An Essay on Carlos Porter
Among the staple texts of those who deny the Holocaust are the
writings of Carlos Porter. One of his articles "War Crimes Trials"
can be found on theCODOH website. It claims to discuss the 1907
Annex to the Hague Convention dealing with the laws of war. It is so
highly regarded in the denier community that it has been cited by
deniers as authoritative on the subject. A close examination of
Porter's work, however, demonstrates that it is inaccurate both as to
the text of the Convention and the factual conclusions that are
derived from the distorted citations. This analysis will deal with
both of those issues.
It is only fair to judge an author's work by his intentions. In this
case Porter informs us exactly what those intentions are: "This, then,
is the Convention which the Germans and Japanese were alleged to have
violated in 10,000 trials. What does the Convention say exactly?"
The purpose of Porter's article, therefore, was not to present edited
paraphrases but the text, exact and complete. He fails miserably.
Porter's deletions and paraphrases not only contradict his stated
purpose but many substantially alter the meaning of the provisions.
It is doubly dishonest in that Porter presents little more than his
paraphrases followed by an announcement of what he states they mean.
Supporting evidence is virtually non-existent and, in its absence, all
a reader has to rely upon is Porter's version of the text.
What follows is a comparison between Porter's paraphrases and the text
of the Hague Convention. Every Article of that Convention mentioned
by Porter and Porter's complete description of that Article are
printed here so that any reader may compare the two texts to determine
whether Porter, as he claims, relates "exactly" what the Convention
states:
PREAMBLE, ARTICLE 3:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 1 and 2:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or
form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army.""
"Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied,
who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to
resist the invading troops without having had time to organize
themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as
belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws
and customs of war."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 5:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 6:
The Porter Version:
The actual text:
"Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for
private persons, or on their own account."
"Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of
a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are
none in force, at a rate according to the work executed."
"When the work is for other branches of the public service or for
private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the
military authorities."
"The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position,
and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting
the cost of their maintenance."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 7:
The Porter Version:
The actual text:
"In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents,
prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and
clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who
captured them."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 8:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
"Escaped prisoners who are retaken before being able to rejoin their
own army or before leaving the territory occupied by the army which
captured them are liable to disciplinary punishment."
"Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken
prisoners, are not liable to any punishment on account of the previous
flight."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 20:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 23:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
"To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or army;"
"To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;"
"To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering;"
"To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag
or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the
distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;"
"To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or
seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;"
"To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the
hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against
their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service
before the commencement of the war."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 25, 27, and 56:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
"Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken
to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art,
science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and
places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
being used at the time for military purposes."
"It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such
buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be
notified to the enemy beforehand."
Art. 56. "The property of municipalities, that of institutions
dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences,
even when State property, shall be treated as private property."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 32:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
"Art. 32. A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been
authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with
the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to
inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the
flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him."
"Art. 33. The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all
cases obliged to receive him."
"He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire
taking advantage of his mission to obtain information."
"In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire
temporarily."
"Art. 34. The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it
is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken
advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of
treason."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 43:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 46:
The Porter version:
The actual text:
"Private property cannot be confiscated."
Although Porter claims that he wishes to present "exactly" what is
written in the Convention, he does exactly the opposite. Of the
section of the Preamble to the Convention and 14 of the Regulations to
which Porter refers only two (Articles 20 and 43) are accurate
representations of the text of the convention. Porter's other
citations are replete with substantial modifications that change the
meaning of the article which he presents. In several cases an
inaccurate paraphrase is presented as a direct quote. Porter,
further, ignores any Article which contradicts his thesis that the
Third Reich committed no war crimes. For example:
Porter was correct in one respect: as with any statute or treaty, it
is important to determine what the Hague Convention "exactly" states.
Unfortunately he does not deliver on his promise. A ten-year-old
with average intelligence could have done a creditable job of
cut-and-paste to present "exactly" what the text states; Porter
didn't. His presentation is so bad that the only word that fits is
"fraud."
