[Each of the condemned was held steady by two United States Army guards from the time he left his cell until the time the trap was sprung, The Associated Press said. Their hands were tied behind them with black shoe laces and their feet were strapped with army belts.]
OCTOBER 17, 1946
Editorial
THE NAZI HERITAGE
In his report on the Nuremberg trial Justice Jackson rightly emphasizes that more important than the personal fate of the Nazi leaders, already broken and discredited men before they died, are the principles to which the great nations of the world have committed themselves by their participation in the trial and their execution of its judgment. These principles, now backed by the power of precedent, constitute the basic charter of international law and this law applies not only to the Nazi leaders but to all men everywhere.
This means, as Mr. Jackson points out, that many more Germans will have to be tried for crimes committed on a lower level, and preparations for such trials are already under way. Whether the method of trial by the individual occupying Powers suggested by Mr. Jackson best serves not only economy but also justice is another matter. Though the four Powers agreed on procedure at Nuremberg, they do not all subscribe to the same rules within their respective jurisdictions, and it would discredit the Nuremberg judgment if it were used to sanction trials based on collective instead of individual guilt, or trials in which the prosecutor dominates the judge.
Beyond that, Mr. Jackson also emphasizes the unchallengeable maxim that the “standards by which the Germans have been condemned will become the condemnation of any nation that is faithless to them.” There may have been some doubt in the first flush of victory as to what the obligations of the victors were. But there is no excuse for further uncertainty or indulgence. It is incumbent upon all victors to review their own policies and practices in the light of the new law.
For the Nazi leaders were convicted not only of waging aggressive war but also of many other deeds connected with that act. They were convicted of plundering and exploiting occupied territories and ill-treating and starving the civilian population. The victors have just claims against the Nazi regime and the German state; they can have no right to confiscate the property of individuals or to pursue policies which impose upon the conquered populations “needless aggravation or economic distress,” for which the American Secretary of State himself holds the victors responsible.
The Nazis were also convicted of deporting civilian populations, but the victors themselves have not only decreed the deportation of even larger numbers but have, in some cases, carried these out without any regard for the “orderly and humane manner” which they themselves prescribed. The Nazis, again, were convicted of employing slave labor during the war, yet a year and a half after the cessation of hostilities some of the victors are still employing as slave laborers several million war prisoners, often under conditions no better than those provided by the Nazis.
Moreover, the Nazis were convicted of maintaining concentration camps for political opponents, but the concentration camps maintained by one of the victors, Russia, stretch from the Atlantic to the Bering Strait, and hold not merely persons suspected of criminal Nazism or collaboration, but many others also, including former political and economic leaders of ‘‘liberated” territories.
Finally, the Nazis were convicted of requisitioning agricultural products, raw materials and foreign securities without consideration of the local economy and of making their armies live on conquered lands. A mere glance at the daily press shows that this process is being continued in many parts of Eastern Europe.
The Nazis committed their deeds in pursuit of aggressive war. The victors may plead that what they are doing is just retribution upon the conquered peoples, but they cannot inflict such retribution without putting themselves above the law they have just imposed upon the vanquished.
JUNE 3, 1947
Viceroy Gives British Plan For the Partition of India
By GEORGE E. JONES
Special to The New York Times.
NEW DELHI, India, June 2—The Viceroy, Viscount Mountbatten, informed Indian political leaders today of the British Government’s plan to partition India into Hindu and Moslem states upon Britain’s departure by June, 1948.
Tomorrow night the Viceroy will broadcast the text of the plan to India and the Empire and subsequently leaders of the three main political elements—Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for the predominantly Hindu Congress party, Mohammed Ali Jinnah for the Moslem League, and Sardar Baldev Singh for the Sikhs—will broadcast to the Indians.
The Viceroy will hold a press conference on Thursday.
Today’s meeting lasted two hours. It adjourned until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. This, according to a press communiqué from the Viceroy’s House, will enable the Working Committees of the Congress party and the Moslem League to consider the plan.
From present indications the country’s two largest parties will acquiesce to the British proposal, even though grudgingly, as the only practicable solution of a political vacuum which means bloodshed and civil strife. Even as the leaders met today, military and police forces were alerted for possible outbreaks in strategic centers of India, particularly in Bengal, the Punjab and Delhi.
GAVE FULL ACCOUNT
The communiqué said that the “Viceroy gave the meeting a full account of his discussions both in India and in England which had led up to the formulation of His Majesty’s Government’s plan and of the arguments which had resulted in its adoption.” Copies of the announcement were then handed round to the leaders.
“Mr. Jinnah remained for a brief interview with His Excellency after the meeting,” the communiqué said.
