 |
before this Tribunal. I refer to counts one and four of the
indictment.
Actually it did not hesitate to charge all the defendants
with crimes against peace. They were supposed to have planned, prepared,
initiated, and waged wars of aggression and to have participated in a common
plan or conspiracy for the waging of such wars of aggression.
With
regard to counts one and four the defense contends that not even prima
facie proof has been offered.
In actual fact the prosecution has
proved that the firm Krupp A.G. was a large and productive enterprise and that,
together with many other enterprises in Germany, it participated in the
rearmament of Germany in the same way as many other enterprises in other
countries participated in the rearmament of their countries.
But is
such proof sufficient? It was not sufficient for the International Military
Tribunal. I take the liberty of quoting from the opinion of the judgment of the
IMT concerning the defendant Schacht, whom Schmidt, the prosecution witness and
Hitler's interpreter, described to this high Tribunal as a “highly
informed person.” I quote:* |
| |
“It is clear that Schacht
was a central figure in Germany’s rearmament program, and the steps which
he took, particularly in the early days of the Nazi regime, were responsible
for Nazi Germany's rapid rise as a military power. But rearmament itself is not
criminal under the Charter. To be a crime against peace under Article 6 of the
Charter it must be shown that Schacht carried out this rearmament as part of
the Nazi plans to wage aggressive wars.” |
Does the prosecution wish to proceed beyond this limit set by the
IMT?
However, I want to be fair and do not want to maintain that the
very capable members of the prosecution had overlooked this difficult part of
their task. What 1 do maintain however, is that the prosecution has attempted,
with practically no exceptions, to bring only summary proof with respect to the
war of aggression, as required by the IMT — summary not only with respect
to the defendants, but with respect to the entire population of Germany. In
doing so the prosecution obviously proceeds on the assumption that everyone in
Germany who held a prominent political, government, or military position or any
equally high one in the world of finance, industry, or economics, is
automatically to be considered guilty of having committed crimes against
|
__________
* Trial of the Major War
Criminal, op. cit. supra, vol. I. pp. 308 309.
175 |
. 
