Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression
On May 2 1945, the President of the United States of America Harry S. Truman signed the Executive Order #9547 appointing Justice Robert H. Jackson as Representative of the US and as its Chief of Counsel in the preparation and prosecution of the case against the Major Axis War Criminals. Since that date and up to the present, the staff of the Office of Chief of Counsel (OCC), has been engaged continuously in the discovery, collection, examination, translation, and marshaling of documentary evidence demonstrating the criminality of the former leaders of the German Reich.
Since November 20 1945, a considerable part of this documentary arsenal has been directed against the 22 Major Nazi War Criminals who are on trial before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. As of this writing the American and British cases-in-chief, on Counts I and II of the Indictment charging, respectively, conspiracy and the waging of wars of aggression, have been completed. There is perhaps no need to recall in these pages that the Nuremberg trial represents the first time in history that legal proceedings have been instituted against leaders of an enemy nation. It is perhaps equal supererogation to state here that there are no exact precedents for the charges made by the American, British, French, and Russian prosecutors that to plot or wage a war of aggression is a crime for which individuals may be punished. Yet it was because of these very facts that in its indictment the prosecution presented a challenge to itself quite as great as to the defense. A heavy burden was laid on the accusing nations to make sure that their proof measured up to the magnitude of their accusations, and that the daring of their grand conception was matched by the industry of their research, lest the hard-bought opportunity to make International Law a guardian of peace should fail by default.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the American collecting and processing of documentary evidence, under the general direction of Col Robert G. Storey, gradually developed into an operation of formidable scope. Although some pieces of evidence were secured in Washington and London, by far the greater part was obtained in the land of the enemy. As the American Armies had swept into Germany, military investigating teams had filled document centers with an increasing wealth of materials which were freely made available by the Army to OCC field investigators. Special assistance was given by the Document Section, G-2 Division, SHAEF, and by the Document Sections of the Army Groups and Armies Operating in the European Theater. OCC investigators also made valuable discoveries while prospecting on their own. They soon found themselves embarrassed with riches. Perhaps foremost among the prize acquisitions was the neatly crated collection of all the personal and official correspondence of Alfred Rosenberg, together with a great quantity of Nazi Party correspondence. This cache was discovered behind a false wall in an old castle in Eastern Bavaria, where it had been sent for safekeeping.
Another outstanding collection consisted of thirty-nine leather-bound volumes containing detailed inventories of the art treasures of Europe which had been looted by the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. These catalogs, together with much of the priceless plunder itself, were found hidden deep in an Austrian salt mine. An innocent-appearing castle near Marburg was found to contain some 485 tons of crated papers, which inspection revealed to be the records of the German Foreign Office from 1837 to 1944. Among other outstanding bulk acquisitions were more than 300 crates of German High Command files, 85 notebooks containing minutes of Hitler’s conferences and the complete files of the German Navy. The task was to screen thoroughly this abundance of material so as to overlook no relevant item, and yet at the same time to obtain the proof and to translate it in season, so as not to delay preparation of the Indictment or commencement of the trial. The procedures followed in this process are described in the affidavit of Maj William H. Coogan (001-A-PS), which is listed numerically among the documents.
As a result of those procedures, more than 100.000 documents were individually examined in order to segregate those of importance. Of these 100.000 documents, approximately 4.000 were found to be of clear or potential value. This group of 4.000 was further reduced through exacting standards of elimination to a total of some 2.000 documents which it was proposed to offer in evidence, and which make up the bulk of this publication. Thus, the documents presented in these volumes are the fittest survivors of a rigorous sifting. Each of them has met requirements designed to ensure the selection of only the most significant in bearing on the American case. Documents primarily concerned with the report of individual barbarities or perversions were excluded, in conformity with the emphasis placed upon those tending to prove elements in the Nazi Master Plan. These documents consist, in the main, of official papers found in archives of the German Government and Nazi Party, diaries and letters of prominent Germans and captured reports and orders. There are included, in addition, excerpts from governmental and Party decrees, from official newspapers and from authoritative German publications. The authenticity of all these materials is established by Maj Coogan’s affidavit (001-A-PS). Considered together, they reveal a fairly comprehensive view of the inner workings and outward deeds of the German government and of the Nazi Party, which were always concealed from the world, and for which the world will always hold the Hitler regime in horror and contempt.
