In 1935 the introduction of compulsory armed service.
After that militarisation of the Rhineland." which prevented rearmament. In October 1935 Germany left the League of Nations and in March 1935 recounced the Armament Clauses of Versailles and informed the world of theestablishment of an air force, of a large standing army, and of conscription. Already the Reich Defence Council had been set up and its Working Committee had had its second meeting as early as 26th April 1933 with representatives from every department. It is difficult, is it not, to believe that reading the minutes of these meetings, as they must have done, Neurath, Frick, Schacht, Goering, Raeder, Keitel 26 July A LJG L16-1 and Jodl, the last two being generally present, can have supposed that the regime did not *---* war.
the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, was made General Plenipetentiary for War Economy in May 1935 The appointment was to be a complete secret. His contribution is best expressed in his own words:
in turn made possible the results of our policy."
Schachts 'a speech on 29th November 1938 is seen to be no boast when the report of his deputy, which has been put in evidence, is considered.
That report shows that under Schacht's guidance, 180,000 industrial plants had been surveyed as to usefulness for war purposes. Economic plans for the production of 200 basic materials had been worked out. A system for the letting of war contracts had been revised, allocations of coal, motor fuel and power had been determined, RM. 248,000,000 had been spent on storage facilities alone, evacuation plans for skilled workers and war materials and military zones had been worked out; 80,000,000 wartime ration cards had already been printed and distributed to local areas and a card index on the skill of some 20,000,000 workers had been prepared. report sets out were not made without the knowledge of every member of the government and no more graphic illustration of the common purpose and awareness of the aim which permeated all departments of the State is to be found than the second meeting of the Reich Defense Counsel itself held on 25th June 1939, under the presidency of the defendant Goering, the head of the 4-year plan. The defendants Frick, Funk, Keitel and Raeder were present and Hess and Ribbentrop were represented. The methodical detail in the plans which were being worked out;26 July A LJG 16-2 the preparations in respect of manpower involving the use of concentration camp workers and the unfortunate slaves of the protectorate are eloquent testimonies of the size of the struggle upon which these men knew that Germany was about to embark.
defendants Goering, Schacht, Raeder, Keitel and Jodl, but the others, too, each in his sphere, played their parts: Rosenberg, Schirach and Streicher in education, Doenitz in the preparation of the U-boat fleet, Neurath and Ribbentrop in the field of foreign affairs. systems until the former succeeded Schacht and became Minister of Economics and in September 1938 General Plenipotentiary for Economics. As Plenipotentiary Funk was charged with ensuring the economic conditions for the production of the armament industry, according to the requirements of the High Command. Frick as Plenipotentiary for the Reich administration, with Funk and Keitel, formed the three-man college planning preparations and decrees in case of war. do more by way of summary than to quote the words of Hitler himself in the memorandum which Jodl described as written during two nights of work by the Fuehrer personally and which he sent to the defendants Raeder, Goering and Keitel. In that memorandum of 9th October 1939, Hitler Finally disposes of the evidence of these defendants that Germany was never adequately prepared for war.
"The military application of our peoples strength has been manner of effort."
and again:
"The warlike equipment of the German people is at present of German divisions, than in the year 1914.
The weapons at this time.
They have just proved their supreme war-
26 July A LJG 16-3 worthiness in a victorious campaign.
In the case of the periority of weapons."
And then, speaking of the ammunition available after the conclusion of the Polish campaign:
"There is no evidence available to show that any country than the German Reich.
.... The Air Force at present is numerically the strongest in the world.
... The AA artillery is not equalled by any country in the world."
sive rearmament carried out at the expense and with the knowledge of the whole of the German people. in semi-military formations for war and then, on reaching the age for conscription, was called up for intensive training. This was going on throughout the Reich, together with the enermous work of economic preparation. Is it to be believed that any one of these men did not guess -- did not, indeed, know -the purpose of this terrific effort? in which, to use the words of one of Neurath's witnesses, "the Nazis were able to reap cheap laurels without war through the successfully practised tactics of bluff and sudden surprise," must have opened their eyes. the model for each subsequent move. On 21st May, 1935, Hitler gave a solemn assurance that the stipulations of Versailles and Locarno were being observed. Yet three weeks earlier on the very day of the conclusion of the Franco-Soviet pact, later to become the official excuse for the re-occupation of the Rhineland, and the defense for it, before this Tribunal, the first directive had been issued to the Service Chiefs. The defendant Jodl having perhaps noted the significance of the date, has sought to persuade the Tribunal that his first admission that "Operation Schulung" referred to the reoccupation of the Rhineland was wrong, and that it applied to some military 26 July A LJG 16-4 excursion in the Tyrol.
