 |
| SS guards. With the exception of a few who had escaped shortly before
— and two of them, the Roth sisters, were able to appear as witnesses
before this Tribunal — nothing further has been discovered about the fate
of the young “Hungarian Jewesses” of the Krupp firm. |
| |
| |
LAW ON THE DEPORTATION AND EMPLOYMENT
OF
FOREIGN CIVILIAN WORKERS AND
CONCENTRATION CAMP
INMATES |
| |
It is contended that the forcible deportation of civilians from
occupied territory was perfectly lawful. The argument made in this connection
by the ostensible leader of defense counsel needs an answer, if for no reason
other than to indicate the nature of the principal defenses upon this phase of
the case.
The substance of the argument is as follows: “There
exists in the Hague Rules of Land Warfare no provision explicitly prohibiting
the use of manpower from occupied territories for the purpose of war economy.
Article 48 is certainly not conclusive * * * . Reference to international
common law is not more conclusive. For the only case in modern history, the
conscription of Belgian labor during the First World War has remained a
completely open question as regards its admissibility under international
law.”
It is, therefore, insisted that the prosecution’s
position with respect to wholesale deportation on a compulsory basis of members
of a civilian population of occupied territories “is based on a
fundamental misconception of the first rule of war, viz, that measures
necessary for achieving the purpose of war are permissible unless they are
expressly prohibited, and that methods required for achieving the purpose of
war are determined by the development of war into total war, especially in the
field of economic warfare.”
In principle this is the same argument
made in connection with the asserted proposition that the concept of total war
operated to abrogate the Hague Rules of Land Warfare. But the reference to the
deportation of Belgian labor to Germany during the First World War requires an
additional answer, if for no other reason than to keep the record
straight.¹ That the crime, on the part of imperial Germany, caused world
wide indignation.
The deportations began after the German Supreme
Command had issued its notorious order of 3 October 1916,²
“concerning |
__________
¹ Oppenheim
(Lauterpacht), International Law, 5th Edition (London, 1935), page 353.
² American Journal of International Law (April, 1946), volume 40, page
309.
903432
— 51 — 92
1429 |
. 
