 |
But even if we had to read such words into Control Council Law No.
10, the result would be the same so far as crimes against humanity committed
during the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia are concerned. This is even
clearer under the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10 than under the
provisions of the London Charter. Crimes "within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal" are the crimes as defined in Control Council Law No. 10. Conducting
invasions under said law is a crime against peace, as is the initiation or
waging of a war of aggression. That the crimes committed by the defendants in
Austria and Czechoslovakia were perpetrated "in execution of, or in connection
with" the crime of the invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia appears clearly
from the evidence submitted. Thus, even assuming that crimes against humanity
under Control Council Law No. 10 must be connected with any crimes within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal, such prerequisite, if any, is definitely
complied with.
7. It should also be borne in mind in considering the
activities of these defendants in Austria and Czechoslovakia that, as pointed
out by the IMT: |
| |
"The invasion of Austria was a
premeditated aggressive step in furthering the plan to wage aggressive wars
against other countries."¹ |
| Whatever might have been the decision of the IMT if the indictment
had charged the seizure of Austria as an aggressive war, it is at least
clear that the IMT regarded the seizure of Austria as the beginning of
aggression. As we have already pointed out in this answer, Control Council Law
No. 10 makes even clearer than did the London Charter that the invasions of
Austria and Czechoslovakia are to be treated like the invasions of Poland,
France, and other countries. The fact that Austria succumbed without a shot
being fired is quite immaterial. In the words of the IMT: "The ultimate factor
was the armed might of Germany ready to be used if any resistance was
encountered."² There is no reason, either because of the wording of
Control Council Law No. 10 or because of the purpose of that law, for treating
plunder in Austria and plunder in Czechoslovakia any differently from plunder
in Poland and plunder in France. |
__________
¹ Trial of the Major
War Criminals, vol. I, p. 192.
² Ibid., p. 194.
534 |
. 
