sonal enrichment of the defendants and for the purpose of establishing and maintaining internal control in their hands as set forth in (1) above.

(7) Nature, establishment, enforcement and significance of the "Fuehrer Principle".

(8) Integration of all the foregoing and its utilization for the purpose

of preparing Germany organizationally, materially, psychologically and otherwise to launch and conduct illegal wars of aggression and to wage such wars by unlawful means.

(9) Accomplishment of the foregoing by violations of the laws of Germany.

(10) Advance planning for the atrocities and other crimes to be committed by the defendants during occupation of subjugated areas. b. External Measures Taken by Defendants Against Other Nations With Whom Germany Was at Peace:

(1) Employment of divisive tactics openly and surreptitiously in such countries, such as promoting ethnic, religious, and political disputes and differences, for the purposes of opening the door to the defendants' influence on local policy and of weakening or destroying resistance to the defendants' intended military and political encroachments.

(2) Establishment and utilization of German and native fifth columns in such countries for the above purposes.

(3) Employment of bribery, corruption, and false and subversive

propaganda in such countries in order to accomplish the foregoing. (4) Employment of a policy of entering into treaties without intent to observe them and of thereafter violating them in furtherance of the defendants' plans.

(5) Infiltration of spies and saboteurs into such countries for use in connection with the defendants' threats of invasions, invasions, and aggressive wars.

(6) Carrying out the foregoing in violation of international law and the laws of the countries concerned.

(7) Increasing the defendants' war potential and reducing the defensive capacity of other nations by creating monopolistic and other unlawful schemes and devices in furtherance of the defendants' plans.

7. Proof that the defendants launched illegal wars of aggression will include but not be limited to the following:

a. Violation of treaties and conventions to which the German State was a party.

b. Violation of any applicable international law.

c. Relating the above violations to the plan or enterprises referred to in par. 1 d (1) above.

8. Proof that in the course of conducting their illegal wars the defendants violated international law, the laws, rules, and customs of war, or the law of the sea, will cover the proof of the commission of crimes usually and traditionally considered war crimes. This proof will establish, from the nature, frequency, and common characteristics of the crimes referred to, and from the circumstances of their occurrence, that they were the result of an overall policy which directed or envisaged their commission. Proof of individual and organizational responsibility will be coordinated with the pertinent results of any other projects.

9. Proof of the defendants' atrocities and other crimes referred to in par. 1 d (4) above will include but not be limited to the following: a. Genocide or destruction of racial minorities and subjugated populations by such means and methods as (1) underfeeding; (2) sterilization and castration; (3) depriving them of clothing, shelter, fuel, sanitation, medical care; (4) deporting them for forced labor; (5) working them in inhumane conditions.

b. Unlawful expropriations, spoliations and forced sales in occupied

areas.

c. Unlawful destruction of property.

d. Seizure of control of other nations by threats of violence, invasion, and other unlawful means.

10. Documentary:

V. SOURCE MATERIALS

a. Writings and speeches of defendants and their associates.

b. Organizational literature.

c. Magazines, newspapers, and other literature under defendants' control.

d. Laws, decrees, ordinances, and regulations.

e. Manuals; military, diplomatic, and other official orders, reports, plans, etc.; and pertinent official documents of any nature.

f. Correspondence.

g. Diplomatic and political treaties and agreements, public and secret. h. Financial, commercial, and trade agreements and data.

i. Biographical records.

11. Photographic:

a. Still.

b. Motion pictures.

12. Oral Testimony:

a. Film and other recordings. b. Witnesses.

XII. Summary Record of Two Informal Gatherings of British and American Delegations June 21 and 24, 1945

On Thursday, June 21, 1945, at the invitation of the British, an informal gathering of the United States and British representatives was held.

Sir Basil Newton, of the British Foreign Office, advised that the Provisional Government of France had accepted the conference invitation for June 25 and would send Henri Donnedieu de Vabres as their Representative1 and that, although the Soviet Government had come to no decision, it was hoped that they would attend and that their delegate would depart from Moscow on June 23.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Attorney-General of the United Kingdom, suggested as the basis for discussion a list of defendants consisting of Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Ley, Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Frick, Keitel, Streicher, and Kaltenbrunner. It was agreed that this list should be considered and that the United States would propose additional names later. The United States, it was stated, had not reached a consideration of cases against individual defendants but had engaged in obtaining general proof necessary against all leading Nazis with the expectation of selecting defendants in the light of evidence so obtained.

