war against the U.S.S.R. In December 1940 Hungary agreed to participate on the promise of Germany that she should have certain territories at the expense of Yugoslavia.
Minister of Rumania, regarding the attack on the U.S.S.R., in which Germany promised to Rumania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the right to occupy Soviet territory up to the Dnieper. Soviet territory in accordance with the plans so long made. Germany had the design carefully thought out, to crush the U.S.S.R. as a political and military power, so that Germany might expand to the cast according to her own desire. In "Mein Kampf", Hitler had written:
"If now territory were to be acquired in Europe, it must have been mainly at Russia's cost, and with its daily bread."
But there was a more immediate purpose, and in one of the memoranda of the OKW that immediate purpose Was stated to be to feed the German armies from Soviet territory in the third year of the war, even if "as a result many millions of people as the defendant Rosenberg said, will be starved to death if we take out of the country the things necessary for us." conference with Hitler on July 16, 1941, in which the defendants Goering, "There can be no talk of the creation of a mili-Keitel, Rosenberg and Bormann participated:
have to fight 100 years to achieve this ... All The crimea and adjoining regions (North of the Crimea) must likewise be incorporated into the Reich.
The region of the Volga as well as the the Reich, The Finns want Eastern Karelia.
How the Kola peninsula must be coded to Germany," was justified because the Soviet Union was contemplating an attack upon Germany, and making preparations to that end.
It is impossible to believe that this view was ever honestly entertained. removal of masses of the population, for the murder of Commissars and political leaders, were all part of the carefully prepared scheme launched on the 22nd June without warning of any kind, and without the shadow of legal excuse, It was plain aggression. States fleet in Pearl harbor on December 7, 1941, Germany declared war on the United States. on the 27th September 1940, and from that date until the attack upon the USSR the defendant Ribbentrop, with other defendants, was endeavouring to induce Japan to attack British possessions in the Far East. This, it was the war.
thought would hasten England's defeat, and also keep the United States out of and discussed as a matter for the future. Major von Falkenstein, the Luftwaffe Liaison officer with the Operations Staff of the OKW, summarizing military problems which needed discussion in Berlin in October of 1940, spoke of the possibility "of the prosecution of the war against America at a later date." It is clear, too, that the German policy of keeping America out of the war, if possible, did not prevent Germany promising support to Japan even against the United States. On the 4th April 1941, Hitler told Matsuoka, the Japanese Foreign Minister, in the presence of the defendant Ribbentrop, that Germany would "strike without delay" if a Japanese attack on Singapore should lead to war between Japan and the United States. The next day Ribbentrop himself urged Matsuoka to bring Japan into the war. Ribbentrop encouraged Japan, through her Ambassador in Berlin, to attack Great Britain and the United States, and stated that should Japan become engaged in a war with the United States, Germany would join the war immediately, A few days later, Japanese representatives told Germany and Italy that Japan was preparing to attack the United States, and asked for their support, Germany and Italy agreed to do this, although in the Tripartite Pact, Italy and Germany had undertaken to assist Japan only if she were attacked. When the assault on pearl Harbor did take place, the defendant Ribbentrop is reported to have been "overjoyed", and later, at a ceremony in Berlin, when a German medal was awarded to Oshima, the Japan Japanese had adopted of negotiating with the United States as long as ese Ambassador, Hitler indicated his approval of the tactics which the possible, and then striking hard without any declaration of war.
not consider that a war with the United States would be beneficial to their interest, it is apparent that in the course of 1941 that view was revised, and Japan was given every encouragement to adopt a policy which would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. And when Japan attacked the United States fleet in Pearl Harbor and thus made aggressive war against the United States, the Nazi Government caused Germany to enter that war at once on the side of Japan by declaring war themselves on the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until a quarter past two.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours.)
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1415 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I now ask Mr. Biddle to continue the reading of the judgment.
MR. BIDDLE: Violations of International Treaties.
that is a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties.
The Tribunal has decided that certain of the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars against twelve nations, and were therefore guilty of this series of crimes. This makes it unnecessary to discuss the subject in further detail, or even to consider at any length the extent to Which these aggressive wars were also "wars in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances." These treaties are set out in Appendix C of the Indictment. Those of principal importance are the following.
In the 1899 Convention the signatory powers agreed: "before an appeal to arms ... to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers." A similar clause was inserted in the Convention for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1907. In the accompanying Convention Relative to Opening of Hostilities, Article I contains this far more specific language:
"The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities with a conditional declaration of war."
Germany was a party to these conventions.
Breaches of certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are also relied on by the Prosecution--not to fortify the left bank of the Rhine (Art.
