Then the initials "G.G."
MR. HARDY: The initials "G.G." refer to George C. Grant on the certificate of translation and were put on in this department downstairs.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands. I am not sure the defendant Hoven does. Would you please make the explanation again, counsel, for the defense?
MR. HARDY: I am showing you this document in English, which shows in English the translator of the document does not want to be responsible for this English, that he did not translate it and it was in poor English and that accounts for the translation being was it is.
I am sure Dr. Pelckmann has something to say in this matter. I wish he would come and address the Court and we could clarify the matter immediately.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, Horn made this statement in German and what you have before you is not the original. The original was in German. It was translated into English, and from this statement of this translator here I see that it is poor English and that this translator does not want to take the responsibility for the interpretation, and there is not proof that what you have in English, Mr. President, is actually a true translation of what Horn said. The prosecution should offer the original text, but that don't give us a translation which a translator here says is poor. You don't have Horn's statement, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there any original text of this affidavit in German, counsel?
MR. HARDY: I haven't seen it. I understand that this translation was sent to me certified by the War Crimes Investigating Team. They sent us a bunch of material they secured when investigating the camp. They keep the original German with their reports and I imagine it is on file in Washington, D.C. It would be impossible for me to find it. This is a translation duly certified by an officer of the U.S. Army. It is not for the translator here to be responsible for it. The lieutenant colonel said he is responsible for it and has sworn him in for the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. The matter referred to by counsel refers to the probative value to be given to the document, not to the document itself. Counsel is at liberty to call attention to this document in his brief on his argument. The Tribunal will consider them and give to the document such probative value as it deems it's entitled to have.
It will be received in evidence Document NO-4051 as Prosecution Exhibit 566.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I am asking this remark be put in the English document book, too.
MR. HARDY: It is not a part of the English document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a part of the English document. The Tribunal has ruled. That is the end of this matter.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the next document is NO-3060 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 567. The last exhibit, the affidavit of Horn, was Prosecution Exhibit 566. Your Honor, if you will turn to page 118 of your Document Book you will find a certificate here from Councillor of the District Court wherein the witness Mennecke was tried and sentenced to death. And these photos, as stated in the affidavit, are photos which were found according to the Eichberg case among the possessions of Dr. Mennecke. They are in the envelope, the original photos, and they are marked "criminal photos, Concentration Camp Buchenwald, 25 November 1941".
These photos have been inscribed on the reverse side obviously by Dr. Mennecke. Dr. Mennecke admitted this at his trial. On these photos, as well as the original envelope are inscribed "criminal photos, Concentration Camp Buchenwald, 25 November to 5 December 1941." They were produced in court in Dr. Mennecke's case which is called the Eichberg case. According to Mennecke's statements during his case the persons shown are inmates of the concentration camp for whom he was making out registration forms. According to his statements in the same trial the date of the envelope is the date of one of his visits to Buchenwald for the purpose of making out these registration forms. They are signed and notarized in due form.
You will note that the next page of this document gives the names of particular persons and there are the translation of the inscribed words on the back of each picture; "horded immense amounts of food and what charges are against them."
Also in the Document 3060, you will note throughout that race defilement, anti-German agitation, Easter Jews, etc., are mentioned. If your Honor should care to see these photos I will pass them up to you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will examine the photographs.
MR. HARDY: Then there is a description of the photos and the Councillor of the Court's affidavit attached to them.
This list that is attached to the Councillor's affidavit consists of 8 pages and gives 63 names with detail, and corresponds to the 63 inclosed photos which according to documents in the Eichberg case were found among the possessions of Dr. Mennecke.
These details given in the affidavit and the enclosed translation in your Honor's Document Book are copied from the inscriptions on the back of the original photographs. You will note the nationalities of some of the particular subjects, there is one an attorney from Prague, and several others.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 567.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, may I inquire whether or not those exhibits 3060 and 3436 are to be offered as Prosecution Rebuttal Exhibits 567 and 568.
MR. HARDY: I am going to give 2436 number 568 as the document which runs with the other document actually. I am turning to that now, your Honor. This is document No. 2436 which is found on page 130 of your Honor's Document Book. I will mark it as Exhibit 568. This is an extract from the Mennecke trial and is duly certified by the Landgerichtsrat and the contents are obvious - I won't bother to read them, they verify the photographs which are introduced in the other document.