Just as a ten-year-old of average intelligence could have done a
better job than Porter, the same child could have exposed Porter for
the fraud he is. Even a random check would have revealed that 13 of
the 15 substantive "quotations" presented by Porter are in error.
Obviously CODOH made no check of the easily available primary sources
when they published the article.
The problems with the text of the 1907 Convention is only the
beginning of the problems with "War Crimes Trials." Porter's laconic
conclusions are dependent on his edited readings of the text and his
factual assumptions. Many of Porter's unsupported allegations are
simply not correct. The second part of this article, therefore, is an
analysis of some of Porter's contentions. It is by no means complete;
there are clear errors such as Porter's interpretation of Article 43
are not included. Some of this would be no more than repetition. The
examples provided do represent an analysis of Porter's shoddy and
misleading techniques. Porter's "War Crimes Trials" is, in fact,
poorly written, poorly reasoned and inaccurate at various points and
the theme of "War Crimes Trials" is embodied in Porter's
unsubstantiated accusations.
Porter's problems with facts begin with the first part of the article
where he discusses the applicability of the Convention. He states,
for example:
This is, as anyone who has examined the primary documents knows, a
misrepresentation. While the U.S. did not ratify the Convention, it
entered a separate convention signed by the president of the U.S. on
July 27, 1929. It should be noted that Germany was, as well, a
signatory to that Convention which did little more than repeat the
provisions of the 1907 Annex.
Porter is even less honest when he deals with the specific provisions
of the Convention. One of the most egregious examples is Porter's
analysis of Article 6 in which he states: "Article 6 states that
belligerants may utilize the labour of prisoners of war, officers
excepted, for the public service, for private persons or their own
account." To which Porter comments: "German and Japanese "slave
policy" was perfectly legal insofar as it applied to members of
resistance groups or lower ranking military personnel."
Leaving aside the point that both Germany and Japan required officers
to do slave labor, an examination of the Article in question shows a
far different text than Porter represents. The actual text is:
Note how Porter deletes material from the original text which modifies
it in a significant manner. It is well-known, for example, that Speer
utilized slave labor for war work. By deleting the important modifier
Porter fraudulently misrepresents what is allowed. This pattern of
deception also includes the elision of the clauses that follow the
initial statement and which explain it. They are:
"Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of
a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are
none in force, at a rate according to the work executed."
"When the work is for other branches of the public service or for
private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the
military authorities."
"The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position,
and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting
the cost of their maintenance."
Thus it can be seen that Porter has deliberately mischaracterized the
meaning of the provision. It is not a provision which allows slave
labor as he asserts. It is, rather, a provision that allows POWs to
enter a labor market unrelated to war production and receive wages for
their work. Needless to say, the nazis failed to abide by the
provisions of Article 6 in their use of slave labor.
This pattern is repeated in Porter's analysis of Articles 1 and 2
which deal with partisan warfare. This example is quite important for
it is the basis for the claims of the deniers that partisan warfare
is, per se, unlawful. The meaning of the two articles was crucial to
the purpose of the Convention. This was recognized by the drafters
and signatories who, as part of the preamble to the Regulations of the
Convention, wrote:
"They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and
2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood."
This important statement of principle enunciated by the signatory
powers about the interpretation of these sections is entirely ignored
by Porter. Pay close attention to what Porter writes and compare it
to the actual text of these Regulations. "War Crimes Trials" states:
"Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that
belligerants must be "commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a
distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war".
Porter not only fails to understand these articles, he reports them
inaccurately and in a distorted fashion. When we the actual language
of these two articles is examined it is clear that they have exactly
the opposite meaning from that given by Porter, the actual text is:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or
form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army.""
"Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied,
who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to
resist the invading troops without having had time to organize
themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as
belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws
and customs of war."
Note that contrary to Porter's modified version, the articles do not
prohibit guerilla movements but specifically allow them if certain
conditions are met. Because of his creative editing it is made to
appear as though Article 1 prohibits partisan warfare and gives as a
reason that real "belligerants" have certain attributes which,
presumably, partisan groups do not possess. As can be seen from the
language which Porter deletes, the actual meaning of the provision is
that guerilla are legitimate as long as they meet certain
requirements.
