dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
judges properly control the trial, the accused should receive a fair hearing without unduly prolonged discussion of wholly irrelevant matters. The advantages of the trial method over political action are so fundamental that we should not allow the bug-a-boos of possible embarrassments to hinder us from establishing the principle. More is involved than convenience and avoiding the chance of Nazi propaganda and countercharges.
It should not shock anyone that a trial before an Allied military tribunal should have some aspects based upon common law traditions and some drawn from the Continental and Slavic systems. For example, the United States and the United Kingdom. cannot insist on the full, rigid application of Anglo-American procedures, the rules of evidence, the priviledge against self incrimination and similar matters. These are not inherent parts of other systems of criminal practice and there is no need for leaning over backward to give the Axis leaders the benefit of protective principles, not afforded by German law, even prior to Axis distortion of German justice. The Hitlerites need only have a fair trial. Similarly, those raised in the Russian and Continental systems of law cannot properly object to having the methods of trial influenced by common law principles to some extent. The trial should be an Allied venture, reflecting the influence of the systems of justice in force in all four of the principal Allied nations. Of course, the accused while in custody should not be subjected to duress or to any essentially unfair or unreasonable inquisition and the trial in all respects should be conducted justly and impartially.
A final objection may be raised that there can be no real trial when the real offense, for which Hitler and the other Axis leaders are being tried, is the totality of what they have done to the world since 1933. It is true that all that the Axis has done should be brought into the grounds of punishment
A final objection may be raised that there can be no real trial when the real offense, for which Hitler and the other Axis leaders are being tried, is the totality of what they have done to the world since 1933. It is true that all that the Axis has done should be brought into the grounds of punishment. The offenses charged should include the preparation for war, the prewar atrocities and the launching of aggressive war in violation of Germany's treaty obligations as well as the ruthless conduct of war in violation of international law and custom.
Principal emphasis, doubtless, will be placed in the trial upon those patent violations of the customs of war which most shock the Allies (e. g., murder of prisoners of war, abuse of populations in occupied territories, deportation of Allied peoples for use as slave labor, etc.). Nevertheless, these offenses were only a part of the whole ghastly Hitlerite enterprise. These particular atrocities color the enterprise and make the whole of it so clearly criminal, that the whole enterprise should be included in the charges and revealed in the trial.
The very breadth of the offense, however, is not in itself an argument against judicial action. It is a most important reason for a trial, for it is highly desirable that there be established and declared by actual decision, after adequate hearing and determination of the facts, the principles of international law applicable to the broad, vicious Nazi enterprise. The application of this law may be novel because the scope of the Nazi activity has been broad and ruthless without precedent. The basic principles to be applied, however, are not novel and all that is needed is a wise application of those principles on a sufficiently comprehensive scale to meet the situation. International law must develop to meet the needs of the times just as the common law has grown, not by enunciating new principles but by adapting old ones
are not novel and all that is needed is a wise application of those principles on a sufficiently comprehensive scale to meet the situation. International law must develop to meet the needs of the times just as the common law has grown, not by enunciating new principles but by adapting old ones. By including within the general area of punishable international crimes the violation of compacts, there will be world judicial condemnation of depredations so great and so violent that international security cannot exist if they should be permitted to continue unchecked. The law should be supple enough to cope with the totality of the offense and though the most solid basis for prosecution under existing law relates to the violations of actual and recognized rules of war, the full offense covers so obviously areas wider than this limited field that it is natural and proper in this day and age that we must deal with those too.
V. There is Immediate Need of an Allied Executive Prosecuting and Planning Organization to Deal with the Principal War Crimes Trials and Related Problems:
1. In the trial of the Hitlerite leaders no charges which cannot be proved should be presented and the theory of prosecution should rest upon ascertainable facts. The actual trial of cases must be planned and conducted by persons familiar with the techniques of the expeditious presentation of intricate causes. Accordingly, there should be created to take charge of preparations for the major trials, an Allied executive or planning group consisting of one representative each of the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth and France
with the techniques of the expeditious presentation of intricate causes. Accordingly, there should be created to take charge of preparations for the major trials, an Allied executive or planning group consisting of one representative each of the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth and France. This group should be assisted by an adequate staff of attorneys and research personnel to compile and analyze data, prepare the charges in the principal case or cases to conform to the proof and arrange the evidence for presentation to the international military tribunal.
