Letter from Justice Robert Jackson to William Donovan

26 November, 1945. Maj. Gen. Wm. J. Donovan, Nurnberg. My dear Bill: I think your letter calls for a little review of our situation. You and I appear to have developed certain fundamental differences in viewpoint about this case. Time alone will tell which of us is right, but there can be no doubt that the case can- not follow both of our lines. During your long absence from the case, my own confidence grew with study of the document analyses that our case could safely rest wholly on documents and that witnesses need be used, if at all, only incidentally. With this you disagreed and proposed more reli- ance on oral testimony. I was and am willing to consider use of any witness but only after he has made a complete written statement of what his testimony is. This I have from some proposed witnesses, but none from any you have been working with. The Planning Board advise they have had nothing except oral statements from you. Meanwhile, other differences of viewpoint have developed. BARTY 3.5. 5. ARCHIVES "NATIONAL SERVICE" RECORDS TRUMAN ROVERNMENT AND LIBRARY I understand you have expressed complete disagreement with the indictment of the General Staff and the High Command. Obviously if the work you are doing with witnesses or with such a defendant as Goering reflects this attitude, it is at odds with the policy of the case as settled by the indictment and may result in serious embarrassment. Then too, we do not see alike about the defendants such as Schacht. I do not think he will help us convict anyone we do not already have convicted on the documents. And if he did, I do not think we should give him any advantage for doing SO. In short, I do not think we can afford to negotiate with any of these defendants or their counsel for testimony. We have interrogated them extensively and I might put some parts of some interrogations in evidence, but I would not put one of the defendants on the stand as our witness. To use one of them ourselves will create the impression that there was some kind of bargain about his testimony, opening the door to that defendant to plead for leniency on the ground he was 'helpful' and may give a background for claims that promises were made to that effect. My view is, therefore, that we should prove our case against these defendants with no use of them as witnesses. I have instructed our own Dr. Kempner that we will have no negotiations on such matters, either with defendants