The 1978 War Of Aggression Against Lebanon
Excerpt from CHAPTER THIRTY SIX from the
"Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem", where author Issa Nakhleh quotes from Livia Rokach´s book "Israel´s Sacred Terrorism" - the latter a book which reveals the contents of the diaries Israel´s former Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett.
THE 1978 WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST LEBANON
After 1967 the Israelis turned their attention to the
piecemeal absorption of the rest of the Palestinian lands now
under their occupation, towards neutralizing Egypt as a factor
among the Arab States, and towards the long-cherished goal
of partitioning Lebanon.
From the earliest days of the Zionist regime in Occupied
Palestine, the Israelis had planned the establishment of a
puppet regime in Lebanon and the partition of that country,
as is evidenced in Moshe Sharett's diaries.
On March 14-15, 1978, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon,
launching an unprovoked war against that country. Some
30,000 Israeli troops, backed by massive armor, air power and
naval and self-propelled artillery, crossed the Lebanese border.
The Israeli troops did not halt until they had reached the
Litani River, causing some 285,000 persons to flee
northward, of whom 220,000 were Lebanese and 65,000 were
Palestinians who had been living in refugee camps in southern
Lebanon. Casualties were officially estimated at 1,168 dead,
20,000 wounded with more than 6,000 homes damaged or
destroyed, and more than 285,000 displaced from their
homes. (47)
The Washington Post reported on March 25, 1978: "The
scope and sweep of the damage here makes a mockery of
Israeli claims to have staged surgical strikes against Palestinian
bases and camps." (48)
On March 15 Ezer Weizmann stated that Israel had "no
intention of occupying South Lebanon," but these assurances
were belied by the actual fact of the occupation. That the
invasion had the intent of establishing a puppet-ruled zone
was admitted by Chief of Staff General Mordechai Gur when
he said that "Israel wanted to establish a security belt along
the 100-km long Lebanese border by connecting the three
Christian enclaves," i.e. Marjeyoun and Qoleyaa to the east,
Rmeish, Ain Ebel and Debel in the center and Alma Shaab in
the west.
The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, which supposedly
began on March 16, 1978, in fact was not completed until
June 13th of that year, when the lands occupied by the Israeli
forces were handed over to a quisling Israeli-paid and
Israeli equipped
militia under the command of Lebanese Major Saad
Haddad.
The 1978 War against Lebanon was accompanied by
massive atrocities. The Israeli military utilized white phosphorous
incendiary and cluster bombs. destroying both crops
and inflicting horrible anti-personnel wounds on civilians.
Their quisling puppets also inflicted massacres on innocent
civilians. According to Washington Post correspondent
Jonathan Randal:
In three towns - overrun thanks to the Israelis during the
Litani invasion - Haddad's forces massacred more than a
hundred Shia Muslim men, women and children. The worst
outrage took place in Khiam, near the Israeli border, once the
most prosperous and populated town of southern Lebanon.
The Shia victims were herded into a mosque. "We sank to
Haddad's level," an Israeli military specialist said, ashamed.
'1 watched his men shoot seventy people in cold blood in
Khiam." (49)
Until the second war against Lebanon was initiated in
1982, Israel continued'to launch numerous air strikes against
Lebanese territory. For example, on May 6, 1979, Israeli
warplanes bombed targets near Tripoli. On May 7, 1979,
Israeli warplanes struck targets in Reihan, a village in
southern Lebanon. OnMay 23,1979, Israeli warplanes struck
Nabatiyeh while other targets in southern Lebanon were
shelled by Israeli artillery. Thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian
refugees were killed in wanton Israeli air strikes and
artillery bombardments.
Despite the quisling set-up under Major Haddad in
southern Lebanon, the Zionist plan to partition Lebanon was
not yet complete. Israel planned and prepared to initiate
another war of aggression against Lebanon.
THE 1982 WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST LEBANON
In 1982 the Zionists heightened tension on the Lebanese-Israeli frontier, andon June 5,1982, Israeli aircraft, with naval
and artillery support, bombarded 38 towns and localities in
South Lebanon, leaving 150 dead and 250 wounded.
