Cover letter to military headquarters and Foreign Office, and list of international law violations that can be expected in a German-Czech conflict, with comments on possible justifications

1.10.38
Supreme Command of the Armed Forces No. 1103.38 Most Secret Ausl. VI. 7 Copies
To: 7th Copy
OKH (Section 6. Army General Staff)
OKM (Naval War Staff, 1st Division, for the attention of Min. Rat. Dr. Eckhardt)
Reich Minister for Air and Civ C. Air Force (Air Force General Staff for the attention of Reg-. Rat. Dr. Mueller) Foreign Office via the Foreign Office Representative (VAA)
Enclosed is a list drawn up by Section L of the OKW of the violations of international law which may be expected on the part of fighting troops.
Owing to the short time allowed for the compilation, columns C 1 and C 2 had to be filled directly here for the time being.
The branches of the Armed Forces are requested to send in their opinion so that a final version may be drawn up.
The same is requested of the Foreign Office.
The Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.
3 Enclosures:
By Order sgd. Burker
800
MOST SECRET O
LIST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW INCIDENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPAGANDA HANDLING k>
I. OUR OWN MEASURES
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law [Gruppe Voelkenrecht] (d) Explanation by propaganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
(I) Bombing or shelling attacks on localities where there are no military installations. (I) Art. 25 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare of 1907 forbids attacks and firing on undefended towns, villages, dwellings and buildings by whatever means. Bombing by aircraft is to be included in the special qualification "by whatever means".
(a) Bombing of extra-territorial buildings and areas. (1) (a) In an air-raid on Prague the British Embassy is destroyed. Giving the supposition that no orders for the bombing of extra-territorial buildings and areas will be given by us under any circumstances, the action in the case in question would have been carried out by mistake. An accident of this kind can best be explained publicly by the fact that the British Embassy is in the immediate vicinity of military installations, the bombing of which was an indispensible military necessity. If, therefore, the British Embassy was hit by mistake, it is to be described as a regrettable
801
(2) Injuring or killing of subject of neutral states outside the actual war zone.
(3) Bombing and shelling attacks on hospitals, military hospitals, churches, and cultural monuments.
Englishmen or Frenchmen are injured or killed.
Since it must be assumed that the deaths or injuries were caused unintentionally by our troops, there is no question of a violation of international law.
(3) The Hradschin is destroyed in an air raid on Prague.
A.rt. 17 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare lays down that during sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as much as possible, any building dedicated to religious services, art, science, welfare; also historical monuments, hospitals and centers for sick and wounded, provided that they are not at the same time being used for military purposes. The elucidation of the last named reservation above is always very difficult and lengthy. Unless such a case is indisputably established, it cannot be judged by international law. Deliberate firing on protected buildings which are above suspicion is contrary to International Law in any case.
accident, such as are unfortunately unavoidable in war. The German Government will pay compensation for the damage.
The deaths and injuries caused unintentionally are to be excused as being unavoidable accidents which the events of war can cause even to non-belligerents. Compensation is to be guaranteed.
It seems appropriate, in this case, to make a public announcement with the corresponding justification after the attack.
802
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Explanation by prop aganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
Under the supposition that the Prague Hradschin, as the seat of government, is used for military purposes, which include, among other things, the maintenance of the military power of the Czech people, air attacks upon it are justified.
(4) Use of war weapons which can be employed under certain conditions or of new types of war weapons such as gas, flame throwers, chemical warfare agents and bacteriological substances. (4) On account of a report that the Czechs have used gas, the firing of gas projectiles is ordered. According to the declaration agreed to in June 1925 by 40 states, including Czechoslovakia, the employment of poison gases, chemical warfare agents, and bacteriological substances is expressly forbidden. Quite a number of states made the reservation to this declaration on the prohibition of gas warfare, that they consider themselves exempt from the prohibition should the opponent use gas. If the assertion, that the opponent —in this case the Czechs—used a prohibited gas in warfare, is to be believed by the world, it must be possible to prove it. If that is possible, the firing of gas projectiles is justified and it must be given out in public that it can be proved that the enemy was the first to violate the prohibition. It is therefore particularly important to furnish the proof. If the
803
Therefore, the burning question of who violated the prohibition first will always arise when the decision is made.
Whether this can be established is doubtful.
(5) Retaliatory measures against enemy civilians who take part in combat or are guilty of espionage (Passing of intelligence).
(5) Czech civilians, not recognizable as soldiers are caught in the act of sabotage (destruction of important bridges, destruction of foodstuffs and fodder) or are discovered looting wounded or dead soldiers and thereupon shot.
