[A-List] Opening Address of Robert Jackson at Nuremberg

[Omahkohkiaayo_ipoyi <omahkohkiaayo@xxxxxxxxx>]

International Military Tribunal 

Opening address for the United States of America 1 

? by ? 

Robert H. Jackson 

Representative and Chief of Counsel for the United States of America 

May It Please Your Honors, 

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the
peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek
to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so
devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because
it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed
with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and
voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one
of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason. 

This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of
abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories.
This inquest represents the practical effort of 4 of the most mighty of
nations, with the support of 14 more, to utilize international law to meet
the greatest menace of our times ? aggressive war. The common sense of
mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes
by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great
power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils
which leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of this magnitude
that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors. 

In the prisoners' dock sit 20-odd broken men. Reproached by the humiliation
of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the desolation of those
they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil is forever past. It is
hard now to perceive in these miserable men as captives the power by which
as Nazi leaders they once dominated much of the world and terrified most of
it. Merely as individuals, their fate is of little consequence to the
world. 

What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent
sinister influences that will lurk in the world after their bodies have
returned to dust. They are living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism
and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols
of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which
have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood,
destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified
themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they
directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to
all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no
compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we
deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now
precariously survive. 

What these men stand for we will patiently and temperately disclose. We
will give you undeniable proofs of incredible events. The catalog of crimes
will omit nothing that could be conceived by a pathological pride, cruelty,
and lust for power. These men created in Germany under the ?Fuhrerprinzip?,
a National Socialist despotism equalled only by the dynasties of the
ancient East. They took from the German people all those dignities and
freedoms that we hold natural and inalienable rights in every human being.
The people were compensated by inflaming and gratifying hatreds toward
those who were marked as ?scapegoats?. Against their opponents, including
Jews, Catholics, and free labor, the Nazis directed such a campaign of
arrogance, brutality, and annihilation as the world has not witnessed since
the pre-Christian ages. They excited the German ambition to be a ?master
race?, which of course implies serfdom for others. They led their people on
a mad gamble for domination. They diverted social energies and resources to
the creation of what they thought to be an invincible war-machine. They
overran their neighbors. To sustain the ?master race? in its war-making,
they enslaved millions of human beings and brought them into Germany, where
these hapless creatures now wander as displaced persons. At length
bestiality and bad faith reached such excess that they aroused the sleeping
strength of imperiled civilization. Its united efforts have ground the
German war-machine to fragments. But the struggle has left Europe a
liberated yet prostrate land where a demoralized society struggles to
survive. These are the fruits of the sinister forces that sit with these
defendants in the prisoners? dock. 

In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I
must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on this
case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within
the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a
whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals,
and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of the task, the world has
demanded immediate action. This demand has had to be met, though perhaps at
the cost of finished craftsmanship. In my country, established courts,
following familiar procedures, applying well-thumbed precedents, and
dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events, seldom
commence a trial within a year of the event in litigation. Yet less than
eight months ago today the courtroom in which you sit was an enemy fortress
in the hands of German SS Troops. Less than eight months ago nearly all our
witnesses and documents were in enemy hands. The law had not been codified,
no procedures had been established, no tribunal was in existence, no usable
courthouse stood here, none of the hundreds of tons of official German
documents had been examined, no prosecuting staff had been assembled,
nearly all the present defendants were at large, and the four prosecuting
powers had not yet joined in common cause to try them. I should be the last
to deny that the case may well suffer from incomplete researches and quite
likely will not be the example of professional work which any of the
prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is, however, a
completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to render, and
its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians. 

Before I discuss particulars of evidence, some general considerations which
may affect the credit of this trial in the eyes of the world should be
candidly faced. There is a dramatic disparity between the circumstances of
the accusers and of the accused that might discredit our work if we should
falter, in even minor matters, in being fair and temperate. 

Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution and
judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The world-wide
scope of the aggressions carried out by these men has left but few real
neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we must leave the
defeated to judge themselves. After the first World War, we learned the
futility of the latter course. The former high station of these defendants,
the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of their conduct to
provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between the demand for a
just and measured retribution and the unthinking cry for vengeance which
arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so far as humanly possible,
to draw the line between the two. We must never forget that the record on
which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will
judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it
to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual
integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as
fulfilling humanity?s aspiration to do justice. 

At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these men
to trial is to do them an injustice entitling them to some special
consideration. These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill
used. Let us see what alternative they would have to being tried. 