It is important that it be clearly understood what this collection of documents is not. In the first place, it is neither an official record nor an unofficial transcript of the trial proceedings. It is not designed to reproduce what has taken place in court. It is merely the documentary evidence prepared by the American and British prosecuting staffs, and is in no wise under the sponsorship of the Tribunal. It is presented in the belief that this collection containing the full text of the documents, classified under appropriate subjects, may be more useful to students of the Nuremberg trial than the official record, when prepared, may be.
The reason for this goes back to the first few days of the trial, when the Tribunal ruled that it would treat no written matter as in evidence unless it was read in full, word by word, in court. The purpose of the ruling was to enable the documentary material which the American and British staffs had translated from German into English to be further translated into Russian and French through the simultaneous interpreting system in the courtroom.
The consequence, however, was to enforce upon the American and British prosecution the task of trimming their evidence drastically unless the trial was to be protracted to an unconscionable length. Counsel therefore had to content themselves in most instances with introducing, by reading verbatim, only the most vital parts of the documents relied upon. Only these evidentiary minima appear in the daily transcript, and presumably, since no more is officially in evidence under the Tribunal’s ruling, no more can properly be included in the official record. It has frequently been the case, furthermore, that different parts of certain documents were read in proof of different allegations, and hence are scattered throughout the transcript. American counsel, in several instances, read only sketchy portions of some documents, leaving other portions, at the request of the French and Soviet delegations, to be read later as a part of their case. Still other portions of the same document will undoubtedly be read later on by the defense. It is an unavoidable consequence that the transcript itself will be a thing of shreds and patches, and that any comprehensive and orderly notion of the documentary evidence must be obtained elsewhere. The documentary excerpts, when accompanied by the explanation of trial counsel, are of course sufficient for the trial and for the judgment of the Tribunal. But the purposes of historians and scholars will very likely lead them to wish to examine the documents in their entirety. It is to those long range interests that these volumes are in the main addressed.
Secondly, this collection of documents is not the American case. It is at once more and less than that. It is less, because it of course cannot include the captured motion picture and still photographic evidence relied upon, and because it contains only a few of the organizational charts and visual presentation exhibits utilized at the trial. It is more, because although it does contain all the evidence introduced either in part or in whole by the American staff in proof of Count I, it also includes many documents not introduced into evidence at all. There were various reasons for not offering this material to the Tribunal : the documents were cumulative in nature, better documents were available on the same point, or the contents did not justify the time required for reading. (The document index at the end of Volume VIII is marked to indicate which documents were introduced, either in whole or in part, in evidence.) Of more than 800 American documents so far introduced in evidence, a small number were received through judicial notice or oral summarization, while some 500 were read, in part or in whole, in court. Approximately 200 more went into evidence in the first few days of the trial, under an earlier ruling of the Tribunal which admitted documents without reading, and merely on filing with the court after proof of authenticity. Of the documents not now in evidence and thus not before the Tribunal for consideration in reaching its decision, many have been turned over to the French and Soviet prosecuting staffs and, by the time these volumes are published, will have been introduced in the course of their cases. Others will have been put before the Tribunal by the American case in rebuttal or utilized in cross examining witnesses called by the defense.
This publication includes a series of affidavits prepared under the direction of Col John Harlan Amen, chief of the OCC Interrogation Division. Those which were introduced into evidence are listed among the documents in the PS series. A number of affidavits which were not offered to the Tribunal are printed in a separate section at the end of the document series. Affidavits of the latter type were prepared in an attempt to eliminate surprise by delineating clearly the testimony which the affiant might be expected to give in court, should it be decided to call him as a witness. In the case of the affiant who testified in court, their affidavits represent a substantially accurate outline of their testimony on direct examination. Others of the affiant may, by the time of publication, have been called as rebuttal witnesses for the prosecution. In addition, there are included selected statements of certain defendants and prisoners written to the prosecutors from prison. It should be mentioned in this connection that as a result of many months of exhaustive questioning of the defendants, prisoners of war, and other potential witnesses, the Interrogation Division has harvested approximately 15.000 typewritten pages of valuable and previously unavailable information on a variety of subjects. These extensive transcripts represent approximately 950 individual interrogations and are presently being edited and cataloged in Nuremberg so that the significant materials may be published in a useful form and within a manageable scope, as a supplement to these present volumes.
