 |
| did not necessarily imply, as the IMT held, that the purpose was to
launch a war of aggression. It concluded on the facts that it had not been
shown by the proof that Hermann Roechling was ever informed that wars of
aggression would be undertaken, and that there was no showing that he had ever
participated in the preparation of wars of aggression. However, the Tribunal
held that he was guilty of waging wars of aggression for the following
reasons: |
| |
“After the invasion of
Poland in 1939, of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in
1940, of Jugoslavia, Greece and Russia in 1941, none could any longer have any
doubts concerning the purpose of the wars unleashed by the Government of the
Reich, that the aggressive character of these wars has, moreover, been
recognized by the aforesaid judgment of the International Military
Tribunal.” |
The Tribunal held that Roechling had stepped out of his role of
industrialist, demanded and accepted high administrative positions in order to
develop the German ferrous production. The facts then recited are that he
became Plenipotentiary General for the steel plants of the Departments of the
Moselle and Meurthe-et-Moselle Sud; that he seized industries having steel
production of nine million tons and employing more than two hundred thousand
people; that after allocation by Goering of the seized plants he endeavored to
increase production of these plants for the war effort of the Reich; he made
proposals to Reich authorities concerning increased production of iron; that he
was later placed in charge of the Reich Association Iron, charged with
intensifying the German ferrous production and exploiting such production in
the occupied countries; that exercising his powers he demanded of industry in
occupied countries that they work in order to increase the armament of a power
at war with their own country. He was held guilty of crimes against peace
because by his actions he “contributed in a large measure to the
continuation of aggressive wars during 3 years.” The Roechling decision
is, therefore, an authority for the view that participation in the exploitation
of occupied countries in the interest of the German war effort under the
circumstances referred to does constitute a crime against peace. However, I
conclude that facts in evidence against the present defendants present a
difference of degree sufficient to distinguish the cases. I do not feel
warranted in expressing dissent as to the acquittal of the present defendants
of the charge of waging of aggressive war based solely upon the Roechling case.
It is impossible, in my view, to harmonize those aspects of the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal dealing with the waging of
aggressive war so as to draw therefrom a consistent principle governing the
waging of aggressive war as used in the Charter |
213755
— 53 — 83
1305 |
. 
