 |
[com...] plicity in “crimes against peace” as a matter of
law. Paragraph 2 (f) does not shift the burden of proof which remains at
all times with the prosecution. Neither does it change the presumption of
innocence. It merely emphasizes an evidentiary fact to be weighed along with
the sum total of the evidence.
Article X of Military Government
Ordinance No. 7, under which this Tribunal is established,
provides: |
| |
“The determination of the
International Military Tribunal in the judgment in Case No. 1 that invasions,
aggressive acts, aggressive wars, crimes, atrocities or inhumane acts were
planned or occurred, shall be binding on the tribunals established hereunder
and shall not be questioned except insofar as the participation therein or
knowledge thereof by any particular person may be concerned. Statements of the
International Military Tribunal in the judgment in Case No. 1 constitute proof
of the facts stated, in the absence of substantial new evidence to the
contrary.” |
Under the quoted provision, pertinent findings of the IMT in regard
to aggressive wars and aggressive acts binding on the Tribunal for the purposes
of the crimes against peace charged in the indictment in this case include:
That aggressive wars were planned and waged by Nazi Germany against Poland on 1
September 1939; against Denmark and Norway, 9 April 1940; against Belgium,
Holland and Luxembourg, 10 May 1940; against Greece and Yugoslavia, 6 April
1941; against the Soviet Socialist Republics, 22 June 1941; and against the
United States of America, 11 December 1941.
It was further stated by
the IMT in regard to the Anschluss that Austria “was occupied pursuant to
a common plan of aggression,” and, |
| |
“ * * * the methods employed
to achieve the object were those of an aggressor. The ultimate factor was the
armed might of Germany ready to be used if any resistance was
encountered.” |
| The provisions of the Control Council Law require the same basic
elements for the commission of the crime against peace as are required under
elementary principles applicable to criminal law. There must be an act of
substantial participation and there must he the accompanying criminal intent or
state of mind. Under Control Council Law No. 10, the building of armament or
the development of the "war potential" in the form of planning production of,
or planning facilities for the production of, raw materials essential to the
waging of war may constitute a sufficient act of participation to warrant
affixing criminal responsibility to the act as planning and preparation for
aggressive war. Such action must, however, be combined with the necessary
intention to further the aim of aggressive war and, as contended by the
prosecution, must constitute a substantial participation. As to the
|
1300 |
. 
