phone from Berlin in the same sense. If Schirach in November 1938 condemned and criticized in such an extremely sharp manner the events of 9 November 1938, it is impossible for him to have celebrated at about the same time the bloody acts which had been committed and thus have incited the Heidelberg students and the question therefore arises as to why a single participant of that student meeting in Heidelberg was not brought here as a witness, but that the Tribunal was satisfied instead with a witness who could only testify from hearsay. Moreover, the representative of the Prosecution did not revert to this alleged Heidelberg speech, during the cross examination and thereby acknowledged Schirach's own presentation of the facts as correct. participate in the excesses of 9 November 1938, nor did they commit any violence of such a kind either before or afterwards. The Hitler Youth, at that time, was the strongest Party organization, it comprised about 7-8 million members and in spite of that not one single case has been proved where the Hitler Youth participated in such crimes against humanity, although its members were mainly of an age, which according to experience, is only too easily tempted to participate in excesses and acts of brutality. The only exception which has been claimed so far concerns the testimony of the French woman Ida Vasseau, who is said to have been head of an Old People's Home in Lemberg and who is supposed to have claimed, according to the report of the Commission, USSR-6 "that the Hitler Youth had been given children from the Ghetto in Lemberg when they used as living targets for their shooting practice." This single exception, however, which has been claimed so far but not proved, could not be cleared up in any way, particularly not in the direction of whether members of the Hitler Youth had really been involved. But even if there had been such a single case among the 8 million members during 10 or 15 long years, this could not in any way prove that Baldur von Schirach had exercised an inciting influence, and if I may add here, at a time when he was no longer Reich Youth Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(A short recess was taken.)
DR. SAUTER: Judges in the Bench, then I shall continue with page 36 of my final argument. Schirach wrote as Reich Youth Leader and which are in the possession of the Tribunal in the document book. These extend over a long period of years, yet they do not contain a single word inciting to race hatred, preaching hatred of Jews or exhorting the youth to commit acts of violence or defending such acts. If it has been possible to keep the members of the Hitler Youth, who numbered millions, apart from such excesses it proves the fact that the leaders endeavored to imbue the youth with the spirit of tolerance, love of his neighbor and respect of human dignity. is clearly evident from the scene which occurred in spring 1943 on the Obersalzberg and which is also described in the affidavit of the witness Maria Hoepken (Doc. book Schirach No.3 figure 5). In this case I refer to the scene where Schirach's wife told Hitler in his home how she had witnessed with her own eyes from a hotel window in Amsterdam how the Gestapo had deported hundreds of Dutch Jewesses.
Schirach himself could not dare at the time to bring such matters to Hitlers attention; a decreee of Bormann had expressively prohibited this to the district leaders (Gaulieters). Schirach therefore agreed with his wife that the latter should try to gain an improvement in the treatement of the Jewish question with Hitler. She did not succeed in this; Hitler dismissed Frau von Schirach with the harsh words "these were setimentalities". Because of this intervention on behalf of the Dutch Jews, the situation of the defendant von Scirach had become so critical that he preferred to leave the Obersalzberg immeidately in the early morning of the following day, and from that time on, Hitler was on principle no longer accessible to Schirach. tion perhaps also contributed to the fact that Hitler, a few months later, in the summer of 1943, seriously considered having Schirach arrested and having him brought before the People's Court, for the reason alone that Schirach had dared, in a letter to Rechsleiter Bormann, to describe the war as a national disaster for Germany. in the Jewish question, and that in a manner whereby he endangered his own position and existence. In spite of the fact that he was an anti-Seimite and it is just because of this that it deserves attention - he withstood all pressure from Berlin and refused to have an anti-Semite special edition published in the official journal of the Hitler-Youth, while he had published his own special editions for an understanding with England and for a more humane treatement of the Eastern nations. It is no less worthy of consideration that Schirach, in conjunction with his friend Dr. Colin Ross, strove for the emigration of the Jews into the neutral foreign countries in order to save then from being deported to a Polish Ghetto. share of the defendant von Schirach in the responsibility for the pogroms against Jews which occurred in Poland and Russia by trying to use against him the so-called "Reports on practice and Situation", which were regularly sent in by the SS to the "Commissioner for Defense of the Reich in Military Administrative District XVII".