There was general discussion of the best methods of proof in view of the difficulty and novelty of the case and of the possible sources of evidence to be explored.

The policies to be followed by the respective countries in the return of prisoners requested by the governments of occupied territories for trial at the scene of their crimes were discussed at some length.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe stated that the British hoped that international trials would commence at the beginning of September. He referred to the pending elections and said that he had no doubt that, in the event a Labor government were chosen, it would adhere to the plans made by its predecessors at this Conference. He suggested Munich, in the United States Zone of Germany, as an appropriate place for trial, partly for its psychological value as the birthplace of the Nazi party. Mr. Justice Jackson suggested that the choice de

'France was represented at the London Conference by Judge Robert Falco.

pended chiefly on facilities that could be made available and undertook to investigate the suitability of Munich. All agreed that the trial should be held on the Continent, probably in Germany, and all agreed that, if in Germany, it should be held either in the British or in the American zone of occupation.

A similar gathering took place on Sunday, June 24, at which Sir Basil Newton advised the meeting that the British Ambassador in Moscow had reported that Soviet delegates would attend the Conference but that they had requested that the meeting be deferred from June 25 to June 26. It was agreed that the British Embassy at Moscow should be notified that the British and American Delegations acceded to the Soviet request.

Sir Basil further informed the session that the French had decided to send as their Representative Judge Robert Falco of the Cour de Cassation, to be assisted by Professor André Gros, French member of the United Nations War Crimes Commission.

There was an informal discussion of the amendments that had been proposed by the British to the American draft and of the points raised in the aide-mémoire handed to Mr. Justice Jackson by the Counselor of the Soviet Embassy at Washington [X]. Pending arrival of the other delegations, it was agreed that a committee would attempt to reconcile such differences as there were between the British and the American viewpoints in a joint draft of a protocol but that no commitment should be made by either Delegation on any point that was to come before the Conference.

A joint draft of a protocol was thereafter prepared by a committee, which showed how satisfactory reconciliation could be accomplished on all differences between the British and American viewpoints. This draft was not circulated, however, and was not the subject of discussion in the four-power conferences, and, as it was largely repetition and only in the nature of a working paper of the two Delegations, it has not been set forth.

XIII. Minutes of Conference Session

of June 26, 1945

The Conference was called to order by the Attorney-General, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who welcomed the Representatives on behalf of the host, the United Kingdom.1 He stated the purpose of the Conference in general terms and reviewed the proceedings which had led up to it. He suggested that, in as much as the United States had proposed a definite agreement, the Conference call upon Mr. Justice Jackson to explain in detail the United States proposal.

Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out that there were two drafts of the United States proposal outstanding. The first had been handed to the Foreign Ministers at San Francisco [IV]. Later studies had resulted in some changes and a later draft had been forwarded to all conferees through their respective embassies [IX]. He suggested that the latter proposal be made the basis of the discussions.

General Nikitchenko suggested that, instead of embodying the entire subject in one instrument, there should be a separate and short executive agreement between the powers which would adopt an annexed statute to govern the conduct of the trials. The latter, he thought, should specify the rules of procedure in great detail. He thought it should provide for the organization of the Tribunal, by whom it should be named, its powers, and the cases it was to hearwhich should be only major cases-and should specify that other criminals be handed over to the appropriate national authorities for trial by them; it should stipulate where the trials should take place, the language in which the proceedings should be conducted, and the procedure of the trial; it should leave to the court itself the working out of internal procedures.

The Attorney-General, after the morning's general discussion, called upon Mr. Justice Jackson at the afternoon session to explain the American proposal, and the proceedings were as follows:

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. We start with the recital of the declaration of Moscow, which is really the beginning of the plan to conduct these trials, and the recital follows the language of the declaration. It is the purpose to indicate the division between the class of cases we are concerned with and the class with which we are not concerned. The recitals are intended to make plain what the background of this agree

1For complete list of members of delegations, see p. 441.