dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
such countries for the above purposes. (3) Employment of bribery, corruption, and false and subversive propaganda in such countries in order to accomplish the foregoing. (4) Employment of a policy of entering into treaties without intent to observe them and of thereafter violating them in furtherance of the defendants' plans. (5) Infiltration of spies and saboteurs into such countries for use in connection with the defendants' threats of invasions, invasions, and aggressive wars. (6) Carrying out the foregoing in violation of international law and the laws of the countries concerned. (7) Increasing the defendants' war potential and reducing the defensive capacity of other nations by creating monopolistic and other unlawful schemes and devices in furtherance of the defendants' plans. 7. Proof that the defendants launched illegal wars of aggression will include but not be limited to the following: 1. Violation of treaties and conventions to which the German State was a party. 2. Violation of any applicable international law. 3. Relating the above violations to the plan or enterprises referred to in par. 1 d (1) above. 8.Proof that in the course of conducting their illegal wars the defendants violated international law, the laws, rules, and customs of war, or the law of the sea, will cover the proof of the commission of crimes usually and traditionally considered war crimes. This proof will establish, from the nature, frequency, and common characteristics of the crimes referred to, and from the circumstances of their occurrence, that they were the result of an overall policy which directed or envisaged their commission. Proof of individual and organizational responsibility will be coordinated with the pertinent results of any other projects. 9. Proof of the defendants' atrocities and other crimes referred to in par. I d (4) above will include but not be limited to the following: a. Genocide or destruction of racial minorities and subjugated populations by such means and methods as (1) underfeeding; (2) sterilization and castration; (3) depriving them of clothing, shelter, fuel, sanitation, medical care; (4) deporting them for forced labor; (5) working them in inhumane conditions. 2. Unlawful expropriations,
or destruction of racial minorities and subjugated populations by such means and methods as (1) underfeeding; (2) sterilization and castration; (3) depriving them of clothing, shelter, fuel, sanitation, medical care; (4) deporting them for forced labor; (5) working them in inhumane conditions. 2. Unlawful expropriations, spoliations and forced sales in occupied areas. c. Unlawful destruction of property. d. Seizure of control of other nations by threats of violence, invasion, and other unlawful means. V. SOURCE MATERIALS 10. Documentary: a. Writings and speeches of defendants and their associates. b. Organizational literature. c. Magazines, newspapers, and other literature under defendants' control. d. Laws, decrees, ordinances, and regulations. e. Manuals; military, diplomatic, and other official orders, reports, plans, etc.; and pertinent official documents of any nature. 6. Correspondence. 7. Diplomatic and political treaties and agreements, public and secret. h. Financial, commercial, and trade agreements and data. 1. Biographical records. 11. Photographic: 1. Still. 2. Motion pictures. 12. Oral Testimony: 1. Film and other recordings. 2. Witnesses. 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
Summary Record of Two Informal Gatherings of British and American Delegations June 21 and 24, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
On Thursday, June 21, 1945, at the invitation of the British, an informal gathering of the United States and British representatives was held.
Sir Basil Newton, of the British Foreign Office, advised that the Provisional Government of France had accepted the conference invitation for June 25 and would send Henri Donnedieu de Vabres as their Representative
(1)
and that, although the Soviet Government had come to no decision, it was hoped that they would attend and that their delegate would depart from Moscow on June 23.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Attorney-General of the United Kingdom, suggested as the basis for discussion a list of defendants consisting of Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Ley, Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Frick, Keitel, Streicher, and Kaltenbrunner. It was agreed that this list should be considered and that the United States would propose additional names later. The United States, it was stated, had not reached a consideration of cases against individual defendants but had engaged in obtaining general proof necessary against all leading Nazis with the expectation of selecting defendants in the light of evidence so obtained. There was general discussion of the best methods of proof in view of the difficulty and novelty of the case and of the possible sources of evidence to be explored.