Now, if your Honors please, I have in the last page of this document book a loose document. Do you have that? Your Honor, this won't be offered as Prosecution Exhibit. This is really an addition to Beigleboeck Exhibit 34 which are the charts. We find on the back of chart A-29 some words written in German language in the handwriting of the defendant which I think are worthy of translation to be called to the attention of the Tribunal. On the back of chart No. A-29 there are German words therein. You will notice on line 19 there has been an erasure and this erasure, beginning on line 19 one inch from the left margin and extends three and three quarters inches.
In line 24 there was also an erasure beginning 1½" from the left margin and extending 3". And it appears.......
THE PRESIDENT: I note counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck is not present.
MR. HARDY: Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck is being represented by Dr. Hoffmann who was appointed deputy for Steinbauer in the absence of Steinbauer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will note that Hoffman represents Beiglboeck.
MR. HARDY: Line 19 which was erased was sommulence. The erasure in line 24 cannot be read. It is impossible to diagnose what it is. I want to introduce this translation of this particular graph for the Tribunal which is contained here and marked translation of Beiglboeck Document Exhibit 24, transcription of the long hand notes on the back of chart A 29 and the symptoms of the subject are noted therein and in the places where the erasures were done we have blank lines.
THE PRESIDENT: I notice your document which you refer to is 34, not 24.
MR. HARDY: 34 is what I said, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you 24.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, also attached to this as part of Exhibit 34, is restoration of the original stenographic notes on the back of page C-23. You will recall Prosecution presented you with a translation of the notes, and this is the restoration given by Beiglboeck when on cross examination. For the convenience of the Tribunal we now offer restoration of the stenographic notes as they appeard after alteration.
DR. HOFFMANN: (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, I should merely like to reserve the right to see the original of A 29 so that the defendant Beiglboeck can comment in his closing brief on this affidavit in connection with what Prose cution has now said.
MR. HARDY: I explained to defense counsel that he could have a representative of the Secretary General's office appear with him in an interrogation and the document could be presented to Beiglboeck at any time he requests the use of them.
THE PRESIDENT: That procedure will be followed.
MR. HARDY: If your Honor pleases, I have one .......
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it seems that this document should be identified in some way. While it may not be properly an exhibit I think better way is to mark it as an exhibit and then it will have a status as a supplement -
MR. HARDY: I can very conviently mark it Prosecution Exhibit 569.
THE PRESIDENT: That is better way. Then it is formally part of the record and can be referred to.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have one last document that I will distribute at this time. Sorry, your Honor, I will have to ask you to recess until 1:30. The German copies seem to be confused. They have left a copy of the German out which I shall refer to. I will have to check on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will now he in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, in connection with this next document I have to offer, I had the English -- or the German translation -- into the German -
THE PRESIDENT: There is some confusion on the ear phones. Wait until --. The confusion has subsided. Counsel may proceed.
MR. HARDY: If your Honors please, in connection with this next document, I have had it translated. The translation is before you of the German original document. I wish to introduce the photostatic copies I have here. The stencil was cut and, apparently, one page of the stencil has been removed from the Germany copies which is the page I wish to introduce so I have here three or four photostatic copies of the original exhibit in order. Defendant Hoven has one photostatic copy. He may have another if ho wishes. Then I have two photostatic copies of the German which can be used by the court interpreters. However, I do not intend to read the document in its entirety. If they wish to use them they may if they so wish and return them to the Secretary General for the Tribunal's office copies.
This document now, your Honors, is NO-2148 which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit No. 570. I am only referring to that portion of the document which is dated 20 August 1942 which refers to reports of the deaths of political Russians. This document has an initial on it which is the initial "H" which prosecution contends to be the initial of the defendant Hoven. The document refers to the reports of deaths of political Russians and states that it may affect the saving of paper if the death reports on the political Russians were dropped, and I merely introduce this to show the position of the defendant Hoven in connection with the death reports issued from the camp and the fact he didn't consider it important enough to record these cases of death so that they might save paper.
THE PRESIDENT: What page of the documents?
MR. HARDY: You will find it on page 1 of the English, your Honors, at the top and it will be on page 2 of the photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, mimeographed copies of this are being made in German and will be distributed later.
That closes the presentation unless-
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have an objection to make to this document. This document does not constitute just one document. There is a number of documents which do not at all belong to one another. I ask to draw the attention of the Tribunal to page 1 and page 2. There you find the date of the year omitted.
MR. HARDY: You may note, your Honor, that I am only introducing the one letter that is a part of this entire document. Counsel may strike out the rest of the document if he wishes. I am only introducing the letter of 20 August 1942 concerning deaths of political Russians which bears Hoven's initials. The rest may be disregarded or he may use them as part of the document arguing it is his brief if he wishes. I am only introducing one portion of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The date of that letter, you say, is August 1942? The date is omitted from the English copy.