If the inhabitants of an enemy territory under our occupation commit hostile acts against us or our allies, they are guilty of war treason, which must be judged by German law (Armed Forces Penal Gazette). The right to punish enemy civilians for committing hostile acts against the occupying power derives from Art. 43 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare which allows the occupying power to carry out public administration and expressly assigns to it the responsibility for the maintenance of public order and public life.
assertion is unfounded or only partially founded, the gas attack is to be represented only as the need for carrying out a justified reprisal, in the same way did the Italians in the Abyssinian War. In this case, however, the justification for such harsh reprisals must also be proved.
If Czech civilians, who are not recognizable as soldiers, are seized while committing the acts atid crimes mentioned in the case 5b, and shot out of hand, this type of retaliatory measure is justifiable and permissible under International Law only if the lives of our own troops were endangered. If offenders of this kind are taken prisoner, they may not simply be put against a wall, but must be tried according to the decrees relating to the case. This procedure can take place briefly and summarily in the field. The experiences of the World War have taught us that this procedure offers the enemy no opportunity of attack, whereas executions without trial are the best foundations for the enemy's propaganda. En-(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Explanation by prop aganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
croachments actually made on our part will have to be explained either as the necessity for our troops to defend themselves or by the assertion that the Czechs attempted to escape.
(6) Forcing of prisoners and civilians into employment in war work (road construction, digging trenches, production of munitions, employment in the transport service etc.). (6) Captured Czech soldiers or Czech civilians are detailed to do road work or to load munitions. A.rt. 31 of the agreement signed on 27 July 1929, concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, forbids the directing of prisoners of war into work which is directly connected with war measures. Enforcement to do such work is, in any case, contrary to international law. Prisoners of war and civilians may be employed in road building but not in the production of munitions. The use of such measures can be justified as a necessity of war, or with the assertion that the enemy acted in the same way first.
(7) Measures against the population con- (7) For military reasons it is necessary Art. 52 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare allows the occupy- Necessity is the only reason justifying excessive requisitioning of
805
nected with the requisitioning of billets, supplies of foodstuffs, fodder and live-stock etc.
(8) Compulsory evacuation of the population frpm their homes.
(9) Measures which affect religious and church life.
to requisition billets, foodstuffs and fodder from the Czech population. As a result the latter suffer from want.
(8) Czech population is, for military reasons, compulsorily evacuated to the rear area.
(9) Churches are used for military accommodation.
ing powers to claim payment in kind and service from the communities and inhabitants of an occupied territory. These payments must be in relation to the resources of the country.
Harsh oppression of the civil population is justified only if the occupying power is itself in need and must live. Oppression and the enforced delivery of goods unless they are a due military necessity are not only contrary to international law, they are also unworthy.
According to Art. 43 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare and if military necessity urgently requires it. The removal of inhabitants to the rear of the operational zone is authorized by international law.
German soldiers will use churches as military accommodation for men and horses only in the most extreme cases of need.
toilets and the deliveries of food stuffs and fodder. Mention that the troops are suffering from the same shortage would be appropriate. Moreover it must be added that women, children, and invalids will be provided for as far as possible.
The most advisable justification is that the inhabitants must be protected against bombardment.
If the urgent military necessity exists, justification under International Law is granted and must be given out in public with -this as the reason. Experience has shown, however, that the use of religious buildings for such purposes offers effective propaganda material to the enemy.
C-2
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Explana tion by prop aganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
(10) Violation of neutral territorial rights by aircraft flying over or by bombing. 00 o A (10) In the course of their duty, German aircraft fly over Polish territory where they are involved in an air battle with Czech aircraft. According to Art. 1 of the 5th Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, the territory of neutral powers is not to be violated. A delib-. erate violation by flying over this territory is a breach of International Law, if the neutral powers have declared an air barrier for combat aircraft. If German planes fly over Polish territory this constitutes a violation of International Law, provided that this action is not expressly permitted. An attempt at denial should first be made. If it is unsuccessful, a request for pardon should be made (on the grounds of miscalculation of position) to the Polish Government, and compensation for damage guaranteed.
(11) Measures of naval warfare which are part of the mine-U-boat war, the blockade and the war of merchant shipping (on the basis of ma- 11(a) Stationing of U-boats and war activity within the approaches to the Baltic or within neutral coastal water. (b) Prize laws meas- No judgment by international law, of the questions listed here, can be made without consultation with OKM, as it is not known here, what measures are intended should the occasion arise.
807
terial available to the Naval War Staff).