Porter's distorted description of Article 2 is even more misleading.
Without quoting a single word from the article, Porter declares that
it prohibits guerilla warfare. The article actually expands the
definition of legitimate belligerents where military control has not
been established. In that case, which would have applied to much of
the Ukraine for example, two of the requirements for a guerilla group
to be classified as legitimate belligerents are eliminated.
Porter uses a similar, but slightly different technique, in his
analysis of Article 32. "War Crimes Trials" states in its entirety:
The text of the Convention is, however, significantly different from
the Porter version. The complete text of the Convention provisions
concerning parlementaires states:
"Art. 32. A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been
authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with
the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to
inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the
flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him."
"Art. 33. The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all
cases obliged to receive him."
"He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire
taking advantage of his mission to obtain information."
"In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire
temporarily."
"Art. 34. The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it
is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken
advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of
treason."
It can be seen from the actual text that there are two requirements
for a person to be qualified as a "parlementaire." The first of these
(reported by Porter) is that a parlementaire must be authorized to
conduct his negotiations.
This cannot apply to Hess. He was clearly not authorized to enter
communications with Great Britain. William Shirer in "The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich" that Hitler was "mystified" at Hess' actions
(page 835) and the official communiqu=E9 on this incident announced "It
seemed that Party Comrade Hess lived in a state of hallucination, as a
result of which he felt he could bring about a understanding between
England and Germany." (quoted by Shirer, page 838) There is no
indication that Hess was authorized to deal on behalf of the Third
Reich. In fact, Hess did not claim such a status, relying instead on
his position as a cabinet minister (Shirer, page 835).
Nor did Hess have the purpose of negotiating with his opponent as is
the basic function of a parlementaire. He wanted to negotiate with
the Duke of Hamilton rather than the government and his intent was to
provoke an insurrection against the authorities with which a
parlementaire would negotiate. As Ivonne Kirkland (former First
Secretary of the British Embassy in Berlin) reports:
Not only did Hess not meet the basic requirements for parlementaire
status in that he was not authorized to make the trip and he
specifically denied that he was attempting to negotiate with his
opponent, but he failed to meet the other requirement as well.
Porter deletes the clause of the Convention which requires of a
parlementaire that he: "advances bearing a white flag." This, again,
is a significant omission. It is obvious that a legalistic
interpretation of this provision would be unfair. It is silly to
expect an airplane to be displaying a flag and it can be argued that,
even had Hess provided himself with one, his plane crashed in flames.
But there was nothing to prevent Hess from complying with the spirit
of this clause. That is, notify his opponent in advance and ask for a
parlay. He did not make such a notification which could have been
done by radio from his airplane. Further he abuses the concept of a
parlementaire in that he gave a false name ("Alfred Horn" Shirer,
page 835). This vitiated any claim to be a legitimate parlementaire.
This provisions concerning parlementaires are a continuation of the
medieval laws regarding the status of the herald and the white flag is
not just a technical requirement. It constitutes the manner in which
a legitimate parlementaire announces himself. It is the duty of the
parlementaire to announce his status before he approaches the opponent
so that the opponent has, as stated in Article 33 (which Porter
ignores) the option of refusing to receive the parlementaire.
It is at this point that Article 33 (deleted by Porter) becomes
crucial. That Article provides that the opponent has the right to
refuse the approach of the parlementaire. Hess did not allow the
British to exercise this right. Instead, unannounced, Hess popped up
in Scotland requesting to meet with a military officer of no great
rank (the Duke of Hamilton was not a general officer, he was "a wing
commander in the RAF" Shirer, page 835) and demanding that the British
government (to which the negotiations of a legitimate parlementaire
must be addressed) be dissolved.
Since Hess met none of the conditions of a legitimate parlementaire,
the provision of Article 32 concerning his "inviolability" cannot be
applied and the treatment of Hess as a prisoner of war was justified.
If, as some deniers assert, the Porter version of the Convention
should be accepted as authoritative the reader has no opportunity to
make a complete analysis of the claim. The simple reason that a
reader was not provided with this opportunity is that Porter decided
to present an abridged and modified version of the Convention which
distorted its meaning.