This collection also includes approximately 200 documents obtained and processed by the British prosecuting staff, known as the British War Crimes Executive, and presented in substantiation of Count II of the Indictment, which the British delegation assumed the responsibility of proving. It seems altogether fitting that these documents should be included in these volumes since, in proving illegal acts of aggression, they naturally supplement the American documents proving the illegal conspiracy to commit aggression. The American prosecuting staff is grateful to Sid David Maxwell-Fyfe, the British Deputy Chief Prosecutor, from whom and from the goodly company of whose associates there has ever been the most generous cooperation, for consent to the publication of the British documents by the United States Government.
Under the division of the case agreed on by the Chief Prosecutors of the four Allied nations, the French and Soviet delegates are responsible for the presentation of evidence bearing on the proof of Count III (War Crimes) and Count IV (Crimes against Humanity) of the Indictment. The French case will concern itself with these crimes when committed in the West, while the Russian evidence will concern the commission of these crimes in the East. None of the documents obtained by these two prosecuting nations are included in these volumes. The reason is that, at this writing, the French case has just commenced and the Soviet case will not be reached for several weeks. Since one of the objects of this undertaking is to acquaint the American public at the earliest opportunity with the character of the evidence produced by its representatives, there seems no justification in delaying publication until the close of the French and Russian cases, when all the prosecution documents will be available. As is indicated by the title of these present volumes, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, this collection relates only to Counts I and II of the Indictment, or one-half of the prosecution case. It is to be hoped, however, that supplementary volumes containing the French and Soviet documents may be published at a later time. Finally, this collection, by its nature limited to a part of the prosecution case, does not of course purport to present the whole story of the evidence adduced at Nuremberg. The evidence and arguments of defense counsel will not be presented for some time, and the text of these matters will, if possible, be included in any additional volumes, which it may become possible to publish.
On the other hand, it may be useful to indicate what this collection is. The publication is offered in accordance with the conviction which has constantly animated the American prosecution, that only a part of its duty would have been done if it succeeded in persuading the judges of the International Military Tribunal. Its full task will be accomplished only if the world is also convinced of the justness of the cause. There were always some people who, perhaps under the spell of the exposure of the “atrocity propaganda” used in the First World War, felt that the deceptions and the outrages laid to the Nazis were quite possibly untrue and in any event exaggerated. The mission of convincing these skeptics is one that has not been and cannot be discharged by newspaper reports of the Nuremberg proceedings, which by their nature are incomplete and evanescent. But an inspection of the Nazis’ own official records should suffice to banish all honest doubts, and to make it undeniably clear that those things really happened because the Nazis planned it that way. It is the hope of the American prosecution that these volumes may in some measure expose, for the warning of future generations as well as a reminder to the present, the anatomy of National Socialism in all its ugly nakedness. Many of these documents disclose the repressive governmental machinery and intricate Party bureaucracy by which the Nazis stifled initiative and opposition.
They reveal also the image of horror which a gang of brigands created in the name of the German state, in order to seize and maintain power for themselves at the expense of the liberties of their own people and the lives of their neighbors. Legal proof has perhaps seldom been so overwhelming, certainly never so self-admitted, as is this proof of the deeds with which the Nazi leadership befouled the earth. Yet, although these documents naturally are concerned primarily with the guilt of the leaders of the German Reich, they also contain a wealth of information, much of it hitherto unavailable elsewhere, on many other matters of importance. Their pages illuminate many dark corners of recent history. Hence, this collection has an additional purpose. It is offered as a source book, of interest to historians, political scientists, students, universities, libraries, government agencies, private research groups, newspaper editors, and others, so that they may see, from the official papers of the Nazi government and from the words of its own leaders, the things that went on in Germany in the days of that blasphemous regime. These papers, although they include a few legal matters, are not addressed nor are they expected to appeal primarily to lawyers. The satisfaction of these professional interests must perforce be postponed until publication of the official record of the trial.