On the following day, June 6, 1982, the Zionists invaded
Lebanon. Two armored brigades and a motorized infantry
battalion comprising more than 20,000 troops entered South
Lebanon from three directions: West towards Tyre; Central
from Nabatiyeh; and East from Hasbaya. The Arnoun region,
with Beaufort Castle, was also besieged. The Israeli army
largely ignored the contingents of the United Nations Interim
Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) by by-passing them.
Simultaneously, Israeli aircraft bombed the entire south
coast of Lebanon and naval units disembarked in Zahrani,
north of Tyre. Using a pincer movement, they cut off a zone
from behind before penetrating the area, a tactic they
employed during their entire advance along the coast.
On June 7, Beaufort Castle fell to the Israelis who then
proceeded to occupy Nabatiyeh, Hasbaya and Tyre. Sidon
was surrounded and then occupied.
On June 8, the Israeli forces reached the heights of the
Shouf and Ain Zhalta. The coast was bombarded from land,
sea and air and the Israeli army set up positions in Saadiyat,
surrounding Damour. The Israelis reinforced their troops,
increasing their manpower in Lebanon to more than 60,000,
triple the original invasion force. The total number of Israeli
troops in Lebanon ultimately reached 90,000.
On June 9th, the invasion forces reached Damour, only 16
kilometers from Beirut. On June 12, West Beirut and its
southern suburbs were heavily bombed from air and sea.
Israeli forces advanced towards Aramoun in the mountains
after shelling the area, as well as Shweifat and Baabda, where
the presidential palace was hit.
On June 13, Ariel Sharon personally led his forces into
Baabda, seat of the Lebanese presidency and then into
Hadath. West Beirut was continually bombarded. By June 15,
they had nearly completed the encirclement of the capital and
entered Shweifat in the southeast suburbs. By June 25, the
invasion forces had advanced to a line extending from the
southeast suburbs of Beirut to Roueissat-Sofar, 25 kilometers
east of Beirut. On the 25th, Israeli bombardment of West
Beirut also left more than 300 dead and wounded. On June
26, the Israelis moved from Aley towards Souk al-Gharb,
completing the link-up of their troops.
On July 3, the Israeli forces blocked the passages between
the two sectors of the capital, except the Beirut port crossing,
and stopped food supplies from entering West Beirut. The
following day they shut off West Beirut's water and
electricity. On July 6, Israeli forces occupied the Beirut port,
sealing off the besieged West Beirut completely. The continued
wanton bombardment of West Beirut culminated in
eleven consecutive hours of air raids on August 12, leaving
more than 500 civilians dead and wounded, and more than
800 dwellings destroyed.
During the night of September 14-15, Israeli forces
penetrated West Beirut, occupying the western sector of the
capital in 48 hours.
On Thursday, September 16, 1982, General Amos Yaron,
commander of the Israeli forces in Beirut met with Elias
Hobeika and Fadi Frem of the Phalangists, about entering the
Palestinian refugee camps. General Drori telephoned Sharon
and told him, "Our friends are advancing into the camps and
I have coordinated their entry with their top men."' Sharon
answered, "Felicitations, the operation of our friends is approved."
(50)
The Phalangist puppet forces, accompanied by Israeli
experts, entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and
commenced one of the most brutal massacres of innocent
men, women and children in recorded history. Two thousand
defenseless Palestinians were massacred in this atrocity.
The devastation caused by the Zionists in their 1982 war
of aggression was of World War II proportions. Tens of
thousands were killed and wounded. Eight hundred thousand
were left homeless in Beirut and its suburbs alone.
The damages caused by the invasion were officially estimated
in 1982 at 7,852 million Lebanese pounds, or 1.9
billion U.S. dollars. Of this damage, 330,000,000 Lebanese
pounds was to schools, 228,000,000 was to hospitals,
203,000,000 was to agriculture, 1,940,000,000 was to factories
and shops and 3,434,000,000 was to housing. (At the
time, a U.S. Dollar was equivalent to 4.13 Lebanese Pounds.)
As a consequence of the invasion, the Israelis pursued a
policy of political and economic dismemberment of Lebanon.
