Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Adjudication and Findings of Finnmark’s Devastation Charge in Hostage

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case

Abstract

As part of the post-World War II military trials of Nazi war criminals, General Lothar Rendulic, Commander-in-Chief of the 20th Mountain Army, was put on trial for acts of devastation not justified by military necessity, in the Finnmark region of Northern Norway. In his defence, Rendulic justified the acts on the grounds that the devastation of the territory and the forced evacuation of the region were permissible on the basis of being militarily necessary. Fearful of an imminent Soviet invasion of the territory following the September 1944 armistice agreement between the Soviet Union and Finland, Rendulic and his troops retreated, laying waste to the region and forcibly evacuating the population. These acts were, according to Rendulic’s account, necessary to hinder the Soviet forces from advancing. Ultimately, the US Military Tribunal accepted this justification, and found Rendulic not guilty of breaching Article 23(g) of the Hague Regulations—which prohibits the destruction or seizure of enemy property, unless such destruction or seizure is “imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”. This chapter will explore how the tribunal came to its decision, examining the charges regarding Rendulic’s conduct in Finnmark, the prosecution and defence cases, and the decision that eventually saw Rendulic acquitted of the charge of devastation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    American Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, United States of America v Wilhelm List et al., Judgment, 19 February 1948, Justice Wennerstrum presiding, p 10419, reprinted from the original typed transcript, http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/transcripts/4-transcript-for-nmt-7-hostage-case [accessed 1 April 2023].

  2. 2.

    American Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, United States of America v Wilhelm List et al., Indictment, filed 10 May 1947, reprinted at Office of Military Government for Germany (US) (1947), Trial 7—Hostage Case, p 9, https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/nmt7/1 [accessed 1 April 2023].

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    American Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, United States of America v Wilhelm List et al., Evidentiary Document No. NOKW-086, Order for the Evacuation of North Norway, 22 October 1944 (official translation, Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes), https://nbg-02.lil.tools/transcripts/4-transcript-for-nmt-7-hostage-case?seq=92 [accessed 1 April 2023].

  5. 5.

    Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, 36 Stat 2227, TS No. 539 (Hague Regulations of 1907), Article 23(g).

  6. 6.

    Bill 2009, p 134.

  7. 7.

    See Chap. 7.

  8. 8.

    Indictment, p 9.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., pp 9–10.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p 10.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Transcript, p 91.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., pp 92–93.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., p 93; see also International Military Tribunal 1947, p 324.

  17. 17.

    Transcript, p 93.

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., pp 94–95 (capitalisation in original).

  21. 21.

    Ibid., p 95.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p 3101.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., pp 3102–3103.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., p 3111.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., p 3117.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., p 2583.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., p 2594.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p 2658.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., p 2659.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., p 2672.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p 2677.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., p 2698.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., pp 2705–2707.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p 2707.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., pp 2747–2770.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., p 5124.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., pp 5124–5328.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., pp 5328–5332.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p 5332.

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., p 5334.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., p 5335.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., p 5338.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p 5346.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., p 3112.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p 3114.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p 3111.

  52. 52.

    Order of 29 October 1944, Evidence Code: NOKW-86, Exhibit Code: Prosecution 504.

  53. 53.

    Transcript, p 5353.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p 5354.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., p 5346.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p 5370.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p 5445.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., pp 5445–5449.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., p 5452.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p 5453.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p 5454.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., p 5458.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., p 5459.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., p 5464.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., p 5465.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., pp 5551 (Hölter) and p 5618 (Vogel).

  71. 71.

    Ibid., p 5554.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p 5558, though the transcript has it as “rughlesslessly”—obviously a typo.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., pp 5561–5562.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., p 5562.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., p 5626 (Vogel).

  76. 76.

    Ibid. (Hölter).

  77. 77.

    Ibid., p 5568.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., p 5565.

  79. 79.

    Ibid. See also concurring testimony by Vogel, p 5627.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., p 5628 (Vogel).

  81. 81.

    Ibid., pp 5582–5583.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., pp 5586–5590.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., p 5592.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., p 5597.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., p 5615.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., p 5652.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., pp 5656–5659.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., pp 5660–5661.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., p 5665.

  90. 90.

    For a full listing of the evidence tendered for Rendulic, see http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/search/?q=defendant:%22Lothar+Rendulic%22&f=trial_activities:Norway%2C+evacuation+of+and+destruction+in&page=3 [accessed 1 April 2023].

  91. 91.

    Transcript, p 9567.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., p 9662.

  93. 93.

    Ibid. See further Chap. 3, where Sven G. Holtsmark explores in more detail what Rendulic knew about troop numbers and skirmishes taking place in the region leading up to 25 October.

  94. 94.

    Transcript, p 9664.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., p 10071.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., pp 10080–10081.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., p 10081.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Ibid.

  100. 100.

    This seems an unduly harsh and frankly inaccurate assessment. Dahl had served as the commander of Alta Battalion during the fighting at Narvik in northern Norway in 1940 and would have had first-hand experience of wartime strategic decision-making, including the principle of military necessity. See further the history of the Alta Battalion in Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services (1998) Alta bataljon: 8 Styrkeforhold og tap (in Norwegian, unofficial translation by the author). https://web.archive.org/web/20101022060708/http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/nouer/1998/nou-1998-12/9.html?id=375470 [accessed 1 April 2023] (archived from the original 22 October 2010).

