March 13, 2013


Filed under: news — jaspar @ 9:18 am








03 13 13 Superpower Death Watch












[ What follows can be read for its relevance to The World Tyrant’s *proxy war* against the Syrian Arab Republic and the Syrian people. ]


















Report made by Dr. [Bohuslav] Ecer on Professor [Aron Naumovich] Trainin’s Book “The Criminal Responsibility of the Hitlerites” at the Commission’s meeting of October 31st, 1944.














C.63  11 November, 1944




Professor Trainin is a member of the Moscow Academy, Professor of Law at the Moscow University and a leading member of the Extraordinary State Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes which was established by the Soviet Government on November 2nd, 1942.




The title indicates how the author approaches the problem.  He does not limit his study to “war crimes” stricto sensu (violation of laws and customs of war), but deals with the penal responsibility of the Hitlerites for all their crimes, *in the first place for their crimes against against peace*.  He stresses the role of criminal law, both national and international, in the repression and prevention of German criminality.




In my paper on Soviet Penal Law which was circulated among the members of our Commission, I explained its general principles (the conception of crime, the physical and mental elements of a crime, intention, negligence, exemptions from penal responsibility, stages of criminal action – inchoate crimes, and so on), and I proved that the general principles of Soviet Penal Law are to a great extent identical with those of the modern criminal law of other allied nations.








The present war [World War 2] and the problem of penal responsibility in the sphere of International Law.




1) In the first chapter, Professor Trainin first of all characterizes the present war.  The monstrous peculiarity of the present war as conducted by the Hitlerites consists, in his opinion, in the fact that “enormous, million-masses of people, armed according to the last word of technical skill, are engaged in *a planned and organised manner* in gangster-like attacks, and are exterminating the inhabitants of the invaded country, plundering and destroying towns and villages, robbing and anihilating the national cultural values” (p.3).  In another place, he calls Hitler’s aggression “State-organized banditry”, *criminal intention and criminal deeds –the two fundamental elements of crime*– are the decisive features of the present war as regards the Germans.




2) The author points out that the new relations between the nations must be organized in such a manner that aggressive wars will be impossible.  The punishment of Hitlerite criminals for *all* their crimes is one of the essential conditions of the achievement of this aim.  The author quotes  Marshall Stalin’s  declaration of December 4th, 1941 and some notes of his Government (November 25th, 1941, April 27th, 1944, October 14th, 1944), in which *the criminal, not only the moral or political responsibility* of the German State – Army – and Party leaders, their accomplicies and of all individual perpetrators of atrocities, is established and their punishment by Courts, national and internation demanded.




The Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. of November 2nd 1942, by which a Commission, analagous to our Commission, was set up, states that for the monstrous crimes committed by the German Fascist invaders and their accomplices, and for the material damage caused by them, the criminal Hitlerite Government, the Commanders of the German Army and their accomplices, bear full penal and material responsibility.  The terms of reference of the [Soviet] Commission are wider then the terms of reference of our [proto-UN] Commission.




The Commission is called the “Extraordinary State Commission for detecting and investigating crimes committed by the German Fascist invaders and their accomplices, and enquiring into the material damage caused by them to the citizens, collective farms, collective organizations, state institutions and establishments of the U.S.S.R.”.




The author then quotes some declarations of other Allies aiming at the same goal, the judicial punishment of the Hitlerites –especially Roosevelt’s of August 1942 and Churchill’s of September 8th, 1942, which both stress the punishment of Hitlerites by tribunals.




3) The crimes of the Hitlerites are genuine international crimes: they are attacks on the very foundations of the international community.  The author stresses the important role of criminal law in the fight against this kind of crime.  International Criminal Law is not at present a perfect instrument for the purpose but, in spite of its defects it is, in co-operation with National Criminal Law, a sufficient legal basis for the punishment of all the crimes of the Hitlerites.  These consist of:




a) crimes against peace, and


b) crimes against the laws and customs of war.










The conception of International Crime.




1) In the second chapter the author describes some attempts by experts in International or Criminal Law to define International crime.  He mentioned the definitions and doctrines of Pella, Saldana, and others.




2) Some other experts regard as the source of International Criminal Law various international conventions concluded for co-operation of states in the struggle against certain dangerous species of crimes, such as trading in opium and other drugs, trading in women and children, and so on.  The author does *not* regard the crimes enumerated in these conventions as belonging to the sphere of genuine international  crimes.  They are ordinary crimes arising under the criminal law of the signatory states.  Their international chararacter consists only in the fact that their operation is not confined to the territory of a single State.  But this is not an intrinsic characteristic of an international crime.