Another example of this patent dishonesty can be found in Porter's
analysis of Article 3. Porter represents the text of Article 3 of the
regulations as being:
Please note that this is represented as the complete text of Article
3. This is NOT the actual text of the Convention. It is:
Not only is the text far different from the representation but there
is a crucial difference in meaning which Porter creates. The text
clearly refers to "a belligerent party" as, from the context of the
second sentence (deleted by Porter), means the nation conducting the
war. In Porter's version this becomes "belligerants" which refers not
only to the parties but could be interpreted to apply to individuals
as well.
Relying on this mendacious rendering of the text, Porter announces:
"This is self-explanatory. No trials were contemplated."
This is, at best, a rather audacious assertion. The first and most
obvious reason is that -- except in Porter's fraudulent version -- no
reference is made to individuals. The text refers only to the
liabilities of the state. And, certainly, it contemplates some sort
of trial to determine liability. In fact, that was exactly what was
done after World War I. A fine account of the action against Germany
by the United States for sabotage conducted in this country prior to
its entry into World War I can be found in "Sabotage at Black Tom"
Jules Witcover (Chapel Hill; 1989; ISBN 0-912697-98-9).
If Porter's point -- as the theme of "War Crimes Trials" and Porter's
terse comment would indicate -- is that Article 3 did not contemplate
trials of individual war criminals, he is, likewise in error. The
crucial question is what Article 3 was meant to do. Porter can only
be correct if Article 3 was drafted to provide an exclusive remedy for
war crimes. If, on the other hand, it was drafted to either create a
cause of action or to codify an existing right, Porter's statement
cannot stand.
Start with an analogy. There is no right under Anglo-American common
law to sue for the death of an individual. All such lawsuits are
brought under specific statutory enactments known and "wrongful death
and survival" statutes. None of these statutes mention criminal law.
If Article 3 only creates or codifies a cause of action, Porter's
argument would be similar to a drunken driver who killed somebody
asking to have the criminal case against him dismissed on the grounds
that the wrongful death and survival statutes make no mention of
criminal penalties.
A major impediment to the claim that Article 3 creates an exclusive
remedy is, simply, that the Convention makes no such statement. The
standards of statutory interpretation prohibit the inference of such
restrictions. Had the drafters wished to restrict the remedies of an
aggrieved party, they would have said so. In fact, the drafters went
out of their way to indicate that the text of the Convention was
neither complete or restrictive in nature:
"It has not, however, been found possible at present to concert
regulations covering all the circumstances which arise in practice;"
"On the other hand, the High Contracting Parties clearly do not intend
that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written undertaking,
be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders."
"Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the
High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases
not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and
the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the
principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages
established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and
the dictates of the public conscience."
Further it cannot be argued that the trial of war criminals was a
concept unique to the trial of the nazis after World War II or unknown
to international law. Articles 227 through 230 of the Treaty of
Versailles called for such trials of war criminals. As Telford Taylor
wrote in "The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials" (1992; ISBN
0-316-83400-9):
There are, therefore, several reasons to conclude that Porter's
conclusion about Article 3 is in error but, more important is his
dishonest behavior in re-writing Article 3 and presenting it as the
actual text of the Convention. His failure to accurately present
Article 3 should call into question the credibility of his work.
This brief analysis demonstrates that "War Crimes Trials" is replete
with deliberate distortions, fraudulent representations of the text of
the Conventions, and factual errors. Porter's work is not only a
failure but a rather dismal one. Porter's technique of misquotation
and factual error would not be tolerated in any legitimate academic
community or any other setting where factual accuracy is required. It
would never survive the process of legitimate peer review. It is only
in the shadow world of the lunatic fringe where efforts like "War
Crimes Trials" could find acceptability. It is only the credulous and
those with a specific agenda who can consider "War Crimes Trials" as
either convincing or authoritative. The inescapable conclusion is
that the process of writing "War Crimes Trials" was dishonest and the
process of publishing it was defective or dishonest. "War Crimes
Trials" is so flawed that it is utterly worthless as a reference.
