. NMT04-T0493
Volume IV · Page 493
| are captured, they are entitled to the status
and rights of prisoners of war. The language used in the official German reports, received in evidence in this case, show, however, that combatants were indiscriminately punished only for having fought against the enemy. This is contrary to the law of war. |
| Reprisals |
| From time to time the word "reprisals" has
appeared in the Einsatzgruppen reports. Reprisals in war are the commission of
acts which, although illegal in themselves, may, under the specific
circumstances of the given case, become justified because the guilty adversary
has himself behaved illegally, and the action is taken in the last resort, in
order to prevent the adversary from behaving illegally in the future. Thus, the
first prerequisite to the introduction of this most extraordinary remedy is
proof that the enemy has behaved illegally. While generally the persons who
become victims of the reprisals are admittedly innocent of the acts against
which the reprisal is to retaliate, there must at least be such close
connection between these persons and these acts as to constitute a joint
responsibility. Article 50 of the Hague Regulations states unequivocally — |
"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible." |
| Thus when, as one report says, 859 out of
2,100 Jews shot in alleged reprisal for the killing of 21 German soldiers near
Topola were taken from concentration camps in Yugoslavia, hundreds of miles
away, it is obvious that a flagrant violation of international law occurred and
outright murder resulted. That 2,100 people were killed in retaliation for 21
deaths only further magnifies the criminality of this savage and inhuman
so-called reprisal. Hyde, International Law, Volume III, page 35, has this to say on reprisals — |
"A belligerent which is contemptuous of conventional or customary prohibitions is not in a position to claim that its adversary when responding with like for like, lacks the requisite excuse." |
| If it is assumed that some of the resistance units in Russia or members of the population did commit acts which were in themselves unlawful under the rules of war, it would still have to be shown that these acts were not in legitimate defense against wrongs perpetrated upon them by the invader. Under international law, as in domestic law, there can be no reprisal against re- [...prisal] |