The policies to be followed by the respective countries in the return of prisoners requested by the governments of occupied territories for trial at the scene of their crimes were discussed at some length.
difficulty and novelty of the case and of the possible sources of evidence to be explored. The policies to be followed by the respective countries in the return of prisoners requested by the governments of occupied territories for trial at the scene of their crimes were discussed at some length.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe stated that the British hoped that international trials would commence at the beginning of September. He referred to the pending elections and said that he had no doubt that, in the event a Labor government were chosen, it would adhere to the plans made by its predecessors at this Conference. He suggested Munich, in the United States Zone of Germany, as an appropriate place for trial, partly for its psychological value as the birthplace of the Nazi party. Mr. Justice Jackson suggested that the choice depended chiefly on facilities that could be made available and undertook to investigate the suitability of Munich. All agreed that the trial should be held on the Continent, probably in Germany, and all agreed that, if in Germany, it should be held either in the British or in the American zone of occupation.
A similar gathering took place on Sunday, June 24, at which Sir Basil Newton advised the meeting that the British Ambassador in Moscow had reported that Soviet delegates would attend the Conference but that they had requested that the meeting be deferred from June 25 to June 26. It was agreed that the British Embassy at Moscow should be notified that the British and American Delegations acceded to the Soviet request.
Sir Basil further informed the session that the French had decided to send as their Representative Judge Robert Falco of the Cour de Cassation, to be assisted by Professor Andre Gros, French member of the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
be notified that the British and American Delegations acceded to the Soviet request. Sir Basil further informed the session that the French had decided to send as their Representative Judge Robert Falco of the Cour de Cassation, to be assisted by Professor Andre Gros, French member of the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
There was an informal discussion of the amendments that had been proposed by the British to the American draft and of the points raised in the aide-mgmvire handed to Mr. Justice Jackson by the Counselor of the Soviet Embassy at Washington [X]. Pending arrival of the other delegations, it was agreed that a committee would attempt to reconcile such differences as there were between the British and the American viewpoints in a joint draft of a protocol but that no commitment should be made by either Delegation on any point that was to come before the Conference.
A joint draft of a protocol was thereafter prepared by a committee, which showed how satisfactory reconciliation could be accomplished on all differences between the British and American viewpoints. This draft was not circulated, however, and was not the subject of discussion in the four-power conferences, and, as it was largely repetition and only in the nature of a working paper of the two Delegations, it has not been set forth.
(1)
France was represented at the London Conference by Judge Robert Falco.
Back
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 Minutes of Conference Session of June 26, 1945 Previous Document Contents Next Document The Conference was called to order by the Attorney-General, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who welcomed the Representatives on behalf of the host, the United Kingdom. (1) He stated the purpose of the Conference in general terms and reviewed the proceedings which had led up to it. He suggested that, in as much as the United States had proposed a definite agreement, the Conference call upon Mr. Justice Jackson to explain in detail the United States proposal. Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out that there were two drafts of the United States proposal outstanding. The first had been handed to the Foreign Ministers at San Francisco [IV]. Later studies had resulted in some changes and a later draft had been forwarded to all conferees through their respective embassies [IX]. He suggested that the latter proposal be made the basis of the discussions. General Nikitchenko suggested that, instead of embodying the entire subject in one instrument, there should be a separate and short executive agreement between the powers which would adopt an annexed statute to govern the conduct of the trials. The latter, he thought, should specify the rules of procedure in great detail. He thought it should provide for the organization of the Tribunal, by whom it should be named, its powers, and the cases it was to hear-which should be only major cases--and should specify that other criminals be handed over to the appropriate national authorities for trial by them; it should stipulate where the trials should take place, the language in which the proceedings should be conducted, and the procedure of the trial; it should leave to the court itself the working out of internal procedures. The Attorney-General, after the morning's general discussion, called upon Mr. Justice Jackson at the afternoon session to explain the American proposal, and the proceedings were as follows: MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We start with the recital of the declaration of Moscow, which is really the beginning of the plan to conduct these trials, and the recital follows the language of the declaration. It is the purpose to indicate the division between the class of cases we
