dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
p. 126,n) and frequently again during the recent conflict (EC-344-7; ECH-16), that the limitations of Article 52 may be disregarded in case of military necessity, is not well founded. Article 23g, which permits the destruction of private property when "imperatively demanded by the necessities of war," is included among the provisions relating to the rights of belligerents in the conduct of military operations, and has no relation to the powers of a belligerent in an occupied area in which conflict has ceased (see Garner, loc. cit. supra). The latter are governed, so far as material here, by Articles 42-56. Apart from Article 23g, there is no basis whatever for the German position. The Hague Regulations are limitations on the powers which may be exercised under the plea of military necessity (II, Oppenheim, International Law, 6th Edition Revised, edited by Lauterpacht, p. 185, n.1). An exception for cases of alleged military necessity, therefore, cannot be implied. The deliberate substitution of the present terminology in lieu of the vague limitations of "military necessity" as contained in the Brussels Declaration of 1874, moreover, would seem to remove all basis for a contrary construction. Article 53 provides no better support for the Nazis' action. The second paragraph, relating to private property, states: "All appliances, whether on land, on sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made." This Article, it may be conceded, authorizes not only the sequestration but the use of all matters within its reach. The term "munitions of war," however, clearly refers only to chattels (Feilchenfeld, supra, par. 351). It does not, therefore, include machinery affixed to the realty. The German legal advisors uniformly so conceded during this war (EC-560; EC-84; EC-263; EC-344-7). The suggestion that Article 53 is subject to an implied exception in the case of military necessity (EC-344-7) is, for reasons noted above, untenable. It is equally clear that
not, therefore, include machinery affixed to the realty. The German legal advisors uniformly so conceded during this war (EC-560; EC-84; EC-263; EC-344-7). The suggestion that Article 53 is subject to an implied exception in the case of military necessity (EC-344-7) is, for reasons noted above, untenable. It is equally clear that the deliberate removal of the metal content of the transmission systems in the occupied areas is without legal basis. Article 53 in terms requires restoration when peace is made and, whatever exceptions may be implied in case of munitions which are necessarily consumed by use, no basis can be found for the deliberate destruction of transmission facilities. The question as to the class of chattels included within the deliberately general term "munitions of war" is not free from doubt. The right of seizure is based on military necessity, namely, the danger of leaving at large things which are peculiarly adapted to warlike purposes (Spaight, War Rights On Land, p. 512). It should accordingly be limited to those things which are "susceptible of direct military use" (see British Manual of Military Law, 1929, Amendment No. 12, par. 415; U. S. Army Basic Field Manual on Rules of Land Warfare, FM 27-10, 1940, par. 332). Article 53, which contains no limitation restricting seizures to the needs of the occupation army, would otherwise completely nullify the deliberate limitations on the right of requisition imposed in Article 52. In this view, raw materials and even semifinished goods, save perhaps such goods as are normally part of military equipment, would seem outside the reach of Article 53. (b) The control and direction of production and distribution in the German interest. The planned control and direction of the economy of the occupied countries in the interest of the German war effort constitute a violation of Article 52. This seems clearly true to the extent that production and sale for export to Germany were ordered by the Ruestungsobmann pursuant to Speer's directive late in 1943. It would seem equally true of the earlier method of control by prohibitions and restrictions. For the net effect of the priority system was to leave no alternative to producing in the German interest save
sale for export to Germany were ordered by the Ruestungsobmann pursuant to Speer's directive late in 1943. It would seem equally true of the earlier method of control by prohibitions and restrictions. For the net effect of the priority system was to leave no alternative to producing in the German interest save to cease operations. And even this alternative was not available, since the power to appoint a commissar in case of recalcitrant plants was expressly reserved. Article 53, which is limited to chattels and has no relation to the demanding of personal services in any event, provides not even a remote basis for the imposition of the controls in question. In what has been said, it is not meant to be suggested that an occupant is without power to institute a system of rationing for articles in short supply with the aim of securing an equitable distribution among the population of the occupied area. Such a measure is plainly related to the promotion of economic order and there is nothing in the Hague Regulations which restricts even requisition for the needs of the local population. The Nazi controls, however, were exercised, not in the interest of the local population, but to fulfill the general war requirements of Germany, in the Reich