 |
The remaining defendants, consisting of fifteen former members and
four nonmembers of the Vorstand, occupied positions of lesser importance than
the defendants we have mentioned. Their respective fields of operation were
less extensive and their authority of a more subordinate nature. The evidence
against them with respect to aggressive war is weaker than that against those
of the defendants to whom we have given special consideration. No good purpose
would be served by undertaking a discussion in this judgment of each specific
defendant with respect to his knowledge of Hitler’s aggressive aims.
Waging Wars of Aggression
There remains the question as
to whether the evidence establishes that any of the defendants are guilty of
“waging a war of aggression” within the meaning of Article II, 1,
(a) of Control Council Law No. 10. This calls for an interpretation of
the quoted clause. Is it an offense under international law for a citizen of a
state that has launched an aggressive attack on another country to support and
aid such war efforts of his government, or is liability to be limited to those
who are responsible for the formulation and execution of the policies that
result in the carrying on of such a war?
It is to be noted in this
connection that the express purpose of Control Council Law No. 10, as declared
in its preamble, was to “give effect to the terms of the Moscow
Declaration of 30 October 1943, and the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and
the charter issued pursuant thereto.” The Moscow Declaration gave warning
that the “German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party” who
were responsible for “atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass
executions” would be prosecuted for such offenses. Nothing was said in
that declaration about criminal liability for waging a war of aggression. The
London Agreement is entitled an agreement “for the Prosecution and
Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis.” There is
nothing in that agreement or in the attached Charter to indicate that the words
“waging a war of aggression,” as used in Article II (a) of the
latter, were intended to apply to any and all persons who aided, supported, or
contributed to the carrying on of an aggressive war; and it may be added that
the persons indicted and tried before the IMT may fairly be classified as
“major war criminals” insofar as their activities were concerned.
Consistent with the express purpose of the London Agreement to reach the
“major war criminals,” the judgment of the IMT declared that
“mass punishments should be avoided.”
To depart from the
concept that only major war criminals — that is, those persons in the
political, military, and industrial fields, for example, who were responsible
for the formulation and execution of policies — may be held liable for
waging wars of aggression, would lead far afield. Under such circumstances
there could be no practical |
1124 |
. 