The agricultural production of South Lebanon, representing
a quarter of the nation's total, decreased by 40%. South
Lebanon became a dumping ground for Israeli products and
a conduit for subsidized Israeli trade. On April 19, 1983,
Colonel Meir Peil, former director of the Israeli Military
Academy, asserted that "the only solution lies in the partitioning
of Lebanon into two states, one Christian and the other
Muslim." (51)
In September, 1983, the Israeli troops in Lebanon
withdrew to the Awali river, south of Beirut. Israeli forces
remain in South Lebanon today.
PLANS AND PREPARATIONS FOR THE EXPULSION OF THE PALESTINIANS FROM
THE WEST BANK AND GAZA
The crimes against peace committed by Israel are constantly
evolving, depending upon both opportunities and
limitations imposed by the international situation. The Israelis
implement those aspects which are feasible now, such
as establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank and
Gaza, and make plans and preparations for the mass expulsion
of those Palestinian Arabs who remain in historic Palestine
when an opportunity to successfully initiate and wage another
war of aggression arises in the future. General Aharon Yariv,
former Head of Military Intelligence, admitted these criminal
plans and preparations at a public seminar in the Leonard
Davis Institute for International Relations at Hebrew University,
as reported in Ha'aretz on May 23, 1980: "There are
opinions which advocate that a war situation be utilized in
order to exile 700-800 thousand Arabs. These opinions are
widespread. Statements have been voiced on the matter and
apparatuses have been prepared." (52)
General Yariv's statement is consistent with the Zionist
common plan or conspiracy to expel the remaining Palestinian
Arabs from their native land and to usurp all of their
land and properties for the benefit of Jewish immigrants. In
1943 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed
Brigadier General Patrick J. Hurley as his personal representative
to act as an observer and to report to him upon
conditions in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine and
Saudi Arabia. On May 3, 1943 General Hurley submitted a
report to the President in which he stated, inter alia, the
following:
The Zionist organization in Palestine has indicated its
commitment to an enlarged program for
(1) a sovereign Jewish State which would embrace Palestine
and probably eventually Transjordan;
(2) an eventual transfer of the Arab population from Palestine to
Iraq;
(3) Jewish leadership for the whole Middle East in the
fields of economic development and contro1. (53)
On February 21, 1988 Israeli journalists Yossi Melman
and Dan Raviv, both of whom have written on Israeli intelligence
affairs, published an article in English entitled ''A
Final Solution of the Palestinian Problem?," similar to an
article they had published in Duvur on February 19, 1988
under the title, "This is the History of Transfer." Israel Shahak
commented on these articles as follows:
The story Raviv and Melman tell begins two weeks after
the Israeli victory in the 1967 war, At the time, Abba Eban,
the Israeli foreign minister, called for resettling the refugees
in neighboring Arab countries, mainly Syria and Iraq. Yigal
Allon, the deputy prime minister, proposed that the Palestinian
refugees be transported to the Sinai Desert or that they
be persuaded to move abroad. According to notes taken at a
cabinet meeting by Ya'akov Herzog (bmther of the current
president and then the director-general of the prime minister's
office}, Allon complained that not enough was being done
among the Arabs to encourage emigration. Menahem Begin,
minister-without-portfolio ... recommend& that the refugee
camps be demolished and that their residents be transferred
to Sinai, which had been captured from the Egyptians.The product of these discussions ... was the formation of a
secret unit charged with "encouraging7'the departure of
Palestinians.
This "secret unit" was composed of representatives
of the prime minister's office, the Ministry of Defense, and
the army. (54)
The "secret unit" continued to study and make plans for
ultimate "transfer" of the Palestinian Arabs:
There is no reason to suppose that the "transfer" attempts
instigated by the Israeli government, which were considered
an integral part of its plan for "solving the Palestinian problem,"
ever ceased, They emerged again in the wake of the
alleged Israeli victory during the 1982 invasion of Libanon,
when then Minister-Without Portfolio Ya'akov Meridor, on
being asked what to do with the Palestinians, made the
following statement on a visit to inspect the Sidon area: "You
must drive them east, toward Syria ... and let them not
return," (55)
At the beginning of March, 1988 Zionist leaders held a
symposium at the Zionist Organization of America House in
Jerusalem on the possibility of transferring the Palestinian
Arabs. General Rehav'am Zeevi, who had been Chief of
Operations of the Israeli General Staff and Speeial Adviser
on Intelligence to Prime Minister Yitshak Rabin, was a principal
participant at the symposium. According to the Jerusalem Post International Edition,
Zeevi argued that "transfer" would be humane because the
Palestinians would no longer be in the battle Zone between
the IDF and the Arab armies. Seeking legitimation for his
views in Israeli history, he said that more than 400 Arab
localities which were still in existencein the late '40s had been
replaced by Jewish settlements, including some affiliated with
Mapam's Hashomer Hatzair. Moreover, Levi Eshkol, the
prime minister during the Six Day War, had set up an intelligence
unit to deal with the question of expulsion. (56)
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CRIME AGAINST PEACE
The Nazi war criminals we indicted, inter alia, for
crimes against peace. Counts One and Two of the Indictment
charged the Nazis with this crime. Count One states:
An influential group of the Nazi conspirators met with
Hitler on 5th November, 1937, to review the situation. It was
reaffirmed that Nazi Germany must have "Lebensraum'' in
central Europe. It was recognized that such conquest would
probably meet resistance which would have to be crushed by
force and that their decision might lead to a genera1 war, but
this prospect was discounted as a risk worth taking. There
emerged from this meeting three possible plans for the conquest
of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Which of the three was
to be used was to depend upon the developments in the
political and military situation in Europe. It was contemplated
that the conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia would,
through compuIsory emigration of 2,000,000 persons from
Czechoslovaki and 1,000,000 persons from Austria, provide
additional food to the Reich for 5,000,000 to 6,000,000
people, strengthen it militarily by providing shorter and better
frontiers, and make possible the constituting of new armies
up to about twelve divisions. Thus, the aim of the plan against
Austria and Czechoslovakia was conceived of not as an end
in itself but as a preparatory measure toward the next aggressive
steps in the Nazi conspiracy. (57)
Count Two of the Indictment states:
All the defendants with divers other persons, during a
period of years preceding 8th May, 1945, panicipated in the
planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression,
which were also wars in violation of international
treaties, agreements and assurances.
Particulars of the wars planned, prepared, initiated and
waged:
(a) The wars referred to in the Statement of Offense in this
Count Two of the Indictment and the dates of their initiation
were the following: against Poland, 1st September, 1939;
against the United Kingdom and France, 3rd September,
1939; against Denmark and Norway, 9th April, 1940; against
Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, 10th May, 1940;
against Yugoslavia and Greece, 6th April, 1941; against the
U.S.S.R., 22nd June, 1941; and against the United States of
America, 1 I th December, 1941.
(b) Reference is hereby made to Count One of the Indictment
for the allegations charging that these wars were wars
of aggression on the part of the defendants.
(c) Reference is hereby made to Appendix C annexed to
this Indictment for a statement of particulars of the charges of
violations of international treaties, agreements and assurances
caused by the defendants in the course of planning, preparing
and initiating these wars. (58)
The Intemational Military Tribunal sitting at Berlin on the
18th of October, 1945, reviewed in its judgment the planning
of aggression by the Nazis and the wars of aggression committed
against Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium,
Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia,
Greece, and the U.S.S.R. and stated: "The Charter makes the
planning or waging of a war of aggression or a war in
violation of international treaties a crime; and it is, therefore,
not strictly necessary to consider whether and to what extent
aggressive war was a crime before the execution of the
London Agreement. But in view of the great importance of
the questions of law involved, the Tribunal has heard full
argument from the Prosecution and the Defense, and will
express its view on the matter." (59)
The Tribunal referred to the General Treaty for the Renunciation
of War of 27th August, 1928, more generally known
as the Pact of Paris or the Kellogg-Briand Pact, to the Declaration
of the Assembly of the League of Nations on the 24th
of September, 1927. to the Treaty of Versailles and to the Law
as to the common plan or conspiracy, and stated:
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence establishes the
common planning to prepare and wage war by certain of the
defendants.