Yet on 26th June, he himself was addressing the Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council on the plans for reoccupation and revealing that weapons, equipment insignia and field grey uniforms were being stored in the zone under conditions of the greatest secrecy. Can anyone who reads his words doubt that this process had been going on at least for seven weeks? attended that meeting and heard Jodl's remarks on the 26th June 1935 or who subsequently read the minutes, knew what to expect. On 2nd March the Civil orders were given and passed to the Navy four days later. The defendants Keitel, Jodl, Raeder, Frick, Schacht and Georing were all involved in the necessary executive action and, if his U-Boats complied with the instruction of the 6th March, the defendant Doenitz, as well.
and worked out as it could only be if those men each played his allotted part. First the period of apparent quiet, during which treaties are concluded, assurances given and protestations of friendship made while beneath the surface the Auslands organization under Hess and Rosenberg begins to undermine and disrupt. The victim is deceived by open promises and weakened by underhand methods. Next, the decision to attack is taken and military preparations are hastened. If the victim shows signs of suspicion, the assurances of friendship are redoubled. Fifth Column. Then when all is prepared, what Hitler called "the propagandist cause for starting the war" is chosen, frontier incidents are faked, abuse and threats take place of fair words and everything is done to terrify the victim into submission. Finally, the blow is struck without warning. same, the perfect example repeated again and again, of treachery, intimidatior and murder.
The next step was Austria. First, the Nazis arranged the murder of Dollfuss in 1934. After the evidence in the case of the defendant Neurath, there can be little doubt as to his assassination being plotted in Berlin and arranged by Habicht and Hitler some six weeks before. The failure of that putsh made it necessary to temporize, and accordingly in May 1935 Hitler gave a complete assurance to Austria. At tire same time the defendant papen was sent to undermine the Austrian government. With the occupation of the Rhineland Austria, was next on theprogramme but Hitler was still not yet ready, hence the solemn agreement of July 1936. By the autumn of 1937 Papen's reports showed progress and accordingly the plot was divulged at the Hosbach meeting. A slight delay was necessary for the removal of the refractory Army leaders, but in February, 1938. Papen having completed his plotting with Seyss-Inquart, Schuschnigg was lured to Berchtesgaden and bullied by Hitler, Ribbentrop and Keitel. Shortly afterwards, the final scene took place, Goering playing his part in Berlin.
The defendants, Goering, ludicrous in the light of the documents.
Not one of them has suggested that Already the plan for Czechoslovakia was ready; it had been discussed at the Hoszbach meeting in November 1937; within three weeks of the Munich 1 5th of March 1939, President Hacha having been duly bullied by Hitler, established by Frick and Neurath.
You will remember the astonishing admission really intended to do it.
Ribbentrop also seems to have considered thatin As Jodl explained:
"The solution of the Czech conflict and the annexation of basis of more or less favourable strategic promises."
And now the time has dome when, to use Hitler's words:
"Germany must reckon with its two hateful enemies, England and France."
"the formation in great secrecy but with wholehearted tenacity of a coalition against England."
advised Ribbentrop as long ago as a month before Munich in the following terms:
"It is unavoidable that the German departure from theproblems of northeast must make the Poles sit up.
The fact is that after that Poland will be the next in turn.
But the later this assumpt better.
In this sense, however, it is important for the time slogans of the right to autonomy and racial unity.
Anything else Forces could stand up to."
and again Hitler and Ribbentrop made themost explicit statements. Meanwhile the usual steps were taken, and following the meeting of the 23rd of May 1939, which Raeder described as an academic lecture on war the final military econimic andpolitical preparations for war against Poland were taken and in due time war was commenced; and you get that quotation that you have heard so often, and it ought to be remembered for all times:
"The victor shall not be asked later on whether we were telling the truth or not.
In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory."
Those were Hitler's words, but these men echoes and implemented them at every stage. That was the doctrine underlying Nazi poliye. Stop by step the conspirators had reached the crucial stage and had launched Germny upon an attempt to dominate Europe and involve the world in untol horror. Not one of these men had turned against the regime. Not one of them except Schanht - to whose vital contribution to the creation of the Nazi monster I shall return later - had resigned and even he continued to lend his name to the Nazi Government.