MR. HARDY: The date of the letter on the German is 1942 your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand you to say that this letter bears somewhere the initial "H"?
MR. HARDY: Pardon, Sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand that this letter bears somewhere the initial "H"?
MR. HARDY: Yes, the original document -- I will pass it up to your Honors if you wish to see it. That will be the second document on that page, the second page, your Honors, right in front of you now. That document there you are looking at now has the initial "H".
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: No signature or initial is shown on the English transcript.
MR. HARDY: The English transcript says "signature illegible." Unless the translator was familiar with the case, they wouldn't know what initial "H" means, your Honor and I am calling that to your attention.
DR. GAWLIK: I also ask to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that, according to proof, there was also a camp physician with the name of Hover, H O V E R.
MR. HARDY: That is in January 1943. The prosecution doesn't dispute any of those things. He may call that to the attention of the Tribunal in his brief. The document is not objectionable. It is a German document and boars the initial of Hoven and it is material in this case. The only objection ho may have -- he did not get it in 24 hours time and I will ask him to give us a reprieve for not giving the 24 hours notice.
THE PRESIDENT: The 24 hours' notice has been quite generally disregarded by the Tribunal for both the defense and prosecution in the last two or three days.
DR. GAWLIK: I am not objecting to that, Mr. President. Mr. President, if the prosecutor only submits a second page, I will submit the first page of this document as Hoven No. 21
MR. HRRDY: I submit, your Honors, that I have introduced the entire document but I only want to call your attention to page 1 of the document which has Hoven's initial. He may call your attention to the entire document.
THE PRESIDENT: The entire document is admitted in evidence, counsel, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 570. Counsel for defense may use the document in anyway he desires. It is all in evidence.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, it was an error on my part but do let me draw the attention of the Tribunal to page 3 of the English text. There you find an enclosure "November 1944" which not at all belongs to it because in November 1944 the defendant Hoven was already in prison. How could there be and enclosure dated November 1944 to a letter dated 1942. The other enclosures cone from Department D III at Oranienburg. They do not belong to this document either. These are just a number of documents which have been attached to a letter of Hoven completely at random.
MR. HARDY: Any sections he feels not pertinent he may remove. Prosecution has no objection. We are merely relaying this letter with Hoven's initials.
THE PRESIDENT: Any portions of the document which are immaterial will be disregarded by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yesterday, counsel for defendant Sievers offered an affidavit of the defendant Sievers. The Tribunal sustained an objection on the part of the Prosecution to the admission of that affidavit. If counsel for defendant Sievers wishes to reoffer the document in evidence, the Tribunal will rescind its ruling and admit the affidavit in evidence and give it an exhibit number in accordance with the sequence of the affidavits on the part of the defendant Sievers.
DR. WEISGERBER: (Counsel for defendant Sievers) Mr. President, at the moment I do not have the document before me. With the permission of the President, I shall get it immediately and offer it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal admits the document in evidence. The exhibit number may be added to the document and the Prosecution will be given a copy with the exhibit number. The document may be filed with the Secretary General as admitted in evidence with Sievers' appropriate exhibit number.
DR. WEISGERBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. HARDY: It is my understanding, Your Honor, the Tribunal will adjourn until Wednesday to hear the legal arguments on the conspiracy charge.
THE PRESIDENT: The session on Wednesday will be a combined session of all Tribunals. It is not a part of the trial of Tribunal No. 1. The Tribunal will convene in back of this court room on next Wednesday, July 9th to hear arguments on the legal grounds presented with demurrers to the charge of conspiracy as an act contained in the indictment. The session will convene Wednesday morning at 9:30 o'clock.
MR. HARDY: Will all the defendants be present at that time?
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants will not be present. It is merely a legal argument and the defendants in all the trials could not be present in court as it is not a matter of submitting evidence, but arguing a pure question of law. The presence of the defendants in the court is unnecessary, according to the ruling of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Then the Tribunal will again convene on the 14th of July?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will then convene at 9:30 o'clock on the morning of July 14th to hear the arguments of counsel in accordance with the procedure to be followed with arguments for the prosecution and defense. When counsel for the defendants have determined how long they will take for their arguments, if they Will take the matter up with me sometime next week and I will be glad to hear from them.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before the Tribunal adjourns, I should like to make an application to you on behalf of defense counsel. Tomorrow we shall not be able to talk to our clients because it is a Holiday, Saturday the prison downstairs is closed for defense counsel and that also applies to Sunday. A number of the defense counsel have expressed the wish that before the conclusion in submitting of their closing briefs and pleas, they would once more like to discuss a number of essential points with their clients.