as well as in the occupied area. (c) Levy of occupation charges for purposes not related to the needs of the occupation army. Article 49 of the Hague Regulations limits the levy of occupation charges to the "needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question." The only purpose for which such contributions may be levied (other than for the financing of the costs of administration, a matter not material here), is to supply the needs of the army of occupation (Conference Internationale de la Paix, La Haye, 1899, Pt. 1, p. 60; Feilchenfeld, supra, par. 167; Spaight, supra, pp. 384-392). The power to levy contributions is reserved in order to permit an equitable distribution among the entire community of costs which, if supplies were requisitioned, would fall directly and solely on the owners of the requisitioned property (Spaight, supra, pp. 387-389). Accordingly, the levy of contributions to finance exports or for other purposes unrelated to the
an equitable distribution among the entire community of costs which, if supplies were requisitioned, would fall directly and solely on the owners of the requisitioned property (Spaight, supra, pp. 387-389). Accordingly, the levy of contributions to finance exports or for other purposes unrelated to the needs of the army in the territory in question would seem plainly forbidden (Feilchenfeld, supra, par. 167; Spaight, supra, pp. 384-392). Moreover, as Article 49 refers to the occupation army only, the levy of contributions to support the troops engaged in military operations against an enemy located outside the boundaries of the occupied country or to finance other general war expenses would seem prohibited. (d) Forced loans. Forced loans can be justified only as contributions and are therefore subject to the same limitations (Feilchenfeld, supra, par. 185). The forced loans under the Belgian-German and Franco-German clearing arrangements, were executed largely to finance exports to Germany, that is, for nonoccupation purposes. (e) The exchange of reichsmarks for gulden by the Netherlands Bank. These transactions, whether viewed as resulting in a loan or merely in an exchange, constitute a contribution of money for nonoccupation purposes. It may be assumed that they were carried out "voluntarily" while the Netherlands Bank was under the immediate direction of Rost Van Tonningen. This circumstance is immaterial, however, since Van Tonningen was a civil official appointed by Seyss-Inquart, and his authority, like that of civilian officials in occupied areas generally, was derived solely from that of the occupant. (f) The taking over of gold of the National Bank of Belgium and the Netherlands Bank. That the gold of the National Bank of Belgium was private property is not disputed; the Nazi conspirators proceeded on this view in the original decision to requisition under Article 52, first paragraph, therefore, was not open to the Nazi conspirators; so far as appears they never considered such a step. It may be assumed for purposes of argument that gold is subject to requisition under the Hague Regulations. Requisition may be made, however, only for the needs of the occupation army. It cannot be resorted to relieve
open to the Nazi conspirators; so far as appears they never considered such a step. It may be assumed for purposes of argument that gold is subject to requisition under the Hague Regulations. Requisition may be made, however, only for the needs of the occupation army. It cannot be resorted to relieve the "considerable straining of the reserves" of Germany. The gold reserve of the Netherlands Bank, it is believed, is private property, no less than that of the National Bank of Belgium. In this view, the taking over of the gold of the Netherlands Bank was likewise illegal. There is, of course, no basis in law for exacting a contribution for the so-called "war against Bolshevism," to use the Nazis' phrase. And, for the reasons indicated above, it is immaterial whether these "contributions" were "voluntarily" made by Van Tonningen. (g) The compulsory surrender of gold and foreign exchange. The requirement of surrender of gold and foreign exchange for ultimate delivery to the Reichsbank amounts in substance to a requisition and cannot be supported because obviously done solely to maintain the reserves of foreign exchange for the total war effort, not for the needs of the occupation army alone. (h) The acquisition of business interest. The Nazis, acquisition of Belgian, Dutch, and French participations was unlawful. That this is so in the case of the sales ordered by the Ministry of Economics is clear (EC-43). The conclusion should be the same even when sale was not expressly ordered. These purchases were financed through the clearing system (which, as shown above, constituted a forced loan) and out of occupation cost funds. Since such expenditures bore no relation to the needs of the occupation army or, indeed, served any purpose other than to enrich the Nazi conspirators and their nominees, the Nazi program for acquisition of participations was in plain violation of Article 49 of the Hague Regulations. (2) Such acts constitute "plunder of public or private property" within the meaning of Article 6 (B) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Save as they may be authorized by International Law (and hence "consented" to by the occupied countries), the acts complained of are of a