Would that be a convenient place to adjourn?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: If it please the Tribunal: Germany's military aims and the interests of her strategy would be improved by further aggression. I do not propose to take time now by tracing again the various steps. As Hitler aaid at the meeting in November 1939:
"...Breach of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is meaingless. No one will question that when we have won we shallnot bring about a breach of neutrality as in 1941."
Norway and Denmark were invaded. No kind of excuse, then or now, has been put forward for the occupation of Denmark, but a strenuous attempt has teen made in the course of this trial to suggest that Norway was invaded only because the Germans believed that the Allies were about to take a similar step. Even if it were true, it would be no answer, but the German documents complete dispose of the suggestion that it was for such a reason that the Germans violated Norwegian neutrality. I quote: "No war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia." was made with Denmark on 31 May 1939 following the usual assurances to both Norway and Denmark which had already been given a month earlier. At the outbreak of the war a further assurance was made to Norway, followed by another on the 6th October. On the 6th September, 4 days after his assurance, Hitler was discussing with Raeder the Scandinavian problem and his political intentions in regard to the Nordic States, expressed in Admiral Assman's diary as:- "a north Germanic community with limited sovereignty in close dependence on Germany." memorandum for the information of Raeder, Goering and Keitel, Hitler was writing of the great danger of the Allies blocking the exit for U-boats between Norway and the Shetlands and of the consequent importance of "the creation of U-boat strongpoints outside these constricted home bases." Where outside the constricted home basis if not in Norway?
the comparative advantages of the different Norwegian bases, having discussed the matter with Raeder some six days before. The strategic advantages were apparent to all these men and the hollowness of the defense that the invasion of Norway was decided upon because it was believed that the Allies were going to invade is completely exposed when you consider the statement in Hitler's memorandum preceding the passage I have just quoted that:
"Provided no completely unforeseen factors appear their neutrality in the future is also to be assured. The continuation of German trade with these countries appears possible even in a war of long duration."
Rosenberg and Goering's deputy, Koerner, had been in touch with Quisling and Hagelin as early as June and it is clear from Rosenberg's subsequent report that Hitler had been kept fully informed. In December the time for planning had arrived and the decision to prepare for invasion was accordingly taken at a meeting between Hitler and Raeder. It was not long before Keitel and Jodl issued the necessary directives and in due course as necessary Goering, Doenitz and Ribbentrop were involved. there would be no danger to the Nordic States from the Allies. All the alleged intelligence reports contain no information which comes within miles of justifying an anticipatory invasion based -- you might think it is laughable -on the doctrine of self-preservation. It is true that in February 1940 Raeder pointed out to him that if England occupied Norway the whole Swedish supply of ore to Germany would be endangered but on the 26th March he advised that the Russo-Finnish conflict having ceased, the danger of an Allied landing was no longer considered serious. Nonetheless he went on to suggest that the invasion, for which all the directives had been issued, should take place at the next new noon, on the 7th April. It is interesting to note that Raeder's own war diary signed by himself and his Chief of Staff Operations records a similar opinion four days earlier. If further evidence were needed to show that the actual step was taken regardless of any risk of interference from the West, it is to be found in telegrams from the German Ministers at both Oslo and Stockholm and from the German Military Attache at Stockholm, advising the German Government that, far from being worried over invasion by the British, the Scandinavian Governments were apprehensive that it was the Germans who intended to invade.
perhaps Jodl's comment in his diary for March that Hitler "is still looking for an excuse" with Raeder's lame explanation that this refers to the text of the diplomatic note which would have to be sent and Ribbentrop's assertion that he was informed of the invasion only a day or so before it was to take place are as conclusive as anything else of the dishonesty of this defense.
Once again all these men in their different spheres were playing their appointed parts. Notably, of course, Rosenberg, who paved the way, action.
Not one of then protested: even Fritzsche's only defense is that cast.
He does not suggest that he protested. Once again, a completely ruthless And so it went on:
Yugoslavia, her fate settled before the war, Greece, and then Soviet Russia.
The German Soviet Pact of the 23rd August 1939 paved the way.
Complete worhtlessness of a Ribbentrop signature is made clear by Hitler's memorandum six weeks later, where he remarked:
"The trifling years."