We would be grateful to you, Mr. President, if you could see to it that defense counsel could get into contact with the defendants of this trial - this trial only - either tomorrow morning or Saturday morning in order to enable us to conclude our closing briefs and final pleas and in order that there be no delay.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall take that matter up with the prison authorities and arrange for some time, either tomorrow or Saturday, any reasonable time that counsel desires, for consultation with their clients as requested.
DR. SAUTER: Perhaps on Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon. There will probably be some difficulties tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Sauter and another counsel will come to my office when the Tribunal is in recess, we shall discuss the matter and I shall take it up with the prison authorities with the request of the Tribunal that they grant the request to permit such consultations as desired.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
DR. PELCKMANN (Counsel for defendant Schaefer.) I should one more like to remind you of an application, which I already put to you sometime ago. I have the courage, as well as the modesty, to declare the following quite openly. It is neither the inefficiency of the Prosecution nor the skill of the defense counsel, but the matter of a just matter, which with overwhelming logic demands that the defendant Schaefer be dismissed and he be released from prison.
I have fully understood the precaution taken by the Tribunal in not complying with my application in that regard in my opening statement. It was still before the submission of evidence on behalf of the defense. Even they very submission of evidence on the part of the Prosecution shows that the defendant cannot be guilty but there, was still then the possibility that in the submission of evidence on behalf of the defense for the other co-defendants, he could be incriminated. Perhaps even his examination or cross-examination could incriminate him, even that could happen. I also understand why the High Tribunal has postponed my renewed application at the end of Schaefer's examination until the end of the entire submission of evidence. Theoretically, there could still have appeared incriminating evidence against the defendant Schaefer. We witnessed this until the very end. The gypsies appeared with considerable surprises of various nature, but the longer the submission of evidence of the sea-water case, after Schaefer's examination lasted, the more it became obvious that Schaefer had nothing at all to do with it. His name was not even mentioned, but with one single exception. The expert, Professor Ivy, mentioned his name repeatedly, always lauding him and giving him credit. He emphasized particularly Schaefer's rejection of the Berka method, his rejection of the experiments with that method and his reasons for it had been the only proper thing to do.
We feel the only correct thing and even without closing briefs or without pleas, it has become clear already today, Schaefer is not guilty.
I even maintain that no reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime has ever existed. For many months he has been robbed of his personal liberty, which he thought he had regained when the American troops occupied Germany.
I ask the High Tribunal to set an example with this case of Schaefer by recognizing the unconditional liberty of every individual, every German, especially after these periods of war, which have confused these concepts and which confusion still lasts until today.
The regulations of procedure of the Military Tribunal gives you, Your Honors, the formal authorization to comply with my application. Even if you cannot give a final decision now, please decide upon the combination of his imprisonment, We are still seven weeks away from the handing down of the judgment. During this time Schaefer will still be robbed of his most valuable freedom. It is a demand made by Justice that you decide the following matter and render justice. There is no suspicion at this time, there is no danger that the defendant will try to escape, there is no danger that he will in any way camouflage his acts or destroy evidential material or that he will try to influence witnesses, therefore, Schaefer should be released from prison.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has heard the application of counsel for Defendant Schaefer, which is a motion for the dismissal of the case, at the conclusion of all the evidence, this motion as these previously made on behalf of the Defendant Schaefer, will be taken under advisement by the Tribunal.
Is there any further matter to be called to the attention of the Tribunal?
The Tribunal then declares the evidence closed and the Tribunal will be in recess until Monday morning, July 14th at 9:30 o'clock when the arguments of counsel for the prosecution and the defense will be heard.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until Monday morning July 14th at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 July, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 July 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
The Tribunal will now announce its ruling on the motion of certain defendants against Count I in the indictment concerning the charge of conspiracy.
MILITARY TRIBUNAL I Count I of the indictment in this case charges that the defendants, acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article 2. It is charged that the alleged crime was committed between September 1939 and April 1945.
It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10 has defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against humanity as a separate substantive crime; therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense.
Count I of the indictment, in addition to the separate charge of conspiracy, also alleges unlawful participation in the formulation and execution of plans to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity which actually involved the commission of such crimes.
We, therefore, cannot properly strike the whole of Count I from the indictment, but, insofar as Count I charges the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate substantive offense, distinct from any war crime or crime against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that charge.
This ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or effect of Article 2, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10, or as denying to either prosecution or defense the right to offer in evidence any facts or circumstances occurring either before or after September 1939, if such facts or circumstances tend to prove or to disprove the commission by any defendant of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10.
The Tribunal has convened this morning to hear arguments of the prosecution and counsel for defense in the case which has been pending before this Tribunal. Counsel for the prosecution may now proceed with its argument.
MR. MC HANEY: May it please the Tribunal:
INTRODUCTION Today marks the closing week of this trial, which began on December 9, 1946.
Today we have behind us 133 trial days, approximately 33 of which were consumed by the prosecution in presenting the case-inchief and rebuttal evidence. Thirty-two witnesses gave evidence orally for the prosecution and thirty witnesses, in addition to the twentythree defendants, gave evidence for the defense. The prosecution submitted in evidence 570 exhibits, most of which were German documents captured by the Allied armies. Defense exhibits totalled 855, consisting primarily of affidavits. By the time the judgment has been read, the record will exceed 12,000 pages.
It is appropriate, in looking back over the history of this proceeding, to note the fairness with which the trial has been conducted. Whatever the defendants could say in their behalf, they were allowed to say.
The Tribunal has been unstinting in its efforts to procure such witnesses, documents, and facilities as the defense has requested. As Justice Jackson has stated, "They have been given the kind of a trial which they, in the days of their pomp and glory, never gave to any man."1 Several of these defendants are peculiarly able to appreciate that fact to the fullest. The defendant Karl Brandt, for example, is no stranger to Nazi justice. In April 1945, as a result of difficulties with Hitler and Bormann, he was afforded a trial of a few hours on a charge of treason. Tried by an SS Obergruppenfuehrer, he was sentenced to death. Only the confusion of the dying days of the war saved him for this reunion. Brandt admitted to this Tribunal that there was some fault to be found with that trial because, as he put it, "the sentence had been established beforehand."2 The responsibility of a fair trial to the defendants has been discharged.
So also for the prosecution has that obligation to the peoples and races on whom the scourge of these crimes was laid. The crimes which these defendants perpetrated in the name of medical science have been established by clear and overwhelming proof which is indelibly written in the record of this proceeding. No one can doubt that these incredible events were fact and not fable. The time for suspended judgment is now passed. The time for decision has been reached.
Before proceeding to outline the prosecution's case, it may perhaps be desirable to anticipate several legal questions which will undoubtedly be raised with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. Law No. 10 is, of course, the law of this case and its terms are conclusive upon every party to this proceeding. This Tribunal is, we respectfully submit, bound by the definitions in Law No. 10, just as the International Military Tribunal was bound by the definitions in the London Charter. It 1. I.M.T. transcript, p. 14333 2. Transcript, p. 2622 was stated in the I.M.T. judgment that:
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement and Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, for which there shall be individual responsibility, are set out in Article 6. The law of the Charter is decisive, and binding upon the Tribunal...
* * * * * * * "The Tribunal is, of course, bound by the Charter, in the definition which it gives both of war crimes and crimes against humanity."
1 In outlining briefly the prosecution's conception of some of the legal principles underlying war crimes and crimes against humanity, I shall, with the Tribunal's permission, adopt some of the language from the opening statement of the prosecution in the case against Friedrich Flick, et al.
, now pending before Tribunal No. IV. General Taylor there said:
"The definitions of crimes in Law No. 10, and the comparable definitions in the London Agreement and Charter of 8 August 1945, are statements and declarations of what the law of nations was at that time and before that time. They do not create 'new' crimes; Article II of Law No. 10 states that certain acts are 'recognized' as crimes. International law does not spring from legislation; it is a 'customary' or 'common' law which develops from the 'usages established among civilized peoples' and the 'dictates of the public conscience.' (2) As they develop, these usages and customs become the basis and reason for acts and conduct, and from time to time they are recognized in treaties, agreements, declarations, and learned texts. The London Charter and Law No. 10 are important items in this stream of acts and declarations through which international law grows; they are way stations from which the outlook is both prospective and retrospective, but they are not retroactive. Mr. Henry L. Stimson has recently expressed these principles with admirable clarity: (3) 'International law is not a body of authoritative codes or statutes; it is the gradual expression, case by case, of the moral judgments of the civilized world.
As such, it corresponds precisely to the common law of Anglo-American tradition. We can understand the law of Nuremberg only if we see it for what it is - a great new case in 1. Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol.
1, pp. 218, 253.
2. Hague Convention No. IV of 18 October 1907.
3. "The Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law", Henry L. Stimson, published in "Foreign Affairs", January 1947.
