Fifty-Eighth Day: Wednesday, February 13, 1946
[Page 301]
As early as the end of the last century, the Hague
Convention of 1899 established certain rules regulating the
rights and responsibilities of belligerents in regard to
prisoners of war. In pursuance of the provisions of the 1899
Convention, a number of States drew up the necessary
instructions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. I
would like to cite three or four sentences taken from such
instructions:
A State may do everything necessary for the holding of
prisoners, but nothing more.
Prisoners of war may be employed to perform moderate
work in conformity with their social position....
In any case, such work must not be detrimental to
health and must not be of a humiliating nature. It must
not contribute directly to military operations against
the native country of the prisoners.
Prisoners of war lose their freedom but retain their
rights. In other words, military confinement is not an
act of mercy on the part of the captor, but the right
of disarmed persons."
The principle of humane treatment of prisoners and wounded
Servicemen was further developed in the Hague Convention of
1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929.
Germany's adherence to these conventions was definitely
reflected in the German law regarding wartime courts
martial. I have in mind, particularly, the German Law of
17th August, 1938, and, in particular, Section "e",
Paragraphs 73 and 75, which contain direct reference to the
Convention of 1929. That was at a time when Hitlerite
Germany had already begun the execution of her aggressive
plans.
As the Tribunal will remember, the 23rd Article of the Hague
Convention of 1907 states,
[Page 302]
They must be treated humanely.
All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and
military papers, will remain in their possession."
The natural conclusion presents itself that, in cases of
violations of this obligation, the responsibility for any
crime against a prisoner of war, and especially for a
definite system of crimes against the dignity, person,
health and life of prisoners of war, must fall on the
Government of the country which had signed the Convention.
In the light of the facts which I shall submit to you, on
the basis of irrefutable documents, Germany's solemn
undertakings in regard to prisoners of war will appear to be
nothing but unparalleled and cynical mockery of the very
conception of treaties, laws, culture and humanity.
[
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
(Part 3 of 19)
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Your Honours, my task today is to present
to you material on the "Criminal Violation of the Laws and
Customs of War in the Treatment of Prisoners of War."
"The exclusive aim of the military plan is to prevent
the further participation of prisoners in the war.
It may surprise you to learn that the instructions cited are
those issued by the German General Staff in Volume 18 of the
circular published in 1902 by the German General Staff.
"It is forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who, having
laid down his arms and possessing no means of defence,
has unconditionally surrendered."
It cannot be said that the brief code of the laws of war,
which was, in fact, drawn up at The Hague and Geneva,
encompassed the whole range of questions relating to those
laws. The authors of these documents had, therefore,
inserted the following proviso; and I will cite this
excerpt:
"Until the opportunity presents itself of issuing a
more complete code of the laws of war, the High
Contracting Parties" -- and I would remind the Tribunal
that Germany was one of those contracting parties --
"consider it appropriate to affirm that, in cases not
provided for in the rules established by them, the
population and the belligerents remain safeguarded by
the principles of International Law in so far as these
principles ensue from the customs, laws of humanity and
dictates of public conscience in force between
civilized nations."
I should like to emphasise that in the appendix to the
Convention on the Laws and Customs of Land War -- Second
Peace Conference, 190 --Article 4 of Chapter 2, concerning
prisoners of war, states as follows; and you, Sir, will
"Prisoners of war remain in the custody of the enemy
State and not of the individuals or troops which had
captured them.
It may, therefore, be considered definitely established that
the Governments of a number of States, including Germany,
had unconditionally recognized their obligations to insure
conditions under which prisoners of war should not suffer
from arbitrary actions on the part of members of the Armed
Forces of any State.