It is apparent that such a vast collection of documents on a variety of subjects would be useless to any one not thoroughly conversant with the field, without some sort of guide through the maze. That is the reason for the first two volumes, which consist of various explanatory materials included in order to facilitate understanding. The average reader who tries to cope with some of the more pompous of the Nazi titles-such as :
Beauftragter des Fuehrers fuer die ueberwachung des Gesamten Geistigen und Weltausschaulichers Schulung und Erziehung der NSDAP
or Delegate of the Fuehrer for the Total Supervision of Intellectual and Ideological Training and Education of the Party (Rosenberg) is plainly in need of assistance. A Glossary of common German and Nazi titles, designations, and terms has therefore been compiled. For those who are unfamiliar with the difference between a Hauptmann and a Hauptsturmfuehrer, a table of military ranks, with their American equivalents, has been prepared.
A brief biographical gazetteer of the more prominent Nazis, together with a listing of the major officials of the Government, Party, and Armed Forces, has also been included for reference purposes. In addition, an index of the Code-Words used by the Nazis to preserve the secrecy of the invasions they plotted has been compiled. Moreover, in order to make clear developments in the proceedings affecting the status of several of the defendants, certain motions of counsel and rulings of the Tribunal, together with factual accounts, are also presented. And finally the international treaties relating to land warfare and prisoners of war are printed in full (3737-PS; 3738-PS).
The Nuremberg trials were a series of twelve trials held between 1945 and 1949 involving over 100 defendants who were important officials in Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany. The trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany and were conducted by a judicial tribunal composed of judges from the Allied Powers, which included Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States. The most famous of the trials took place in 1945 and 1946. This first trial examined the criminal conduct of the highest-ranking officials. Of the 24 defendants, half would receive the death penalty for their crimes of war, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
When Nazi Germany surrendered in 1945, the US, Soviet and British governments had decided to hold war trials rather than summarily execute the highest-ranking members of the German government. In June 1945 representatives of these governments, along with the newly liberated French government, met in London at the International Conference of Military Trials. In August they signed a convention called the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis Power. This convention, which is usually labeled the London Agreement or Nuremberg Charter, set out the procedures for prosecuting Nazi officials and established the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This tribunal was composed of eight judges, evenly divided among the four powers. However, only four judges were charged with deciding the cases. The other four judges served as alternates.
The London Agreement sought to provide fairness and due process to the defendants. To this end each defendant was represented by a lawyer and the standard U.S. criminal rules applied, including the presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidentiary rules also generally followed the Anglo-American system, allowing cross-examination and the right to introduce evidence that excused the alleged criminal acts. However, the rules on admissibility of documents were relaxed in light of the difficulty of authenticating papers taken by the victors. The IMT decided on the admissibility of evidence and all other matters by a majority vote.
The US judge was former attorney general Frances Biddle. Sir Geoffrey Lawrence of Great Britain served as chief judge, with a Soviet and French judge filling out the panel. US Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson was the lead prosecutor, heading a large group of American civilian and military lawyers. Jackson played a large part in the drafting of the London Agreement and had argued that it was not unfair to charge Nazi leaders with war crimes that had not been previously recognized as crimes. He contended that many of their crimes such as the extermination of six million Jews, had been illegal since the dawn of civilization. The trial of the Nazi leadership centered on four broad counts of criminal conduct. The counts included :
– crimes against peace
– war crimes
– crimes against humanity
The charge labeled crimes against peace was a new concept, making it a crime to plan and start wars in violation of international treaties or agreements. The count of war crimes was the most traditional charge, as it was based on the laws and customs of war that were commonly accepted at the time. in violation of the laws and customs of war as accepted and practiced around the world. The count of crimes against humanity was the most novel concept, as it addressed the Nazis’ murderous conduct toward civilian populations both inside and outside of Germany. This has remained the most contentious part of the trials, as it permitted the international community to police genocide and other conditions that occur within a sovereign nation. (Source : The Lynn University Library)
The principal content of Volumes I and II is composed of what might be called essays, summarizing and connecting up most of the documents relating to particular subjects in the order of their mention in Counts I and II of the Indictment. As an additional aid, at the end of each essay there appears a descriptive list of all documents referred to in the essay, so that the reader may quickly discover which of the published documents bear upon the subject in which he is interested. In many cases these lists include documents not discussed in the essays for the reason that they are cumulative in nature or were discovered subsequent to the preparation of the essays. Some of these essays are adaptations of factual trial briefs prepared by the staff of OCC. Some of these trial briefs were handed to the Tribunal for its assistance, while others were used only for the guidance of trial counsel. Others of the essays have been adapted from the oral presentation and summary of counsel in court. Their difference in origin explains their difference in form. It must be borne in mind that each of these essays, which were originally prepared for the purpose of convincing the Tribunal of the legal guilt of the defendants, has been submitted to a process of editing and revision in order to serve a quite different purpose to give the general reader a general and coherent conception of the subject matter.
