NAZI WAR CRIMES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27291, 18 January 1950, Page 3

NAZI WAR CRIMES

THE SHOOTING OF COMMANDOES The Trial of Von Falkenhorst. Edited by E. H. Stevens. War Crimes Trials, Vol. VI. Hodge. 18s. General von Falkenhorst was com-mander-in-chief of the German forces of occupation in Norway throughout the war. He was a soldier, not a Nazi Party member, and he had the soldier’s dislike and distrust of politics. It has been claimed that as far as was possible for one in his position he was respected by the Norwegians but he had one bad blot on his record. During commando raids on Norway—some of which were directed against heavy water plants, and one against the Tirpitz—some prisoners were taken and about 40 of these were shot on different occasions in obedience to the order which had been issued directly by Hitler that commandoes were “to be exterminated to the last man in battle or while in flight.’’ Von Falkenhorst objected to this order and apparently gave oral instructions that it was not to be implemented. He did, however, circulate that opder to the officers of his command and made an alteration in it which, in practice, had the effect of strengthening it. Therefore, he was responsible for the deaths of the men who were shot. He was tried and sentenced to death but the sentence was not carried out. He is now serving a term of 20 years’ imprisonment. The full account of his trial is now published in the War Crimes Trials Series published by William Hodge and Co. under the general editorship of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. The record is a valuable one as the trial provided one of the clearest instances of responsibility in command. The important points are further emphasised in the editor’s introduction and in the foreword by Sir Norman Birkett. The editor comments that von Falkenhorst was obviously guilty. He had received an order which was contrary to the accepted customs of war and he passed it on. The test of criminality lay in the point whether he had any choice. ‘*ln von Falkenhorst’s case the choice was undoubtedly possible, although the alternative might have had dire consequences for him." This is a point which constantly recurs to laymen who have read this and other war crimes trial reports. There must certainly be a general agreement with the proposition that it is now time to clarify the rules to which a soldier must conform and not leave them to vague generalities and the varying standards of individual conscience. It is very doubtful if, in the last war, there was anything of a general appreciation of the proprieties and of the responsibility of the individual. . D. G. B.