The communiqué disclosed also that the Viceroy later met Mohandas K. Gandhi for forty-five minutes. It said also that tomorrow afternoon the Viceroy would meet the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes and the Princely States Negotiating Committee to inform them of the plan.
The wording of the communiqué indicated that if the Congress party representatives this morning offered to Mr. Jinnah unqualified assurances of adhering to last year’s British plan to preserve India’s unity, he rejected the offer as too late.
Attending the round table conference with the Viceroy were Pandit Nehru, Acharya Kripalani and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for the Congress party; Mr. Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar for the Moslem League and Sardar Baldev Singh for the Sikhs.
JUNE 6, 1947
MARSHALL URGES UNITY IN EUROPE
He Tells Harvard Alumni Our Policy Is Not Set Against ‘Any Country or Doctrine’
By FRANK L. KLUCKHOHN
Special to The New York Times.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., June 5—The countries of Europe were called upon today by the Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, to get together and decide upon their needs for economic rehabilitation so that further United States aid could be provided upon an integrated instead of a “piecemeal” basis. This was important to make possible a real “cure” of Europe’s critical economic difficulties, he asserted in an address to Harvard alumni this afternoon after he had received the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws at this morning’s commencement exercises.
General Marshall supported President Truman’s statements in Washington earlier today that United States aid abroad was necessary. He declared that Europe “must have substantial additional help or face economic, social and political deterioration of a very grave character.”
“There must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation,” he warned, adding that no American aid would be given to “any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries.” The Secretary emphasized that governments or parties or groups, seeking to make political capital by perpetuating human misery, would encounter “the opposition of the United States.”
General Marshall was the recipient of several ovations as he participated in Harvard’s first fully normal post-war g
raduation exercises. The first came when he moved to the platform before Memorial Church in the procession of 2,185 undergraduates, graduate students and the honor group who were to receive degrees. The second ovation came when James B. Conant, president, conferred an honorary degree upon him.
The biggest ovations came just before and after he spoke, with applause inter-larded when the Secretary said American help would be withheld from those making capital of trouble in Europe.
General Marshall was one of the last to speak this afternoon. Gen. Omar N. Bradley, administrator of veterans’ affairs, who also received a Doctor of Laws degree, had asserted that the expenditure of $12,000,000,000 for veterans’ education was a good investment for the United States and Dr. Conant had called for the raising of $90,000,000 to increase Harvard’s activities.
“FRIENDLY AID” STRESSED
After asserting that no “assured peace” or political stability was possible without the aid of the United States in effecting a return to normal economic health in the world, General Marshall said that “the initiative, I think, should come from Europe.” This country should restrict itself to “friendly aid” in the drafting of a European program and later in supporting this program “as far as it may be practical for us to do so,” he added.
He held it to be essential that several and, if possible, all European states should effect what he termed a “joint” program. It would be neither “fitting nor efficacious” for us to draw up a unilateral program and then foist it upon possibly unwilling governments and nations, said the General.
Economic rehabilitation in Europe would require “a much longer time and greater effort” than had been officially foreseen, he continued. Then he stressed that the United States was willing to give “full cooperation” to countries willing to assist in steps toward European recovery, and denied that the policy of the United States was directed against “any country or doctrine.”
FOR AMERICAN UNDERSTANDING
In a few brief words after his prepared talk, Secretary Marshall said that he regarded full understanding by the American people of foreign problems and the aims of American policy to be of high importance.
Secretary of State George Marshall in 1947.
He already had expressed the fear that the enormous complexity of problems and the mass of facts available were confusing people.
The dislocation of the entire fabric of European economy through the breaking up of commercial ties and the elimination of private banks, insurance companies and the loss of capital, probably was even more serious than the destruction of physical property of all sorts and the losses in manpower, he explained.
The Secretary said that one important factor leading to the threat of a complete “breakdown” in Europe was the fact that the cities were no longer producing much that the farmers wanted and that, as a result, the farmers were making little effort to raise enough to feed the cities. Thus, with city people short of food and fuel, he added, “the Governments are forced to use their foreign money and credits for necessities instead of reconstruction.”
The Secretary, who was presented to the Harvard alumni by Gov. Robert F. Bradford, returned to Washington by air after the ceremonies.
General Bradley, in the uniform of a full general with four rows of ribbons, devoted himself largely to one facet of the country’s program, his own.
“In the United States, of the 2,300,000 students in colleges, 1,200,000 are veterans, getting their education mostly at Government expense,” he said. “Within twenty months after the close of the war, the American people had already invested nearly $2,500,000,000 in the (educational) program. By the time it is completed, the program may have cost a total of $12,000,000,000, or barely enough to have run the war for several weeks.”