More than a majority of these prisoners surrendered to or were tracked down
by forces of the United States. Could they expect us to make American
custody a shelter for our enemies against the just wrath of our Allies? Did
we spend American lives to capture them only to save them from punishment?
Under the principles of the Moscow Declaration, those suspected war
criminals who are not to be tried internationally must be turned over to
individual governments for trial at the scene of their outrages. Many less
responsible and less culpable American-held prisoners have been and will be
turned over to other United Nations for local trial. If these defendants
should succeed, for any reason, in escaping the condemnation of this
Tribunal, or if they obstruct or abort this trial, those who are
American-held prisoners will be delivered up to our continental Allies. For
these defendants, however, we have set up an International Tribunal and
have undertaken the burden of participating in a complicated effort to give
them fair and dispassionate hearings. 

That is the best known protection to any man with a defense worthy of being
heard. 

If these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be
prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given a
chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law. Realistically, the
charter of this Tribunal, which gives them a hearing, is also the source of
their only hope. It may be that these men of troubled conscience, whose
only wish is that the world forget them, do not regard a trial as a favor.
But they do have a fair opportunity to defend themselves ? a favor which
these men, when in power, rarely extended even to their fellow countrymen.
Despite the fact that public opinion already condemns their acts, we agree
that here they must be given a presumption of innocence, and we accept the
burden of proving criminal acts and the responsibility of these defendants
for their commission. 

When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we prove crime, I do
not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of international
conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that involves
moral as well as legal wrong. And we do not mean conduct that is a natural
and human, even if illegal, cutting of corners, such as many of us might
well have committed had we been in the defendants? positions. It is not
because they yielded to the normal frailties of human beings that we accuse
them. It is their abnormal and inhuman conduct which brings them to this
bar. 

We will not ask you to convict these men on the testimony of their foes.
There is no count of the indictment that cannot be proved by books and
records. The Germans were always meticulous record keepers, and these
defendants had their share of the Teutonic passion for thoroughness in
putting things on paper. Nor were they without vanity. They arranged
frequently to be photographed in action. We will show you their own films.
You will see their own conduct and hear their own voices as these
defendants reenact for you, from the screen, some of the events in the
course of the conspiracy. 

We would also make clear these we have no purpose to incriminate the whole
German people. We know that the Nazi Party was not put in power by a
majority of the German vote. We know it came to power by an evil alliance
between the most extreme of the Nazi revolutionists, the most unrestrained
of the German reactionaries, and the most aggressive of the German
militarists. If the German populace had willingly accepted the Nazi
program, no stormtroopers would have been needed in the early days of the
Party and there would have been no need for concentration camps or the
Gestapo, both of which institutions were inaugurated as soon as the Nazi
gained control of the German state. Only after these lawless innovations
proved successful at home were they taken abroad. 

The German people should know by now that the people of the United States
hold them in no fear, and in no hate. It is true that the Germans have
taught us the horrors of modern warfare, but the ruin that lies from the
Rhine to the Danube shows that we, like our Allies, have not been dull
pupils. If we are not awed by German fortitude and proficiency in war, and
if we are not persuaded of their political maturity, we do respect their
skill in the arts of peace, their technical competence, and the sober,
industrious, and self-disciplined character of the masses of the German
people. In 1933, we saw the German people recovering prestige in the
commercial, industrial, and artistic world after the set-back of the last
war. We beheld their progress neither with envy nor malice. The Nazi regime
interrupted this advance. The recoil of the Nazi aggression has left
Germany in ruins. The Nazi readiness to pledge the German word without
hesitation and to break it without shame has fastened upon German diplomacy
a reputation for duplicity that will handicap it for years. Nazi arrogance
had made the boast of the ?master race? a taunt that will be thrown at
Germans the world over for generations. The Nazi nightmare has given the
German name a new and sinister significance throughout the world which will
retard Germany a century. The German, no less than the non-German, world
has accounts to settle with these defendants. 

The fact of the war and the course of the war, which is the central theme
of our case, is history. From September first, 1939, when the German armies
crossed the Polish frontiers, until September 1941, when they met epic
resistance at Stalingrad, German arms seemed invincible. Denmark and
Norway, the Netherlands and France, Belgium and Luxembourg, the Balkans and
Africa, Poland and the Baltic states, and parts of Russia all had been
overrun and conquered by swift, powerful, well-aimed blows. That attack
upon the peace of the world is the crime against international society
which brings into international cognizance crimes in its aid and
preparation which otherwise might be only internal concerns. It was
aggressive war, which the nations of the world had renounced. It was war in
violation of treaties, by which the peace of the world was sought to be
safeguarded. 