44-42); to "respect strictly the independence of Austria" (Art. 80); renunciation of any rights in Memel (Art. 99), and the Free City of Danzig (Art. 100); the recognition of the independence of the Czecho-Slovak State; and the Military, Naval and Air Clauses against German rearmament found in Part V. There is no doubt that action was taken by the German Government contrary to all these provisions, the details of which are set out in Appendix C. With regard to the Treaty of Versailles, the matters relied on are:
1. The violation of Articles 42 to 44 in respect of the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland;
2. The annexation of Austria on the 13th March 1938, in violation of Article 80;
3. The incorporation of the district of Memel on the 22nd March 1939, in violation of Article 99;
4. The incorporation of the Free City of Danzig on the 1st September 1939, in violation of Article 100;
5. The incorporation of the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia on the 16th March 1939, in violation of Article 81;
6. The repudiation of the military naval and air clauses of the Treaty, in or about March of 1935. On the 21st May 1935 Germany announced, that whilst renouncing the disarmament clauses of the Treaty, she would still respect the territorial limitations, and would comply with the Locarno Pact. [With regard to the the allegation proved.
] first five breaches alleged, therefore, the Tribunal finds treaties entered into by Germany with other powers.
Treaties of Mutual Guarantee were signed by Germany at Locarno in 1925, with Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy, assuring the maintenance of the territorial status quo. Arbitration treaties were also executed by Germany at Locarno with Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Poland.
Article I of the latter treaty is typical, providing:
"All disputes of every kind between Germany and Poland ... which it may not be possible to settle be submitted for decision to an arbitral tribunal.
.." into between Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark in 1926; and between Germany and Luxemburg in 1929. Non-aggression treaties were executed by Germany with Denmark and Russiae in 1939. Germany, the United States, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and other countries; and subsequently by other powers. The Tribunal has made full reference to the nature of this Pact and its legal effect in another part of this judgment. It is therefore not necessary to discuss the matter further here, save to state that in the opinion of the Tribunal this Pact was violated by Germany in all the cases of aggressive war charged in the Indictment. It is to be noted that on the 26th January 1934 Germany signed a was explicitly based on the Pact of Paris, and in which the use of force Declaration for the Maintenance of Permanent Peace with Poland, which was outlawed for a period of ten years.
treaties referred to in the Appendix, or the repeated agreements and assurances of her peaceful intentions entered into by Germany.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement and Article 6. The law of the Charter is decisive, and binding upon the tionally surrendered; and the undoubted right of those countries to civilized world.
The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on time of its creation; and to that extent is itself a contribution to done singly; for it is not to be doubted that any nation has the right thus to set up special courts to administer law.
With regard to the or a war in violation of international treaties a crime; and it is heard full argument from the Prosecution and the Defense, and will great importance of the questions of law involved, the Tribunal has express its view on the matter.
principle of all law - international and domestic - is that there can be no punishment of crime without a pre-existing law. "Nullum crimen sine logo nulla poena sine lege." It was submitted that ox post facto punishment is abhorrent to the law of all civilized nations, that no sovereign power had made aggressive war a crime at the time the alleged criminal acts were committed, that no statute had defined aggressive war, that no penalty had been fixed for its commission, and no court had been created to try and punish offenders. crimen sine lege is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is in general a principle of justice. To assert that it is unjust to punish those who in defiance of treaties and assurances have attacked neighboring states without warning is obviously untrue, for in such circumstances the attacker must know that he is doing wrong, and so for from it being unjust to punish him, it would be unjust if his wrong were allowed to go unpunished. Occupying the positions they did in the government of Germany, the defendants, or at least some of them must have known of the treaties signed by Germany, outlawing recourse to war for the settlement of international disputes; they must have known that they were acting in defiance of 11 international law when in complete deliberation they carried out their designs of invasion and aggression. On this view of the case alone, it would appear that the maxim has no application to the present facts.
of the state of international law in 1939, so far as aggressive war is concerned.
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War of August 27th 1928, more generally known as the Pact of Paris or the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was binding on sixty-three nations, including Germany, Italy and Japan at the outbreak of war in 1939. In the preamble, the signatories declared that they were:
"Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; persuaded that the time perpetuated ... all changes in their relations means ... thus uniting civilised nations of the instrument of their national policy ..." The first two articles are as follows:
"Article I: The High Contracting Parties solemnly to one another."
"Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that be sought except by pacific means."
The question is, what was the legal effect of this pact? The nations who signed the pact or adhered to it unconditionally condemned recourse to war for the future as an instrument of policy, and expressly renounced it. After the signing of the pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national national policy breaks the pact.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war, with its inevitable and terrible consequences, are committing a crime in so doing. War for the solution of international controversies undertaken as an instrument of national policy certainly includes a war of aggression, and such a war is therefore outlawed by the pact. As Mr. Henry L. Stimson, then Secretary of State of the United States, said in 1932:
"War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty.
This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world ... an illegal thing.