In fact it must be said -- and I emphasize -- if Schirach had at that time had cognizane of these regular "Reports on Practice and Situation of the Operational Groups of the Security Police and the Security Service" in the East, then this fact would indeed entail for him a grave moral and political charge.
He could then not be spared the reproach that he must have been aware that, apart from the military operations in the East, horribly cruel mass murders of Communists and Jews had also taken place. The character picture we have had so far of von Schirach, who was also described by the prosecution as a "cultured man", would be obscured very materially if von Schirach effectively had seen and read these reports. For he would then have know that in Latvia and Lithuania, in White Ruthenia and in Kiev, mass murders had taken place, and this quite obviously without any judicial proceedings of any kind and without sentence having been passed.
What has, however, been proved by the evidence? to that of the "Reich Commissioner in Military Administrative District XVII" and, moreover, with the express direction "for attention of Government Councillor Dr. Hoffmann" or "for attention of Government Councillor Dr. Fischer". From this style of address and from the way in which these reports were initialled at the office of the "Commissioner for Defense of the Reich", it can be established beyond question that Schirach did not have an opportunity of seeing these reports and that he obtained no knowledge of them in any other way either. Vienna: as Reichsstatthalter and Reich Defense Commissioner he was the chief of the whole State administration; as Lord Mayor he was the head of the Communal administration; and as District Leader (Gaulieter) of Vienna, he was the top of the local Party machine. It is only natural that Schirach could not fulfill all these three tasks by himself, especially since in 1940 he had entered a completely different field of tasks, and first had to become accustomed to the work in the state as well as in the communal-administration. He therefore had a permant deputy for each of his three tasks, and this was for the affairs of the state administration, Regierungspresident of Vienna, Dr. Del-Brugge.
Dr. Delbruegge had to handle the currect affairs of the state administration completely on his own. Schirach occupied himself only with matters of the state administration with regard to such matters which were directed to him by his permanent deputy Dr. Delbruegge in written form or about which Dr. Delbruegge or one of the departmental assistants reported to him orally. "Situation and Experience Reports", then this would have somehow been noted on the documents in question. On the "Experience and Situation Reports" submitted there is not a single note, however, which shows that this report was submitted to the defendant von Schirach or that he was orientated about it. This can also be understood without further explanation; because after all, the experiences which the police and the SD had accumulated in the partisan struggles in Poland and Russia, were completely inconsequential for the Vienna administration; therefore there was not the least cause to inform the defendant von Schirach in any way, who was very much overburdened anyway with administrative matters of all kinds, of these reports. under oath of the defendant, but also on that of both witnesses Hoepken, who as Chief of the "Central Office" and/or as adjutant of the defendant were able to give the most exact information about the Vienna conditions. It is certain that these "Experience and Situation Reports" never came into the distribution of the "Central Office" in Vienna, but only into the distribution of Regierungspraesident Dr. Delbruegge, and that Hoepken, as Chief of the Central Office, as well as Wieshofer, as adjutant of the defendant, likewise did not have any previous knowledge of these "Experience and Situation Reports" but came to see them for the first time here in the Court Room during their questioning. are on the documents, that Schirach did not have any knowledge whatsoever of these reports, and that he is not co-responsible for the atrocities described therein, and therefore cannot be criminally charged on account of these activity reports.
And I should like to interpolage here, both of these experts, Dr. Fischer and the other gentleman, neither of them knew the defendant.
I shall continue. last weeks in Vienna is also not without importance; for Schirach it was only natural not to carry out the various insane orders which came from Berlin at that time. He has turned the lynching-justice concerning enemy aviators which was ordered by Bormann far from himself, and likewise the order to hang defeatists without pity, regardless whether they were men or women. His summary court has bever even been in session, his summary court has not pronounced a single death sentence. No blood stocks to his hands. On the contrary, he has done everything, for example, in order to protect enemy aviators who had made an emergency landing from the excited mob, and he has, as we have heard from the witness Wieshofer, for example, immediately sent out his own motor vehicle, in order to bring American aviators who had parachuted, into safety. Thereby he again placed himself in conscious and deliberate contrast to an order of Bormann that such aviators were not to be protected from lynching acts of the civilian population.
