His Majesty’s Ambassador presents his compliments to the Secretary of State
and has the honour to refer to Mr. Hull’s note 740.00116 E.W./8–1944 of the
4th October last concerning a letter addressed by the Chairman of the United
Nations War Crimes Commission to His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs regarding German crimes against Germans and other
nationals in Germany.
[Enclosure 1]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Eden) to the Chairman of the
United Nations War Crimes Commission (Hurst)
C.15766/14/62
[London,] 9 November, 1944.
The views of the War Cabinet on your letter of the 31st May were
communicated to your Commission in the letter from the Lord Chancellor
to yourself as Chairman on the 23rd August, 1944. The fourth paragraph
of that letter dealt with the suggestion put forward by the Commission
as to atrocities committed on racial, political or religious grounds in
enemy territory. In that letter after stating the view then held, the
Lord Chancellor went on to say that His Majesty’s Government would give
further consideration to this question. I am therefore writing to let
you know that His Majesty’s Government adhere to the views as stated in
that letter. The majority of these atrocities will have been committed
against enemy nationals; if committed against Allied nationals they are
within your Commission’s terms of reference already. I think it is clear
from the letter that there was no intention to exclude atrocities on
these grounds in enemy territory if they in fact came within the
category of war crimes, but you were clearly raising the wider issue.
His Majesty’s Government do not—as was stated in the letter—wish to
preclude the Commission from collecting any evidence which they feel
would be of value in relation to the general extermination policy which
has undoubtedly been carried out in occupied territory in circumstances
which constitute war crimes.
Apart from other considerations His Majesty’s Government feel that the
progress of the war has made the war criminal question one of some
urgency, and it would be a mistake for the Commission to undertake this
additional and heavy burden. It is unnecessary to
[Page 1403]
say that His Majesty’s Government
sincerely hope that those who have been responsible for these artocities
may one day have the punishment which their actions deserve.
[Enclosure 2]
The British Lord Chancellor (Simon) to the Chairman of the United Nations War Crimes
Commission (Hurst)
C.15766/14/62
23 August
1944.
My Dear Hurst: I promised at the interview you
had on the 28th July with me and the Attorney General to write you a
letter which was to convey some of the suggestions which the War Cabinet
has authorised us to make with the object of promoting the work of the
Commission on War Crimes over which you preside. The observations in
this letter are communicated to you as Chairman of the Commission, and,
as you will see, are to a large extent in line with the recommendations
adopted by the Commission on 16th May, and forwarded by you to the
Foreign Secretary in your letter of 24th May. You have also by your
letter of 31st May to the Foreign Secretary taken a broad view of the
duties of the Commission in another matter on which the War Cabinet
authorised us to make a suggestion to you.
His Majesty’s Government are in agreement with the Commission that the
mere establishment of a list of persons presumed to be guilty of war
crimes by building up and preparing complete cases and dossiers
containing the proof of their guilt cannot in itself complete the work
to be done by the Commission. It was, indeed, never intended that this
should be the limit of the Commission’s work; you will notice in the
statement made in the House of Lords on 7th October, 1942, when the
functions of the Commission were generally described, that the
Commission was to report from time to time to the Governments cases in
which war crimes appear to have been committed against nationals of the
United Nations, “naming and identifying wherever
possible the persons responsible”. In the view of His Majesty’s
Government the purpose to be served by the Commission is intended to
include an account, in such detail as is possible, of specific war
atrocities, even though it is not possible, in all cases, to identify
the individual perpetrators or the units involved.
Secondly, we note the suggestion that all persons who have held
responsible positions in the occupied countries, especially lists of
enemy personnel in authority in each occupied district, including
gauleiters, governors, chiefs of the S.S., chiefs of the Gestapo, etc.,
with particulars as complete as possible regarding their own identity
and of the more important crimes committed in the areas where they
[Page 1404]
were in authority, should be
compiled by the Allied Governments and that such persons (at any rate
members of the S.S. or Gestapo) should be detained as soon as this is
possible. This, of course, is primarily a matter which falls within the
task of the Governments themselves and of the Allied commanders, but we
can well understand that such lists might be of great value to the
Commission in the discharge of its work, and, so far as His Majesty’s
Government is concerned, we believe that the course proposed would be
thoroughly approved.
Thirdly, in your letter of the 31st May you refer to a category of enemy
atrocities which does not fall within the definition of war crimes,
namely, atrocities committed on racial, political or religious grounds
in enemy territory. This would open a very wide field. No doubt you have
in mind particularly the atrocities committed against the Jews. I assume
there is no doubt that the massacres which have occurred in occupied
territories would come within the category of war crimes and there would
be no question as to their being within the Commission’s terms of
reference. No doubt they are part of a policy which the Nazi Government
have adopted from the outset, and I can fully understand the Commission
wishing to receive and consider and report on evidence which threw light
on what one might describe as the extermination policy. I think I can
probably express the view of His Majesty’s Government by saying that it
would not desire the Commission to place any unnecessary restriction on
the evidence which may be tendered to it on this general subject. I feel
I should warn you, however, that the question of acts of this kind
committed in enemy territory raises serious difficulties and it would
probably be better that the Commission should not concern itself with
these until the matter has been fully considered in the light of your
recent recommendations. His Majesty’s Government do attach very great
importance to the investigation which they feel sure is proceeding of
the massacre committed in the occupied territories and the
identification of those responsible.
To sum up: if I may state in broad terms the position as I see it, I
would say that I trust that the Commission will not feel narrowly
confined to the work of identifying individual criminals. It will not, I
am sure, forget that in order to bring home guilt to an individual enemy
who is charged with having perpetrated a specified crime, it is
necessary to show that the man accused is rightly held responsible for
it, and, to that extent, identification may often be most important.
But, on the other hand, the report of the United Nations War Crimes
Commission ought certainly to take a wider scope, for it is by means of
this report that the extent and character of well authenticated
atrocities will be largely judged, and the difficult and responsible
task
[Page 1405]
of the Commission is to
bring these matters home in their general aspect as well as to collect
evidence of the crime of an identified individual. When the Commission
are able to address themselves to what has happened in the Far East, it
may be found that identification of individuals is even more difficult
than in the West. It will, however, be of the greatest importance for
there to be a reliable and authoritative report on the atrocities.
You may, therefore, assume that the wider treatment on the subject which
the Commission has suggested to His Majesty’s Government is the
treatment which His Majesty’s Government would approve.
Yours sincerely,
