GENERAL STAFF GUILTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26273, 3 October 1946, Page 7

GENERAL STAFF GUILTY

A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION AMERICAN JUDGE’S OPINION NUREMBERG, Oct. 1. Mr Justice Jackson in his statement regretting the acquittal of Schacht and von Papen, and the failure to declare the High Command criminal, said: “In sustaining the application of the principle that aggressive war is a crime for which statesmen may individually be punished, the judgment is highly gratifying. It is a hopeful sign for the world's.peace that the representatives of the Great Powers ail agree on this principle, and are committed to it by this judgment. Whole Nations Responsible “ I regret the acquittal of Schacht and von Papen, and the decision not to declare the General Staff a criminal organisation. The effect of that on the further prosecution of industrialists and militarists will have to be studied. Personally, I regard the conviction and sentencing of individuals of secondary importance compared with the significance of the commitment by four nations to the proposition that wars of aggression and persecution of conquered minorities on

racial, religious, and political grounds are criminal. These principles of lawwill influence future events long after the individuals are forgotten.” Tl-.e 13 convicted war criminals were segregated into three groups when taken back to their cells after the sentences, says Reuter's correspondent. The 11 condemned to death, the three imprisoned for life, and the four sentenced to 10 to 20 years were drafted to different sections. Aggression a Crime The British prosecution issued a statement emphasising that the judgment was of the highest importance because it finally clearly established aggressive war as an international crime, for which was personal individual responsibility. “in view of this fundamental finding, the tribunal’s decisions in the case of particular individuals is in some ways a matter of only transient interest." The statement added that no sigmwas attached to the tribunal’s rejection of some of the prosecution's submissions or the 'tribunal’s failure to reach unanimous conclusions.