This war did not just happen ? it was planned and prepared for over a long
period of time and with no small skill and cunning. The world has perhaps
never seen such a concentration and stimulation of the energies of any
people as that which enabled Germany 20 years after it was defeated,
disarmed, and dismembered to come so near carrying out its plan to dominate
Europe. Whatever else we may say of those who were the authors of this war,
they did achieve a stupendous work in organization, and our first task is
to examine the means by which these defendants and their fellow
conspirators prepared and incited Germany to go to war. 

In general, our case will disclose these defendants? all uniting at some
time with the Nazi Party in a plan which they well knew could be
accomplished only by an outbreak of war in Europe. Their seizure of the
German state, their subjugation of the German people, their terrorism and
extermination of dissident elements, their planning and waging of war,
their calculated and planned ruthlessness in the conduct of warfare, their
deliberate and planned criminality toward conquered peoples ? all these are
ends for which they acted in concert; and all these are phases of the
conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal only to set out for another
and more ambitious one. We shall also trace for you the intricate web of
organizations which these men formed and utilized to accomplish these ends.
We will show how the entire structure of offices and officials was
dedicated to the criminal purposes and committed to use of the criminal
methods planned by these defendants and their co-conspirators, many of whom
war and suicide have put beyond reach. 

It is my purpose to open the case, particularly under count one of the
indictment, and to deal with the common plan or conspiracy to achieve ends
possible only by resort to crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity. My emphasis will not be on individual barbarities and
perversions which may have occurred independently of any central plan. One
of the dangers ever present is that this trial may be protracted by details
of particular wrongs and that we will become lost in a ?wilderness of
single instances?. Nor will I now dwell on the activity of individual
defendants except as it may contribute to exposition of the common plan. 

The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the
brains and authority back of all the crimes. These defendants were men of a
station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were
men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners
and designers, the inciters and leaders, without whose evil architecture
the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and
lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions of this terrible
war. 

[Here follow discussions on the lawless road to power, the consolidation of
Nazi power, the battle against the working class, the battle against
churches, crimes against the Jews, terrorism and preparation for war,
experiments in aggression, war of aggression, conspiracy with Japan, and
crimes in the conduct of war.] 

The Law of the Case 


The end of the war and capture of these prisoners presented the victorious
Allies with the question whether there is any legal responsibility on
high-ranking men for acts which I have described. Must such wrongs either
be ignored or redressed in hot blood? Is there no standard in the law for a
deliberate and reasoned judgment on such conduct? 

The charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only to
govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief
Justice Coke put it to King James, ?under God and the law?. The United
States believed that the law long has afforded standards by which a
juridical hearing could be conducted to make sure that we punish only the
right men and for the right reasons. Following the instructions of the late
President Roosevelt and the decision of the Yalta conference, President
Truman directed representatives of the United States to formulate a
proposed international agreement, which was submitted during the San
Francisco conference to Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, the Soviet
Union, and the Provisional Government of France. With many modifications,
that proposal has become the charter of this Tribunal. 

But the agreement which sets up the standards by which these prisoners are
to be judged does not express the views of the signatory nations alone.
Other nations with diverse but highly respected systems of jurisprudence
also have signified adherence to it. These are Belgium, the Netherlands,
Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia,
Ethiopia, Australia, Honduras, and Panama. You judge, therefore, under an
organic act which represents the wisdom, the sense of justice, and the will
of 18 governments, representing an overwhelming majority of all civilized
people. 

The charter by which this Tribunal has its being embodies certain legal
concepts which are inseparable from its jurisdiction and which must govern
its decision. These, as I have said, also are conditions to the grant of
any hearing to defendants. The validity of the provisions of the charter is
conclusive upon us all, whether we have accepted the duty of judging or of
prosecuting under it, as well as upon the defendants, who can point to no
other law which gives them a right to be heard at all. My able and
experienced colleagues believe, as do I, that it will contribute to the
expedition and clarity of this trial if I expound briefly the application
of the legal philosophy of the charter to the facts I have recited. 

While this declaration of the law by the charter is final, it may be
contended that the prisoners on trial are entitled to have it applied to
their conduct only most charitably if at all. It may be said that this is
new law, not authoritatively declared at the time they did the acts it
condemns, and that this declaration of the law has taken them by surprise. 

