 |
opinion, it will suffice to view in a global manner the general
categories of said evidence as grouped in the Trial Brief of the prosecution,
bringing them in relation to the principles established by the IMT regarding
crimes against peace.
At the outset, it may he worthwhile to survey the
situation as it has so far developed in respect to charges of crimes against
peace in the Nuernberg Tribunals trying German industrialists. In the first
case of this nature against Flick and others, no such charge was raised by the
prosecution although the Flick concern contributed in a substantial degree to
the German rearmament and some of the defendants had leading positions in the
industrial life of Germany.
In Case 10, U. S. versus Krupp et
al., upon a similar motion of the defense as filed in this Court, the
Tribunal III in its session of 5 April 1948, ruled that the entire evidence
offered by the prosecution under the charge of crimes against peace and a
conspiracy to this effect was irrelevant, and therefore acquitted all
defendants of said charges* It is, in our opinion, rather significant that
hereby a Nuernberg Tribunal has accepted the viewpoint of the defense regarding
the inconsistency of such evidence with the principles developed in the IMT
judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the accused industrialists who were
acquitted of said charges were the leaders of one of the most important
armament concerns of Germany which produced a substantial part of the weapons
for the Nazi war machine before and after the outbreak of the war, and which
therefore, according to a well-known slogan repeatedly used in various speeches
of Hitler and his followers, was styled the “armory of the Reich.”
Before arguing the relevancy of the different groups of evidence
offered by the prosecution tinder count one, I propose not to go into the
controversial question as to the legal aspect under which crimes against peace
should be viewed. The controversy whether the rules governing this case should
be derived from the German penal law or from a judicial system based either on
the continental law of Europe or on the all embracing international law, this
controversy can be completely left aside for the purpose of arguing the
specific question forming the task of my address to Your Honors, namely, the
relevancy of the prosecution's evidence under count one. For be it the German
penal law, or the continental law of Europe, or international law as laid down
in the IMT Charter of 8 August 1945, the decisive factor in assessing the
criminal responsibility of the defendants under counts one and five are the
principles developed by the IMT regarding crimes against peace as already
argued in our motion of 17 December 1947. Insofar the interpretation of the
just mentioned Charter by the IMT is of vital importance and its judgment must
be regarded in itself a contribution to the law applicable to crimes against
peace if we as- [...sume] |
__________
* See "The Krupp case,"
volume IX, this series, pages 356-466.
954 |
. 