(12) Measures aimed at stiffening the will to resist on the part of national minorities either foreign or of German origin in enemy countries (by the distribution of leaflets, by air proclamations, broadcasts, training and arming).
ures as part of the war on merchant shipping, which are objected to by the enemy or by neutrals as contrary to international law.
(c) Use of armament by armed merchant ships.
(d) Announcement of declared areas.
(12) Proclamations over the German radio to Hungarian, Slovak and Polish minorities who are opposed to the Czech Government.
The spreading of news by whatever means with a view to raising the moral forces of peoples in the enemy territories who are racially related or connected is included in the ruses of warfare, allowed under Art. 24 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare.
Justification of our own measures is not necessary; in any case the opponents will reply with their own, i.e., counter propaganda.
808
II. THE OPPONENT'S VIOLATIONS
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Counter measures by the propaganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
(1) Bombing or shelling attacks on localities where there are no military installations. Judgment by International Law as in Section I, No. 1, c 1.
(a) Bombing of extra-territorial buildings and areas. (la) In an air raid on Berlin, the French Embassy is destroyed. In no case are extra-territorial buildings military objectives; therefore, according to Art. 27 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare, they must be spared as far as possible. If it is at all possible, claim that the enemy carried out deliberate precision bombing and what is specially to be condemned is that the French Embassy contains valuable art treasures and that subjects of enemy states are staying there, having found asylum there. Moreover, that the French Embassy made efforts to avert the conflict.
(2) Injuring or killing of subjects of American subjects are injured and killed in Subjects of neutral states outside the actual war zone are protected It will be difficult to prove that the enemy did this with intent. The
809
neutral states outside the actual zone.
(3) Bombing and shelling attacks on hospitals, military hospi-. tals, churches and cultural monuments.
(4) Destruction o f villages, settlements, agricultural areas, industrial and communications installations which serve no military purpose.
(5) Use oi war weapons which can be employed under certain
an air raid on Dresden.
by International Law.
(3) In an air raid on Judgment by International Law as Vienna, hospitals are in Section I, No. 3, c 1. destroyed and Red Cross personnel and patients killed.
(4) Detonators are placed in the Aussig Dam in order to destroy the surrounding area and the inhabitants by flooding.
Prohibition of international law exists only with regard to the destruction and removal of enemy property, other than in those cases where this destruction or removal is made urgent by the necessities of war (Art. 23g of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare).
When Czech troops Judgment by International Law as withdrew from the in Section II, par 5, C 1.
Sudeten - German
only other possible assertion is that as the buildings and persons were clearly distinguishable by indications of American territory, or white flags, there was no excuse for attacking them. There were no military objectives near the scene of the onslaught.
Accuse the enemy of having violated Art. 27 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare by omitting to provide suitably for the protection of the hospitals in Vienna which by day and night were marked sufficiently distinctly by the Red Cross. In this case, also, the intention of precision bombing must be imputed as much as possible.
Such destruction as the blowing up of the Aussig Dam can only be branded as the most inhuman, senseless, and useless method of taking revenge on innocent people. Compare similar cases of barbaric action in the Hussite Wars and in the behavior of the Czech Legion in Siberia, 1918/1920.
Making wells unfit for use by throwing in stable manure, for example, is an authorized means
810
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Counter measures by the propaganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
conditions and of new types of war weapons such as gas, flame - throwers, chemical warfare agents and bacteriological substances. area, wells in many places are contaminated. of war. International Law forbids only the poisoning of wells. Contamination by bacteria, on which this example is apparently based, is forbidden by International Law both in the Hague Ruling for Land Warfare and in the Convention of 1925. A propaganda attack is therefore justified.
(6) Underhand means of waging war: continuing the figh't after the enemy has apparently surrendered — camouflage by abuse of German or neutral national markings. In Postelberg, Czech trucks and locomotives have been camouflaged by German National markings and swastikas. Underhand means of warfare as, for example, feigning death and shooting from the rear at advancing troops, showing white flags and firing with hidden machine guns on the approach of the unsuspecting enemy justify immediate reprisals without mercy. The misuse of the flag of truce, the national flag or of the military badges or uniforms of the oppo- The enemy must be accused of employing unchivalrous means of warfare, and he will gain little advantage by means which are dishonorable and repugnant to an honest soldier.
811
<7) Maiming or killing of wounded, prisoners, defenseless persons, women and children.
(8) Use of prisoners of war for war work (road construction, digging trenches, production of munitions, employment
When being taken into the Eger hospital, a seriously injured Su-deten-German motor cyclist is shot by Czech soldiers, who said: "The German swine will die any way."
