Memorandum from Rockler, Walter; to Rawlings Ragland, June 21, 1947 - Page 1

mn-omci иигпшш 21 Jtae 1947 To : !’r. BBvrling* »gland fro* * alter ‘oekler tubjectl Legpl and Tactual Possibility of an Aggressive War Count against Dresdner lank I. ?hP..;:y.t.e_of.. thff.,tey ,on A^r|P^4.yiiWnr„f.l.jtlnPnt.^p_tMe..0Me,. A. Con rleon of the London Charter and Oounc&l Control law Kuraber 10. Article 1 of Law Ко. 10 lnooroor tat the London Charter a* an "integral part of thl« Law4, This ehoula naan only that conflict* of wording In the two docu¬ ment* ought, e far a s possible, be reconciled to yield the same meaning. 'here however, ther it a daar deviation, the rlrln word* of Law lo. 10 ought b# controlll r, on «be ordinary rules of steutory construction. At to persons who в aybe triad before tribunals, the Control Council Law it more" sxtensive than tha ChUrtar. In Para gr* oh 2 of Articla II, any person with¬ out TPg* rd to nationality is subject to trial. Tha Charter limits trial by an International Military Tribunal to "smjor war criminal* whota offenses bar# no perticul r geographical location". Agldo from any differences in substantive law which nay bo found, the jurisdiction of tha Aaerioan Military Tribunal* under Ordinance lo. 7 and Law lo. 10 it different froti and greeter than that of the 1ИТ. (The point night be raised in tha attempt to е*>Ьа?1*е to an American Tribunal that it* *c*oe of activity 1* in *ona ways greater then tha IMT a* a prelude to an attack on sone aspect* of tha IK? judgnent. Otherwise, tha difference here ha* no utility that I can see). In respect to the scop# of tha crln# defined. Article II of *I*w Ко. 10 adds a crlne of "initiation of invasion* of other countries .... in violation of intern» tional lava and treaties". This provision doe* not naterlally help our case, since I do not think it likely that w# shall aver find «ate rial shoving that Dresdner Bank initi? tec either an invasion, or, a* the ТИР put it, "an aggressive act," or a war of aggression. X have bean told thr*t tha addition of this clausa wa* made because of it* possible utility in connection with the occupation of Chechoslovakia, whereas originally at London such a clause had bean omitted at the Insistence of the UrSH rap re santa tivas, who feared a characterisation of the first war against У inland as an "invasion " of thi* kind. Article II, Paxegreph 1, (a) of Law lo. 10 als# adds tha word* "Including but not Halted to planning, etc." However, it 1* hard to see what act* of aggressive war are not enl ce corpletely within planning# preparation. Initiation, or v; ing. I would conclude that there is no substantial difference in tha «actions of the documents which define tha crime. X have not been able to find other difference* in the Acts which bear neon thi* point. Article II, Paxegreph 6 of Law Ко. 10 rejects any immunity conferred by any statute of limitation for the period fipm January SO, 1933 to July 1, 1146, but th*t seem* more applicable to the analysis of Crime* against Hunenity, which the Kerfs may have expressly pardoned. There 1* a significant difference between the Charter and Law Ко. 10 on the issue o ' r -ti citation in and individual responsibility for acts which are included in the definition of the crime. The Charter merely defines the re«pou«l* billty of persons party to a com non plan or conspiracy, and a charge of 'onepire or couron plan to prepare, initiate, or wage aggressive war by the officiol? о the Dresiner Bank ie highly improbable in the face of the IK* holding on conspiracy. That i*, the Charter vela res that the "leader*, or/fnirers, instil tors and accomplice® pe rtlcipa tine in the formulation or execution common plan or conspiracy to cowrit on у of the 'oregoine crimes are r*«p< for all act* performed by any persons in execution o' such plan". On t’