The press SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1943. Delooting Germany

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23972, 12 June 1943, Page 4

The press SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1943. Delooting Germany

The recent debate in the House of Lords on Lord Maugham’s proposals for the “delooting” of Germany raised some interesting questions, Briefly, Lord Maugham asked the Government to use all possible means to prevent the Axis Powers, in anticipation of their own defeat, from destroying the means of industrial competition in the occupied countries. He also suggested that as the Allied armies advanced into enemy territory the occupying troops should seize industrial machinery, to be handed over in compensation for their losses to the despoiled countries. The value of the loot from the occupied countries, according to American figures quoted, amounts to £9,000,000,000. Lord Maugham’s proposal, though at first sight attractive and apparently workable, encounters both legal and practical difficulties. Apart altogether from the question whether the task is one that an invading or even an occupying army can do, the seizure of privately owned property by occupying forces has been expressly forbidden by the Hague Convention, by which Great Britain is bound. Article 46 provides that private property must be respected and cannot be confiscated; and Article 47 formally forbids pillage. Article 52 forbids the requisitions of property from the inhabitants, unless for the needs of the army of occupation. It is true that these articles are based upon the distinction between the armed forces and the civilian population, and between publicly owned property and privately owned property. There is, however, little reason to suppose that this distinction will be ignored by the Allies, who are pledged to wage war in accordance with the rules and customs of civilised States. Lord Cranborne, replying to the debate, pointed out some of the difficulties but stated that the whole question was being examined. The trouble is that the difficulties are fundamental in international law.

It took the whole of the nineteenth century [says Oppenheim in his ‘‘lnternational Law”! to develop the rules regarding occupation which are now universally recognised and in many respects have b*een enacted by Articles 42-56 of the Hague Regulations. The principle underlying these modern rules is that, although the occupant in no wise acquires sovereignty over such territory through the mere fact of having occupied it, he actually exercises for the time being a military authority over it. As he thereby prevents the legitimate sovereign from exercising his authority, and claims obedience for himself from the inhabitants, he must administer the country, not only in the interest of his own military advantage, but also, at any rate so far as possible, for the public benefit of the inhabitants. Thus the present International Law not only gives certain rights to an occupant, but also imposes certain duties upon him.

It is interesting to refer to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles relating to the restoration Dy Germany of property looted by her. By Article 238, Germany was required to repay all seized cash and also to restore animals, objects of any nature, and securities taken away, wherever it was possible to identify them in the territory of Germany or her allies. Besides, elaborate provision was made for reparation in kind. ’ The Allies required and Germany undertook to devote her economic resources directly to the physical restoration of the invaded areas. The Reparation Commission was empowered to determine what animals, machinery, and equipment had been seized or destroyed by Germany, and, after hearing the German Government on the question of ways and means, to decide what reparations in kind were to be made. The treaty itself specified some such reparations, as, for example, in requiring Germany to return to France works of art carried away in 1870-71 and during 1914-18; to return to the King of the Hedjaz the original Koran, removed from Medina by the Turks; to return to the British Government the skull of the Sultan Mkwawa, removed from the Protectorate of East Africa and taken to Germany; and to furnish to Belgium various manuscripts and books corresponding in number and value to those destroyed in the burning of tht University Library of Louvain. It appears to be simple enough to provide for the restitution of looted articles or the replacement of certain types of property destroyed. But the real problem is not here; it is in the larger question of the industrial future of Germany. Is Germany to be permitted to monopolise the heavy industries of Europe; or is her industrial power to be reduced or destroyed? If the former alternative is adopted, then Germany will emerge defeated in the field, but with her industrial potential relatively unimpaired. If on the other hand, her industrial power is broken, then the danger is that Germany will set herself to prepare, over a period of years, for a war of revenge. The dilemma over-simplifies the problem, but contains its essence.