I cannot, of course, deny that these men are surprised that this is the
law; they really are surprised that there is any such thing as law. These
defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored and defied
all law. That this is so will appear from may acts and statements, of which
I cite but a few. In the Fuehrer?s speech to all military commanders on
November 23, 1939, he reminded them that at the moment Germany had a pact
with Russia, but declared, ?Agreements are to be kept only as long as they
serve a certain purpose.? Later on in the same speech he announced, ?A
violation of the neutrality of Holland and Belgium will be of no
importance.? ( Doc. 789-PS, pp. 5 and 11.) A top-secret document entitled,
?Warfare as a Problem of Organization?, dispatched by the Chief of the High
Command to all Commanders on April 19, 1938, declared that ?the normal
rules of war toward neutrals may be considered to apply only on the basis
whether operation of rules will create greater advantages or disadvantages
for belligerents.?(Doc. L-211, p. 28 of translation.) And from the files of
the German Navy Staff we have a ?Memorandum on Intensified Naval War?,
dated October 15, 1939, which begins by stating a desire to comply with
international law. ?However?, it continues, ?if decisive successes are
expected from any measure considered as a war necessity, it must be carried
through even if it is not in agreement with International Law.?(Doc. L-184,
p. 3.) International law, natural law, German law, any law at all was to
these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and to be
ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do. That men may be
protected in relying upon the law at the time they act is the reason we
find laws of retrospective operation unjust. But these men cannot bring
themselves within the reason of the rule which in some systems of
jurisprudence prohibits ex-post-facto laws. They cannot show that they ever
relied upon international law in any state or paid it the slightest regard.


The third count of the indictment is based on the definition of war crimes
contained in the charter. I have outlined to you the systematic course of
conduct toward civilian populations and combat forces which violates
international conventions to which Germany was a party. Of the criminal
nature of these acts at least, the defendants had, as we shall show, clear
knowledge. Accordingly, they took pains to conceal their violations. It
will appear that the defendants Keitel and Jodl were informed by official
legal advisers that the orders to brand Russian prisoners of war, to
shackle British prisoners of war, and to execute commando prisoners were
clear violations of international law. Nevertheless, these orders were put
into effect. The same is true of orders issued for the assassination of
General Giraud and General Weygand, which failed to be executed only
because of a ruse on the part of Admiral Canaris, who was himself later
executed for his part in the plot to take Hitler?s life on July 20, 1944. 

The fourth count of the indictment is based on crimes against humanity.
Chief among these are mass killings of countless human beings in cold
blood. Does it take these men by surprise that murder is treated as a
crime? 

The first and second counts of the indictment add to these crimes the crime
of plotting and waging wars of aggression and wars in violation of nine
treaties to which Germany was a party. There was a time, in fact I think
the time of the first World War, when it could not have been said that
war-inciting or war-making was a crime in law, however reprehensible in
morals. 

Of course, it was under the law of all civilized peoples a crime for one
man with his bare knuckles to assault another. How did it come that
multiplying this crime by a million, and adding firearms to bare knuckles,
made a legally innocent act? The doctrine was that one could not be
regarded as criminal for committing the usual violent acts in the conduct
of legitimate warfare. The age of imperialistic expansion during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries added the foul doctrine, contrary to
the teachings of early Christian and international-law scholars such as
Grotius, that all wars are to be regarded as legitimate wars. The sum of
these two doctrines was to give war-making a complete immunity from
accountability to law. 

This was intolerable for an age that called itself civilized. Plain people,
with their earthy common sense, revolted at such fictions and legalisms so
contrary to ethical principles and demanded checks on war immunity.
Statesmen and international lawyers at first cautiously responded by
adopting rules of warfare designed to make the conduct of war more
civilized. The effort was to set legal limits to the violence that could be
done to civilian populations and to combatants as well. 

The common sense of men after the first World War demanded, however, that
the law?s condemnation of war reach deeper, and that the law condemn not
merely uncivilized ways of waging war but also the waging in any way of
uncivilized wars ? wars of aggression. The world?s statesmen again went
only as far as they were forced to go. Their efforts were timid and
cautious and often less explicit than we might have hoped. But the 1920?s
did outlaw aggressive war. 

The reestablishment of the principle that there are unjust wars and that
unjust wars are illegal is traceable in many steps. One of the most
significant is the Briand-Kellogg pact of 1928, by which Germany, Italy,
and Japan, in common with practically all the nations of the world,
renounced war as an instrument of national policy, bound themselves to seek
the settlement of disputes only by pacific means and condemned recourse to
war for the solution of international controversies. This pact altered the
legal status of a war of aggression. As Mr. Stimson, the United States
Secretary of State, put it in 1932, such a war ?is no longer to be the
source and subject of rights. It is no longer to be the principle around
which the duties, the conduct and the rights of nations revolve. It is an
illegal thing. ... By that very act, we have made obsolete many legal
precedents and have given the legal profession the task of reexamining many
of its codes and treatises.? 