He also did not pay any attention to the order that Vienna was to be defended to the last man, or that in Vienna, bridges and churches and residential section were to be destroyed, and he abruptly refused the order to form partisan units in civilian clothing or to continue the hopeless struggle in a criminal manner with the aid of the "Werewolf." He refused such demands from his sense of duty, especially since this would have caused him to violate international law. incomplete, if we did not recall at this moment in addition the declaration which he deposed here in the morning of 24 May 1946. I am speaking of that declaration in which he has described Hitler as a millionfold murderer, here before the whole German people and before the whole world public. Schirach has already in the past year made declarations which show his feeling of responsibility and his preparedness to answer for his actions and those of his subordinates to the full extent. This was the case on 5 June 1945, for example, when he was hiding in Tyrol, and heard over the radio that all Party leaders were to be brought before an Allied court. Schirach, as a result of this, reported himself immediately and in his letter to the American local commander stated he was doing this in order to prevent others being made to account for his actions, who had only executed his orders. He surrendered voluntarily, although the English radio had already announced the news of his death, and although Schirach could have hoped to remain in his hiding place undiscovered. This manner of action deserves consideration in judging the personality of a defendant and in estimating his guilt. autumn of 1945 as he was heard by the Prosecution. He believed then that his successor Axmann had fallen. In spite of this, Schirach did not attempt to pass his responsibility on to his successor; on the contrary, he expressly stated that he assumed full responsibility also for the time of his successor, as well as for what had been done under his successor in the Reich Youth leadership. The keystone in this line is now fashioned by the statement which Schirach made here on May 24th 1946 and which went out of this room into the wide world, into all the German lands up to the last farm, up to the last workman's novel.
that he later may not himself understand. Schirach also has erred; he has brought up the youth for a man whom he for many years held as unimpeachable and whom he must now brand as a diabolical criminal. In his idealism and out of loyalty he remained faithful and true to his oath to a man who deceived and cheated him and the German youth and who, as we learned here from Speer, up to his last breath placed his own interests higher than the existence and the happiness of 80 million people. his mistakes -- which you may judge whichever way you like -- but who confessed them most honestly and who through his plain speaking prevented the creation of a legend of Hitler in the future. Such a defendant must be given the benefit of his trying to repair as far as lies within his possibilities the damage which he has caused in good faith.
Schirach has tried to do that; he took pains to open the eyes of our people about the "Fuehrer", in whom, together with millions of Germans he saw, through many years, the deliverer of the Fatherland and the guarantor of its future. He did this so the foreign countries could see how the conditions in Germany in the last years had come about, and just who was responsible for them. on the 24th of May 1946, wanted to tell the German youth openly that so far, quite unknowingly and with the best intentions, he had led them astray and that now they must take another direction, if the German people and the German culture were not to perish. In this Schirach did not think of himself; he was not thinking of his life's work which had been destroyed; he was thinking of the youth of today, which not only is facing the ruins of our cities and dwellings, but is also wandering about among the wreckage of its former ideals; he was thinking of the German youth, which is in dire need of a new orientation and which must base its future existence on another foundation. What was particularly valuable in his confession of May 24th 1946 was his assurance that he alone bore the guilt for the young people, just as he formerly bore the command over them.
If this point of view is acknowledged as being right, and if the necessary conclusions are drawntherefrom, the result would be for our German youth a valuable outcome of these trials. of the case of Baldur von Schirach. In the treatment of this case I desisted from making general statements, and especially those of a political nature. Rather, I confined myself to the evaluation of the personality of the defendant, his actions and his motives. that these considerations and this evaluation by the defense have shown that the defendant is not guilty in the sense of the indictment and cannot be judged and sentenced for he did not commit a punishable act, and you as judges will not judge political guilt but rather criminal guilt in the sense of the penal code. should like to have the privilege of making a few general statements, going beyond the personality of von Schirach.
Gentlemen of the Bench, you are the highest tribunal of our times; the power of the whole world stands back of you; you represent the four mightiest nations on earth; hundreds of millions of men, not only in the defeated countries, but also in the victorious nations listen to your opinions and anxiously await your judgment, ready to be taught by you and to follow your advice. through your verdict and its foundations, in order that out of today's disaster the way to a better future may be found for the benefit of your own people and for the blessing of the German people. people, the poorest of all. The German cities are destroyed; the German industry is smashed to pieces; on the shoulders of the German people rests a national debt representing many times the whole national wealth and which means want and poverty, hunger and slavery for many generations of the German people, if your people do not help us.