German hope of overcoming the resistance o f Great Britain -then and for man months holding the fort of freedom and democracy alone a against an enemynever more powerful than at that time- ere vain, and so the first directive was i ssued for an attack in aonther direction this time --against Soviet Russia. It is indeed true -and it is interesting- that on this occasion a number of the Defendants did make some objection. Little Norway might be violated without protest : There was no danger there. There was happy acquiescence in the rape of the gallant Netherlands and of Belgium. But here was an enem which might perhaps strike fear in the heart of the bully. The Defendants objected, of course, if at all on purely military grounds, although Raeder does say that he was influenced by the moral wrong which breach of the German Soviet treaty would involve. It is for you to say. Those moral scruples which ought so properly to have manifested themselves on countless other occasions are only previously recorded when one of his officers wishe to marry a lady of doubtful reputation. The truth is that some of these men were beginning to become apprehensive. Great Britain's resistance had alrea dy begun to make them think. Was Atler now taking on another enemy whom he could not defeat ? Once the dicision was taken, however, everyone of the set to work to play his part with his usual disregard for all lows of morality or even decency. How many thousands of innocent, inoffensive men, women and children, sleepin in their beds in the happy belief that their Country was and would remain at peace, were suddenly blown into eternity by death dropped on them without warning from the skies ? In what respect does the guilt of any one of these men differ from the common murdered creeping stealthily to do his victims to death in order that he may rob them of their belongings ? plan. The attack must be "blitzartig schnell" -without warning : With the speed of lightning : Austria, Czechoslovakia; Poland; -Raeder repeating Keitel's directive for "heavy blows" struck by surprise". Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Russia.
As Hitler had said in the presence of a number of these men :
"Considerations of right or wrong or treaties do not enter into the matter." and in Municipal law, only where the war itself is legal. But where a war is illegal, as a war started not only in breach of the Pact of Paris but wit out any sort of warning or declaration clearly is, there is nothing to justify the killing, and these murders are not to be distinguished from those of any other lawless robber bands. their development. Everyone of these men acquiesced in this technique, knowing full well what it must represent in terms of human life. How can anyone of them now say he was not a party to common murder in its most ruthl form ? the condemnation of these men, but with their crime against Peace. Let me say something about the legal aspect of this matter, for it is one to the firm establishment of which His Modesty Government the United Kingdom, and indeed all the prosecutors here attach great importance.
The distinguished speech for the defence was free of ambiguity. The effect was that though the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the other international declarations and treaties rendered aggressive war illegal, they did not make it criminal. In support of this contention it was argued that they could no have done so because any such attempt to make aggressive war a crime would b contrary to the sovereignty of states, and that, in any event, the entire system of prohibition of war had collapsed before the outbreak of the Second World War and therefore ceased to be law. It was further argued that these treaties were not taken seriously by numerous jurists and journalists whose opinions were cited and were not really entitled to be treated seriously because they contained no provision for coping with the problem of the peaceful change of the status quo. "With regard to the Pact of Paris itself, counsel contended that there could be no question of a criminal including Germany, the right to determine whether it was entitled to go to war in self-defence.
Finally it was suggested that the State could not become the subject of criminal responsibility and that, if that proposition were not admitted, the crime was one of the German State and not of individual members of it, because in the German State which launched that war upon the world there were no individual wills but only one sovereign, uncontrolle and final will -that of the Dictator Fuehrer. is beside the point and cannot be heard in this Court since it is in contradiction to the Charter. For the Charter lays down expressly that the planning, and I emphasize the word "planning", preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression or of a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances shall be considered crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It would appear, therefore, that the only way in which the accused can escape liability is to show to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that these wars were not wars of aggression or in violation of treaties. They have not done that. That being so one asks what is the purpose of the argument which has been advanced in their behalf Is it to deny the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in this matter ? Or what is more probable, is it a political appeal to some outside audience which ma be more easily impressed by the complaint that the accused are being made the object of post factum legislation ? unchallenged. I am anxious not to take up time by repeating what I said in my opening statement on the change effected in the position of war in international law as the result of the long series of treaties, in particula the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War. I have submitted that that Treaty, one of the most generally signed international treaties, established a rule of international law with a solemnity and clarity which is often lacking in customary international law; that the profound change which it produced -- and this is important-- (although indeed the distinction between just and unjust wars had been recognized in mediaeval times) was reflected in weighty pronouncements of governments and statesmen; I submit that it rendered illegal recourse to war in violation of the Treaty; and that there is no difference between illegality and criminality in a breach of law involving the deaths of millions and a direct attack on the very foundations of civilised life.