3) Much more important for the dvelopment of an International criminal law dealing with genuine international crimes are works of some authors dealing with Article 16 of the Covenant [of the League of Nations].  Professor Kunz, for instance, says that the launching of war in violation of the Covenant must be regarded as a crime.  Mr. Kon sees in Article 16 an institution of penal law, and Professor Bruck says that Article 16 is the penal code of the League of Nations.  In the opinion of Professor Trainin, these authors were trying to define international crime as aggression in violation of the Covenant and international punishment as the sanctions provided in Article 16.  It was the right way.  Unfortunately, *Article 16 was nver brought into operation and remained a dead letter*, although it was capable of being a very useful starting point for penal actions against aggressors and thus a starting point for the development of a genuine international criminal law.




4) The monstrous crimes of the Hitlerites have revealed *the uselessness and inffectiveness of formal constructions of international crime*, and the necessity to seek for a conception in accordance with *the real nature* of this criminal behaviour.  The author admits that international crime is a complicated and peculiar phenomenon, distinct from offenses under the national criminal law.  He regards the following features as characteristic of an international crime.




a) it is an attack on the existence and foundations of international community.




b) the fundamental principle of national criminal law “nullum crimen and nulla poena sine lege”, cannot be strictly applied to international crimes as “conditio sine qua non” of their punishments.  In the sphere of international law there is no “lex” because there is no legislative body and international law does not provide penalties for individuals.




c) but *the principle of penal and personal responsibility was clearly expressed* in the Hague Regulations, (Article 56), in the Geneva Convention (Article 29), and especially in Article 3 of the Washington Convention 1922 according to which violation of the Convention by an attack against a merchant ship would be regarded as a “war crime” and punished by the Courts of the signatory States into whose hands the perpetrators fell.  The author even sees the rognition of this principle in the Versailles treaties in the provisions relating to the Kaiser.




d) finally, international crimes, in the first place “violations of laws and customs of war”, are punishable by the penal codes of individual States.




Thus, the United Nations have, if not formally perfect, at least a completely sufficient legal basis for the definition of an international crime as *a “punisable attack on the foundations of the international community”* (p. 35).








Classification of International Crimes




1) To say that international crime is an “attack on the foundations of the international community”, would be to give a generic definition of international crime, but this general notion manifests itself in many species of international crimes.




2) *The fundamental condition for the existence of the international community is maintenance of peaceful relations between the nations*.  War disrupts these relations and destroys the very foundation of international life.  Thus peace is the most valuable thing in international life.  The first and most dangerous category of international crimes are crimes against peace.  *The first crime of this category is aggression.  Penal repression of aggression should not be limited to this direct and most dangerous crime, but should be extended to preparation for aggression*.  There are four main species of such preparatory action:




a) *conclusion of agreements* with the purpose of preparing for aggression.




b) *violation* of pacts and agreements serving the cause of peace.




c) *provocation* of international conflicts.




d) *propaganda* in favour of aggression which uses speeches, articles, films, *and terroristic acts* as well.  An example was the assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia, and the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Barthou.  *Terrorism is one of the most dangerous of the international crimes which serve to prepare for aggressive wars*.  It is for this reason that this assassination caused the members of the League of Nations to conclude *two conventions against terrorism, (1937)* which, of course, deal only with one species of international crime.




3) As long as it is impossible to prevent wars, it is necessary to establish a “legal regime of war”, in order to limit the horrors of war to a minimum, to protect prisoners, wounded and sick soldiers and the peaceful civilian population.  Attacks on this *minimum* of humanity and civilisation, the “violations of laws and customs of war”, are the second great category of international crime.




In conclusion, the author establishes the following classifications of international crimes, (p. 40):




A) First group: *Attacks on peaceful relations between nations*.




1) aggressive acts,




2) propaganda for aggression,




3) conclusion of agreements for the purpose of aggression,




4) violation of agreements serving the cause of peace,




5) provocation for the purpose of disturbing  peaceful relations between States,




6) terrorism,




7) *maintenance of armed gangs* (fifth columnists).




B) Second group: crimes connected with the conduct of war.




1) crimes against prisoners of war and wounded and sick soldiers.




2) crimes against the life, health, honour and property of peaceful inhabitants.




3) destruction of towns and villages.