So far as the operations of this executive group are carried out within Germany or Austria, such operations might appropriately be subject to the administrative direction of the Control Council for Germany or for Austria as the case may be.
2. The presentation of the principal case or cases before the international tribunal should be made by persons designated by the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth and France each of these countries being entitled to designate one person, who might be its member of the executive group referred to in the preceding paragraph.
3. The full time executive group might also be charged with:
1. the recommendation to the appropriate governmental authorities of agreements and measures supplemental to or in addition to the agreement, necessary or appropriate to accomplish its objectives, and
2. the maintenance of liaison among and with the appropriate military and civil agencies, authorities and commissions of or representing any of the United Nations which are or may be charged with responsibility for any matters dealt with in the agreement.
4. Expenses - Any military or executive agreement should make suitable provision for the payment of the expenses of the prosecutions and the executive group.
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H
responsibility for any matters dealt with in the agreement. 4. Expenses - Any military or executive agreement should make suitable provision for the payment of the expenses of the prosecutions and the executive group. Source: International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
British Memorandum of May 28, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
Note:
On May 22, Mr. Justice Jackson, at the direction of President Truman, left for Europe to organize the gathering of evidence through American military and other channels, to confer as to progress toward an agreement for international trials, and to discuss trial preparations with American military authorities and with the French, British, and Soviet officials who would be concerned with such trials.
Discussion with French Foreign Minister Bidault en route to Paris resulted in assurances that the Provisional Government agreed in principle with the American plan and would promptly name a representative to engage in negotiation of a definitive plan and to conduct the prosecutions.
In London Lord Chancellor John Viscount Simon stated that the United Kingdom Government had become convinced of the desirability of proceeding along the general lines outlined in the American proposal. At a meeting with Attorney-General Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Treasury Solicitor Sir Thomas Barnes, and Patrick Dean of the Foreign Office on May 28, the following memorandum of British proposals for amending the agreement as proposed by the United States at San Francisco [IV) was handed to Mr. justice Jackson.
A call made upon Soviet Ambassador Gusev in London gave no information as to the Soviet attitude.
WAR CRIMINAL'S: DRAFT AGREEMENT
Dated 3rd May 1945
DRAFTING AMENDMENTS
Paragraphs 4 and 5:
Omit paragraph 4.
Substitute for paragraph 5:
"5
United States at San Francisco [IV) was handed to Mr. justice Jackson. A call made upon Soviet Ambassador Gusev in London gave no information as to the Soviet attitude. WAR CRIMINAL'S: DRAFT AGREEMENT Dated 3rd May 1945 DRAFTING AMENDMENTS Paragraphs 4 and 5: Omit paragraph 4. Substitute for paragraph 5: "5. The United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union in the Declaration issued at Moscow November 1, 1943, after providing that those responsible for atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions in occupied countries should be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free governments which will be erected therein, went on to provide
"that the above declaration was without prejudice to the case of major criminals, whose offences have no particular geographical localization and who will be punished by joint decision of the Governments of the Allies.
"This Agreement is entered into in order to establish the necessary measures for bringing to justice the major criminals referred to above, their principal agents and accessories, and all other offenders who are not sent for trial to the countries in which their atrocities and crimes were committed."
I [Sir David Maxwell Fyfe] have omitted the last 21/2 lines as many "minor" criminals will be tried at any rate by the occupying powers in Germany and not sent back.
