The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/judgment//j-violation-treaties

Archive/File: imt/ tgmwc/judgment/j-treaties
Last-Modified: 1997/09/13

                           of the
               International Military Tribunal
                           For The
             Trial of German Major War Criminals

               His Majesty's Stationery Office

                                                   [Page 35]

The Charter defines as a crime the planning or waging of war
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

These treaties are set out in Appendix C of the Indictment.
Those of principal importance are the following.

                      HAGUE CONVENTIONS

In the 1899 Convention the signatory powers agreed: "before
an appeal to arms 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 ("Treaty Series No. 9 (1901) Cmd. 798). In
the accompanying Convention Relative to Opening of
Hostilities (Miscellaneous No. 6 (1908)" Cmd. 4175), Article
I contains this far more specific language:

     "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities
     between them must not commence without a previous
     and explicit warning, in the
                                              [Page 37]
     form of either a declaration of war, giving
     reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional
     declaration of war." Germany was a party to these

                      VERSAILLES TREATY
          ("Treaty Series No. 4 (1919)" Cmd. 153.)

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. 42-44); 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
Czechoslovak 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
     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 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 first five
breaches alleged, therefore, the Tribunal finds the
allegation proved.]

It is unnecessary to discuss in any detail the various
treaties entered into by Germany with other Powers. Treaties
(Treaty Series No. 28 (1926) Cmd. 2764) 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
("Miscellaneous No. 11 (1925)" Cmd. 2525) were also executed
by Germany at Locarno with Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and

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
     amicably by the normal methods of diplomacy shall
     be submitted for decision to an arbitral tribunal

Conventions of Arbitration and Conciliation were entered
into between Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark in 1926;
and between Germany and Luxembourg in 1929. Non-aggression
treaties were executed by Germany with Denmark and Russia in

                                                   [Page 38]

                     KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT
          ("Treaty Series No. 29 (1929)" Cmd. 3410)

The Pact of Paris was signed on the 27th August, 1928 by
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, 1930, Germany signed a
Declaration for the Maintenance of Permanent Peace with
Poland, which was explicitly based on the Pact of Paris, and
in which the use of force was outlawed for a period of 10

The Tribunal does not find it necessary to consider any of
the other treaties referred to in the Appendix, or the
repeated agreements and assurances of her peaceful
intentions entered into by Germany.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.