[pro…] visions of Control Council Law No. 10 relating to crimes
against peace are limited in their application to persons who were "directly
and personally connected with certain specific secret plannings of Hitler,"
apparently including only high military and political officials who attended
certain specific secret meetings held by Hitler.
2. The motion of the
defense is not well founded and should be denied for the following
reasons: |
| |
A. The position of the defense is
contrary to the decision of the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as the IMT) and if sustained would make such decision meaningless.
B. The position of the defense is contrary to the basic concepts and
provisions of Control Council Law No. 10, which govern the jurisdiction of, and
the law to be applied, by this Tribunal. |
A. The Position of the Defense is Contrary to the Decision
of the IMT |
| |
| 3. There is some suggestion in the motion of the defense that the
provisions of Control Council Law No. 10 relating to crimes against peace have
no application whatsoever to persons other than "high governmental and military
functionaries." In referring to Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, the
defense state that: |
| |
"The IMT limits the
responsibility for crimes against peace to a small circle of the most intimate
governmental and military advisers of Hitler." |
| 4. The IMT made no such limitation. On the contrary, the IMT
specifically stated: |
| |
"Hitler could not make aggressive
war by himself. He had to have the cooperation of statesmen, military leaders,
diplomats and businessmen. When they, with knowledge of his aims, gave him
their cooperation, they made themselves parties to the plan he had
initiated."* |
| 5. Justice Jackson's report of 6 June 1945 to President Truman,
which became one of the great cornerstones in drawing up the London Agreement
of 8 August 1945, had made the position of the United States clear in this
respect. It will also be recalled that Gustav Krupp was indicted in the IMT
case. When it appeared that Krupp was physically and mentally incapable of
attendance at the sessions, Justice Jackson, signatory to the London Agreement
on behalf of the United States and Chief Prose- […cutor] |
__________ 
. 