Substitute for Paragraph 6:
"6. The parties to this Agreement agree to bring to trial, in the names of their respective peoples, the persons referred to in Article 5 for their responsibility for the following criminal acts:
1.  Violation of the customs and rules of warfare.
2
Germany and not sent back. Substitute for Paragraph 6: "6. The parties to this Agreement agree to bring to trial, in the names of their respective peoples, the persons referred to in Article 5 for their responsibility for the following criminal acts: 1. Violation of the customs and rules of warfare. 2.  Pursuing a systematic policy for the purpose of dominating Europe by a war of aggression and in the carrying out of that policy.
(1) Initiating and making attacks on other countries in violation of International Law, treaties or assurances.
(2) Resorting to war as an instrument of national policy."
Paragraph 9: "held" for "deemed".
Paragraph 12:
(1)  Omit "Such notice may be actual or constructive".
(2) Omit "physically present before the tribunal". Refer in (b) to right to call evidence.
Add to Article 12:
e. Participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or enterprise, including a plan or enterprise aimed at the domination of another country, which involves the commission of any of the foregoing criminal acts.
Paragraph 14:
Make clear what is meant by "proffers of proof"
Paragraph 15 and later paragraphs:
"Inter-Allied" for "International".
Paragraph 16:
Clear up the meaning of majority when the Court consists of four.
Paragraph 17:
Refer to other enemy countries. Leave out "masters and other".
Paragraph 20:
Is the Control Council the right body
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Aide-Memoire from the United Kingdom, June 3, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
His Majesty's Embassy are instructed to inform the State Department that His Majesty's Government have now accepted in principle the United States draft as a basis for discussion by the representatives appointed by the Allied Governments to prepare for the prosecution of war criminals.
2. His Majesty's Government suggest that in the circumstances the United States Government may now care to follow up the approach which they made to the Three Powers at San Francisco by representing to His Majesty's Government, the Soviet Government and the French Government that it is urgently necessary to reach agreement on the main principle at least of the United States draft agreement, by inviting the two latter Powers to follow the example of the United States Government and of His Majesty's Government by appointing representatives for the prosecution of these criminals. His Majesty's Government hope that the United States Government might be willing to state that for various reasons and in view of the impending return to London of Judge Jackson, London appears to be the most suitable place for further discussions, both on the draft agreement and also on the organization of the proposed prosecuting authority, the preparation of charges, and the procedure for trials, and that they understand that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to issue invitations to the Three Powers concerned accordingly. The United States Government might wish to add that in view of the importance of working out the most satisfactory procedure possible in order that the trials should serve their full purpose, it would be desirable that these discussions should be conducted by the four prosecuting counsel. (This would incidentally give point to the invitation of the French and Soviet Governments to appoint their representatives without further delay).
BRITISH EMBASSY,
WASHINGTON, D
in order that the trials should serve their full purpose, it would be desirable that these discussions should be conducted by the four prosecuting counsel. (This would incidentally give point to the invitation of the French and Soviet Governments to appoint their representatives without further delay). BRITISH EMBASSY, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
June 3, 1945.