4) destruction or robbery of material or cultural values.








Crimes of the Hitlerites against peace.




The author examines the acts of the German Government and the commanders of the German Armies and the crimes of *the great mass* of German criminals on the lines of his classification.  Thus he examines first *their crimes against*.  He begins with a short analysis of Hitler’s famous book “Mein Kampf”, and he demonstrates with the help of this book *the criminal intentions* of the Hitlerites which they accomplished by invasion and occupation of foreign territories according to a previously well-established *plan and program*.




2) The author further describes the *preparation* for these German aggressions: a regime of terror in Germany, re-armament, militarisation of the whole German industry, propaganda for aggression, *instigation of internal troubles in the countries to be invaded*, and at the same time –in order *to deceive those countries and all peaceful nations*– recognition of older and even conclusion of new pacts and agreements in favor of peace (Briand-Kellogg Pact, non-aggression or friendship Pacts).








Crimes of the Hitlerites connected with the conduct of war.




1) the system of *State banditry* which characterises Hitlerite Germany manifests itself in peace-time [in] internal terrorism, in preparation for war, and the systematic provocation of armed conflict.




Having achieved its purpose by launching aggressive and total war, Germany directed its system of *State banditry* and its criminal machinery against *the life and independence of free peoples*, against culture and civilisation and against material possessions of foreign races.  Germany is using criminal methods and means in conducting the present war.




2) The author divides the crimes considered into four main groups:




a) crimes against prisoners of war, wounded and sick soldiers.




b) crimes against the peaceful population.






a.a) murder and violence




b.b) establishment of a regime of slavery and deportation into “captivity”.




c.c) robbery.






c) destruction of towns and other inhabited places.




d) plunder and destruction of cultural values.




The author proves that Germany, by violating the “laws and customs of war”, especially the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, is violating at the same time some of *its own* legal provisions.  He quotes as an example the German Law issued by the Hitlerite Government on August 17th 1938 relative to the organisation and jurisdiction of military courts in time of war.  This law contains in Section E, paras. [paragraphs] 73-75, a direct reference to the Geneva Convention of 1929, reposts the main provisions of this Convention and stresses the necessity of observing them.  But in contradiction with and [in] violation of this law the Hitlerite Government ordered crimes to be committed against prisoners of war, wounded and sick soldiers.  The author quotes an impressive number of such criminal orders issued by the German Government, the German High Command, or the commanders of various units of the German Army.  Among them is an order issued on behalf of Hitler by the German High Command on January 14th, 1942, *fobidding expressly any form of humanitarian treatment of prisoners of war*.




Then the author deals with the crimes committed against the civilian population and proves, by quoting government decrees, *the planned and deliberate character* of these crimes and gives some outstanding examples of them.  Finally, the author quotes the German Rules of Land Warfare of 1902, which is stll in force in Germany, which after enumerating some violations of the laws and customs of war says: “Such crimes are contrary to the fndamental conception of international law.  The sense of justice inborn in all men and the spirit of chivalry living in the armies of all civilised nations have branded them as crimes against the legal conscience of mankind.  To a belligerent who has clearly violated the laws of honour and justice there cannot in future be granted equal rights” (p. 70)








To whom is responsibility for international crimes to be attributed: Responsibility of the Hitlerites for such crimes.




1) The author deals with the question whether the whole German nation or some sections of it, or alternatively, only the Nazi regime, should be held responsible for the crimes which the Germans have committed.




2) He explains the complicated character of a crime which is comitted on behalf of a State by the state machinery.  The problem of responsibility for such a crime is a difficult one.  The question arises, “who can be held *penally* responsible?”  The author mentions some experts in criminal law who hold that even a corporation, for instance a State, can be penally responsible for its acts.  He refers to the well-known theory of “corporate liability”, and especially to the theory of Professor Pella on the collective guilt and penal responsibility of States.  The author *rejects* this theory.  Penal responsibility presupposes a guilty mind.  The state cannot have a guilty mind (intention or negligence).  Only an individual is capable of having a guilty mind.  The State cannot have a guilty mind.  A State cannot be put on trial before a Court for a crime.  A State cannot be punished by imprisonment or excution.  Consequently *it is only politically and materially that a State can be made to answer for it acts*.  It can, for example, be made to do so politically by being *disarmed* and materially by being forced to pay damages.  But to treat it as responsible in criminal law is, in the author’s opinion, impossible.




