Analysis: Report to the President by Mr. Justice Jackson
The analysis of Robert H. Jackson's role in the post-World War II Nazi war crimes trials highlights the complex interplay of justice, morality, and international law. Appointed by President Harry S. Truman, Jackson served as the chief counsel for the United States in prosecuting Nazi leaders responsible for the Holocaust and other war atrocities. His efforts were pivotal in shaping the framework for the trials, which aimed to deliver justice for the millions affected by the Nazi regime's brutalities. The trials represented a significant moment in international law, establishing precedents for how war crimes would be addressed in the future.
As discussions among the Allied powers unfolded, Jackson navigated differing opinions on the trials' structure and the necessity of due process. He emphasized the moral imperative of conducting trials that would uphold justice while also recognizing the need for swift action. Jackson's report to Truman not only summarized ongoing discussions but also articulated a vision for justice that resonated with the values Americans sought to uphold in the aftermath of the war. The trials aimed to restore a sense of civilized order to a devastated Europe and to prevent future atrocities by holding perpetrators accountable. This historical moment remains a critical reference point for international justice and human rights discourse today.
Analysis: Report to the President by Mr. Justice Jackson
Date: June 6, 1945
Author: Robert H. Jackson
Genre: report; letter
Summary Overview
As World War II drew to a close with the surrender of Nazi Germany in May 1945, concern turned from defeating the German Army to seeking justice in the name of the millions that had died as a result of Nazi war crimes. By December 1942, the “Big Three” Allies—the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union—had condemned Nazi efforts to exterminate European Jews and other minority populations, and at Yalta in February 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin articulated a vision of the postwar world that included bringing the leaders of the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) who had caused the war to justice. Robert H. Jackson, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, was appointed by President Harry S. Truman to act as chief counsel for the United States in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the international trials that would follow the war. In June 1945, Jackson reported to Truman on the progress made toward shaping the postwar trials.
Defining Moment
In May 1945 President Harry S. Truman asked Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to act as the chief counsel of the United States in any postwar trials of Nazi war criminals. The last months of World War II brought to light the extreme nature of the brutality of the Nazi regime. The Holocaust, or as the Germans called it, the Final Solution, was a systematic program of extermination that claimed the lives of some six million European Jews and an estimated five million others deemed undesirable by the Nazis—among them ethnic minorities, Soviet prisoners of war, German political opponents, the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexuals. The concentration camps and extermination camps appalled the Allies. It would be Jackson's role to seek justice for these victims of Nazi atrocities, as well as for all of the Allied citizens and soldiers who had died in the war. But beyond simply acting as an attorney, Jackson was being asked to help decide—along with representatives from Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France—how to go about prosecuting high-ranking Nazi leaders in such a way that they would have to pay for their crimes, while upholding the appearance of propriety and due process of law.
There had already been a number of opinions articulated about what should be done with the Nazi leadership at the conclusion of the war. There was disagreement among Americans—Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Stone, for example, thought that trials of the sort proposed by Jackson would be a farce. There was disagreement among the Allied heads of state—British prime minister Winston Churchill had favored summary executions of Nazi leaders. However, Truman's predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had been able to convince Churchill and the other Allied leaders that holding war crimes trials was the only way to blunt the objections of German supporters who might claim that the Nazis were punished in the absence of evidence. In light of this possibly divisive issue, Truman, in the first month of his presidency, chose Jackson, who had already given a speech before the American Society of International Law advocating the view that the only way to bring justice for the victims of the German-instigated war was to bring the remaining Nazi leaders to trial. Such trials would have the additional benefit of demonstrating that, despite having just emerged from the brutality of another war, the Allies were restoring civilized society to Europe and the world once again.
