Why go
The American role reveals that the trial's legal approach was debated, even among its organizers. Jackson argued for prosecuting Nazi leadership through a court, while Biddle's concerns about organizational guilt show why membership alone raised hard questions about individual responsibility.
The full story
Robert H. Jackson led the American delegation in the 1945 negotiations that helped create the International Military Tribunal. He then served as chief American prosecutor in Nuremberg. His work linked the design of the court to the case presented in the Palace of Justice: the prosecution sought to establish how Nazi leaders planned aggression and carried out crimes. Francis Biddle, a former United States attorney general, served as the American judge. He had questioned aspects of prosecuting Nazi leaders before the trial and later took part in the tribunal's decisions. One difficult issue concerned the prosecution's request to declare Nazi organizations criminal. The judges had to consider what such a declaration would mean for people who had been members without the same knowledge or choice as the leaders. Biddle pressed for limits that took coercion and knowledge into account. This part of the story helps explain why the American role cannot be reduced to a single opening speech. Lawyers and judges were building a legal response while arguing over its reach.