The Wilmington morning star., 1945-02-05
TODAY and TOMORROW
By WALTER LIPPMANN :

In regard to German war crimi-
nails the controlling decision was
made at the Moscow conference
and announced on Nov. /, l943, In
statement signed by Roosevelt,
Churchill and Stain. Two prlncl-
pies were laid down.
The first was that Germans
charged with atrocities in invaded
countries shall, when arrested, be
set back to the country where
the crime was committed, and
there judged and punished under
the laws of that country. Accord
ing to this principle, the duty of
the occupying powers will be to
arrest, identify and extradite. 1t
will be the duty of the liberated
country, where the crime was
committed to try the defendant.
The second principle covers
1.-The case of the major criminals
whose offenses have no particular
geographical localization that is
to say men like Hitler. Himmler,
Goebbels. Ribbentrop. They are to
be FURNISHED by a joint decision
of the governments Of the Allies
The problem of these arch
criminals is much the more i'm
portant. and what is to be done
about them will have a profound
nd far-reaching effect upon the
law and morals of international
society. The crucial question is
whether or not they should be
brought to trial before judicial
tribunal or whether the Allies
should follow the precedent set in
1915 for dealing with Napoleon.
The terms of the Moscow state
ment indicate that we shall follow
the Napoleonic precedent - that
we shall deal with the arch
criminals not by judicial process
but "by joint decision of the gov
ernments of the Allies"
A consideration of the problem
will show that this is much the
better procedure. The Allies on
Aug. 2. 1915. signed convention
declaring that Napoleon was their
common prisoner and that he was
to be. punished without trial in
ORDER not to give him, as the
Prince Regent of England put it.
"any further opportunity of dis
turbing the peace Of Europe"
On first thought it may seem to
manv that justice demands tria!
Of the arch-criminals, either on
the ground that no man should be
punished without due process of
law, or on he ground that only
trial can make the verdict suf-
ficientlv solemn and impressive, or
on both grounds. But on second
thought it seems to me that we
must conclude that it is not posi-
bic to try these men for their real
crimes. and that. therefore, the
use of the judicial process would
impair rather than promote re-
spect for law.
1t would be possible. no doubt
to indict Hitler, Himmler, ct al.
for specific crimes. and to add"ce
the evidence to convict them. But
will it satisfy justice to convict
them Of specific crimes of murder
and robbery when in fact they are
guilty of the infinitely greater Of
tense. which comprehends all the
specific offenses, of attempting to
conquer and enslave the civilized
world? 1t will not. Our object is
not vengeance but justice, and to
do justice these men must be
judged for their real offenses
against mankind. not merely for
some specific offense which hap
pens to come within the rules of
evidence in criminal court. For
that would be like imprisoning a
gangster not for all his murders
and rackets but because he de-
frauded the government on his in
come tax return.
Now, the fact of that matter is
that the great crimes of the arch
criminals are crimes against what
: jurists and moralists cali the law
of nature, and not, unhappily
against what are as yet the ex.
ceedingly primitive rules of inter.
national law. That being the case,
it would be a cardinal error to
confuse the issue by. using the
forms Of the judicial process when
there is no law under which q
court can convict them for their
real crimes. # we institute legal
proceedings when there is no law
3 there will be Germans who viii,