The Geneva protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes, signed by the representatives of 48 governments, declared that ?a
war of aggression constitutes ... an international crime.? The Eighth
Assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, on unanimous resolution of the
representatives of 48 member nations, including Germany, declared that a
war of aggression constitutes an international crime. At the sixth
pan-American conference of 1928, the 21 American republics unanimously
adopted a resolution stating that ?war of aggression constitutes an
international crime against the human species.? 

A failure of these Nazis to heed, or to understand the force and meaning
of, this evolution in the legal thought of the world is not a defense or a
mitigation. If anything, it aggravates their offense and makes it the more
mandatory that the law they have flouted be vindicated by juridical
application to their lawless conduct. Indeed, by their own law ? had they
heeded any law ? principles were binding on these defendants. Article 4 of
the Weimar Constitution provided that ?The generally accepted rules of
international law are to be considered as binding integral parts of the law
of the German Reich.? (Doc. 2050-PS.) Can there be any doubt that the
outlawry of aggressive war was one of the ?generally accepted rules of
international law? in 1939? 

Any resort to war ? to any kind of a war ? is a resort to means that are
inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults,
deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive
war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from
criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing
that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is
illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making
aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every
defense the law ever gave, and to leave war-makers subject to judgment by
the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes. 

But if it be thought that the charter, whose declarations concededly bind
us all, does contain new law I still do not shrink from demanding its
strict application by this Tribunal. The rule of law in the world, flouted
by the lawlessness incited by these defendants, had to be restored at the
cost to my country of over a million casualties, not to mention those of
other nations. I cannot subscribe to the perverted reasoning that society
may advance and strengthen the rule of law by the expenditure of morally
innocent lives but that progress in the law may never be made at the price
of morally guilty lives. 

It is true, of course, that we have no judicial precedent for the charter.
But international law is more than a scholarly collection of abstract and
immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties and agreements between
nations and of accepted customs. Yet every custom has its origin in some
single act and every agreement has to be initiated by the action of some
state. Unless we are prepared to abandon every principle of growth for
international law, we cannot deny that our own day has the right to
institute customs and to conclude agreements that will themselves become
sources of a newer and strengthened international law. International law is
not capable of development by the normal processes of legislation for there
is no continuing international legislative authority. Innovations and
revisions in international law are brought about by the action of
governments designed to meet a change in circumstances. It grows, as did
the common law, through decisions reached from time to time in adapting
settled principles to new situations. The fact is that when the law evolves
by the case method, as did the common law and as international law must do
if it is to advance at all, it advances at the expense of those who wrongly
guessed the law and learned too late their error. The law, so far as
international law can be decreed, had been clearly pronounced when these
acts took place. Hence I am not disturbed by the lack of judicial precedent
for the inquiry we propose to conduct. 

The events I have earlier recited clearly fall within the standards of
crimes, set out in the charter, whose perpetrators this Tribunal is
convened to judge and punish fittingly. The standards for war crimes and
crimes against humanity are too familiar to need comment. There are,
however, certain novel problems in applying other precepts of the charter
which I should call to your attention. 

The Crime Against Peace 


A basic provision of the charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or
wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan
to do so is a crime. 

It is perhaps a weakness in this charter that it fails itself to define a
war of aggression. Abstractly, the subject is full of difficulty, and all
kinds of troublesome hypothetical cases can be conjured up. It is a subject
which, if the defense should be permitted to go afield beyond the very
narrow charge in the indictment, would prolong the trial and involve the
Tribunal in insoluble political issues. But, so far as the question can
properly be involved in this case, the issue is one of no novelty and is
one on which legal opinion has well crystallized. 

One of the most authoritative sources of international law on this subject
is the Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed at London on
July 3, 1933 by Rumania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, the Soviet Union,
Persia, and Afghanistan. The subject has also been considered by
international committees and by commentators whose views are entitled to
the greatest respect. It had been little discussed prior to the first World
War but has received much attention as international law has evolved its
outlawry of aggressive war. In the light of these materials of
international law, and so far as relevant to the evidence in this case, I
suggest that an ?aggressor? is generally held to be that state which is the
first to commit any of the following actions: 

(1)	 Declaration of war upon another state; 

(2)	 Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of
the territory of another state; 

(3)	 Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a
declaration of war, on the territory, vessels, or aircraft of another
state; 

(4)	 Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another
state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to
take in its own territory all the measures in its power to deprive those
bands of all assistance or protection. 