After Truman appointed Jackson to represent American interests, Jackson left for London to work out the mechanisms of the war crimes trials in consultation with representatives from the other Allied nations. However, Jackson, who would act as America's prosecutor, did not want to wait to begin building his cases against prominent Nazis who had been in custody since the German surrender. A month after his appointment by Truman, Jackson wrote the president in order to report on the progress of building a consensus for the prosecution of the Nazis.
Author Biography
Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson did not attend college or earn a law degree, and was the last Supreme Court justice to serve without one. However, he had attended one year of law school and passed the New York bar exam at the age of twenty-one. During his over twenty years in private practice, Jackson, a Democrat, became friends with New York governor Franklin D. Roosevelt—a friendship that would remain after Roosevelt became president in 1933. After serving as a United States attorney and solicitor general of the United States, Roosevelt appointed him attorney general in 1940 and nominated him to the Supreme Court the following year. After articulating the Roosevelt administration's vision for the war crimes trial that were to follow the war, Jackson was the natural choice for Truman, who appointed Jackson very quickly after Roosevelt's death in April 1945.
Document Analysis
On June 6, 1945, Robert Jackson wrote President Truman on the progress he had made during a month of talks with representatives of the other Allied powers about how to conduct the Nazi war crimes trials. It seems clear from the letter that Jackson was writing it for a wider audience than just Truman. The level of detail over almost six thousand words, and the way Jackson refers to the various topics, indicates that he was aware that he was essentially formulating American policy on the postwar trials, subject to the president's approval.
The letter is broken down into numbered thematic sections. The first section deals with the definitions of the major crimes that are to be the subject of the trials. Only those guilty of major crimes that transcended national borders are to be tried before the International Military Tribunal. The second section details the discussions with officials from the other Allied powers as to the tribunal itself. Though the other powers had differing ideas about some of the specifics, Jackson indicates that the American proposals will basically shape the tribunal's makeup and procedures.
Section three gets into Jackson's own role as prosecutor of the accused Nazi officials. Though Jackson knew the administration supported the trials, his awareness of the letter's other audiences comes through when he states that the Nazi leaders needed to be prosecuted because “to free them without a trial would mock the dead and make cynics of the living,” but that punishing them without due process “would not set easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride.” Jackson makes it clear that the subject of the trial was to be the “Nazi master plan,” including the Holocaust.
Jackson was well aware of the formative nature of the upcoming trials in terms of their impact on international law. These trials would be precedent-setting in their scope and could be used as models for future wartime atrocities around the world. With the United Nations already set to come into being, it seems evident that Jackson hopes that this would be the effect. Finally, Jackson addresses both Truman and the American people in articulating the importance of the trials taking place quickly, but states that there are logistical reasons this might not be the case. Throughout the report, Jackson, while summarizing the discussions for the president, makes policy that he hopes will impact future generations.
Glossary
brigandage: the acts of being a bandit
dilatory: tending to delay or procrastinate; slow; tardy; intended to cause delay, gain time, or defer decision
Lavals: a slang term based off French Statesman Pierre Laval who was the premier of France and the Vichy government before executed for collaboration with Germany
“Lord Haw-Haws”: a slang term based on British broadcaster William Joyce who broadcasted Nazi propaganda to Britain and was executed for treason
Quislings: a person who betrays his or her own country by aiding an invading enemy; fifth columnist
spoliations: the act or an instance of plundering or despoiling; authorized plundering of neutral parties at sea in time of war
Bibliography and Additional Reading
Gerhart, Eugene C. America's Advocate: Robert H. Jackson. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958. Print.
Ginsburgs, George, and V. N. Kudriavtsev. The Nuremberg Trial and International Law. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1990. Print.
Hirsch, Francine. “The Soviets at Nuremberg: International Law, Propaganda, and the Making of the Postwar Order.” American Historical Review 113.3 (2008): 701–30. Print.
Kelly, Michael J., and Timothy L. H. McCormack. “Contributions of the Nuremberg Trial to the Subsequent Development of International Law.” The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Ed. David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L. H. McCormack. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 2007. Print.