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.
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.
[Page 166]
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 3rd, 1933 by Roumania, 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 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.
[Page 167]
It is important to the duration and scope of this trial that we bear in
mind the difference between our charge that this war wa 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 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.
A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust
Produced by the Florida Center for Instructional Technology,
College of Education, University of South Florida © 2005.