The Tribunal further refened to Article V1 of the Nuremberg
Charter which states: ''hadem, organizers, instigators
and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing
crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any
persons in execution of such plan." (60)
The United Nations War Crimes Commission summarized
the dicta of the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg
and Tokyo regarding Crimes Against Peace and stated:
(d) Crimes against peace:
Apart from the Judgments delivered in the two trials held
before the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and
Tokyo. the judicial authorities concerning crimes against
peace are the Judgments in the I.G. Farben, Krupp, High
Command, Greiser and Takashi Sakai Trials, together with
the trial of Weizsaeker and others before a United States
Military Tribunal, 1st November, 1947-15th April, 1949. in
which the Judgment was delivered too late to enable a report
on that trial to be included in this series.
The following paragraphs numbered (i)-(ix) attempt to
analyse the law relating to crimes against peace (including in
the meaning of that term "planning, preparation, initiation or
waging a war of aggression" and "participating in a common
plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing," to use the language of Article II 1 (a) of Law No.
10 as that law has been developed in the trials by United States
Military Tribunals in Nuremberg which were bound by Law
No. 10. The Polish and Chinese decisions are next referred
to. and finally some remarks regarding the legal effects of the
fact that a crime against peace has been committed are set out.
(i) Deeming it necessary "to give a brief consideration to
the nature and characteristics of war," the Tribunal which
conducted the High Command Trial said:
"We need not attempt a definition that is all inclusive and
all exclusive. It is sufficient to say that war is the exerting of
violence by one state or politically organized body against
another. In other words, it is the implementation of a political
policy by means of violence. Wars are contests by force
between political units but the policy that brings about their
initiation is made and the actual waging of them is done by
individuals. What we have said thus far is equally as applicable
to a just as to an unjust war, to the initiation of an
aggressive and, therefore, criminal war as to the waging of
defensive and, therefore, legitimate war against criminal
aggression.
The point we stress is that war activity is the
implementation of a predetermined national policy.
"Likewise, an invasion of one state by another is the
implementation of the national policy of the invading state by
force even though the invaded state, due to fear or a sense of
the futility of resistance in the face of superior force, adopts
a policy of non-resistance and thus prevents the occurrence
of any actual combat ....
"The initiation of war or am invasion is a unilateral operation.
When war is formally declared or the first shot is fired,
the initiation of the war has ended and from then on therc is
a waging of war between the two adversaries."(61)
The Judgment of the Tokyo International Military
Tribunal recognizes five separate crimes as Crimes Against
Peace:
Under the heading of "Crimes against Peace," the Charter
names five separate crimes. These are planning, preparation,
initiation and waging aggressive war or a war in violation of
international law, treaties, agreements, or assurances; to these
four is added the further crime of participation in a common
plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing. The indictment was based upon the Charter and all
the above crimes were charged in addition to further charges
founded upon other provisions of the Charter.
The Tribunal added, however;
A conspiracy to wage aggressive or unlawful war arises
when two or more persons enter into an agreement to commit
that crime. Thereafter, in furtherance of the conspiracy, follows
planning and preparing for such war. Those who pdrticipate
at this stage may be either original conspirators or
later adherents. If the latter adopt the purpose of the conspiracy
and plan and prepare for its fulfilment, they become
conspirators. (62)
THE CRIME AGAINST PEACE
Since their occupation of 80 percent of Palestine and the
declaration of independence of Israel in 1948, successive
Zionist governments have conspired to conquer the West
Bank and Gaza and to wage wars of aggression against Egypt,
Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. The diaries of Moshe Sharett
summarized by Livia Rokach in this chapter reveal clearly
how the Israelis planned and prepared and subsequently
initiated and waged their wars of aggression.
The article published in the Hebrew magazine Kivunim
(Directions) which was summarized extensively in this chapter
shows clearly that the Israeli leadership planned to fragment every
Arab country into puppet regimes they could
easily control and manipulate. The above-mentioned facts
and the fact that Israel initiated and waged four wars of
aggression in 1956,1967,1978 and 1982 and committed war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide prove beyond
any doubt that the political and military leaders of Israel are
guilty of crimes against peace.
NOTES TO CHAPTER THIRTY SIX
1. Livia Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism (Belmont, Mass:
Association
of Arab-American University Graduates, 1980), pp. 4-5.
