Why was there no War Crimes Tribunal after World War I?

Barrow boy

Although we now associate the War Crimes of the Second World War with Genocide because it was the outstandingly evil act of the War, the Nuremburg Tribunal was set up overwhelmingly to try those who had personally caused the war to take place. These tended to be senior Nazi politicians and German generals. At the time the concept that individual people could be tried for planning and prosecuting war was a revolutionary concept which was then somewhat flawed in terms of its legal credentials. But the Tribunal sat and gave judgement because those being tried had just lost the War big time. So why wasn't there one after the First World War? 1. The concept of individual responsibility wasn't recognised at the time. The fault of Germany as a whole was (unfairly) recognised and massive war reparations had to be paid by that country. 2. After WW2 Germany was under occupation and the resources existed to seek out those responsible and take them into custody. Germany was not occupied at the end of WW1. 3. The Allies were sufficiently determined to cause the Tribunal to exist at the end of WW2 - even the USSR fully co-operated with the Western allies on this one. At the end of WW1 everybody just wanted to forget the whole thing. France and the UK did not have the energy and the USA had so quickly reverted to isolationism that Woodrow Wilson could not even ensure that his famous principles were incorporated into the peace treaty. As a final comment, had individuals been held accountable for their actions during WW1, it would be a complete injustice if the senior British generals escaped the gallows. Jan 08 03, 10:20 PM

adolf_h

There was no war crimes tribunal because they did the Treaty of Versailles instead. Jul 09 09, 11:41 AM