. NMT05-T0024
Volume V · Page 24
| killing is permitted by international law as in war, it is unavoidable that in a battle of life and death both sides overstep the limit of what is allowed. This applies even more to modern warfare, which obviously can only be waged in the form of total war. Already in the First World War, the previous customs of war as laid down by the Hague Convention on land warfare were violated by the use of poison gas and by the economic blockade. In the Second World War, all this has been greatly surpassed by the increased capacity of the armaments industry necessarily involving compulsory labor; by bomb warfare, which does not spare women and children; by the so called V-weapons ; by the atom bomb; and, last but not least, by the biological issues involved in the conflict with the Slavonic peoples. The provisions of the Hague Land Warfare Convention could not apply to this development. |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| 6. RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERIORS
FOR ACTS OF SUBORDINATES |
| EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING
STATEMENT FOR DEFENDANT LORENZ* |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| In time the VoMi became an organization of
large dimensions. At the climax of its activity it administered between 1,500
and 1,800 camps. (Tr. p. 2955.) This organization had been set up during
the war. Thus it did not only suffer from the deficiencies which afflicted
every office set up in the Third Reich, namely, the evidently intentional lack
of clarity with which regulations of competency were drawn up by the highest
ruling powers, especially Himmler, but it also suffered from the personnel
problems conditioned by the war. As a result it is understandable that the
right man was not always at the right place, and that events took place which
were not desired by the administration. So far as the administration heard of
such incidents, it always intervened. (Lorenz 69, Lorenz Ex. 56.) In
most cases it probably did not hear of them at all. This ascertainment leads to the question as to what extent Lorenz can be made responsible according to criminal law for the actions of the persons subordinated to him, presuming that the activity of his subordinates comes under any given criminal law including the Control Council Law. This question necessitates a definition of the concept of participation, as contained in Article II, 2, of the Control Council Law. If a subordinate of Lorenz |
* Complete closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 February 1948, pp. 5012-5043.
