Lack of Precedent: Both France and Britain had concerns that establishing a war crimes clause would create a precedent that could potentially be used against their soldiers and leaders in the future. They believed that the prosecution of individuals for actions taken during wartime could set a dangerous precedent and open up the possibility of similar measures being taken against their own forces.
Legal Concerns: France and Britain had reservations about the legality and practicality of implementing the war crimes clause. They argued that it would be challenging to gather sufficient evidence and establish clear standards of accountability, raising concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the process. Additionally, they were concerned about the potential for double standards and selective prosecution, as they recognized the difficulty in holding all responsible individuals accountable.
Political Considerations: France and Britain were aware of the political backlash and potential instability that could result from imposing a war crimes clause on Germany. They understood that many Germans would perceive it as a humiliation and a vindictive measure, which could fuel resentment and impede efforts to rebuild relations and promote peace in the aftermath of the war. By opposing the clause, France and Britain sought to mitigate these political tensions and maintain a more conciliatory approach towards Germany.
Instead, France and Britain preferred to focus on enforcing territorial adjustments, reparations, and disarmament as primary means to weaken Germany and prevent future conflicts. They believed that these measures would be more effective in achieving their goals of security and preventing future wars without resorting to the potentially controversial and legally complex mechanisms of a war crimes clause.