And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political,
military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or
justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate
self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action
to assist a state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not
constitute a war of aggression. 

It is upon such an understanding of the law that our evidence of a
conspiracy to provoke and wage an aggressive war is prepared and presented.
By this test each of the series of wars begun by these Nazi leaders was
unambiguously aggressive. 

It is important to the duration and scope of this trial that we bear in
mind the difference between our charge that this war was one of aggression
and a position that Germany had no grievances. We are not inquiring into
the conditions which contributed to causing this war. They are for history
to unravel. It is no part of our task to vindicate the European status quo
as of 1933, or as of any other date. The United States does not desire to
enter into discussion of the complicated pre-war currents of European
politics, and it hopes this trial will not be protracted by their
consideration. The remote causations avowed are too insincere and
inconsistent, too complicated and doctrinaire, to be the subject of
profitable inquiry in this trial. A familiar example is to be found in the
?Lebensraum? slogan, which summarized the contention that Germany needed
more living space as a justification for expansion. At the same time that
the Nazis were demanding more space for the German people, they were
demanding more German people to occupy space. Every known means to increase
the birth rate, legitimate and illegitimate, was utilized. ?Lebensraum?
represented a vicious circle of demand ? from neighbors more space, and
from Germans more progeny. We do not need to investigate the verity of
doctrines which led to constantly expanding circles of aggression. It is
only the plot and the act of aggression which we charge to be crimes. 

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however
objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal
means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions. It
may be that the Germany of the 1920?s and 1930?s faced desperate problems,
problems that would have warranted the boldest measures short of war. All
other methods ? persuasion, propaganda, economic competition, diplomacy ?
were open to an aggrieved country, but aggressive warfare was outlawed.
These defendants did make aggressive war, a war in violation of treaties.
They did attack and invade their neighbors in order to effectuate a foreign
policy which they knew could not be accomplished by measures short of war.
And that is as far as we accuse or propose to inquire. 

The Law of Individual Responsibility 


The charter also recognizes individual responsibility on the part of those
who commit acts defined as crimes, or who incite others to do so, or who
join a common plan with other persons, groups, or organizations to bring
about their commission. The principle of individual responsibility for
piracy and brigandage, which have long been recognized as crimes punishable
under international law, is old and well established. That is what illegal
warfare is. This principle of personal liability is a necessary as well as
logical one if international law is to render real help to the maintenance
of peace. An international law which operates only on states can be
enforced only by war because the most practicable method of coercing a
state is warfare. Those familiar with American history know that one of the
compelling reasons for adoption of our Constitution was that the laws of
the Confederation, which operated only on constituent states, were found
ineffective to maintain order among them. The only answer to recalcitrance
was impotence or war. Only sanctions which reach individuals can peacefully
and effectively be enforced. Hence, the principle of the criminality of
aggressive war is implemented by the charter with the principle of personal
responsibility. 

Of course, the idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits
crimes is a fiction. Crimes always are committed only by persons. While it
is quite proper to employ the fiction of responsibility of a state or
corporation for the purpose of imposing a collective liability, it is quite
intolerable to let such a legalism become the basis of personal immunity. 

The charter recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not
take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were
acts of states. These twin principles working together have heretofore
resulted in immunity for practically everyone concerned in the really great
crimes against peace and mankind. Those in the lower ranks were protected
against liability by the orders of their superiors. The superiors were
protected because their orders were called acts of state. Under the
charter, no defense based on either of these doctrines can be entertained.
Modern civilization puts unlimited weapons of destruction in the hands of
men. It cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal irresponsibility. 

Even the German Military Code provides that ?If the execution of a military
order in the course of duty violates the criminal law, then the superior
officer giving the order will bear the sole responsibility therefor.
However, the obeying subordinate will share the punishment of the
participant: (1) if he has exceeded the order given to him, or (2) if it
was within his knowledge that the order of his superior officer concerned
an act by which it was intended to commit a civil or military crime or
transgression.? (Reichsgesetzblatt 1926, no. 37, p. 278, art. 47.) 

