“Treatment of Sabotage Units: Sabotage units in uniform are soldiers and have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. Sabotage units in civilian clothes or German uniform have no claim to treatment as prisoners of war (francs-tireurs).”
You agree, of course, with the correctness of that, do you not? The rest of that document does not matter. You agree, do you not, with that opinion in Paragraph 2, as a man who knows international law?
JODL: Yes, I agree with Paragraph 2; it corresponds entirely with my opinion; it agrees completely with my point of view.
MR. ROBERTS: And now the next document.
If you go to the—if the Tribunal would kindly go to the last document of the three; and would you go to the document which is headed, “Telephone call; Reference: Letter Ausland Abwehr of 13. 10. 42.” My Lord, that is the one I have just read.
“Opinion of the Armed Forces Legal Department”—Paragraph 2, that is referring to Canaris’ opinion—“Fundamentally in agreement.
“It may, however, be possible to support the following train of thought with regard to special cases:
“Fighting methods such as exist now and such as it is intended to prevent came about long after the creation of the Hague Regulations for Land Warfare, in particular as a result of war in the air. Special attention is drawn to the mass use of parachutists for purposes of sabotage. Anyone who commits acts of sabotage as a soldier with the intention of surrendering after the act of sabotage without fighting does not act like an honest fighter. He misuses Article 23c of the Hague Regulations for Land Warfare during the formulation of which no such methods were contemplated. The misuse lies in the speculation on surrender without fighting after successful completion of the act of sabotage.
“This view regarding the inadmissibility of sabotage Commandos can be backed up without reservation provided we also apply it to ourselves.”
That document has your initial on the top, Witness? Is that right?