. NMT05-T0012
Volume V · Page 12
| 3. STATUS OF OCCUPIED POLAND
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW |
| a. Selections from the
Argumentation of the Defense |
| EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING
STATEMENT FOR DEFENDANT MEYER-HETLING* |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| The prosecution considers the conduct
of the defendants, in as far as it concerns the so-called Incorporated Eastern
Territories, as constituting war crimes, i.e., infringements of the Hague Land
Warfare Convention. This assertion presupposes that the Incorporated Eastern
Territories did not become parts of Germany by virtue of the incorporation, but
remained parts of Poland. The questions as to whether the annexation of these
Polish territories by Germany was in accordance with international law, or in
contravention of it, is therefore of decisive importance for the result of this
trial. In the statements now following I have examined this subject from the
point of view of international law and on the basis of various examples I have
shown the position at that time. In support of my legal views I shall now proceed to cite a few examples of law practiced in various states, especially those that have appointed the IMT [International Military Tribunal]. First of all the United States. The "Instructions for the Government of the Army of the United States in the Field", promulgated in May 1362, whose author was the lawyer Francis Lieber an immigrant from Europe, which later formed part of the basis for the Hague Land Warfare Convention, contain the article 33 which I submitted as Meyer-Hetling 54, Meyer-Hetling Exhibit 54 in the Meyer-Hetling document book. These "instructions" are based quite clearly on the assumption that the full conquest of part of the enemy country already suffices for the annexation of that part while the war still continues. General Pope's order, issued on the strength of these instructions (Meyer-Hetling 55, Meyer-Hetling Ex. 55) provides that the population of these parts of the Confederate States which had been occupied by Federal troops were to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, failing which, they would be expelled from the occupied area. It is true that this order was strongly criticized in the United States at the time, however, it is not clear whether |
* Complete closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 February 1948, pp. 4925-4953
