3. of the Japanese message quotes Ribbentrop as follows (part 2 of 3)

3. of the Japanese message quotes Ribbentrop as follows (part 2 of 3)

“For the period of transition from 1919 up to rearmament, A. K. [Krupp] had undertaken various tasks in order to keep up the Company’s activity in the field of artillery, in the sense of observing activities in that field in the rest of the world (relation: BOFORS) and then also for the production of artillery material, within and to a certain extent also beyond, the limitation established by the peace dictate.” (D-249).

B. AFTER THE CONSPIRATORS’ ACCESSION TO POWER, KRUPP LENT HIS INFLUENCE, PRESTIGE, AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF THEIR CONTROL OVER THE GERMAN STATE.

(1) With knowledge of the aims and purposes of the Nazi conspiracy, he sought to reorganize the Reich Association of German Industry, of which he was Chairman, so as to bring it into line with the aims of the conspirators and to make it an effective instrument for the execution of their policies.

(a) Upon the invitation of Goering (D-201), Krupp attended a meeting in Berlin on 20 February 1933, during which Hitler, in a speech to a select group of industrialists, announced the conspirators’ aims to seize totalitarian control over Germany, to destroy the parliamentary system, to crush all opposition by force, and to restore the power of the Wehrmacht. In the course of this speech, Hitler stated:

“Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of Democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality. * * * Life always tears up humanity. It is therefore the noblest task of a Leader to find ideals that are stronger than the factors that pull the people apart. I recognized even while in the hospital that one had to search for new ideas conducive to reconstruction. I found them in Nationalism, in the value of personality, in the denial of reconciliation between nations, in the strength and power of individual personality. * * * If one rejects pacifism, one must put a new idea in its place immediately. Everything must be pushed aside, must be replaced by something better.”

“* * * We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist, just as once upon a time the farmers were forced to plant potatoes. For all this, however, courage, and iron will and perseverance are essential.”

“* * * With the very same courage with which we go to work to make up for what had been sinned during the last 14 years, we have withstood all attempts to move us off the right way. We have turned down the favour (benevolence) of the Catholic Centre Party [Zentrum] to tolerate us. Hugemberg has too small a movement. He has only considerably slowed down our development. We must first gain complete power if we want to crush the other side completely. While still gaining power one should not start the struggle against the opponent. Only when one knows that one has reached the pinnacle of power, that there is no further possible upward development, shall one strike. * * *”

“Now we stand before the last election. Regardless of the outcome there will be no retreat, even if the coming election does not bring about a decision. One way or another, if the election does not decide, the decision must be brought about even by other means. I have intervened in order to give the people once more the chance to decide their fate by themselves. This determination is a strong asset for whatever must possibly happen later. Does the election bring no result, well, Germany won’t go to ruin. Today, as never before, everyone is under the obligation to pledge himself to success. The necessity to make sacrifices has never been greater than now. For Economy I have the one wish that it go parallel with the internal structure to meet a calm future. The question of restoration of the Wehrmacht will not be decided at Geneva, but in Germany, when we have gained internal strength through internal peace. * * * There are only two possibilities, either to crowd back the opponent on constitutional grounds, and for this purpose once more this election or a struggle will be conducted with other weapons, which may demand greater sacrifices. I would like to see them avoided. I hope the German people thus recognize the greatness of the hour. It shall decide over the next 10 or probably even 100 years. It will become a turning point in German history, to which I pledge myself with glowing energy.” (D-203).

At this same meeting, Goering declared that the impending election of 5 March 1933 would certainly be the last one for the next 10 years, and probably even for the next 100 years (D-203).

In a memorandum dated 22 February 1933 describing this meeting, Krupp wrote that he had expressed to Hitler the gratitude of approximately 25 industrialists present for the clear expression of his views and emphasized, on behalf of all present, that it was time to clarify the political situation in Germany (D-204).

(b) On 25 April 1933, Krupp, as Chairman of the Reich Association of German Industry (Reichsverbandes der Deutschen Industrie) submitted to Hitler his plan for the reorganization of German industry and in connection therewith, undertook to bring the Association into line with the aims of the conspirators and to make it an effective instrument for the execution of their policies.

1. In the letter of transmittal, Krupp stated that his plan of reorganization was characterized by the desire to coordinate “economic measures and political necessity, adopting the Fuehrer’s conception of the New German State” (D-157).

2. In the plan of reorganization itself Krupp stated:

“The turn of political events is in line with the wishes which I myself and the Board of Directors have cherished for a long time. I am convinced that, under the threat of the impoverishment of our people, the machinery of government must be simplified to the utmost. For the same reason I did not fail to recognize a long time ago the necessity of rationalizing our economic system.

“Convinced that the opportunity of the hour must not be missed to obtain the best for our economic system, I am employing the authority bestowed upon me by the Presiding Council to carry out a double task:—

1. In the negotiations with the Reichschancellor and his representatives I shall make it my goal to coordinate, in the field of organization of industrial associations, the economically reasonable with the politically necessary.

2. In reorganizing the Reich Association of German Industry I shall be guided by the idea of bringing the new organization into agreement with the political aims of the Reich Government and at the same time to make it so rational and forceful that it can be an effective instrument of industrial enterprise, according to the relative importance of the industry.” (D-157)

(c) In a speech delivered on 18 October 1933, on the occasion of the first meeting of the Committee for Industrial and Social policy of the Reich Association of German Industry, Krupp reaffirmed his aim to bring the Association into complete accord with the political goals of the Nazi government and stated, inter alia:

“* * * To have united the purposes of an entire Nation, is the great historical achievement of the man in whose strong hands our President has placed the fate of our people. When Reichschancellor and Fuehrer Adolf Hitler called the General Council of Economy together for the first time on the 20th of September, I had the honor to thank him for the confidence which he had put in the men of the practical business world by calling them to the General Council. I pledged to him unrestrained support in his Government in its exceedingly difficult task from all branches and organizations of Economy.

“I may repeat now what I said then: ‘The unshakable faith of our Reichschancellor and Fuehrer in the future of our people gives also to the men of business the courage and the strength to put everything in the reconstruction of a healthy National Economy in a strong National State under National Socialist leadership’.

“You, too, gentlemen, if I am certain of your confidence, are bound to this pledge. It holds in itself, for all of us, the deeply felt obligation to be the guarantors for the unconditional execution of the Fuehrer’s will in all links and branches of Industry. May the spirit of devotion to duty which inspires us always dominate this Committee’s conferences!

“I ask you, gentlemen, to rise and to join me in the toast: To the venerable President of the German Reich, General Fieldmarshal Von Hindenburg and the German People’s Chancellor and Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler: ‘Sieg Heil’.” (D-353).

(2) Krupp organized, sponsored, and made substantial financial contributions to the Hitler Fund (Hitler Spende), with knowledge that the funds were to be used to further the objectives of the SA and SS.

(a) In a letter to Schacht dated 30 May 1933, Krupp wrote:

“As Dr. Hoettgen and I had the opportunity of mentioning to you yesterday, it is proposed to initiate a collection in the most far-reaching circles of German industry, including agriculture and the banking world, which is to be put at the disposal of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP in the name of ‘The Hitler Fund’, which would replace collections in many cases separately organized of the various NSDAP organizations and the Stahlhelm. It has been decided to appoint a management council for this central collection; I have accepted the chairmanship of the management council at the unanimous request of the principal federations, inspired by the wish to collaborate with my full strength in this task which is to be a symbol of gratitude to the Fuehrer of the nation.” (D-151)

(b) A circular written by Hess in August 1933, which was found among Krupp’s files, specifically states that one of the purposes of the Hitler Fund is “to put at the disposal of the Reich leadership the funds required for the unified execution of the tasks which fall to the lot of the SA, SS, ST, HJ, political organizations etc.” (D-151).

In a letter dated 15 August 1934, from Lutze, Chief of Staff of the SA, which was found among Krupp’s papers, authority was granted, with the approval of the Deputy Fuehrer, to Gauleiter Terboven to use a special part of the year’s Hitler Fund in the interest of the SA in the Ruhr district (D-368).

(c) From the inception of the Hitler Fund until the collapse of Germany, the Fried. Krupp Cast Steel Works in Essen (main company in the Krupp organization) alone contributed 4,738,446 marks to that fund (D-325; the above figure is the total amount shown on the chart, not here reproduced[2]). This assistance to the Hitler Fund was supplemented by large contributions made by the other Krupp companies.

-----

[2] This and subsequent similar charts have been omitted from this publication because of their length and complexity, and the relative unimportance of the issue for which they have been cited.

-----

(3) Krupp, both privately and through the Krupp firm, made substantial contributions to the Nazi Party and affiliated organizations.

(a) For contributions by Fried. Krupp Cast Steel Works in Essen, see D-325.

(b) In June 1935, Krupp contributed 100,000 marks to the Nazi Party out of his personal account (D-332; D-373).

(4) In numerous public addresses, Krupp supported the measures adopted by the conspirators in the execution of their program.

(a) In a speech urging every German to approve Germany’s withdrawal from the disarmament conference and the League of Nations, Krupp said:

“* * * Just as the 5th of March brought about the change from chaos to order, from disgrace to honor in domestic policy so, on November 12, the unanimous “Yes” of the German people concerning the foreign policy of the Reich Government, shall and must give ample proof to the entire world that every citizen who is worthy of the German name, stands unconditionally behind the Reich Government as led by the Reich Chancellor, and its foreign policy which is dictated by the commandment of self-respect.”

* * * * * *

“* * * When the radio broadcasts the results of the People’s Election on the evening of November 12, the entire world must know that: Germany stands in the camp of Adolf Hitler.” (D-393).

(b) In a speech delivered on 26 January 1934, Krupp expressed approval of the leadership principle in industrial relations, under which the entrepreneur became the leader and the workers became his followers. In the course of this speech he said:

“National-Socialism has liberated the German worker from the clutches of a doctrine which was basically hostile both for employer and employee. Adolf Hitler has returned the worker to his nation; he has made of him a disciplined soldier of labor and therefore our comrade. When, on the other hand, the new State awards to the enterpriser the role of leader in economy and labor, then we know that: Leadership has obligation!

“The enterpriser and his leading officers are the trustees for the material welfare of our people.” (D-392).

(c) In a speech delivered on 10 August 1934, in connection with the plebiscite to approve Hitler’s dual appointment as president and chancellor after Hindenburg’s death, Krupp said:

“Let us all follow him now also, our Leader, our Reich—and People’s Chancellor.

“In an exceptionally short time he has eliminated the quarrel between parties, has guaranteed unity to the Reich and has assured to every German pride to work, has brought the opportunity for work to the near future. On 19 August all our votes borne of deep trust and proven confidence shall go to the man acclaimed by those hearts of many thousands and millions who cannot, because of their age, go to the polls but who daily join us, who are permitted to vote, in the Cry:

Heil Hitler!” (D-386).

(d) In a speech dated 27 October 1935, Krupp stated:

“* * * Our thoughts fly therefore by themselves in this festive hour of our plant community, to the man whom we thank for the resurrection of our Nation: Adolf Hitler, the patron of German labour and German art. Unanimously we will confess and pledge ourselves to stand behind the Fuehrer and his movement today and forever and thereby to be of service to the idea of eternal Germany.” (D-385)

(e) In a speech dated 1 May 1936, after the Nazis had reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland, Krupp stated:

“No greater recognition, no greater incentive to further common work accomplishment could have been given us than was done through the visit of our Fuehrer on March 27th of this year to our works and through his addresses from here. * * *”

“Never has a statesman fought for the soul of his people and for its well-being with such faith, such ardor, such endurance. We shall never forget how deeply we are indebted to him. * * * I only mention here the abolition of the parties and the unification of the people, the regaining of the sovereignty in the Rhineland, the extensive abolition of unemployment, the accomplishments of the labour service, the magnificent public buildings, the roads, bridges and canals. * * *”

* * * * * *

“The world will have to get used to the fact that the voice of the Fuehrer is the voice of the whole German people. * * *”

“Jubileers and co-workers! We shall be thankful to fate that we were and are permitted to be eye and action witnesses of the great turning point in our German history, and we shall thank especially the divine destiny that it has presented us with a man like Adolf Hitler. Let us then combine all that which moves our hearts upon mention of this name into the cry: Our people and fatherland and its great Fuehrer Adolf Hitler

Sieg Heil!” (D-291).

C. UNDER KRUPP’S DIRECTION, THE KRUPP FIRM, BY DEVELOPING NEW INSTRUMENTS OF WAR AND PRODUCING HUGE QUANTITIES OF WAR MATERIALS, FURTHERED THE CONSPIRATORS’ PROGRAM TO CREATE A POWERFUL MILITARY POTENTIAL.

(1) In a speech prepared in January 1944, for delivery at the University of Berlin, Krupp stated:

“* * * I don’t see why this thought still flutters in many a head occasionally—that the production of war materials should be a sinister trade! No: war material is life-saving for one’s own people and whoever works and performs in these spheres can be proud of it; here enterprise as a whole finds its highest justification of existence. This justification—I may inject this here—crystallized especially during that time of the ‘Interregnum’, between 1919 and 1933, when Germany was lying-down disarmed. * * * It is the one great merit of the entire German war economy that it did not remain idle during those bad years, even though its activity could not be brought to light for obvious reasons. Through years of secret work, scientific and basic ground work was laid, in order to be ready again to work the German Armed Forces at the appointed hour, without loss of time or experience.”

* * * * * *

“Only through this secret activity of German enterprise, together with the experience gained meanwhile through production of peace time goods was it possible after 1933, to fall into step with the new tasks arrived at restoring Germany’s military power, (only through all that) could the entirely new and various problems, brought up by the Fuehrer’s Four Year’s Plan for German enterprise, be mastered. * * *” (D-317)

(2) Krupp played a leading role in the design and production of new weapons for the German armed forces.

