 |
[men…] tioned of Adolf Hitler’s aggressive plans. Without
such a determination, however, it is impossible to pronounce sentence because
of participation in the conspiracy or common plan to commit crimes against
peace.
Insofar the defendants should be acquitted.
14. The
International Military Tribunal sentenced one defendant, namely Funk, only for
the planning and preparation of a war of aggression. Concerning him the
judgment determined: |
| |
“Funk participated in the
economic planning which preceded the attack on the U.S.S.R. His deputy held
daily conferences with Rosenberg on the economic problems which would arise in
the occupation of Soviet territory. Funk himself participated in planning for
the printing of ruble notes in Germany prior to the attack to serve as
occupation currency in the U.S.S.R.”
“He did * * *
participate in the economic preparation for certain of the aggressive wars,
notably these against Poland and the Soviet Union * * *.”*
|
| |
The passing of a sentence for the planning and preparation of an
aggressive war thus assumes objective participation according to the
International Military Tribunal judgment, and presumes the subjective knowledge
of a concrete aggressive plan against a certain country.
15. In the
present case the prosecution did not maintain, much less prove, that the
defendants participated in the preparation of a certain war with knowledge of a
concrete aggressive plan.
They should be acquitted of the charge of the
planning and preparation of an aggressive war.
16. The prosecution
apparently wishes to show that the defendants could and must have known of
Hitler's aggressive intentions. But such evidence would not be decisive.
A general knowledge of the possibility or probability of a war
is insufficient evidence to enable the International Military Tribunal to
pronounce sentences. The judgment requires it to be determined, in the case of
each defendant, as to whether he actually had special, positive knowledge of
certain aggressive plans.
This is shown not only by previous
quotations, but with particular clarity by the comments of the International
Military Tribunal in acquitting Schacht. |
| |
“It is clear that Schacht
was a central figure in Germany’s rearmament program, and the steps which
he took * * * were responsible for Nazi Germany’s rapid rise as a military
power. |
__________
* Ibid., p. 305.
362 |
. 