The argument supporting your verdict will in many respects point the way for the help needed to emerge from this desperate plight. this idea and to take it into account, when you think of the misfortune which the past six years also brought to your own countries It becomes doubly hard, because for months these Court proceedings revealed nothing but crimes, crimes committed for a great number of years by a tyrant with the misuse of Germans and in the name of this same German people of whose future you as judges are now asked to think. who in these years committed crimes without number tyrannizing over Germany and nearly all of Europe, and violating the German name for generations to come. The German people on the other hand lives and must be allowed to live if half a universe is not to fall into ruins. undergoing a very serious operation; it must not bring death; it must bring recovery. Your verdict can and must make a contribution in that direction, so that in future the world may not see in every German a criminal, but revert again to the concept of professor Arnold Nash of Chicago University, who a few days ago, when questioned about the purpose of his present trip to Europe replied: "Every scientist has two fatherlands, his own and Germany. These words ought to be a warning also for all of those critics who even today see their task to be only in the fact that with propaganda means of every sort to incite against everything Berman and to tell the world that at least every second person in Germany is a criminal.
You, as objective judges will not wish to forget one thing: There always was and there still is today another Germany, a Germany that knows industriousness and economy; a Germany of Goethe and Bethoven, a Germany that knows loyalty and honesty and other good qualities which in past centuries were proverbial for the German character.
Believe me, gentlemen of the Tribunal, in this epoch, as Germany regains consciousness after a severe illness, as she proceeds to rebuild a better future from the ruins of an evil past, a future for its youth which has no part in the crimes committed, at this time seventy to eighty million German people are looking to you and are awaiting from you a verdict which will open the way for a reconstruction of German economy, of the German heart and true freedom. an written law, not bound to any legal paragraph, pledged to serve your conscience only, and called by destiny to give to the world simultaneously a legal order which will preserve for future generations that peace which the past was unable to preserve for them. A well-known democrat of the old Germany said this in a recent article on the Nuernberg Trial: In a monarchist State justice would be administered in the name of the King; in Republic Courts would pronounce their rulings in the name of the people but you, the Nuernberg Tribunal, you should administer justice in the name of humanity. aim, if it could believe that its verdict could realize the commands of humanity and that for all time it could prevent crimes against humanity. But, in certain respects this would still remain an unsteady foundation for your verdict, a verdict of the magnitude which confronts you. Because ideas on what humanity demands or prohibits in individual cases may vary, depending upon the epoch, the people, the attitude of the Party according to which one judges. foundation for your verdict when you revert to the phrase already coined by the ancient Romans, the phrase which endured throughout centuries and which certainly will still remain valid in ages to come:
Justitia est fundamentus regnorum (Justice is the basis of every state.)
is expecting from you a judgment which will not be hailed just today by the victor nations of today as the last victory over Germany, but which history will recognize as just; pronounce your verdict in the name of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Servatius for the defendant Sauckel.
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr. President gentlemen of the Tribunal: to deal with the charge of slave labor.
What is slave labor? ing all the occurrences with which the defendant Sauckel is, in a bewildering abundance, charged under the heading slave labor. a juridicial point of view. The legal basis for this examination is the Charter. by slave labor and what by deportation. Therefore, these concepts should be clarified by interpretation. different points of view of deportation and of slave labor. humanity, and forced labor appears as well as slave labor under the heading of war crimes, and as enslaving under the heading of crimes against humanity. the defendant Sauckel should fall is of decisive importance; if it is a war crime, then it should be judged exclusively by martial law. If it is a crime against humanity then the latter presupposes the commission of a war crime or of a crime against peace. (b) cannot be the same thing as deportation according to Article 6 (c) nor can forced labor according to Article 6 (b) be identical with forced labor of Article 6 (c).
THE PRESIDENT: That paragraph of your speech which is in English on page 2, the second paragraph:
"It follows thereof that deportation mentioned in Article 6 (b) cannot be the same thing as deportation according to Article 5 (c) --" is not altogether clear to the Tribunal. Could you make it clearer?
DR. SERVATIUS: In Article 6 (b), we deal with crimes against humanity whereas in Article 6 (c) we speak of war crimes. In both articles the expression deportation and forced labor are used but they have to be differentiated and when we examine this we turn to the fact of differentiation and I believe my further statements will make that differentiation quite clear. as used in the Charter. fact that something contrary to humanity has to be added to the war crimes. in the terminology of the Charter, however fluctuating it may be. For instance, the Russian text for deportation as a war crime chooses the word "uvod", which only means removal from a place, whereas, on the other hand, it uses for crimes against humanity of the same kind the technical expression "ssylka" under which penal deportation under the rule of the czars is understood as identical in sense with deportation as penal deportation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal must adjourn.