and the proceedings were as follows: MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We start with the recital of the declaration of Moscow, which is really the beginning of the plan to conduct these trials, and the recital follows the language of the declaration. It is the purpose to indicate the division between the class of cases we are concerned with and the class with which we are not concerned. The recitals are intended to make plain what the background of this agreement is that is why we put in those recitals. I do not know whether any questions occur on that or not. [No questions.] Then we recite that it is necessary in order to carry out those commitments that there be joint action and that all Members of the United Nations shall be invited to sign and adhere to this agreement; that adherents shall be notified to the governments through the United Kingdom; and that the four signatories will be referred to as "signatories", and the other United Nations who may adhere to it are "adherents", and all are referred to later as "parties to the agreement". I do not know whether any questions occur on those or not. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I am not quite clear on the point of including the organizations. Are they juridical bodies? How is it envisaged? Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON. I would envisage that, in case of such an organization as the S.S., the purpose of this proceeding would be to try the general purposes, plan, the methods, etc., of that organization to determine whether it constitutes such a criminal organization that we should attribute to each member responsibility for acts of the others and responsibility for the acts of the whole. The organizations that we think should be included would be only voluntary organizations, of course, where the membership was in itself significant of an adherence to the purposes of the organization and where the organization was sufficiently closely knit so that responsibility of the member would be a reasonable conclusion. We did not think that it would ordinarily reach, for example, to the army or to the Nazi party. But such organizations as the S.S., the Gestapo-perhaps some groups that are not technically organizations-would be included. But that is not attempted to be solved here.
would be a reasonable conclusion. We did not think that it would ordinarily reach, for example, to the army or to the Nazi party. But such organizations as the S.S., the Gestapo-perhaps some groups that are not technically organizations-would be included. But that is not attempted to be solved here. We simply attempt to decide that organizations ought to be brought within the purview of this trial. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We do not propose to go into details of definition here and now but would like to draw attention to the Crimea declaration agreed to at Yalta, under which the Nazi organizations were declared to be illegal and criminal and therefore should be utterly destroyed; and it would therefore be necessary to see that this agreement, or the line taken here, follows the decision of the Three Powers in the Crimean agreement. However, that could be decided later. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It is intended that there be no inconsistency. The inclusion of these organizations is not intended to be a recognition of legality of their existence in the future, and we did not think in proposing the trial that it would be any obstacle in the dissolution of them for the future. We are thinking of their past acts. We now come to the article dealing with the military tribunals, which we think of as entirely separate from the prosecuting staff. [Here the Justice read from paragraph 5 of the draft proposal, IX.] We have in mind that one or more should be provided for at this time to have jurisdiction to hear any of the charges. We provide that each shall consist of four members, each with an alternate, one from each government here represented; that the presiding officer shall be selected by the members of the Tribunal or, if there is no agreement, by lot. The idea as to an alternate is that he should sit if the representative should become ill, die, or become incapacitated. The alternate would be present during the entire proceedings and be prepared to step into the place of the principal judge in event of necessity. The decision should be by majority vote. There are infinite possibilities of varying this arrangement, but this is as practical an arrangement as we could think of, and we therefore proposed it
proceedings and be prepared to step into the place of the principal judge in event of necessity. The decision should be by majority vote. There are infinite possibilities of varying this arrangement, but this is as practical an arrangement as we could think of, and we therefore proposed it in that form. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. In the original American draft the proposal regarding the position of presiding officer was that it should be hold by rotation; now we see by the second draft that the chairman shall be elected or chosen by lot. The Soviet Representative would be glad to know why this alternative system was preferred in the second draft and how far it is suitable as compared with the first original proposal. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We have never had the general practice in our country of rotating the presiding officer except in some courts, and in some of our commissions they rotate by the year. The presiding officer, of course, has no more power than the other members of the Tribunal, but there would be a greater consistency in the proceedings if one man presided. I do not know, if there were rotation, whether it would be by the day or week, or just how it could be arranged. We read the Soviet suggestion on rotation of the presiding officer, but I did not recall that we had ever proposed rotation, and I am inclined to think you are in error about that. Rotation was never proposed, to my knowledge, and it is rather foreign to our ideas. COLONEL BERNAYS. The first draft taken from San Francisco had no suggestion of rotation. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Your suggestion of rotation was first brought to our attention in an aide-mémoire delivered to me in Washington [X]. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. In the question of rotation of the chairmanship, of course it would not be a question of having a different one every day. The Soviet Delegation had in mind that there are, after all, four judges envisaged for the International Tribunal, and, assuming that the opinions of the four judges were evenly divided, it would be necessary for the chairman to give his vote. The actual view of the Soviet Delegation on the way in which rotating chairmanship should be organized is that in every individual case coming before the court from the
and, assuming that the opinions of the four judges were evenly divided, it would be necessary for the chairman to give his vote. The actual view of the Soviet Delegation on the way in which rotating chairmanship should be organized is that in every individual case coming before the court from the beginning there would be a single chairman in office; then when the next case came up the chairmanship would revert to another of the judges, who would hold office until that case were completed, and so on. That is particularly important if the Tribunal sits in different countries. For instance, if the Tribunal were sitting in France, it would be desirable to have a Frenchman as chairman. Do the authors of this proposal suggest that, where it states that the whole membership of the United Nations shall be invited by the United Kingdom to appear as adherents [paragraph 3], adherence to the agreement confers any obligations to take part in the work of the court, especially if it happens to be sitting in one of those countries? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It was not intended by the language to impose any obligations or to confer any rights except such privileges as might be granted in particular circumstances. There might be a situation where it would be advisable and we would agree that some nation should come forward with some evidence, for example. The problem of dealing with their cases we thought was pretty much solved by the provision for sending back for local trials the local offenders. If we are going to get this task done in any reasonable length of time, it is necessary to limit the number of people who will participate, and therefore we have taken the view that the four countries who have the chief responsibility are our own and that, while we would like the participation of the others, it would not be practical to open the matter to all others as a matter of right. That was the view we entertained in drawing these documents. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. We have one point on number 5 which has been already mentioned, Mr. Justice Jackson, that we should prefer that the Tribunal should be set up by the Governments in consultation with the Control Council, because it would make it easier for us to got the best members for the Tribunal if
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. We have one point on number 5 which has been already mentioned, Mr. Justice Jackson, that we should prefer that the Tribunal should be set up by the Governments in consultation with the Control Council, because it would make it easier for us to got the best members for the Tribunal if they were appointed by the Government and then the Government would consult with the Control Council and see if they approve. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. "An International Military Tribunal may sit in any zone in Germany, Austria or Italy. . . ." [Here the Justice read paragraph 7.] Any questions on number seven? [No questions.] [The Attorney-General was excused and Mr. Roberts acted thereafter as his alternate as chairman of the Conference and of the British group.] GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. That point is quite clear with possibly some amendments which could be inserted in toto in the statute of the International Military Tribunal. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. In paragraph 8 we provided that "An International Military Tribunal shall have the power to establish its own rules of procedure, which shall be not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement." We have thought in our subsequent studies that the agreement should also authorize the prosecuting staff to propose rules to the Tribunal so that there would be direct authority for proposing them. I may say that the system of adopting its own rules of procedure is customarily used in our country with commissions and even with courts. I think we delegate to the court more rule-making power than you do with the Continental system. We leave it to judges to make rules for their own courts, and sometimes we even delegate the power to make rules to govern the entire litigation procedure. Perhaps that is why we have favored a large delegation of power to the Tribunal itself instead of attempting to codify details of procedure. We were also a little afraid, since this is an unprecedented case, that we were not wise enough to adopt in advance rules that were all-inclusive to meet all situations. I would like to see a liberal rulemaking power left in the court to meet all unforeseen situations as are apt to arise. We have not been through this kind of trial before, and