These essays bear the marks of haste and are not offered as in any sense definitive or exhaustive. The task of translation from German into English was a formidable one, and in many instances translations of documents could be made available to the brief writers only a few days before the briefs were scheduled to be presented in court. In other instances it was utterly impossible, with the constantly overburdened translating staff available, to translate in full all the material known to be of value if the prosecution was to be ready on the date set for trial.
The diary of Hans Frank, for example (2233-PS) consisted of 42 volumes, of which only a few outstanding excerpts, chosen by German-reading analysts, were translated. Similarly, large portions of the 250 volumes of the Rosenberg correspondence remain still untranslated and unused. Books, decrees, and lengthy reports were not translated in full, and only salient excerpts were utilized. Approximately 1,500 documents in the possession of OCC have not yet been translated and more are being received daily. It is expected that they will be used for purposes of cross-examination and rebuttal, and may later be published.
It must also be remembered that these documents are, in the main, translations from the original German. The magnitude of the task, coupled with a sense of the hastening on of time, naturally resulted in imperfections. However, an attempt has been made to preserve the format of the original documents in the printed translations. Italics represent underlining in the original documents and editorial additions have been enclosed in brackets. The reader may notice occasional variations between the English wording of documents quoted in the essays, and the full text of the document itself. This divergence is explained by the fact that translations of the same documents were sometimes made by two different persons. Variations in the exact means of expression were of course to be expected in such an event, yet both translations are of equal authenticity. Certain passages of some documents may strike the reader as confused or incomplete, and occasionally this is the result of hasty work. More frequently, however the jumble of language accurately reflects the chaos of the original German, for the language of National Socialists was often merely a turgid and mystical aggregation of words signifying nothing, to which the German language easily lends itself. The accuracy of the translations is attested to in Maj. Coogan’s affidavit (001-A-PS).
If the case had not been set down for trial until 1948, a complete and satisfactory preparation would have been possible. A perfect case could not have been made in less time. But the Allied governments and public opinion were understandably impatient of delay for whatever reason, and they had to be respected. The nature of the difficulties caused by the pressure for speed were stated in Justice Jackson’s address opening the American case :
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.
No work in a specialized field would be complete without its own occult paraphernalia, and the curious reader may desire and explanation of the strange wizardry behind the document classification symbols. The documents in the American series are classified under the cryptic categories of L, R, PS, EC, ECH, ECR, and C.
[L] was used as an abbreviation for [London], and designates those documents either obtained from American and British sources in London or processed in the London Office of the OCC, under the direction of Col Murray C. Bernays and Col Leonard Wheeler.
[R] stands for [Rothschild], and indicates the documents obtained through the screening activities of Lt Walter Rothschild of the London branch of the OSS.
[PS] symbol are more mysterious, but the letters are an abbreviation of the amalgam, [Paris-Storey]. The [PS] symbol, accordingly, denotes those documents which, although obtained in Germany, were processed by Col. Storey’s division of the OCC in Paris, as well as those documents later processed by the same division after headquarters were established in Nuremberg.
[EC] symbol stands for [Economic Case] and designates those documents which were obtained and processed by the Economic Section of OCC under Mr Francis M. Shea, with field headquarters at Frankfurt.
[ECH] variant denotes those which were screened at [Heidelberg].
