Dimitri’s Reviews > Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg > Status Update

To assess that one had opposed the extermination of the Jews, or that a fellow defendant had done so, was to admit knowledge of the mass killings and thus open oneself to liability as an accessory in a criminal conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.

This partly mitigates Jacksons failed US style cross-examination ? Does it enable the SS in all its parts to be branded a criminal organisation?

On 5 March 46 the new denazification law was approved and as the ACC general subsequently reported to US assistant Secretary of War Peterson, "under this law we have the means of coping with the mass of membership cases, whatever may be the decision of the Tribunal with respect to criminal organisations."

Biddle's approach of sticking to the Charter and tempering it where necessary was probably the most important decision made by any member of the bench.

Ex. Designate an organisation criminal only if membership was voluntary and criminal activities penetrated through the whole organisation.

Jackson had been so worried about obtaining Allied agreement for the basic trial system that he had alloted no time for picking the defendants.

"This was a very strong formulation [in the draft agreement of May 45] of the promises that Roosevelt had given to Stalin at Yalta regarding the extradition of war criminals and Soviet nationals. Controversy over this question has reverberated right down to the current popularity of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. "

Hello 1977 :-)

Even when word reached London that Truman had decided there must be a trial, the initial reaction of Lord Simon was to press efforts to bring the United States over to the summary execution alternative.