The Pittsburgh Press (October 19, 1945)
Editorial: The war trial precedent
For the first time in history, men are to be tried for the crime of aggressive war. The 24 Nazi leaders indicted before the four-power Allied tribunal in Berlin yesterday were charged not only with mass atrocities but also with causing World War II.
So the issue goes far beyond the guilt or fate of these men. If the prosecution’s contention is upheld by the court, it will establish a precedent which can be applied to government officials of all aggressor nations now and in the future.
Some international lawyers and others challenge this. They say there has been no recognizes international law making such war a crime in the legal sense. They think the Nazi chiefs should be disposed of, if at all, on grounds of military expediency and without trying to “dress up the proceedings juridically.”
It is true, perhaps, that an Allied tribunal cannot hear cases against an enemy with the same degree of objectivity as a conventional court. But there can be no theoretically nonpartisan court now because the aggressors destroyed international machinery by war and forced virtually the entire world into defensive combat. So today there is no non-Allied body capable of enforcing international law.
But is there any international law on the subject? Those who say there is not, stress the fact that there is no precedent for those trials. They ignore the other fact that law is a living, growing thing – or nothing. Of course the creation of new precedent cannot be arbitrary and capricious; it must command the respect and allegiance of civilized society.
In this case there is international law which applies directly. It is not as precise as a body of national law, and never can be until international organization is complete. But the principal nations had outlawed war before the Nazi attacks. The League of Nations had branded aggression an international crime. The Kellogg-Briand Pact had outlawed aggression as “legally” as the signatures of sovereign nations can do so.
The lack was not in formal commitments but in the enforcement of them. Allied victory in an unsought war was a belated and partial enforcement. But that is not enough. Nor is future United Nations security machinery sufficient in itself. Because the possibility of national defeat in war, or of sanctions against an aggressor nation will not stop criminal leaders from gambling the fate of their nations if they can lose and still escape personal punishment.
To declare aggressive war an international crime is futile unless those who make it are treated as international criminals. That is the basis of the Allied indictment of these Nazi culprits. It goes to the heart of the twin problems of war responsibility and war prevention.
The United States contributed mightily to military victory. It is leading in creation of a United Nations organization for world security. We are proud that our government, with the support of the American people, also insists on establishing the essential precedent that war-makers are international criminals to be tried and punished.