 |
B. Dismissal of the Charges of Spoliation as to
Austria
and Czechoslovakia |
| |
| 1. INTRODUCTION |
| |
| On 22 April 1938 the Tribunal ruled that acts alleged as spoliation
with respect to the Skoda-Wetzler plants in Austria and the Aussig-Falkenau
plants in the so-called Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, even if established,
constituted neither a crime against humanity nor a war crime. This ruling is
reproduced in 2 below. The ruling was made pursuant to a defense motion of 15
April 1948, which is not reproduced herein. However, the same general questions
were raised near the end of an earlier defense motion of 17 December 1947, a
motion principally directed to the charges of aggressive war. This motion is
reproduced in volume VII, section VII B 2 |
| |
| 2. TRIBUNAL RULING OF 22 APRIL 1948 |
| |
| EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY |
| |
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE : We are also ready to dispose of the motion
filed on 15 April 1948 by Dr. [Rudolf] Dix on behalf of all counsel, in which
it is requested that the Tribunal shall reopen the subject of the legal
sufficiency of the indictment with respect to conspiracy to commit war crimes
and crimes against humanity and other incidental questions therein
contained.¹
The ruling of the Tribunal with respect to this
motion, insofar as it pertains to certain portions of the indictment pertaining
to the alleged plunder of the Skoda-Wetzler and Aussig-Falkenau, is as follows
The particulars set forth in sections “A” and “B”
of count two of the indictment,² if fully established by the evidence,
would not constitute a crime against humanity, since these particulars relate
wholly to offenses against property. Neither are they sufficient to constitute
a war crime, since they describe incidents in territory not under the
belligerent occupation of Germany.³
On the other feature of the
same motion the Tribunal feels as follows: A common plan or conspiracy does not
exist as a matter of law with respect to war crimes and crimes against
humanity. However, we |
__________
¹ The principal
incidental questions contained in the defense motion had been raised earlier in
section IV of the defense motion of 17 December 1947 which is reproduced in
full under section VII B, “Defense Motion for a Finding of Not Guilty on
the Charges of Aggressive War and Answer of the Prosecution thereto.”
² Paragraphs 90 through 90 of the indictment.
³ The territory
in question was Austria, occupied by Germany on 12 March 1938, and the
so-called Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, occupied by Germany pursuant to the
Munich Agreement of 29 September 1938.
2 |
. 