3. Moshe Sharett's Diary, October 19, 1953, p. 54, quoted in
Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism, p. 17.
4. Sharett's Diary, March 3 I, 1954, p. 426, quoted in Rokach,
p. 29.
5. Sharett's Diary, Miiy 26, 1955, p. 1021, quoted in Rokach,
p. 41.
6. Sharett's Diary, January 14, 1955, p. 654, quoted in Rokach,
p. 37.
7. Sharett's Diary, January 25,1955, p. 682, quoted in Rokach,
p. 37.
8. Sharett's Diary, January 26, 1955, p. 685, quoted in Rokach,
p. 37.
9. Rokach, pp. 53-54.
10. Ibid., p. 42.
11. Sharett's Diary, March 27, 1955, p. 865, quoted in Rokach,
p. 44.
12. Rokach, p. 5.
13. Sharett's Diary January 31, 1954, p. 332, quoted in Rokach,
p. 18.
14. Sharett's Diary, February 27, 1954, p. 377, quoted in
Rokach, p. 18.
15. Rokach, p. 27.
16. The Olshan-Dori Inquiry Commission of the "Affair," annexed
to the Diary, p. 664.
17. Rokach, p. 38.
18. Ibid., p. 40.
19. Ibid., pp. 41-42.
2 I. Ibid., p. 43.
22. Ibid., pp. 43-44.
25. Ibid., pp. 50-51.
26. Ibid., pp. 52-53.
27. Ibid., p. 19.
28. Ibid., pp. 19-20.
29. Ibid., pp. 20-21.
30. Ibid., p. 22,
31. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
32. Ibid., p. 24,
33. Ibid., p. 25.
34. Ibid., pp 26-28.
35. Ibid., p. 28.
36. Ibid., pp. 28-29.
37. Ibid., pp. 29-30.
38. Ibid., pp. 3 1-32.
39. Sharett's Diary, April 23, 1954, p. 477, quoted in Rokach,
p. 32.
40. lbid., p. 489, quoted in Rokach, p. 32.
41. Ibid., pp. 32-33.
42. President Eisenhower's television address to the American
people on February 20, 1957, United States Department of State
Bulletin, volume 36, No. 915-939, January-June 1957,
pp. 389-390.
43. New York Times Magazine, July 9, 1967.
44. Le Monde, Paris, February 28, 1968,
45. Stewart Steven, The Spymasters of Israel (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 189- 190.
46. Ibid., p. 193.
47. Lebanese Ministry of Infomation, South Lebanon 1948-
1986; Facts and Figures (Beirut: 1986), pp, 8-11.
48. The Washington Post, March 25, 1978.
49. Jonathan Randal, Going All the Way (New York: Viking,
1984), p. 218.
50. Franklin P. Lamb, ed., Israel's War in Lebanon (Boston:
South End Press, 19841, pp. 102-103.
51. Lebanese Ministry of Information, South Lebanon 1948-1986; Facts
and Figures, pp. 22-31.
52. Ha'aretz, May 23, 1980.
53. United States. Foreign Relations of the US.: Near East and
Africa (Washington, D.C.: 1964), volume 4, pp. 776-777.
54. Israel Shahak, "A History of the Concept of 'Transfer' in
Zionism," Journal of Palestine Studies, volume 18, No. 3, Spring
1989, Issue 71, pp. 31-32.
55. Ibid., p. 32.
56. Joshua Brilliant, "Call for Emigration of Arabs: Zeevi
Encouraged
by Response to 'Transfer,'" the Jerusalem Post International
Edition, March 5, 1988, p. 7.
57. Indictment presented to the International Military Tribunal
sitting at Berlin on 18th October. 1945, British Command Paper
No. 6696 (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1945}, p, 9.
58. Ibid., pp. 13-14.
59. Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial
of German Major War Criminals, 30th september and 1st October,
1946, British Command Paper No. 6964 (London: H. M.
SQtioneq Office. 1946). p. 38.
60. Ibid., pp. 43-44.
61. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Seiected and
Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, (London:
H. M. Stationery Office, 19491, volume 15, pp. 138-139.
62. Ibid., p. 141.