THE MARSHAL: The Court will remain adjourned until a quarter to two.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 18 July, 1946.)
DR. SERVATIUS: I talked of the terminology of the word "deportation" in the Russian text, "ssylka". I pointed out the distinction, the word meaning only transportation, or meaning a deportation as a form of punishment. From the one may conclude that the deportation mentioned can only be regarded as a war crime against humanity when it assumes the penal character of a transportation of prisoners. Yet the question arises whether, beyond this, according to the Charter, any removal of the population is punishable as a war crime, without considering whether it occurs for deployment of labor or for other reasons. to be the case, asit renders punishable "removal for slave labor, or for any other purposes." does not seem to be meant in such a sense, as there are cases in which a removal is not only consistent with international law, but even becomes imperative. prerequisite of the punishable is not just plain "removal" but the composite concept "removal for slave labor" and "removal for any other purpose".
The clause "or for any other purpose" should be understood so as to mean only that an illegal purpose corresponding to slave labor exists. If removal of any kind was to be made punishable, then the qualifying addition "for slave labor or for any other purpose" would be contradictory to common sense. otherwise the existence of deportation classified as a war crime would be evident from the acts admitted by him. Just as for the various kinds of deportation, the difference between the kinds of slave labor according to the Charter should be clarified. Here, too, a clue for the interpretation is given by the terminology of the different linquistic versions of the text, but not because of their clarity and consistency, but by their very opposite:
The English version speaks of "Slave labor" as a war crime and of "enslavement" as a crime against humanity; the French version states "travaux forces" and "reduction on esclavage", the Russian version accordingly "rabstvo" (-Slavery) and "poraboschtschenie" (-enslavement). It is not discernible how the chosen terms differentiate in re.
carried out under more severe conditions than other labor, and considering that "slave labor" appears to be the severest form of labor conditions, one sees the no definition can be derived from this terminology of the Charter, rather than an ethical valuation and stigmatization of the incident is intended. carried out, independent of the terminology, by considering exclusively the degree of severity of labor conditions. If one tries to analyze the terminolo used, one finds the designation "enslavement", "esclavage" and "Peraboschtschni for the inhuman form of labor, whereas the labor not inconsistent with humanity is called "forced labor", "travaux forces" and "prinudidjenaja rabota". Slave labor ("Slave labor, travaux forces and rabstvo) consequently is the general term comprehending both kinds. Sauckel?
The defendant Sauckel admits having negotiated the "forced labor" in the form of compulsory labor which, as stated before, is being termed by "slave labor" in general. considered as inhuman labor, i.e. enslavement. facts of these two cases; "compulsory labor" is but a war crime and is to be judged according to rules of war; the crime against humanity has got, as alrea stated above for the deportation as crimes against humanity, the additional features: connection with war crimes or crimes against Peace. the defendant Sauckel,was permitted by the rules of war, then the same act canne be held to be a crime against humanity.
The indictment too has made a difference as to the kinds of labor. I has treated, under par. three, chap. VIII, H, as a separate war crime under the title of "Conscription of civilian labor", the mobilization of manpower direct by the defendant Sauckel, which I shall call "regulated labor conscription", "goordneton Arbeitseinsatz" and speaks here only of "forced labor", the French version speaks here of "travaux forces" end uses terms such as "les obligerent a travailler" and "mis on obligation" the Russian version follows this and also speaks only of "enforced labor" as "prinuditjelonaja rabota", but not of this being slave labor.
but I shall submit the legal reasons which justify this mobilization of labor and I shall prove that it does not involve any war crime inconsistent with international law. question whether "regulated labor conscription" is a war crime. The Chapter cannot prohibit what international law permits in wartime. Such international law is laid down in the agreements on rules of war and in the General legal principles and usages as they are applied by the States. bases it on the definitions of the Hague Convention on land warfare, as well as on the agreements and rules of war and the criminal codes of the countries concerned. law, than a judicial inquiry into the penal regulations is, of course, not necessary. law of warfare with which we are concerned here. Whether it was recognized by all states involved here is of practically little importance, as for, inasmuch as it was not recognized, or cannot be directly applied, there is a gap in the international law which is closed in accordance with the principles of necessity for belligerent and with the duty for staying within the boundaries of humanity. The principles of international law as established in the Hague Convention on LandWarfare are in all cases on important guidance. tion in Land Warfare which is to safeguard the fundamental rights of the population. It is typical for forced labor that it restricts liberty, but it is exactly this basic right which is not protected by this article.