Of course, we do not argue that the circumstances under which one commits
an act should be disregarded in judging its legal effect. A conscripted
private or an enlisted man on a firing squad cannot expect to hold an
inquest on the validity of the execution. The charter implies common-sense
limits to liability just as it places common-sense limits upon immunity.
But none of these men before you acted in minor parts. Each of them was
entrusted with broad discretion and exercised great power. Their
responsibility is correspondingly great and may not be shifted to that
fictional being, ?the state?, which cannot be produced for trial, cannot
plead, cannot testify and cannot be sentenced. 

The charter also recognizes a vicarious liability, which is recognized by
most modern systems of law, for acts committed by others in carrying out a
common plan or conspiracy to which a defendant has become a party. I need
not discuss the familiar principles of such liability. Every day in the
courts of countries associated in this prosecution, men are convicted for
acts that they did not personally commit but for which they were held
responsible because of membership in illegal combinations or plans or
conspiracies. 

The Political, Police, and Military Organizations 


Accused before this Tribunal as criminal organizations are certain
political and police organizations which the evidence will show to have
been instruments of cohesion in planning and executing the crimes I have
detailed. Perhaps the worst of the movement were the Leadership Corps of
the N.S.D.A.P., the Schutzstaffeln or ?SS?, the Sturmabteilungen or ?SA?,
and the subsidiary formations which these include. These were the Nazi
Party leadership, espionage, and policing groups. They were the real
government, above and outside of any law. Also accused as organizations are
the Reich Cabinet and the Secret State Police, or Gestapo, which were
fixtures of the Government but animated solely by the Nazi Party. 

Except for a late period when some compulsory recruiting was done in the
SS, membership in all these militarized formations was voluntary. The
police organizations were recruited from ardent partisans who enlisted
blindly to do the dirty work the leaders planned. The Reich Cabinet was the
governmental façade for Nazi Party government, and in its members legal as
well as actual responsibility was vested for the entire program.
Collectively they were responsible for the program in general; individually
they were especially responsible for segments of it. The finding which we
ask you to make, that these are criminal organizations, will subject
members to punishment to be hereafter determined by appropriate tribunals,
unless some personal defense ? such as becoming a member under threat to
person, or family, or inducement by false representation, or the like ? be
established. Every member will have a chance to be heard in the subsequent
forum on his personal relation to the organization, but your finding in
this trial will conclusively establish the criminal character of the
organization as a whole. 

We have also accused as criminal organizations the High Command and the
General Staff of the German armed forces. We recognize that to plan warfare
is the business of professional soldiers in every country. But it is one
thing to plan strategic moves in the event war comes, and it is another
thing to plot and intrigue to bring on that war. We will prove the leaders
of the German General Staff and of the High Command to have been guilty of
just that. Military men are not before you because they served their
country. They are here because they mastered it, along with these others,
and drove it to war. They are not here because they lost the war but
because they started it. Politicians may have thought of them as soldiers,
but soldiers know they were politicians. We ask that the General Staff and
the High Command, as defined in the indictment, be condemned as a criminal
group whose existence and tradition constitute a standing menace to the
peace of the world. 

These individual defendants did not stand alone in crime and will not stand
alone in punishment. Your verdict of ?guilty? against these organizations
will render prima facie guilty, as nearly as we can learn, thousands upon
thousands of members now in custody of United States forces and of other
armies. 

The Responsibility of This Tribunal 


To apply the sanctions of the law to those whose conduct is found criminal
by the standards I have outlined is the responsibility committed to this
Tribunal. It is the first court ever to undertake the difficult task of
overcoming the confusion of many tongues and the conflicting concepts of
just procedure among divers systems of law, so as to reach a common
judgment. The tasks of all of us are such as to make heavy demands on
patience and good-will. Although the need for prompt action has admittedly
resulted in imperfect work on the part of the prosecution, four great
nations bring you their hurriedly assembled contributions of evidence. What
remains undiscovered we can only guess. We could, with witnesses?
testimony, prolong the recitals of crime for years ? but to what avail? We
shall rest the case when we have offered what seems convincing and adequate
proof of the crimes charged without unnecessary cumulation of evidence. We
doubt very much whether it will be seriously denied that the crimes I have
outlined took place. The effort will undoubtedly be to mitigate or escape
personal responsibility. 

Among the nations which unite in accusing these defendants the United
States is perhaps in a position to be the most dispassionate, for, having
sustained the least injury, it is perhaps the least animated by vengeance.
Our American cities have not been bombed by day and by night, by humans and
by robots. It is not our temples that have been laid in ruins. Our
countrymen have not had their homes destroyed over their heads. The menace
of Nazi aggression, except to those in actual service, has seemed less
personal and immediate to us than to the European peoples. But, while the
United States is not first in rancor, it is not second in determination
that the forces of law and order be made equal to the task of dealing with
such international lawlessness as I have recited here. 