[C] which is an abbreviation for [Crimes], indicates a collection of German Navy documents which were jointly processed by British and American teams, with Lt Comdr. John Bracken representing the OCC. The British documents hence include some in the joint Anglo-American [C] series. The remainder of the British documents are marked with the symbols [TC], [UK], [D], and [M]. [TC] is an abbreviation of [Treaty Committee] and signifies the documents selected by a Foreign Office Committee which assisted the British prosecution.
[UK] is the abbreviation for [United Kingdom] and indicates documents collected from another source. No especial significance lurks in the letters [D], and [M], which were apparently the result of accident, possibly caprice, rather than design. As a matter of record, however, [M] stands for the first name of the British assistant prosecutor. [D] is merely an humble filing reference, which may have had some obscure connection with the word [document].
The reader will note that there are numerous and often lengthy gaps in the numbering of documents within a given series, and the documents are not numbered in any apparent order. This anomaly is accounted for by several different factors. As the documents avalanched into the OCC offices they were cataloged and numbered in the order received without examination. Upon subsequent analysis it was frequently found that an earlier document was superseded in quality by a later acquisition, and the earlier one was accordingly omitted. Others were withdrawn because of lack of proof of their authenticity. Occasionally it was discovered that two copies of the same document had been received from different sources, and one of them was accordingly stricken from the list. In other cases blocks of numbers were assigned to field collecting teams, which failed to exhaust all the numbers allotted. In all these cases no change was made in the original numbers because of the delay and confusion which would accompany renumbering. Nor has renumbering been attempted in this publication, and the original gaps remain. This is because the documents introduced into evidence carried their originally assigned numbers, and students of the trial who use these volumes in conjunction with the official record will therefore be able to refer rapidly from citations in the record of the proceedings to the text of the documents cited.
It only remains to acknowledge the toil and devotion of the members of the OCC staff who were responsible for the original preparation of the materials contained in these volumes. Mention must first be made of Mr. Gordon Dean, who was responsible in large part for the conception of this undertaking, and of Lt Comdr. Charles A. Horsky, USCGR (T) who set in motion the governmental machinery necessary to publication. The material in Chapter VI on the Organization of the Nazi Party and State was originally prepared by Mr. Ralph G. Albrecht. The essays in Chapter VII on the Means Used by the Nazi Conspirators in Gaining Control of the German State were originally prepared by : Col Leonard Wheeler Jr, Lt Col Benjamin Kaplan, Maj Frank B. Wallis, Dr Edmund A. Walsh, Maj Seymour M. Peyser, Maj J. Hartley Murray, Lt Paul Johnston, USNR, Lt Comdr Morton E. Rome, USNR, Capt D. A. Sprecher, Lt Samuel E. Sharp, Lt (jg) A. R. Martin, USNR, Lt Henry V. Atherton, Lt William E. Miller.
The materials on the Economic Aspects of the Conspiracy, contained in Chapter VIII, on Slave Labor, contained in Chapter X, and on Germanization and Spoliation, contained in Chapter XIII, were prepared by : Mr Francis M. Shea, Mr Benedict Deinard, Lt Col Murray I. Gurfein, Lt Comdr W. S. Emmet, USNR, Lt Thomas L. Karsten, USNR, Capt Sam Harris, Capt James H. Mathias, Capt Melvin Siegel, Capt Edward H. Kenyon, Lt (jg) Bernard Meltzer, USNR, Lt (jg) Brady O. Bryson, USNR, Lt Raymond Ickes, USMCR, Mr Jan Charmatz, Mr Walter Derenberg, Mr Sidney Jacoby, Mr Werner Peiser, Mr Edgar Bodenheimer, Mr Leon Frechtel.
The materials contained in Chapter IX on Aggressive War, (except those relating to Aggression as a Basic Nazi Idea, the Violation of Treaties, and Aggression against Poland, Danzig, England and France, Norway and Denmark, the Low Countries, and the Balkans) were prepared by : Mr Sidney S. Alderman, Comdr Sidney J. Kaplan, USCGR, Lt Col Herbert Krucker, Maj Lacey Hinely, Maj Joseph Dainow, Lt Comdr Harold Leventhal, USCGR, Lt John M. Woolsey, Jr, USNR, Lt James A. Gorrell, Lt Roy H. Steyer, USNR.