(2) Such acts constitute "plunder of public or private property" within the meaning of Article 6 (B) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Save as they may be authorized by International Law (and hence "consented" to by the occupied countries), the acts complained of are of a character condemned by the criminal code of the occupied countries and, indeed, of all civilized nations. Absent such authority, the forcible permanent taking of money or other property whether from Government agencies or private persons, constitutes larceny or, as known in the international law of belligerent occupation, "pillage" (Garner, supra, pp. 472-473). The question of which court or courts may try and punish for the offense is one of jurisdiction only (see Garner, supra, pp. 475-480) and has been resolved by the Agreement and Charter of the International Military Tribunal. LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO GERMANIZATION AND SPOLIATION Document Description Vol. Page Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (b), c)...I 5 International Military Tribunal, Indictment Number 1, Sections III; VIII (E, J)...I 15,43,51 3737-PS Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annex, Articles 49,52,53,55...VI 589,599 Note: A single asterisk (*) before a document indicates that the document was received in evidence at the Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**) before a document number indicates that the document was referred to during the trail but was not formally received in evidence, for the reason given in parentheses following the description of the document. The USA series number, given in parentheses following the description of the document, is the official exhibit number assigned by the court. *061-PS Secret Bormann letter, 11 January 1944, concerning large-scale organization for withdrawal of commodities from occupied territories for use of bombed-out population in Germany. (USA 692)....III 105 *294-PS Top secret memorandum signed by Brautigam, 25 October 1942, concerning conditions in Russia. (USA 185)....III 242 *661-PS Secret Law, January 1940, on Resettlement. (USA 300)....III 472 *686-PS Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor to strengthen German Folkdom, 7
use of bombed-out population in Germany. (USA 692)....III 105 *294-PS Top secret memorandum signed by Brautigam, 25 October 1942, concerning conditions in Russia. (USA 185)....III 242 *661-PS Secret Law, January 1940, on Resettlement. (USA 300)....III 472 *686-PS Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor to strengthen German Folkdom, 7 October 1939, signed by Hitler, Goering, Lammers and Keitel. (USA 305)....III 496 *862-PS Memorandum by General Friderici, Plenipotentiary of the Wehrmacht to the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, initialed by Keitel, Jodl and Warlimont, 15 October 1940, concerning plan to Germanize Czechoslovakia. (USA 313)....III 618 *910-PS Notes on Himmler's plan for Germanization of Poland, 27 and 30 March 1942, from the Main Office, Interior Administration, initialed "Dr. S. H." (USA 310)....III 639 997-PS Top secret report by Seyss-Inquart concerning the situation in the Netherlands - Exploitation and Nazification in period 29 May to 19 July 1940....III 641 *1029-PS Paper entitled "Instructions for a Reich Commissar in the Baltic States", 8 May 1941, found in Rosenberg's "Russia File". (USA 145)....III 690 *1058-PS Excerpt from a speech, 20 June 1941, by Rosenberg before people most intimately concerned with Eastern Problem, found in his "Russia File". (USA 147)...III 716 *1352-PS Reports concerning the confiscation of Polish agricultural properties, 16 and 29 May 1940, signed Kusche. (USA 176)....III 916 1445-PS Reports on conference at Ministry of Economics regarding use of Belgian and Dutch capital investments in southeastern European enterprises, 15 June 1940....IV 20 *1456-PS Thomas memorandum 20 June 1941; Keitel consulted about resources of USSR. (USA 148).....IV 21 1741-PS Collection of documents relating to the French Armistice. ....IV 228 1765-PS Report of the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan Plenipotentiary for Special Missions on Black Market Activities, 15 January 1943....IV 325 *1918-PS Speech by Himmler to SS officers on day of Metz. (USA 304)....IV 553 1991-PS Sixth report on activity and final report of the German Armistice Delegation for Economy, and of Delegate of Reich Government for Economic and Financial Questions with French Government, 1 July 1943 to 17
1943....IV 325 *1918-PS Speech by Himmler to SS officers on day of Metz. (USA 304)....IV 553 1991-PS Sixth report on activity and final report of the German Armistice Delegation for Economy, and of Delegate of Reich Government for Economic and Financial Questions with French Government, 1 July 1943 to 17 August 1944.....IV 605 *1997-PS Decree of the Fuehrer, 17 July 1941, concerning administration of Newly Occupied Eastern Territories. (USA 319).....IV 634 2149-PS Letter, 11 December 1942, to foreign Office, enclosing statement of German Reichsbank concerning question of an increase of French contributions to Occupation expenses....IV 758 *2233-D-PS Frank Diary. Regierungsitzungen. 1941. October-December. Entry of 16 December 1941 at pp. 76-77. (USA 281)....IV 891 *2233-G-PS Frank Diary. 1939. 25 October to 15 December. (USA 302)....IV 903 *2233-H-PS Frank Diary. Tagebuch. 