The Allies did not try enemy leaders as war criminals after WW1...?

Question

why do you think they conducted such trials after WW2?

Answer 1

I think it was largely because of what happened after WW1. The Nazis and other German conservatives developed the 'Stab in the Back' theory which held they'd been brought down from within. Germans objected to being blamed for WW1. This spurred their militarism in the 30s.

After WW1, most countries were very peace-loving. They REALLY resented having to fight WW2... and they wanted the German people to properly realise the evil regime they'd supported. It wasn't just the holocaust, though the fact the Nazis were genocidal gave them good cause. There was a determination that WW2, especially as the nasty Soviet Union was an ally, would been seen as a battle against evil. There was also the need to 'cure' Germans of their militarism- which had lasted over 200 years. Also, the worst Nazi excesses were kept secret, and were excused by the German population.

The trials of Japanese leaders were quite different to the careful process used for the Nazis... and Hirohito emerged from the war unscathed, even though millions had been killed, raped, tortured and murdered in his name.

Answer 2

WW1 was concluded with an Armistice in which the defeated nations were allowed to keep much of their political and social structure in place and were not subject to occupation by the victors.
WW2 ended in the unconditional surrender and occupation of all defeated nations which gave the victors total control of events after the war and enabled them to bring war criminals to justice

Answer 3

To prevent a trial done by the victims, its a way to officialy "close" the problem in a "controled " way.

Answer 4

because to be war criminals they had to have commited war crimes.

the holocaust was considered a crime vs. humanity

Answer 5

WW1 had no major attrocities DUH. Where was the genocide for example? Pretty obvious really.