rule concerning deportation and forced labor it will be realized that there is no such regulation. Just as in the sphere of air warfare and the use of new weapons, the Hague convention on land warfare could not deal with questions, which at the time of its drafting were far from the mind of the contracting parties. The first world war was still fought between 2 armies with already prepared material and the fight should be ended after it is used up. The idea of a long war which is a war of material and which requires a continuous production with all available labor was for the Hague Convention on Land Warfare no problem to be discussed. principle of the right for requisition touches on the matter under discussion, but it can be seen that the rules deal only with the merely local requirements of the army which appears to be equipped and which has only additional local requirements. for requisitions is entrusted to the local commanders, in contract to Article 51 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare which permits only an independent commanding general to impose compulsory contributions. The literature about the right for requisition in international law quotes accordingly only examples of local significance. accordingly not be directly applied, its basic principles are nevertheless binding on the belligerents. necessary for the satisfaction of their requirements. There are only two limitations: it cannot take more than it needs and not more than is compatible with the resources of the country.
The idea of the local duty for supply, "certlichen Leistungspflicht" is to adapt to modern warfare. The Hague Convention on Land Warfare thought of the use of smiths and wheelwrights which were necessary for the maintenance of the equipment of the army; work inside the country of the occupying power was, with regard to the undeveloped transportation conditions, out of the question and could not be considered.
but must be done in the belligerent's own countries. It must therefore be possible to demand labor where it can only be done and where it is necessary. It must be possible to demand this work also for the new war requirements of mass production for the current replacements. depends on the respective conditions. If in earlier times, according to the principle: the war supplies the war, the equipping of the army, detached from the homeland with regard to transportation, was also done on a large scale in the occupied territory, it must be possible to day to supply the army by moving the workers to the factories in the country of the belligerent. The evolution of the law of Warfare is influenced by the requirements to which this law has to serve. limitation has to be accepted. These limitations must also be interpreted in accordance with the changed conditions. the occupying power demands from it own people athome. The intensity of the war as total war must be taken in consideration. The duty for supply may hereby become very large. is certainly not to place the nationals of a defeated state in a better position than those of the victorious state which occupies the country. This, however, would be the result if the Hague Convention on Land warfare would be interpreted according to its original wording. If this is claimed, France which had unconditionally capitulated, as well as the other occupied countries could have looked on in security how Germany, strangled by the blockade, exhausted herself in an indefatigable struggle in sacrifices of life and property. Can one really demand that the prisoner in a besieged fortress lives better than the defender of the fortress? Convention on Land Warfare,this would be preferable to the burden of the peace treaty to be expected.
to in its original interpretation, if it is true that already before the conclusion of the armistice agreement the Soviet Union as occupying power transferred the population on a large scale from the eastern parts of Germany for work outside Germany. The Tribunal could obtain official information about this through an inquiry with the Control Council. Also I have information that German civilian internees are used for work in France today. Here too the Tribunal could obtain official information. no participation in war enterprises against the fatherland of the worker can be demanded.
Any work for the occupying power benefits indirectly its war effort; the prohibition is therefore restricted on direct participation in "operations' of the fighting force. The literature on international law contrasts the participation in military operations with the permissible participation in preparations.
A participation in war operations in this sense was asked of no workers; rather the purpose was to keep workers employed unmolested, away from these operations.
Consequently only such activity, as is directed against one's own country is forbidden. Thus, the feeling of the individual is to be taken into consideration. The protection of the enemy state is not aimed at. Wherever therefore the individual renounces his country and, in the struggle of ideologies, opposes the government of his country, such a restriction cannot be kept up. In connection with this it is pointed to the great amount of foreigners, who adopted such an attitude and who, in part, still live in Germany today. ceased fighting. work in the armament industry. The rules of the Geneva Convention, with regard to work, permissible for prisoners of war are known. The basic notion, that no one may be forced to take Weapons against his own brother, must apply to civilian workers also.