3) This does *not* mean, of course, that the acts comitted in the name and on behalf of the State and with the help of the State machinery, i.e. acts which could be regarded as *State crimes* or *acts of State banditry*, have no penal consequences.  The author quotes the principle laid down by the Swiss Penal Code of 1937 (Article 172) according to which men acting on behalf and in the name of a corporation are *penally* and *personally* responsible for those acts of the corporation which amount to crimes, (p. 75).  *Men who commit crimes on behalf and in the name of a State are penally and personally responsible for them.*  In other words, crimes committed by a State through the State machinery are *simply crimes of the men who govern the State, of its political and military leaders, and of the individuals who carry out orders to commit such crimes*.  Both groups are *fully* responsible under criminal law.




The author rejects the attempt made by the German expert Strupp to exempt representatives of [the] State from penal liability and demonstrates the absurdity of such a theory (p. 77).  He emphasises that attribution of penal responsibility to persons acting on behalf of a corporation has been accepted by *Soviet crinal law* and practice.  It is thus shown to what entities responsibility for international crime is attributable, viz:




a) *the State bears the political and material responsibility*. 




b) *the men who act on behalf of the State have, in addition a personal penal responsibility*.  This is the *general* principle.  Now it must be examined what position should be assigned to various groups of the Hitlerite criminals.








The different classes of German criminals.




The author puts the question: “What groups, what men, should be regarded as inspirers, organisers, helpers and perpetrators of Hitlerite crimes and bear the penal responsibility for them?” (p. 79).




It is a question of *the possible parties to a crime*.




This question, the author stresses, is a difficult one in the sphere of national criminal law, and is far more difficult in the sphere of international crime.




The main figure is the *perpetrator,* says the author.




In the sphere of national criminal law this is the man who “directly accomplishes the criminal act: who murders, steals, rapes” (p. 80).  But the perpetrators of international crimes do not accomplish the “black work” themselves.” 




The peculiarity of their role and *the danger of their activity* consists in the fact they use a complicated machinery for the purpose of their crimes.




We have in such cases, in the opinion of the author, *two groups of perpetrators, both responsible as “principals in the first degree”*:  the main perpetrator –“the man who despatches the assassin’, to use Kenny’s words– and the man who accomplishes the criminal act.  Both are perpetrators.  But while the main  perpetrator commits an *international crime* by violating, for instance, the Geneva Convention of 1929, the other perpetrator commits a common crime by violating a provision of the national criminal law (murder).




To the group of the *worst* criminals, both from the point of view of national and of international criminal law, belong in the first place *Hitler and the members of the German government*.




This is the *most dangerous and ferocious* group of international criminals.  They play *the central role* in preparing, organising, and accomplishing the greatest catastrophe in the history of mankind.  Consequently Hitler and his Ministers must bear responsibility as the main, the central group of international criminals. 




With this first group are indissolubly connected the *leaders of the Nazi party*.




The law of December 1st, 1933, the purpose of which was “to secure the unity of the Party and State” established such a close union between the German State and the Nazi Party that the Party leaders and officials were at the same time State leaders and officials by virtue of their position and function.  One consequence  must be drawn from this unity of Party and State: the Party “Fuhrers” must bear a common penal responsibility for Hitlerite crimes with the State “Fuhrers”.  To this class the “Gauleiters” also belong.




To the same position, so far as criminal responsibility is concerned, are the *commanders of the German army* who organised the criminal activity of the Fascist army.  Thus, the first class of German criminals is said by the author to be:




“Hitler and his ministers, the leaders of the Nazi party, German military commanders, the commissioners of the German Government who directly carried out a policy of State banditry, consisting of *planned and systematic* accomplishment of international crimes; perfidious aggression, terror, violation of international obligations, violation of the laws and customs of war, organization of military banditry”.




But this leading class of German criminals has its “social basis” *in a vast group of industrial and financial “Fuhrers”*.




Their political position is clear: they form the economic foundation of the Nazi government machinery.  But what is their position from the point of view of criminal law?




The author examines thi question on the basis of the Soviet criminological theory about banditry.




He comes to the conclusion that this group is *collectively responsible*, with the first group, as their aiders and abetters, for all the crimes committed by the criminal gang *as a whole*.




Finally, *all the men who individually and personally accomplished the crimes*, the great bulk of the actual perpetrators who did the “black work”, must bear their personal penal responsibility for their criminal acts.




In conclusion the author sums up the classes of German criminals who should be punished:




1) Hitler and his ministers, the leaders of the Nazi party, the commanders of the German Army.  These are organisers and perpetrators of the crime.