German prisoners of war are employed under guard as truck drivers for transfer-ing back raw materials of war.
nent or of the Red Cross is forbidden (Art. 23e, Hague Rules for Land Warfare) but it becomes misuse only if enemy operations are undertaken under the camouflage; these enemy operations also justify immediate reprisal measures. The camouflaging of Czech trucks and locomotives by German national markings and swastikas is not contrary to international law. It becomes contrary thereto only if they are employed in enemy operations, under this camouflage.
Killing or injuring one's own subjects does not come under the judgment of international law. Killing or injuring of defenseless persons, wounded and prisoners of enemy nationality is expressly forbidden by International Law.
Judgment by International Law as in Section I, para. 8, C 1.
In this case, propaganda can only be directed once more against Czech brutality in general. In addition, it must be stressed that those injured and killed were subjects who belonged to Czech state only because they were forced to and whose return to the Reich had already been promised.
Discretion must be used in reproaches of this kind, for it is possible that similar accusations could be made against us by the opponent if the fact is to be made use of for propaganda purposes.
812
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Counter measures by the propaganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification-by the laws of warfare
in transport service, etc.). All that can be asserted is that our prisoners were employed by the opponent for transporting munitions behind their front lines.
(9) Terrorism measures against national minorities aimed at suppressing and breaking their consciousness of nationality, their religious life, and church and cultural activities. Officials of the Sudeten Party are arrested and abducted, their homes seized and looted. The oppression of one's own subjects in Czechoslovakia does not come under the judgment of Ih-temational Law, but to the judgment of the Treaty of 1919 regarding the protection of minorities. In every case, this would have to be consulted in the judgment of the case. In addition see concluding sentence of para. 7C2 The arrest and abduction of officials of the Sudeten Party and robbing and looting them can be branded only as outbreaks of Czech brutality (similar outbreaks have already been employed for . propaganda purposes).
(10) Compulsory évacua t i o n of national minorities from their homes, and confiscating their food stuffs, Members of the Polish minority are compulsorily evacuated to the interior of the country in military A judgment from the standpoint of International Law does not come into the question. Also, all that can be referred to in propaganda are Czech acts of brutality.
fodder and live-stock, etc.
(11) Measures for inciting, arming, and taking control of the civilian population (Franc-tireur warfare).
(12) Violation of neutral territorial rights by flying over or bombing it.
transports.
In localities on the Czech-Silesian frontier summons to fight German troops are issued, and arms distributed to the civilian population.
Measures for inciting one's own subjects, for arming and conducting guerilla warfare, are allowed. The national warning itself, must not exceed the limits prescribed by International Law (Art. 1 and 2 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare), i.e., prescribed badges recognizable at a distance, bearing arms openly, etc.
Czech airmen drop bombs on the German-Polish frontier, destroying the town hall in Lissa and a church in Rawitsch.
It is contrary to International Law for combat aircraft to fly over the territories of neutral power.
In this case it would be appropriate to give warnings referring to the civilian warfare of August 1914 in Belgium, which caused the death of thousands of inhabitants. Cunning snipers without uniform and soldiers in civilian clothes, after pretending to be acquiescent, attacked soldiers on the march and in their billets and provoked the reprisals justified by such actions. For use in propaganda, it
must be particularly stressed that the above-named conditions justifying a national uprising were not fulfilled and the outward identification marks of armed civilians were lacking.
The violation of the neutrality of Polish territory and the destruction of non-military buildings of which the church in Rawitsch is specially protected by International Law constitute a serious breach of International Law which must be correspondingly used to the full in propaganda. In addition, it is necessary to
(a) Incidents (b) Example (c) Attitude of the International Law Group (d) Counter measures by the propaganda minister
(1) Judgment by International law (2) Justification by the laws of warfare
point out that it was obviously a deliberate air raid.
(13) Slanderous propaganda by false reports on the measures of the German command and on the combat elements, by accounts of atrocities in press reports, news picture broadcasts, etc. The Melnik Radio Station spreads reports that dum-dum projectiles have been used by German troops. Polish news-pictures show false photographs of this. Making the enemy contemptible is a stratagem of war allowed by international law, even if in so doing many lies and misrepresentations are made. The efforts made by different powers, Germany amongst them, to form an international agreement to restrict the propaganda of war atrocities failed in 1932. Remedy in this case is possible only by correcting the reports, and better still by counter-attack, in which, of course, we can also make use of the spreading of atrocity stories. Nothing more can be done than to attempt to beat the opponent at his own game or get equal with him in some way or other.