“There are times when it may be more dangerous to spend too little than to spend too much,” General Bradley continued. “For example, if ever we should expose our people to sickness, our resources to waste, our economy to depression and our nation to aggression in a panicky effort to save dollars, we may some day have to ask ourselves if such savings were worth the cost.
“If we offer youth a fair chance to make its way in the nation we need not fear political deflection to either the left or right. We cannot meet the challenge of rival ideologies with labels and reaction. We must offer these young veterans progress and the opportunity for constant self-betterment throughout their busy lives.”
General Bradley obtained a laugh from his audience when, referring to his honorary degree, he said:
“Like thousands of other veterans, I appear to be getting my education as a result of the GI bill.”
JUNE 8, 1947
TRUMAN DOCTRINE UPHELD BY PORTER
Declaring that the Truman Doctrine of aid for Greece and Turkey was in line with the late President Roosevelt’s “quarantine the aggressors” speech in 1937, Paul Porter, former head of the American Economic Mission to Greece yesterday said that he hoped to see American financial aid extended to other European countries to help in reconstruction of then economies.
Mr. Porter, who spoke at a luncheon of the New York County organization of the Liberal party in the Grand Ball Room of the Hotel Commodore, called for a liberal American foreign policy with the twin objectives of economic abundance and economic freedom for all.
“Greece, in my judgment, should be looked on as only the first item in a much broader program of European reconstruction,” Mr. Porter said. “Our difficulties in Greece stem largely from the fact that we are entering the situation so late, after it had boiled up to crisis.
“Today we are faced with the symptoms of impending collapse in large areas of Western Europe. We are faced with the gradual shrinkage of the dollar resources on which European countries must depend for the rehabilitation and modernization of their capital equipment. Europe cannot be on its feet politically because it is not yet on its feet economically, and an investment in European economic and political stability, no matter how large an investment that may be, will cost a good deal less than the cost of chaos and ware.
HEROIC EFFORT HELD NEEDED
“It will require a heroic effort on our part, but it is the only basis for a sound liberal policy. And it is the business of liberals to educate public opinion and rouse public demand so that the Administration may get the money and backing to carry out this policy.
“Food and fuel are our best weapons against totalitarianism. We will soon be throwing them into Greece. I hope that before long we will be throwing them in tremendous volume into other parts of Europe. We will use them in favor of economic security and of political liberty. We will not use them in an effort to impose laissez-faire capitalism upon Europe. We stand for expanding production and against social chaos, whatever the system. And we will not use food and fuel, I hope, in the service of reactionary government.”
Mr. Porter said the purpose of the loan to Greece was to secure that country from external aggression and make possible its economic reconstruction and political democratization. Conceding that the present government of Greece needed reform, Mr. Porter expressed confidence that we could work with this government and develop elements of the center and non-Communist left as a basis for peace within Greece.
President Harry S. Truman signing the Foreign Aid Assistance Act, also known as the Truman Doctrine, which provided foreign aid to Greece and Turkey, 1947.
JUNE 29, 1947
NANKING LEADERS PLAN ALL-OUT WAR
Government Is Expected to Call for ‘Punitive Expedition’ Against Reds as ‘Rebels’
By TILLMAN DURDIN
Special to The New York Times.
NANKING, June 30—Meeting in a five-hour secret session, Kuomintang leaders prepared today to draw more sharply the lines of conflict with the Communists.
A joint session of the Kuomintang Central Political Council and the Standing Committee of the Central Executive Committee decided to “reinforce punitive action” against the Reds.
The decision i
s expected to result in the State Council’s declaring that the Communists are rebels against the State and proclaiming the anti-Communist war to be a “punitive expedition.”
Many Government leaders maintain that such a move would commit the Government more definitely in the public mind to a war to the finish with the Communists and would improve the morale of the army. They point out that such a step would remove the domestic strife from the category of civil war and change the conflict into a campaign against rebels.
MORE U.S. AID EXPECTED
It is argued that if the Government declared itself to be fighting Communist insurgents against recognized national authority there might be a better chance of obtaining American sympathy and support and more basis for countering any Russian move to assist the Communists.
Saturday’s Supreme Court order, branding Mao Tze-tung as the rebel leader of an illegal party and directing his arrest, is seen as fitting in with the new Government line regarding the Communists.
Today’s conclave of more than fifty high Kuomintang officials, including most Government Ministers, was the most important held in Nanking since the sessions that led to the Government reorganization in March. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek presided during the first stages of the session. Information Minister Peng Hsueh-pei denied after the meeting that Russian or American angles were discussed. It is assumed, however, that Washington’s decision to sell ammunition to Nanking and to give the Chinese access to commercial supplies of military equipment in the United States was in the background of the discussion. It is likely the Washington move encouraged the meeting to take a firmer anti-Communist stand.
The New York Times Book of World War II, 1939-1945 Page 156
