 |
| and the Control Council Law. In dealing with the case of Doenitz, the
IMT, after concluding that there was no evidence establishing that Doenitz was
informed of decisions to wage aggressive war, nevertheless, held Doenitz guilty
of waging aggressive war by virtue of participation in submarine warfare
immediately upon the outbreak of war. In contrast, Speer’s activities as
head of the armament industry after aggressive war was well under way did not
result in conviction. Said the IMT as to Speer: |
| |
“His activities in charge of
German armament production were in aid of the war effort in the same way that
other productive enterprises aid in the waging of war; but the Tribunal is not
prepared to find that such activities involve engaging in the common plan to
wage aggressive war as charged in count one or waging aggressive war as charged
in count two.” |
It may seem illogical that a high naval officer, performing the
duties of the branch of the armed service which he heads, should be found
guilty of the waging of aggressive war and the Minister of Munitions and
Armament held not responsible for activities which in most cases are even more
vital to the waging of war than the tactical decisions required of the military
commander. The compulsion of military discipline in a nation at war was
certainly more real and less the object of choice in the case of the naval
officer than in the case of the civilian Armament Minister. But in default of
sufficient evidence to warrant conviction under the charge of planning and
preparation of aggressive war, it would not be logical in this case to convict
any or all of the Farben defendants of the waging of aggressive war in the face
of the positive pronouncement by the International Military Tribunal that war
production activities of the character headed by Speer do not constitute the
“waging” of aggressive war. Nor is there a valid answer in extent and
the indispensability of the Farben contribution to the German war effort.
Speer’s acquittal when considered in the light of Schacht’s acquittal
poses insuperable obstacles to the conviction of these defendants. The factual
differences which may be drawn based upon Farben’s substantial and
sustained contribution to the German war effort do not, in my opinion, lead to
a difference in result unless this Tribunal refuses to follow the implications
of Speer’s acquittal. Despite the cogent arguments based upon other
portions of the IMT judgment, I reach the conclusion that the precedent in the
case of Speer should be followed here and that the defendants should not be
convicted solely of the crime of waging of aggressive war.
For the
reasons stated I concur in the acquittal of all defendants under counts one and
five of the indictment. |
| |
[Signed] PAUL M. HEBERT
Judge, Military Tribunal VI |
1306 |
. 