* * *
The complete text of the Hague Conventions cited here can be accessed
at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
[
Index ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Yale F. Edeiken
Art. 3: "Belligerants violating the Convention may be made
to pay compensation".
"Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said
Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.
It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part
of its armed forces."
"Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that
belligerants must be "commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a
distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war".
"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to
armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the
following conditions:
Art. 5: "Prisoners... cannot be confined except as an indispensable
measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate
the measure continue to exist."
Art. 5. Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or
other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they
cannot be confined except as in indispensable measure of safety and
only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to
exist."
"Article 6 states that belligerants may utilize the labour of
prisoners of war, officers excepted, for the public service, for
private persons or their own account."
"Art. 6. The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war
according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks
shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the
operations of the war."
Art. 7: "Prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging,
and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who
captured them".
"Art. 7. The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen
is charged with their maintenance."
"Article 8: "Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and
orders in force of the State in whose power they are. Any act of
insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures
of severity as may be considered necessary".
"Art. 8. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations,
and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are.
Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such
measures of severity as may be considered necessary."
"Art. 20: "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of
prisoners shall be carried out as quickly as possible".
Art. 20. "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners
of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible."
"Finally, article 23 (h) prohibits declaring "abolished, suspended, or
inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals
of the hostile party" and "Article 23 (3) prohibits weapons calculated
to cause unnecessary suffering."
"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
Conventions, it is especially forbidden -"
"To employ poison or poisoned weapons;"
"To declare that no quarter will be given;"
Articles 25, 27 and 56 prohibit bombardment "by whatever means" of
undefended cities, cultural monuments, etc...
"Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
"Art. 32: "A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been
authorized by one of the belligerants to enter into communications
with the other... he has a right to inviolability"."
"Flags of Truce"
"Article 43 requires collaboration with occupation governments. "The
authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands
of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power
to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in
the country".
"Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed
into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures
in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order
and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country."
Article 46: "Private property cannot be confiscated".
Art. 46. "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be
respected."
"Art. 18. Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete liberty in the
exercise of their religion, including attendance at the services of
whatever church they may belong to, on the sole condition that they
comply with the measures of order and police issued by the military
authorities."
"The United States never ratified this convention, which, thus, never
became "international law" in any war involving the United States."
"Art. 6. The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war
according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks
shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the
operations of the war."
"Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for
private persons, or on their own account."
"It should be noted that until a more complete code of the laws of war
has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to
declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by
them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection
and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result
from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of
humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."
"THE ANNEX TO THE 4th HAGUE CONVENTION"
"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to
armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the
following conditions:
"Art. 32: "A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been
authorized by one of the belligerants to enter into communications
with the other... he has a right to inviolability"." Based upon this
incomplete rendition of Article 32 and the complete deletion of
article 33, Porter asserts: "The detention of Rudolph Hess was
illegal."
"Flags of Truce"
"Finally, as we were leaving the room, Hess delivered a parting shot.
He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that the proposal could
only be considered on the understanding that it was negotiated by
Germany with an English government other than the present on. Mr.
Churchill, who had planned the war since 1936, and his colleague who
had lent themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the
Fuehrer could negotiate." (quoted by Shirer, page 386)
"Art. 3: "Belligerants violating the Convention may be made to pay
compensation."
"Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said
Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.
It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part
of its armed forces."
"According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these
provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to
diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit, are
intended to serve as a general rule of conduct for the belligerents in
their mutual relations and in their relations with the inhabitants."
"Under Article 227 the Kaiser was to be tried before a "special
tribunal" of five judges, one each from the United States, Great
Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. He was not to be charged with
responsibility for war crimes but with "a supreme offence against
international morality and the sanctity of treaties." The three
ensuing articles called for trials of "persons accused of having
committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war" before
"military tribunals" of the aggrieved nations, and required the German
government to "hand over" the individuals so accused to any of the
"Allied and Associated Powers" so requesting. Provisions comparable
to Articles 228-230 were included in later peace treaties with
Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria." (paperback edition, page 16)