altered the evolution of military doctrine regarding occupation, stabilization, and legal accountability after conflict. Without the clear precedent that military officers were individually responsible for violations of the laws of war regardless of orders, military doctrine would have evolved more slowly toward incorporating human rights and civilian protection standards. The 'Medina standard' established after My Lai—that commanders are responsible for crimes they should have known about—might never have developed. From Kosovo to Iraq, military planning for post-conflict accountability would have proceeded without the Nuremberg template that balanced punishment with reconciliation and documentation. The professionalization of military legal corps around these principles would have followed a different trajectory, potentially prioritizing operational latitude over accountability to a greater degree than we've seen in our timeline."