Nuremberg Trials
Opening Address for the United States
Robert Jackson
This document was retrieved from the archives of Nizkor. Source: Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression, Volume I, Chapter VII, Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946.
We shall now consider the steps, which embraced the most hideous of
crimes against humanity, to which the conspirators resorted in
perfecting control of the German State and in preparing Germany for the
aggressive war indispensable to their ends.
The Germans of the 1920's were a frustrated and baffled people as a
result of defeat and the disintegration of their traditional government.
The democratic elements, which were trying to govern Germany through the
new and feeble machinery of the Weimar Republic, got inadequate support
from the democratic forces of the rest of the world. It is not to be
denied that Germany, when world-wide depression was added to her other
problems, was faced with urgent and intricate pressure in her economic
and political life which necessitated bold measures.
The internal measures by which a nation attempts to solve its problems
are ordinarily of no concern to other nations. But the Nazi program from
the first was recognized as a desperate program for a people still
suffering the effects of an unsuccessful war. The Nazi policy embraced
ends always recognized as attainable only by a renewal and a more
successful outcome of war. The conspirators' answer to Germany's
problems was nothing 'les than to plot the regaining of territories lost
in the First World War and the acquisition of other fertile lands of
Central Europe by dispossessing or exterminating those who inhabited
'them. They also contemplated destroying or permanently weakening all
other neighboring peoples so as to win virtual domination of Europe and
probably of the world. The precise limits of their ambition we need not
define for it was and is as illegal to wage aggressive war for small
stakes as for large ones.
We find at this period two governments in Germany -- the real and the
ostensible. The forms of the German Republic were maintained for a time,
and it was the outward and visible government. But the real authority in
the State was outside of and above the law and rested in the Leadership
Corps of the Nazi Party.
On February 27, 1933, less than a month after Hitler became Chancellor,
the Reichstag building was set on fire. The burning of this symbol of
free parliamentary government was so providential for the Nazis that it
was believed they staged the fire
[Page 126]
themselves. Certainly when we contemplate their known crimes, we cannot
believe they would shrink from mere arson. It is not necessary, however,
to resolve the controversy as to who set the fire. The-significant point
is in the use that was made of the fire and of the state of public mind
it produced. The Nazis immediately accused the Communist Party of
instigating and committing the crime, and turned every effort to portray
this single act of arson as the beginning of a Communist revolution.
Then, taking advantage of the hysteria, the Nazi met this phantom
revolution with a real one. In the following December, the German
Supreme Court with commendable courage and independence acquitted the
accused Communists, but it was too late to influence the tragic course
of events which the Nazi conspirators had set rushing forward.
Hitler, on the morning after the fire, obtained from the aged and ailing
President von Hindenburg a Presidential decree suspending the extensive
guarantees of individual liberty contained in the Constitution of the
Weimar Republic. The decree provided that:
"Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of
the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions
on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion,
including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right
of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic,
and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders
for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also
permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. (1390-PS).
The extent of the restriction on personal liberty under the decree of 28
February 1933 may be understood by reference to the rights under the
Weimar Constitution which were suspended:
"Article 114. The freedom of the person is inviolable. Curtailment or
deprivation of personal freedom by a public authority is only
permissible on a legal basis.
"Persons who have been deprived of their freedom must be informed at the
latest on the following day by whose authority and for what reasons the
deprivation of freedom was ordered; opportunity shall be afforded them
without delay of submitting objections to their deprivation of freedom.
"Article 115. Every German's home is his sanctuary and
[Page 127]
inviolable. Exceptions may only be made as provided by law.
"Article 117. The secrecy of letters and all postal, telegraphic and
telephone communications is inviolable. Exceptions are inadmissible
except by Reich law.
"Article 118. Every German has the right, within the limit of the
general laws, to express his opinions freely in speech, in writing, in
print, in picture form or in any other way. No conditions of work or
employment may detract from this right and no disadvantage may accrue to
him from any person for making use of this right. *********
"Article 12. All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and
unarmed without giving notice and without special permission.
"A Reich law may make previous notification obligatory for assemblies in
the open air, and may prohibit them in the case of immediate danger to
the public safety.
"Article 124. All the Germans have the right to form associations or
societies for purposes not contrary to criminal law. This right may not
be curtailed by preventive measures. The same provisions apply to
religious associations and societies.
"Every association may become incorporated (Erwerb der Rechtsfaehigkeit)
according to the provisions of the civil law. The right may not be
refused to any association on the grounds that its aims are political,
social-political or religious.
"Article 153. Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its content
and limits are defined by the laws.
"Expropriation can only take place for the public benefit and on a legal
basis. Adequate compensation shall be granted, unless a Reich law orders
otherwise. In the case of dispute concerning the amount of compensation,
it shall be possible to submit the matter to the ordinary civil courts,
unless Reich laws determine otherwise. Compensation must be paid if the
Reich expropriates property belonging to the Lands, Communes, or public
utility associations.
"Property carries obligations. Its use shall also serve the common
good." (2050-PS).
It must be said in fairness to von Hindenburg that the Constitution
itself authorized him temporarily to suspend these fun-
[Page 128]
damental rights "if the public safety and order in the German Reich are
considerably disturbed or endangered." It must also be acknowledged that
President Ebert previously had invoked this power.
But the National Socialist coup was made possible because the terms of
the Hitler-Hindenburg decree departed from all previous ones in which
the power of suspension had been invoked. Whenever Ebert had suspended
constitutional guarantees of individual rights, his decree had expressly
revived the Protective Custody Act adopted by the Reichstag in 1916
during the previous war. This Act guaranteed a judicial hearing within
24 hours of arrest, gave a right to have counsel and to inspect all
relevant records, provided for appeal, and authorized compensation from
Treasury funds for erroneous arrests.
The Hitler-Hindenburg decree of February 28, 1933 contained no such
safeguards. The omission may not have been noted by von Hindenburg.
Certainly he did not appreciate its effect. It left the Nazi police and
party formations, already existing and functioning under Hitler,
completely unrestrained and irresponsible. Secret arrest and indefinite
detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without
counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom
the Nazi police suspected or disliked. court could issue an injunction,
or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorar. The German people were in the
hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and
the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men, of whom the defendants
here before you are surviving and representative leaders.
A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust
Produced by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology,
College of Education, University of South Florida © 2005.