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 Report to the President by Mr. Justice Jackson, June 6, 1945 Previous Document Contents Next Document Note: Upon his return from Europe, Mr. justice Jackson made a report to the President. It was released to the press by the White House with a statement of the President's approval and was widely published throughout Europe as well as in the United States. This report was accepted by other governments as an official statement of the position of the United States and as such was placed before all of the delegations to the London Conference. It follows: THE PRESIDENT, June 6, 1945. The White House, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to report accomplishments during the month since you named me as Chief of Counsel for the United States in prosecuting the principal Axis War Criminals. In brief, I have selected staffs from the several services, departments and agencies concerned; worked out a plan for preparation, briefing, and trial of the cases; allocated the work among the several agencies; instructed those engaged in collecting or processing evidence; visited the European theater to expedite the examination of captured documents, and the interrogation of witnesses and prisoners; coordinated our preparation of the main case with preparation by Judge Advocates of many cases not included in my responsibilities; and arranged cooperation and mutual assistance with the United Nations War Crimes Commission and with Counsel appointed to represent the United Kingdom in the joint prosecution. I. The responsibilities you have conferred on me extend only to "the case of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical localization and who will be punished by joint decision of the governments of the Allies", as provided in the Moscow Declaration of November 1, 1943 , by President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Premier Stalin. It does not include localized cases of any kind. Accordingly, in visiting the European theater, I attempted to establish standards to segregate from our case against the principal offenders, cases against many other offenders and to expedite their trial. These cases fall into three principal classes: 1. The first class comprises offenses against military
kind. Accordingly, in visiting the European theater, I attempted to establish standards to segregate from our case against the principal offenders, cases against many other offenders and to expedite their trial. These cases fall into three principal classes: 1. The first class comprises offenses against military personnel of the United States such, for example, as the killing of American airmen who erash-landed, and other Americans who became prisoners of war. In order to insure effective military operation, the field forces from time immemorial have dealt with such offenses on the spot. Authorization of this prompt procedure, however, had been withdrawn because of the fear of stimulating retaliation through execution of captured Americans on trumped-up charges. The surrender of Germany and liberation of our prisoners has ended that danger. The morale and safety of our own troops and effective government of the control area seemed to require prompt resumption of summary dealing with this type of case. Such proceedings are likely to disclose evidence helpful to the case against the major criminals and will not prejudice it in view of the measures I have suggested to preserve evidence and to prevent premature execution of those who are potential defendants or witnesses in the major case. I flew to Paris and Frankfort and conferred with Generals Eisenhower, Smith, Clay, and Betts, among others, and arranged to have a representative on hand to clear questions of conflict in any particular case. We also arranged an exchange of evidence between my staff and the Theater Judge Advocate's staff. The officials of other countries were most anxious to help. For example, the French brought to General Donovan and me in Paris evidence that civilians in Germany had beaten to death with wrenches three American airmen. They had obtained from the German Burgomeister identification of the killers, had taken them into custody, and offered to deliver them to our forces. Cases such as this are not infrequent. Under the arrangements perfected, the military authorities are enabled to move in cases of this class without delay. Some are already under way; some by now have been tried and verdicts rendered. Some concentration camp cases are also soon to go on trial. 2.
to our forces. Cases such as this are not infrequent. Under the arrangements perfected, the military authorities are enabled to move in cases of this class without delay. Some are already under way; some by now have been tried and verdicts rendered. Some concentration camp cases are also soon to go on trial. 2. A second class of offenders, the prosecution of which will not interfere with the major case, consists of those who, under the Moscow Declaration, are to be sent back to the scene of their crimes for trial by local authorities. These comprise localized offenses or atrocities against persons or property, usually of civilians of countries formerly occupied by Germany. The part of the United States in these cases consists of the identification of offenders and the surrender on demand of those who are within our control. The United Nations War Crimes Commission is especially concerned with cases of this kind. It represents many of the United Nations, with the exception of Russia. It has been usefully engaged as a body with which the aggrieved of all the United Nations have recorded their accusations and evidence. Lord Wright, representing Australia, is the Chairman of this Commission, and Lt. Col. Joseph V. Hodgson is the United States representative. In London, I conferred with Lord Wright and Colonel Hodgson in an effort to coordinate our work with that of the Commission wherever there might be danger of conflict or duplication. There was no difficulty in arriving at an understanding for mutual exchange of information. We undertook to respond to requests for any evidence in our possession against those listed with the Commission as criminals and to cooperate with each of the United Nations in efforts to bring this class of offenders to justice. Requests for the surrender of persons held by American forces may present diplomatic or political problems which are not my responsibility. But so far as my work is concerned, I advised the Commission, as well as the appropriate American authorities, that there is no objection to the surrender of any person except on grounds that we want him as a defendant or as a witness in the major case. 3. In a third class of cases, each country, of course, is free to