. NMT05-T0002
Volume V · Page 2
| could only be understood on the basis of a
thorough knowledge of the historical background of German-Polish relations.
This point was summarized by the counsel for the defendant Meyer-Hetling in his
closing statement. The complete text of this part of his statement, as read in
Court, appears on pp. 5 to 6. An extract from the book, Testimony of the Times
by Herbert Kranz, introduced by the defense, is set forth on pp. 6 to 11.
The Status of Occupied Poland under International Law — Concerning the status of occupied Poland under international law, the defense alleged that after the complete military occupation of Poland in 1939, and after the Polish Army no longer offered resistance in the field, Poland lost her sovereignty and was, at least in part, legally absorbed by Germany. Therefore, the defense argued German laws, orders, and regulations for Poland were legally binding upon the defendants. This argument was developed by counsel for the defendant Meyer-Hetling. Extracts from the closing statement pertaining to this subject appear on pp. 12 to 17. An extract from the direct examination of the defendant Hildebrandt and documentary evidence of the defense on this subject follow on pp. 18 to 21. The Conduct of the Defendants in Accordance with Valid German Law — It was contended by the defense that the defendants generally acted in accordance with the valid German laws and therefore could not be held criminally responsible for the acts charged in the indictment. An extract from the closing statement for the defendant Ebner, dealing with this subject, follows on pp. 21 to 23. Validity of Certain Provisions of the Hague Convention in a So-called "total war" — The defense alleged that the laws of war cited by the prosecution, and particularly certain provisions of the Hague Convention of 1907 concerning the laws and customs of war on land, were no longer applicable. The defense argued that the statesmen who drafted these provisions could not have foreseen the nature of so-called "total war", and that practically all belligerents in World War II showed that the allegedly applicable provisions were actually outmoded and invalid. This thesis, as developed in the closing statement for the defendant Hofmann, is presented on pp. 23 to 24. Responsibility of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates — The defense further maintained that superiors could not be held responsible for acts of their subordinates under the criminal law common to all civilized nations, or under Control Council Law No. 10. This argument was developed in the closing statement for the defendant Lorenz, an extract of which is set forth on pp. 24 to 25. |