Hereafter, when nations engage in termed violators of this general treaty law ... We denounce them as law breakers."
that such wars are crimes, or set up courts to try those who make such wars. To that extent the same is true with regard to the laws of war contained in the Hague Convention. The Hague Convention of 1907 prohibited resort to certain methods of waging war. These included the inhumane treatment of prisoners, the employment of poisoned weapons, the improper use of flags of truce, and similar matters. Many of these prohibitions had been enforced long before the date of the Convention; but since 1907 they have certainly been crimes, punishable as offences against the laws of war; yet the Hague Convention nowhere designates such practices as criminal, nor is any sentence prescribed, nor any mention made of a court to try and punish offenders. For many years past, however, military tribunals have tried and punished individuals guilty of violating the rules of land warfare laid down by this Convention. In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that which is equally rules of the Hague Convention.
In interpreting the words of the illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of the Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact of Paris have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure.
The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of justice applied by jurists and practised by military courts. This law is not static, but by continual adaptation follows the needs of a changing world. Indeed, in many cases treaties do no more than express and define for more accurate reference the principles of law already existing. tion of the Pact is supported by the international history which preceded it. In the year 1923 the draft of a Treaty of Mutual Assistance was sponsored by the League of Nations. In Article I the treaty declared "that aggressive war is an international crime", and that the parties would "undertake that no one of them will be guilty of its commission". The draft treaty was submitted to twenty-nine states, about half of whom were in favor of accepting the text. The principal objection appeared to be in the difficulty of defining the acts which would constitute "aggression", rather than any doubt as to the criminality of aggressive war. The preamble to the League of Nations 1924 Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes ("Geneva Protocol"), after "recognising the solidarity of the members of the International community", declared that "a war of aggression constitutes a violation of this solidarity and is an International crime." It went on to declare that the contracting parties were "desirous of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the pacific settlement facilitating the complete application of the system provided in of disputes between the states and of ensuring the repression of international crimes."
The Protocol was recommended to the members of the League of Nations by a unanimous resolution in the Assembly of the forty-eight members of the League. These members included Italy and Japan, but Germany was not then a member of the League. the leading statesmen of the world, representing the vast majority of the civilized states and peoples, and may be regarded as strong evidence of the Intention to brand aggressive war as an international crime. the 24th September 1927, all the delegations then present (including the German, the Italian and the Japanese), unanimously adopted a declaration concerning wars of aggression. The preamble to the declaration stated:
"The Assembly:
of nations;
of general peace;
in consequence an international crime ..." one American republics at the sixth (Havana) Pan-American Conference, declared that "war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species." cited, so solemnly made, reinforce the construction which the Tribunal placed upon the Pact of Paris, that resort to a war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal. The prohibition of aggressive war demanded by the conscience of the world, finds its expression in the series of Pacts and Treaties to which the Tribunal has just referred.
Treaty of Versailles provided for the constitution of a special Tribunal, composed of representatives of five of the Allied and Associated Powers which had been belligerents in the first World War opposed to Germany, to try the former German Emperor "for a supreme offence against International morality and the sanctity of treaties."
The purpose of this trial was expressed to be "to vindicate the solemn obligations of international undertakings, and the validity of international morality." In Article 228 of the Treaty, the German Government expressly recognized the right of the Allied Powers "to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war."
with the actions of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon states has long been recognized. In the recent case of Ex Parte Quirin (1942 317 US 1), before the Supreme Court of the United States, persons were charged during the war with landing in the United States for purposes of spying and sabotage. The late Chief Justice Stone, speaking for the Court, said:
"From the very beginning of its history this Court enemy nations as well as enemy individuals."
He went on to give a list of cases tried by the Courts, where individual offenders were charged with offences against the laws of nations, and particularly the laws of war. Many other authorities could be cited, but enough has been said to show that individuals can be punished for violations of international law. Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced. sailles already referred to illustrate and enforce this view of individual responsibility.
circumstances, protects the representatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law.
The authors of these acts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings. Article 7 of the Charter expressly declares:
"The official position of defendants, whether as punishment."
that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in authorising action moves outside its competence under International Law.
defendants that in doing what they did they were acting under the orders of Hitler, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the acts committed by them in carrying out these orders.
The Charter specifically provides in Article 8:
"The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to considered in mitigation of punishment."
The provisions of this article are in conformity with the law of all nations. That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognized as a defense to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible.
aggressive war, it is clear that planning and preparation had been carried out in the most systematic way at every stage of the history. of war. In the opinion of the Tribunal aggressive war is a crime under international law. The Charter defines this offense as planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression "or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment ... of the foregoing." The Indictment follows this distinction. Count One charges the common plan or conspiracy. Count Two charges the planning and waging of war. The same evidence has been introduced to support both counts. We shall therefore discuss both counts together, as they are in substance the same. The defendants have been charged under both counts, and their guilt under each count must be determined.
The "common plan or conspiracy" charged in the Indictment covers twenty-five years, from the formation of the Nazi Party In 1919 to the end of the war in 1945. The party is spoken of as "the instrument of cohesion among the defendants" for carrying out the purposes of the conspiracy - the overthrowing Germany in the last war and "lebensraum" in Europe, by the of the Treaty of Versailles, acquiring territory lost by use, if necessary, of armed force, of aggressive war.