section of the nature and functioning of dictatorship in the modern world. For obvious reasons, the study of dictatorship today is no academic essay, and the analysis of its strengths and weaknesses is vital to military and political planning for peace or war alike. As I have stated on numerous other occasions, I am convinced that the record of dictatorship in the Third Reich leads inevitably to the conclusion that, as compared with democracy, dictatorship is a highly inefficient form of government.249 The Nuernberg trials under Law No. 10 were a part of the Allied occupation of Germany, and thus an important feature of our occupation policy. I have already emphasized what seems to me the vital importance of publishing the more important portions of the Nuernberg documents and judgments in German and effectuating their widespread circulation in Germany.250 In this connection, it is noteworthy that some Germans have covertly urged that the Nuernberg proceedings should not be published in German because the trials are said to be a "sore spot" in relations between the United States and the German people. These Germans suggest, in short, that Nuernberg should be "played down" in Germany, and allowed to sink into oblivion. I have noted this point of view, if such it may be called, not because it has any intrinsic substance or merit, but rather because its thoroughly meretricious character serves only to underline one salient fact about the Nuernberg trials, which we will do well not to forget. Nowhereand particularly not within Germany-can the Nuernberg trials be "played down," and regardless of whether the ultimate judgment of history with respect to Nuernberg is favorable or unfavorable, they will not "sink into oblivion." The personalities and issues with which the trials dealt have been far too important in German history and German thought to be forgotten or passed over. On the contrary, they are bound to be increasingly a focal point of discussion and controversy within Germany. Constantly they are discussed, often bitterly attacked, and less often defended, in the German press and periodical literature. As economic and cultural conditions in Germany return to normal, it is certain that Nuernberg will receive an ever-increasing share of attention from German politicians, jurists, and others. A failure to disseminate the Nuernberg records and judgments in Germany, accordingly, is not only a failure to make use of their contents to promote the positive aims of the occupation. It is a failure to put the necessary "ammunition" in the hands of those Germans who can make use of the documents presented and testimony given during the trials in reconstituting a democratic German society. Mr. John J. McCloy, in his first major speech since taking office as High 249 See, for example, The Nuernberg War Crimes Trials: An Appraisal, published in the proceedings of the Academy of Political Science for May 1949. 50 Supra, pp. 100-102. Commissioner and Military Governor for Germany, has declared that a very hopeful sign is to be seen in the existence of "a strong core of freedom-seeking people among the general population" 251 of Germany, to be found among liberals, labor groups, and the middle classes. If this hope is to be realized, we must give all possible support to these democratic German groups. In my opinion, any effort to "soft pedal" Nuernberg will inevitably play into the hands of those Germans who do not want a democratic Germany. The documents and testimony of the Nuernberg record can be of the greatest value in showing the Germans the truth about the recent past, quite apart from the judgments and sentences pronounced on individual defendants. The judgments, and the principles of law on which they were based, must obviously be considered in a world setting, and not in a purely German context. There is little chance that the judgments and principles of Nuernberg will be of much benefit in Germany if they fail to win more than lip-service in the world at large. The fact that the judges who composed the Nuernberg tribunals were citizens of one of the victorious powers has been much commented upon. In fact, there was no practicable alternative, and I do not regard this as a serious defect in the Nuernberg process from the standpoint either of theoretical jurisprudence or of intrinsic fairness. It is, however, a circumstance which the Germans are not likely to overlook. Unless the United States and the other governments who participated in the Nuernberg process seriously endeavor to establish a permanent international penal jurisdiction, and to take such other steps as are feasible to enforce the Nuernberg principles, whether by prevention or punishment, it will be inevitable that the Germans will conclude that Nuernberg was "for Germans only." And this brings me, in conclusion, to what I regard as the major contribution which the Nuernberg trials have made to the preservation of peace and the establishment of world order under the rule of law. The framing of the underlying principles of international penal law in the London Agreement and Control Council Law No. 10, and the interpretation and application of these principles by means of the Nuernberg judicial process, have in a very few years, added enormously to the body and the living reality of international penal law. No principle deserves to be called such unless men are willing to stake their consciences on its enforcement. That is the way law comes into being, and that is what was done at Nuernberg. 251 See The New York Times, p. 12, 10 August 1949. FOR RELEASE IN A. M. PAPERS, MONDAY, MAY 17, 1948 GENERAL TAYLOR'S REPORT RELEASED BY ARMY Secretary of the Army Kenneth C. Royall today made public a report on the conduct and current status of the Nuernberg war crimes trials by Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. In a letter of acceptance to General Taylor, Secretary Royall wrote: "I have received and carefully studied your excellent report on the conduct and current status of the war crimes trials before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals. "I commend you not only for the thoroughness and clarity of the report but also for your competent prosecution of the trials and for the progress which you have made up to this date. "I have no changes to suggest in the future plans disclosed in your report. "I have instructed careful study to be made as to the practicability of promptly publishing the proceedings as recommended by you." The text of General Taylor's report follows: Secretary of the Army, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: May 12, 1948 The closing of the evidence in the I. G. Farben case is a fitting occasion for the submission, at your request, of this statement on the progress of the Nuernberg War Crimes Trials. It may be expected that the Nuernberg Tribunals will render judgments, in the Farben case and the other three cases which are still pending, during the coming summer. Upon the delivery of these four judgments, a full and final report will be submitted. The Nuernberg Military Tribunals: Control Council Law No. 10 As you will recall, the first Nuernberg trial before the International Military Tribunal was conducted under the authority of the London Agreement and |