2) The leaders of the industrial and financial concerns.  These are organisers and “aiders and abetters”.




Members of both groups are *penally personally responsible* for the gravest attacks on the foundations of the international community and of human morality.  They are at the same time not only members of *a gang of international criminals* but also organisers of innumerable common (ordinary) crimes.




3) The actual individual offenders.  These latter, if they have already been captured, cannot plead that a prisoner of war cannot be tried and cannot defend themselves by the plea of superior orders.  Both pleas were rejected by the Kharkov trial.








Jurisdiction in respect of the Hitlerite crimes.




The author deals with the problem of the relations between national and international jurisdiction.




In general, the territorial principle could be regarded as a sufficient basis for jurisdiction.  This principle was recognized as a legal basis of the jurisdiction in the decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. of December 11th 1941.  It was also expressly recognized in the Moscow Declaration of November 1st, 1943.  But the author admits that it is *not sufficient* so far as the following groups of crimes are concerned:




a) crimes committed on the territory of Germany and her Allies against the citizens of the Allied nations.  In this case instead of the territorial jurisdiction, the principle of the so-called “real jurisdiction” must be brought into operation.  The courts of States against whose citizens and interests crimes were committed on German territory are entitled to try such crimes.




b) crimes committed by Hitler and his clique.  The author refers to the Moscow Declaration and stresses the particular importance of organising a Court (obviously he has in mind an inter-allied Court) for the trial of Hitler and his clique.  But he adds that the guilt of Hitler and his clique is so obvious that a judicial procedure should be regarded as superfluous.  The author then admits the possibility of a political verdict pronounced by the Governments of the victorious Allied Nations.








Co-operation of the United Nations in the struggle against international crimes.




After the defeat of Germany, the United Nations will face two tasks:




a) to organise tribunals for the punishment of the Hitlerites,




b) to establish penal laws as a protection against a revival of Hitlerism *in any form*.  The author suggests that the United Nations should conclude a convention defining international crimes, fixing the penalties and establishing the Court which is to punish them.  This Convention should be a part of *the furure system of international security* and contain the measures necessary for the *struggle* against Hitlerite crimes.  The most important measures to be taken are the apprehension and extradition of the Hitlerite criminals.  In this connection the author suggests the establishment of an agency entrusted with the prosecution of the criminals, especially on German territory.  Finally, he deals with the problem of the execution of the sentences.












I sum up my personal opinion on Professor Trainin’s booklet:




In spite of some defects which are only natural in view of the gigantic and in some respect unprecedented nature of the subject, Professor Trainin’s booklet is one of the most *creative and progressive contributions* to the problem which is called “punishment of war criminals”.  He treats the problem in true character as the problem of penal responsibility for crimes against peace and crimes against the laws and customs of war.  Both classes of crime are closely connected with one another.  The second is the continuation of the first.  Both are “war crimes” in a popular sense, and *both are parts* of the same criminal conduct, crimes *against mankind.*  *As such they must be studied, understood, prosecuted, tried and punished*.














Page 1






Page 2










Pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 likewise.








There was the REAL Soviet Union led by Lenin and Stalin  –>  1917 – 1956

There was the FAKE Soviet Union led by Khrushchov and successor revisionists  –>  1956 – 1991

There is the New Russian Empire  –>  1991 to date

The FAKE Soviet Union pretended it was a continuation of the REAL Soviet Union.

For DECADES the unprincipled leaders of communist parties worldwide bought into the pretense of the FAKE Soviet Union that it was simply improving upon the REAL Soviet Union –when, actually, it was doing away with the

REAL communist and socialist agenda and ideas of the REAL Soviet Union!

Let us recall it was the REAL Soviet Union that

awakened the toilers of the East and

wiped out the racist army of Hitler Germany in 1945.

The FAKE Soviet Union openly invaded Afghanistan December 24, 1979.


NOT ALL communists were caught off guard by the FAKE Soviet Union.















America died




AUGUST 6, 1945




while giving birth to








which immediately began writing –in blood– its








Asterisks indicate my emphasis except in Ecer’s summing up. 




UNITED NATIONS WAR CRIMES COMMISSION / Report made by Dr. [Bohuslav] Ecer on Professor [Aron Naumovich] Trainin’s Book “The Criminal Responsibility of the Hitlerites” at the Commission’s meeting of October 31st, 1944.















Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: