 |
1944 [Oxford University Press:
London, New York, Toronto], p.75.) |
We find sufficient definiteness and meaning in the provision of the
Hague Regulations and find that the provisions which we have considered are
applicable and operate as prohibitory law establishing the limits beyond which
the military occupant may not go.
The General Facts
The judgment of the International Military Tribunal clearly established
that the Reich adopted and pursued a general policy of plunder of occupied
territories in contravention of the provisions of the Hague Regulations with
respect to both public and private property. The IMT found that there was a
systematic plunder of public and private property. It found that territories
occupied by Germany "were exploited for the German war effort in the most
ruthless way, without consideration of the local economy, and in consequence of
a deliberate design and policy." Such action was held to be criminal under
Article 6 (b) of the Charter which, as we have already indicated, corresponds
to Article II (lb) of Control Council Law No. 10. Concerning the methods
employed, the IMT stated: |
| |
“The methods employed to
exploit the resources of the occupied territories to the full varied from
country to country. In some of the occupied countries in the East and the West,
this exploitation was carried out within the framework of the existing economic
structure. The local industries were put under German supervision, and the
distribution of war materials was rigidly controlled. The industries thought to
be of value to the German war effort were compelled to continue, and most of
the rest were closed down altogether. Raw materials and the finished products
alike were confiscated for the needs of the German industry. As early as 19
October 1939 the Defendant Goering had issued a directive giving detailed
instructions for the administration of the occupied territories * * *”
* |
| The Goering order, which we find unnecessary to quote, was carried
out, according to the IMT, so that the resources were requisitioned in a manner
out of all proportion to the economic resources of the occupied countries, and
resulted in famine, inflation, and an active black market. The IMT further
pointed out: |
| |
“In many of the occupied
countries of the East and the West, the authorities maintained the pretense of
paying for all the property which they seized. This elaborate pretense of
payment merely disguised the fact that the goods sent to Germany from these
occupied countries were paid for by the occupied countries them-
[...selves] |
__________
* Trial of the Major War
Criminals, volume I, p. 329.
1139 |
. 
