 |
A. It certainly does not.
Q. A mere violation, rearmament in
violation of the Treaty. But that is one circumstance at least going to show,
connected with the other circumstances, the planning and the waging of
aggressive war?
A. That is right. I shall just add one observation, if
it will be of help, and that is this: Any rearmament which is in violation of
the Versailles Treaty, could only be for preparing Germany for war, some kind
of war — defensive or offensive war, defensive or aggressive —
Q. That is quite true. But the point is, could you infer from that
that the nature of the war for which the preparation was made was aggressive?
A. Well, that is the point I am trying to make. If we confine
ourselves, which we feel we are not obliged to do for our case —
JUDGE DALY: Isn’t your position summed up in the indictment, on
the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4, where it says: “including but
not limited to planning, preparation, initiation, and waging wars of
aggression, and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and
assurances.”
MR. KAUFMAN: It is, Your Honor. As a matter of fact,
that law as quoted there or as paraphrased there is the law not only of Control
Law No. 10, but is also explicitly the law of the Charter which is so framed
that it states the alternatives. The crime may be either preparing for or
waging an aggressive war, a war of aggression, or in the alternative it may be
preparing for or waging a war in violation of international treaties.
JUDGE ANDERSON: Which of itself would be a crime independent of any
other proof of aggression?
MR. KAUFMAN: It would, under the wording of
the Charter and of Control Law No. 10.
JUDGE ANDERSON: Well, we will
perhaps want to hear you further on that. Go ahead. |
| |
| * * * * * |
| |
| D. Defense Motion for a Judgment of Not Guilty on Counts One and
Four |
| |
Defense Motion for Acquittal on the Charges of Crimes
Against
Peace, 11 March 1948 |
| |
| I |
| |
| The undersigned defense counsel move on behalf of their defendants
[here follow the names of all twelve defendants] that the Tribunal should
decide: |
356 |
. 