The materials contained in Chapter XII, on Persecution of the Jews, in Chapter XI on Concentration Camps, and in Chapter XIV on Plunder of Art Treasures, were prepared by : Col Hardy Hollers, Maj William F. Walsh, Mr Thomas J. Dodd, Capt Seymour Krieger, Lt Frederick Felton, USNR, Lt (jg) Brady O. Bryson, USNR, Mr Hans Nathan, Mr Isaac Stone, Lt Daniel F. Margolies, Capt Edgar Boedeker, Lt (jg) Bernard Meltzer, USNR, Lt Nicholas Doman, Mr Walter W. Brudno.
The materials contained in Chapter XVI on the responsibility of the Individual Defendants were prepared by : Col Howard Brundage, Mr Ralph G. Albrecht, Dr Robert M. W. Kempner, Lt Col William H. Baldwin, Maj Seymour M. Peyser, Maj Joseph D. Bryan, Capt D. A. Sprecher, Capt Norman Stoll, Capt Robert Clagett, Capt John Auchincloss, Capt Seymour Krieger, Lt Whitney R. Harris, USNR, Lt Frederick Felton, USNR, Lt Henry V. Atherton, Lt Richard Heller, USNR, Mr Henry Kellerman, Mr Frank Patton, Mr Karl Lachmann, Mr Bert Heilpern, Mr Walter Menke, Mr Joseph Michel, Mr Walter W. Brudno, Mrs Katherine Walch, Miss Harriet Zetterberg, Lt (jg) Brady O. Bryson, USNR, Capt Sam Harris.
The materials contained in the first six sections of Chapter XV on the Criminal Organizations were prepared by : Lt Col George E. Seay, Maj Warren F. Farr, Lt Comdr Wm. S. Kaplan, USNR, Lt Whitney R. Harris, USNR, Miss Katherine Fite, Maj Robert G. Stephens, Lt Thomas F. Lambert, Jr., USNR, Mr Charles S. Burdell.
The materials contained in Section 7 of Chapter XV on the General Staff and High Command were prepared on behalf of the American delegation by : Col Telford Taylor, Maj Loftus Becker, Maj Paul Neuland, Capt Walter Rapp, Capt Seymour Krieger, Mr Charles Kruszeawski with the assistance of a British staff made jointly available to both the American and British delegations, consisting of : W/Cdr Peter Calvocoressi, RAFVR, Maj Oliver Berthoud, IC, Lt Michael Reade, RNVR, 1/Lt George Sayers, RAFVR, S/O Barbara Pinion, WAAF, W/O Mary Carter, WAAF, Miss Elizabeth Stewart.
The charts reproduced are among those introduced by the prosecution, and were designed and executed by presentation specialists assigned to OCC by the Office of Strategic Services, and headed by : David Zablodousky under the direction of Comdr James B. Donovan, USNR.
Acknowledgment must also be made of the very effective labors of the British delegation in preparing those materials in Chapter IX on Aggressive War relating to Aggression as a Basic Nazi Idea, the Violation of Treaties, and the Aggressions against Poland, Danzig, England and France, Norway and Denmark, the Low Countries, and the Balkans, as well as the materials in sections on Individual Defendants relating to Streicher, Raeder, Doenitz, Neurath, and Ribbentrop. This share of the common task was borne by : Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, K.C., M.P, Mr Geoffrey D. Roberts, K.C, Lt Col J. M. G. Griffith-Jones, M.C, Col Harry J. Phillimore, O.B.E, Maj Elwyn Jones, M.P.
The British opening address was delivered by the Attorney General and chief of the British delegation : Sir Hartley Shawcross, K.C., M.P. Recognition is also due to : Maj F. Jay Nimitz, Miss Alma Soller, Miss Mary Burns, for their loyal and capable assistance in all the harassing details of compiling, editing and indexing these numerous papers. One final word should be said in recognition of the financial burden assumed by the State and War Departments, which have generously joined in allocating from their budgets the very considerable funds required to make this publication possible.
Roger W. Barrett, Captain, JAGD & William E. Jackson, Lieutenant (jg), USNR
Approved : Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel
Nurnberg, 20 January 1946