Nor do I propose to take time by answering in detail the if I may say so, strange chain of legal argument put forward by the defence such as that the Treaty had no effect attributed to it by its signatories on the ground that it was received in some quarters with disbelief or cynici any case that Treaty -and the other Treaties and assurances which followed i had ceased to be legally binding by 1939 because by that time the entire system of collective security had collapsed. The fact that the United State declared its neutrality in 1939 was cited as an example of the collapse of the system as if the United States had been under any legal obligation to act otherwise. But what is the relevance of the fact that the system design to enforce these treaties and to prevent and to penalize criminal recourse to war failed to work ? Did the aggressions of Japan and Italy and the other States involved in the Axis conspiracy, followed by the German aggressions against Austria and Czechoslovakia, deprive these obligations of their binding effect simply because those crimes achieved a temporary success ? Since when has the civilized world accepted the principle that the temporary impunity of the criminal not only deprives the law of its binding force but legalizes hrs crime ? and Italian aggressions, the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nation denounced these acts as violations both of the Covenant and of the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War and that in both cases sanctions were decreed. It may be that the policemen did not act as effectively as one could have wished them to act. But that was a failure of the policemen, no of the law.
But not content with the remarkable suggestion that by their very aggressions, because of the reulctance of the peace loving States to take arms against the blackmail and the bullying which was directed against them, the aggressors had abrogated the law against aggression, the Defendants have instroduced some question of self-defense.
They have not indeed, really suggested that these wars were defensive wars. Not even Goebbels in his wildest extravagancees went quite so far as that. It appears that what they seek to say is not that their wars were wars in self-defense, but that since the Pact of Paris not only left intact the right of States to defend themselves but also the sovereign right of each State to determine whether recourse to war in self-defense was justified in the circumstances, it did not in fact contain any legal obligation at all. That is, in our strong suumission, a wholly fallacious argument. It is true that in the declarations preceding and accompanying the signature and the ratification of the Pact of Paris, self-defense was not only recognized as an inherent and inalienable right of the parties to the Treaty, but its signatories reserved for themselves the exclusive right of judging whether circumstances called for the exercise of that right. troyed the purpose and the legal value of the Treaty? If Germany was entitled to have recourse to war in self-defense and if she was free to determine in what circumstances she was permitted to exercise the right of self-defense, can she ever be considered to have violated the solemn obligation of the Treaty? That question Counsel f o the Defense sought to answer in the negative. But that answer amounts to an assertion that that solemn Treaty subscribed to by more than sixty nations is a scrap of paper devoid of any meaning at all, and it would result in this - that every prohibition or limitation of the right of war is a nullity if it expressly provides for the right of self-defense, and I invite the Tribunal emphatically to consign that paradoy of legal reasoning to where it properly belongs.
Neither the Pact of Paris nor any other treaty was intended to -
or could - take away the right of self-defense. Nor did it deprive its signatories of the right to determine, in the first instance, whether there was danger in delay and whether immediate action to defend themselves was imperative; and that only is the meaning of the express proviso that each State judges whether action in selfdefense is necessary. But that does not mean that the State thus acting is the ultimate judge of the propriety and of the legality of its conduct. It acts at its peril. Just as the individual is answerable for the exercise of his common law right of defense, so the State is answerable if it abuses its discretion, if it transforms "self-defense" into an instrument of conquest and lawlessness, if it twists the natural right of self-defense into a weapon of predatory aggrandizement and lust. The ultimate decision as tto the lawfulness of action claimed to be taken in self-defense does not lie with the State concerned, and for that reason, the right of self-defense, whether expressly reserved or implied, does not impair the capacity of a treaty to create legal obligations against war. the first instance, whether events in Manchuria justified resort to force in self-defense. But it was left to an impartial body of enquiry to find, as it did find, that there was in fact no justification for action in self-defense, and to mention a mere recent example, Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations lays down that nothing in the Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack; But it expressly leaves to the Security Council the power of ultimate action and determination. It is to be hoped that the judgement of this Tribunal will discourage, and discourage with appropriate finality, any future reliance on the argument that because a treaty reserved for the signatories the right of action in self-defense, it becomes, for that reason, incapable of imposing upon the signatories any effective legal obligation against war.