  101. 101.

    Transcript, pp 10083–10084.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., p 10086.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., p 10087.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., pp 10451–10452.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., pp 10513–10514.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., p 10513.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., pp 10514–10515.

  108. 108.

    Hague Regulations of 1907, above n. 5, Article 23(g).

  109. 109.

    See further Hartigan 1995, pp 2–14.

  110. 110.

    Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, promulgated as General Orders No. 100, April 1863.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., Article 14.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., Article 15.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., Article 16.

  114. 114.

    Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention No. II with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 29 July 1899, 32 Stat 1803, TS No. 403, Article 23(g); Hague Regulations of 1907, above n. 5, Article 23(g).

  115. 115.

    The term “necessities of war” is mentioned 17 times in the proceedings of the Hague Conference of 1907, during the sessions that discussed what would eventually be the Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War: Ministry for Foreign Affairs 1907.

  116. 116.

    Hull 2008, p 357.

  117. 117.

    Von Hartmann 1877, pp 453–454 (emphasis in the original), cited in Hull 2019, p 123.

  118. 118.

    Hull translates Ausnahmezustände as “declarations of emergency”; however, Ausnahmezustände better translates to “situations of emergency” or “states of emergency”.

  119. 119.

    Ibid. (emphasis in the original).

  120. 120.

    Hull 2008, p 362.

  121. 121.

    Ibid.

  122. 122.

    Ibid.

  123. 123.

    See, e.g., Rodick 1928, pp 59–62; Garner 1920, p 195; Westlake 1907, p 117.

  124. 124.

    Rodick 1928, p 59.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., p 60.

  126. 126.

    Ibid.

  127. 127.

    Ibid.

  128. 128.

    Ibid. See also Hayashi 2020, in particular pp 261–314, where military necessity as a juridical concept is explored in detail.

  129. 129.

    Transcript, p 10455.

  130. 130.

    Ibid.

  131. 131.

    Ibid.

  132. 132.

    Ibid.

  133. 133.

    See Heller 2011, pp 308–311.

  134. 134.

    Taylor 1949.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., p 207.

  136. 136.

    Best 1994, pp 329–330.

  137. 137.

    Judgment of 1 October 1946, in International Military Tribunal 1950, p 517.

  138. 138.

    See Chap. 3. See also Chap. 4.

  139. 139.

    Transcript, p 5346.

  140. 140.

    Chapter 3.

  141. 141.

    See further Chap. 8.

  142. 142.

    Chapter 3.

  143. 143.

    Transcript, pp 5345–5346.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., p 5341.

  145. 145.

    Best 1994, p 329.

  146. 146.

    Hayashi 2020, p 298.

  147. 147.

    Faust H (1948) Nazi trial judge rips “injustice”: army jumps gun to reply. Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February, p 1. See further Maguire 2010, pp 133ff.

  148. 148.

    Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, US Army 2022, p 58.

References

  • Best G (1994) War and law since 1945. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bill B (2009) The Rendulic “Rule”: military necessity, commander’s knowledge, and methods of warfare. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 12:119–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner JW (1920) International law and the World War. Longman Green & Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan RS (1995) Lieber’s Code and the law of war. Legal Classics Library, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi N (2020) Military necessity: the art, morality and law of war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2011) The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the origins of international criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hull IV (2008) Military necessity and the laws of war in imperial Germany. In: Kalyvas SN et al (eds) Order, conflict, and violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull IV (2019) Absolute destruction: military culture and the practices of war in imperial Germany. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • International Military Tribunal (1947) Trial of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal: Nuremberg 14 November 1945–1 October 1946. Vol 1. Nuremberg

    Google Scholar 

  • International Military Tribunal (1950) The trial of German major war criminals: proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, part 22 (22nd August 1946 to 1st October 1946). London

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, US Army (2022) Operational law handbook. Charlottesville, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire P (2010) Law and war: international law and American history. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for Foreign Affairs (1907) The Second International Peace Conference, The Hague, June 15–October 18, 1907: acts and documents, Vol III: Second, Third and Fourth Commissions. National Printing Office, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodick BG (1928) The doctrine of necessity in international law. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor T (1949) Final report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials under Control Council Law No. 10. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hartmann J (1877) Militärische Nothwendigkeit und Humanität. Deutsche Rundschau 13:111–128, 450–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Westlake J (1907) International law: part II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Other Documents

  • Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, promulgated as General Orders No. 100, April 1863

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney, New Law Building F10, Eastern Avenue, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Emily Crawford

Authors
  1. Emily Crawford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Crawford .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for International and Operational Law, Swedish Defence University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Nobuo Hayashi

  2. Faculty of Social Studies, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway

    Carola Lingaas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crawford, E. (2024). The Adjudication and Findings of Finnmark’s Devastation Charge in Hostage. In: Hayashi, N., Lingaas, C. (eds) Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-610-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-611-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation