Nuremberg Trials conducted by Swiss judges?

By "Swiss" I mean a neutral third-party. Is there any way it can happen without departing too much from OTL WWII?
 
To keep proceedings honest, Swiss judges might insist on trying a few Allied war criminals like British “Bomber” Harris.
 
To keep proceedings honest, Swiss judges might insist on trying a few Allied war criminals like British “Bomber” Harris.
At which point the Allies will start asking pointed questions about Swiss companies trade with Nazi Germany and certain financial transactions/bank accounts.
 
I think the Swiss might be compromised. What about the Swedes?
You mean the ones that sold critical supplies to the Nazis and stood by while Norway was invaded?

It would need to be someone completely unrelated and far away. Maybe a neutal South American country (not Argentina).
 
You mean the ones that sold critical supplies to the Nazis and stood by while Norway was invaded?

It would need to be someone completely unrelated and far away. Maybe a neutal South American country (not Argentina).

All South american countries helped both sides, so they are out.
 
By "Swiss" I mean a neutral third-party. Is there any way it can happen without departing too much from OTL WWII?

Why would the Allies do this? All the Great Powers left were on their side so why have the trial conducted by neutrals? Who exactly are they trying to impress?
 
To keep proceedings honest, Swiss judges might insist on trying a few Allied war criminals like British “Bomber” Harris.
The thing is, allied bombing policy wasn’t a war crime as of 1945. What the Germans were prosecuted for were offenses that were already legally acknowledged war crimes. Indeed, Dönitz was saved because the US Navy testified that his naval policies were equivalent to the American ones.
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, the Allies did not regard staying out of the War as a sign of moral superiority allowing the neutrals to judge the victors and vanquished...
 
The answer is No, this was not possible and neither was it possible to try Allied as well as Nazi officials.

Of course the Nuremberg trials were a political as well as a judicial act--and they were in a sense "victor's justice." They were not "show trials" in the Soviet sense--there was real evidence, not coerced confessions, and some defendants were acquitted. But they were intended to show to the German people the evils of the regime they had served for twelve years, and to do so without any muddying whataboutism. And arguably in that they succeeded:

"So-called problems of even-handed prosecution, where all sides in a conflict bear the brunt of prosecutorial attention, are not actually resolved because a sampling of suspects from one party is pursued in order to defeat the allegation of victor's justice. The debates continue, and when one side feels that the correct proportions have been reached, the other will complain that the strategy is abusive and unfair. Sometimes, proponents of this quest for balance explain that it is a pre-requisite to reconciliation. But this is a speculative hypothesis, based upon intuition rather than evidence. Using courts to demonstrate that both sides in a conflict were at fault may just as easily aggravate tensions and perpetuate a sense of injustice rather than promote the idea that justice has been done. Did the one-sided prosecutions of Nazis produce a negative result? Actually, the Nuremberg trial probably contributed to a shared narrative, one common to victor and vanquished alike, that has promoted the building of a modern Europe that is democratic, pluralist, and, above all, peaceful. Following the example of the IMT, German domestic courts have pursued justice for Nazi offenders, a process that continues to this day. It has never been seriously suggested that German courts prosecute British airmen for bombing their cities, although there would not be any real legal obstacle. The German authorities, like those of the victors in 1945, have made a wise policy choice. For these reasons, justice in such areas cannot be the preserve of the courts, the way it is at the domestic level. Inevitably, it is a mixture of the judicial and the political. The challenge for those involved in the judicial wing of this process is to ensure the greatest legitimacy without at the same time encouraging the myth that what they are doing is devoid of any political dimension." https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d52e/466b286347507ed4b1ef7834e29fdca8b2d1.pdf

"At the very least, the decision to prosecute in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials was a transparently political one. The trials also provided a clear narrative of history that might have been muddled if Allied commanders were prosecuted alongside Nazi war criminals. As Professor Schabas provocatively suggested, that may be why victor’s justice is not necessarily a bad thing after all." http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CastanCHRightsLawNlr/2011/30.pdf
 
Top