1941. Part II. Entry of 19 April 1941. (USA 311)....IV 904 *2749-PS Title page of publication of Academy for German Law, 7th year, 1940. (USA 301).....V 390 *2915-PS Extracts from German Labor, June-July 1942. (USA 306)....V 580 2916-PS Commitment of manpower Doctrines-Orders-Directives, published by Office of Reich Commissioner for strengthening of National Character of German People, December 1940. (USA 307)....V 581 3602-PS Report on conversation (interview) between Mr. Hemmen and Mr. de Boisanger, 4 October....VI 314 3603-PS Report on conversation between Mr. Hemmen and Mr. de Boisanger, 10 October....VI 314 3604-PS Decree concerning rationing of industrial goods from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41,p. 37, Sec. 4.....VI 315 3605-PS Rationing decree, 27 May 1940, from Official Gazette of Military Commanders in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41, p. 37, Sec. 4....VI 315 3606-PS Rationing decree, 27 May 1940, from Official Gazette of Military Commanders in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41, p. 38, Sec. 10....VI 316 3607-PS Public Notice on Board of Directors of Reichskreditkasse, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41, p. 65...VI 316 3608-PS Public Notice of Establishment of a Clearing system between Belgium and German Reich, 10 July 1940, from Official Gazette of Military
Sec. 10....VI 316 3607-PS Public Notice on Board of Directors of Reichskreditkasse, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41, p. 65...VI 316 3608-PS Public Notice of Establishment of a Clearing system between Belgium and German Reich, 10 July 1940, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France....VI 317 3609-PS Decree for execution of rationing decree in Belgium, 5 November 1940, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France....VI 318 3610-PS Decree regarding Plant Commissars, 29 April 1941, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41, p. 599.....VI 319 3611-PS Decree on economic measures against Jews, 31 May 1941, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41, p. 620, Sec. 17....VI 320 3612-PS Decree regarding prohibition of manufacturing of certain products, 6 August 1942, from Official Gazette of Military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1942, p. 986, Sec. 1....VI 321 3613-PS Proclamation of Netherlands population, 25 May 1940, from Official Gazette for Occupied Dutch Territory, No. 1 5 June 1940.....VI 321 3615-PS Report by Ostrow on examination of records of Reichskreditkasse, 29 September 1945.....VI 322 3616-PS Decree on prohibition to establish and enlarge enterprises and on shutting down enterprises, 30 March 1942, from Official Gazette of military Commander in Belgium and Northern France, 1942, p. 865....VI 388 *EC-3 Letter of Liaison Staff at Supreme Headquarters, Armament Procurement Office directed to General Thomas, Chief of Wi Rue Amt, Berlin, 25 November 1941. (USA 318)....VII 242 EC-21 Memorandum of Posse, 8 January 1940......VII 249 EC-34 Report No. 1 on activities of military Administration for month of November 1940......VII 254 EC-41 Notice concerning seizure of security properties of Dutch and Belgian holdings, 23 May 1940.....VII 255 EC-43 Report on conferences at Ministry of Economics, 20 August 1940, regarding acquisition of shares in important foreign enterprises in Southeast Europe.....VII 258 EC-69 Memorandum of General Holder, 13 December 1939, regarding treatment of
security properties of Dutch and Belgian holdings, 23 May 1940.....VII 255 EC-43 Report on conferences at Ministry of Economics, 20 August 1940, regarding acquisition of shares in important foreign enterprises in Southeast Europe.....VII 258 EC-69 Memorandum of General Holder, 13 December 1939, regarding treatment of economical questions at the OKH.....VII 262 EC-84 Report of Lt. Colonel Helder on reconversion of the economy, 7 December 1940.....VII 263 EC-86 report on financial contributions of the Occupied Areas......VII 264 EC-87 Report on contribution of Netherlands for German War economy.....VII 278 EC-101 Affidavit by Schmid-Lossberg, 21 September 1945, concerning Holland, Belgium and France.....VII 280 EC-113 Covering letter, 8 July 1940, to letter from Supreme Command of Armed Forces, concerning decision of Fuehrer in Armistice questions, and memorandum of Goering, 5 July 1940.....VII 291 *EC-126 Economic Policy Directive for Economic Organization, East, Agricultural Group, 23 May 1941. (USA 316)....VII 295 EC-137 Memorandum of Goering, 2 August 1940, regarding extension of German interests in foreign enterprise, and covering letter......VII 309 EC-155 Collection of planned decrees on economic matters, from Military Administration-Economy, pp. 50-74.....VII 312 EC-256 Letter from Dr. Lammers to Goering and Funk, 12 October 1937.....VII 346 EC-261 Letter from Fund to all Ministries, 14 March 1938, regarding appointment of Sarnow, deputy of Plenipotentiary for War Economy....VII 371 EC-263 Note on draft of decree on confiscation of private Polish property.....VII 373 EC-267 Development and Position of French Industry in area of Military Commander, France, in 1941, from Report on Economy by Military Commander, France.....VII 376 *EC-305 Minutes of meeting on 12 February 1940, under Chairmanship of Goering concerning labor supply in the East. (USA 303)....VII 402 EC-323 Telegram signed Schleier, dated Paris 26 April 1941.......VII 406 EC-335 Report of the Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France, January-March 1943.....VII 407 EC-336 Report of the Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories 26 November 1942, concerning treatment of Poles under his jurisdiction......VII 408 EC-344-7 Report on Armament Economy in