Twice in my lifetime, the United States has sent its young manhood across
the Atlantic, drained its resources, and burdened itself with debt to help
defeat Germany. But the real hope and faith that has sustained the American
people in these great efforts was that victory for ourselves and our Allies
would lay the basis for an ordered international relationship in Europe and
would end the centuries of strife on this embattled continent. 

Twice we have held back in the early stages of European conflict in the
belief that it might be confined to a purely European affair. In the United
States, we have tried to build an economy without armament, a system of
government without militarism, and a society where men are not regimented
for war. This purpose, we know now, can never be realized if the world
periodically is to be embroiled in war. The United States cannot,
generation after generation, throw its youth or its resources onto the
battlefields of Europe to redress the lack of balance between Germany?s
strength and that of her enemies, and to keep the battles from our shores. 

The American dream of a peace-and-plenty economy, as well as the hopes of
other nations, can never be fulfilled if those nations are involved in a
war every generation so vast and devastating as to crush the generation
that fights and burden the generation that follows. But experience has
shown that wars are no longer local. All modern wars become world wars
eventually. And none of the big nations at least can stay out. If we cannot
stay out of wars, our only hope is to prevent wars. 

I am too well aware of the weaknesses of juridical action alone to contend
that in itself your decision under this charter can prevent future wars.
Judicial action always comes after the event. Wars are started only on the
theory and in the confidence that they can be won. Personal punishment, to
be suffered only in the event the war is lost, will probably not be a
sufficient deterrent to prevent a war where the war-makers feel the chances
of defeat to be negligible. 

But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a
system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to
law. And let me make clear that, while this law is first applied against
German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose
it must condemn, aggression by any other nation, including those which now
sit here in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and
violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own
people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial
represents mankind?s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to
statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of
the world?s peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their
neighbors. 

The usefulness of this effort to do justice is not to be measured by
considering the law or your judgment in isolation. This trial is part of
the great effort to make the peace more secure. One step in this direction
is the United Nations Organization, which may take joint political action
to prevent war if possible, and joint military action to insure that any
nation which starts a war will lose it. This charter and this trial,
implementing the Kellogg-Briand pact, constitute another step in the same
direction ? juridical action of a kind to insure that those who start a war
will pay for it personally. 

While the defendants and the prosecutors stand before you as individuals,
it is not the triumph of either group alone that is committed to your
judgment. Above all personalities there are anonymous and impersonal forces
whose conflict makes up much of human history. It is yours to throw the
strength of the law back of either the one or the other of these forces for
at least another generation. What are the real forces that are contending
before you? 

No charity can disguise the fact that the forces which these defendants
represent, the forces that would advantage and delight in their acquittal,
are the darkest and most sinister forces in society ? dictatorship and
oppression, malevolence and passion, militarism and lawlessness. By their
fruits we best know them. Their acts have bathed the world in blood and set
civilization back a century. They have subjected their European neighbors
to every outrage and torture, every spoliation and deprivation that
insolence, cruelty, and greed could inflict. They have brought the German
people to the lowest pitch of wretchedness, from which they can entertain
no hope of early deliverance. They have stirred hatreds and incited
domestic violence on every continent. These are the things that stand in
the dock shoulder to shoulder with these prisoners. 

The real complaining party at your bar is civilization. In all our
countries it is still a struggling and imperfect thing. It does not plead
that the United States, or any other country, has been blameless of the
conditions which made the German people easy victims to the blandishments
and intimidations of the Nazi conspirators. 

But it points to the dreadful sequence of aggressions and crimes I have
recited; it points to the weariness of flesh, the exhaustion of resources,
and the destruction of all that was beautiful or useful in so much of the
world and to greater potentialities for destruction in the days to come. It
is not necessary among ruins of this ancient and beautiful city, with
untold members of its civilian inhabitants still buried in its rubble, to
argue the proposition that to start or wage an aggressive war has the moral
qualities of the worst of crimes. The refuge of the defendants can be only
their hope that international law will lag so far behind the moral sense of
mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as
innocent in law. 

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to
deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of
importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does
expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law,
its precepts, its prohibitions, and most of all its sanctions, on the side
of peace so that men and women of good-will in all countries may have
?leave to live by no man?s leave, underneath the law.? 

1 Excerpts from the address delivered at the Palace of Justice, Nürnberg,
Germany, on Nov. 21, 1945.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com