I will now turn to the argument that the notion of criminal responsibility is incompatible with the idea of national sovereignty.
At state may, and Professor Jahrreis conceded, commit an offense against International Law, but he contends that to make it criminally responsible and punishable would be to deny the soveriegnty of the State. the German Government overran most of the States of Europe, who trampled brutally upon their sovereign indenpendence, and who, with boastful and swaggering cynicism, made the sovereignty of the Conquered States subservient to the new conception of the "Grossraumsordnung" - it is strange to see these defendants appealing to the mystic virtues of the sanctity of State sovereignty, and perhaps it is not less remarkable to find them invoking orthodox international law to protect the defeated German State and its rulers from just punishment at the hands of the victorious Powers. But there is not rule of international law which they can call in aid to this regard. the German State. They are concerned with the punishment of individuals. But it might seem strange if individuals were criminally responsible for the acts of the State if such acts by the State were not themselves crimes. There is no substance at all in the view that international law rules out the criminal responsibility of States and that, since, becuase of their sovereignty, States cannot be coerced, all their acts are legal. Legal purists may content that nothing is law which is not imposed from above by a sovereign body having the power to compel obedience. That idea of the analytical jurists has never been applicable to international law. If it had, the undoubted obligation of States in matters of contract and tort could not exist. war, there was not super sovereign body which at the same time imposed international laws and enforced them. But, at least in the international the existence of law has never been dependent on the existence of a correlated sanction external to the law itself.
International Law has always been based on the element of common consent and where you have a body of rules which, whether by common consent or treaty are obligatory upon the members of the international community the se rules are the laws of that community although the consent has not been obtained by force, and although there may be no direct or external sanction to secure obedience. The fact is, that absolute sovereignty in the old sense is, very fortunately, a thing of the past. It is a conception which is quite inconsistent with the binding force of any international treaty. Justice, it became a stock argument to rely on State sovereignty in support of the opinion that, as States are sovereugn, treaty obligations entered into by them ought to be at least interpreted restrictively. The Court consistently discouraged that view. In its very first judgement - a judgement given against Germany in tic Wimbledon case - it rejected the plea of sovereignty as a reason for the restrictive interpretation of obligations in treaties. The Court declined to see in a treaty, by which a State undertook to observe a definite line of conduct, an abandonment of its sovereignty and The Court reminded Germany that the very right to enter into international agreement is an attribute of State sovereignty. As a philosophical proposition the right to contract and the right to freedom of action to, I suppose, present an eternal antimony. But just as individuals secure freedom by adherence to laws, so may sovereign States maintain their own individual status; the view that since States are sovereign they cannot be coerced, has long since been abandoned. The Covenant of the League of Nations made provision, in Article 16, for sanctions against sovereign States - sanctions being only another name for coercion, probably coercion of a punitive character. The Charter of the United Nations has followed suit - much more decisively. It is true that, because of the absence of a competent compulsory jurisdiction, there is no judicial precedent for States being arraigned before a Criminal Tribunal.
But that is equally true of the undoubted civil responsibilities of States, for apart from treaty there is no compulsory jurisdiction in any international tribunal to adjudicate upon them. had tried such a case before. The methods of procedure, the specific punishments, the appropriate Courts, can always be defined by subsequent proclamation. The only innovation which this Charter has introduced is to provide machinery, long overdue, to carry out the existing law, and there is no subsctance in the complaint that the Charter is a piece of post factum legislation either in delclaring wars of aggression to be criminal, or in assuming that the State is not immune from criminal responsibility. State and not the individual who can be made responsible under international law. That argument is put in several ways. States only, it is said, and not individuals, are the subject of international law. But there is no such principle of international law. One need only mention the case of Piracy or Breach of Blockade, or the case of Spies to see that there are numerous examples of duties being imposed by International Law directly upon individuals. War Crimes have always been recognized as bringing individuals within the scope of International Law. In England and the United States our Courts have invariably acted on the view that the accepted customary rules of the Law of Nations are binding upon the subject and the citizen, and the position is essentially the same in most countries. In Germany itself, Article 4 of the Weimar constitution laid it down that generally recognized rules of international law must be regarded as an integral part of German Federal Law and what can it mean in effect, save that the rules of international law are binding upon individuals? Shall we depart from that principle merely because we are here concerned with the gravest offense of all - crimes against the peace of Nations and crimes against humanity. The law is a living growing thing.