(a) In a memorandum concerning a conference held at the Federal Ministry for National Defense in Vienna on 25 September 1936, Pfirsch, a Krupp official, wrote:

“* * * in spite of the obstacles put in our way by the Treaty of Versailles, we had never been inactive throughout the postwar period, but had drawn upon the experience of the war in the creation of new types, and that we had won the prizes for almost every type in the competitions organized by our War Ministry for the construction of new artillery weapons, so much so that the guns introduced into the German Army of to-day, such as the 8.8 cm. anti-aircraft, the 10.5 cm. field gun, the heavy field howitzer and beyond them the larger calibres have been made according to our pattern.” (D-152)

(b) In a memorandum dated 21 February 1944, Woelfert, a department chief in the Krupp concern, wrote:

“First a few facts about the development of tanks by Krupp. We are manufacturing tanks since 1928, which means before rearmament. We started studying on heavy tractors. Krupp built the first mass production tank, the Panzer I, which is also known as LaS. It was shown in public in 1935, the year when rearmament started, and made a great impression. We also originated the Panzer IV, or better the BW, which was especially at the beginning of the war one of the prime factors in our rapid advances into enemy country, so that today we are fighting on the Atlantic coast, in the South, and east and not on German soil. Even today we use the BW-base for many self-propelled guns, assault-guns, anti-aircraft guns etc.” (D-96).

(c) In a letter to Hitler dated 24 July 1942, Krupp wrote:

“My Fuehrer!

“The big weapon, whose manufacturing is to be thanked to your command, has now proved its effectiveness. * * *”

“True to an example set by Alfred Krupp in 1870, my wife and myself ask the favour that the Krupp works refrain from charging for this first finished product.

“To express my thanks to you, my Fuehrer, for the confidence shown in our plants and in us personally by entrusting such an order with us, is a pleasant duty for my wife and myself.

Sieg Heil!” (D-375).

(d) Krupp likewise made significant contributions to the production of Navy weapons and U-Boats (D-88; D-287).

(3) The rapid and progressive expansion in armament production by Krupp after the conspirators’ accession to power is plainly shown by a chart prepared by Krupp officials concerning the production of war materials at the Krupp Gustahlfabrik in Essen (only one of the many companies in the Krupp organization). This chart shows that the production of war materials at that particular factory during the fiscal year, 1 October 1933 to 30 September 1934, was more than twice that of any previous year since 1929; that such production during the fiscal year, 1 October 1934 to 30 September 1935, was almost twice as great as the previous year; and that production of war materials continued thereafter at an accelerated rate with the result that during the fiscal year, 1 October 1938 to 30 September 1939, it was more than 10 times as great as it was during the period 1 October 1932 to 30 September 1933 (Chart entitled “Fried. Krupp Gustahlfabrik Essen, Turnover in War Material,” not reproduced here). It should be noted that this chart shows only direct sales by the Essen factory of war materials to the German Armed Forces Ordnance Supply Department and sales to foreign countries of war materials easily recognizable as such. It does not cover indirect sales, viz: the sale of products to other concerns which, in turn, used them to produce materials of war. (The chart entitled “Fried. Krupp and Branch Establishments, Inland Turnover,” not here reproduced, shows figures which include “indirect” sales of war materials by certain Krupp companies.)

D. KRUPP GOVERNED THE EXPORTS OF HIS FIRM IN THE LIGHT OF THE MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS AND THE ACCEPTED AND DISCHARGED IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRATORS’ PROGRAM OF ECONOMIC MOBILIZATION FOR WAR.

(1) In a “strictly confidential” memorandum dated 25 March 1941, the following was reported:

“* * * The liberation of the Reich from the shackles of Versailles enabled Krupp to recommence the export of armaments. The German Government had, in fact, pressed for the matter. Military-political and Military-economic reasons were the cause. Krupp desired to come into the closest contact with the armament exports, so as to further the development of arms * * *”

* * * * * *

“* * * By using all the forces at his [Krupp’s] disposal and regardless of effort, costs and risk, considerable export contracts were secured, which served to obtain foreign currency or raw materials, and were, at the same time, politically desirable. * * *” (D-191)

In a memorandum dated 23 June 1937, concerning a Bulgarian order for armour plating which was discussed with German Army representatives, Reiff, a Krupp official, wrote:

“Major Olbrich showed himself aware quite evidently of the deeper reasons existing why Germany was anxious that this order should be booked. * * *” (D-154)

(2) At the request of the Inspector of War Production, Krupp became a Leader of War Production in 1937, and was charged with the responsibility of preparing and carrying out the mobilization of the armament industry and of directing it in time of war.

(a) In a “strictly confidential” letter dated 21 January 1937, the Inspector of War Production wrote to Krupp:

“The Reich Minister for War and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces has ordered that a Corps of Economic Leaders of War Production be recruited with immediate effect.

“The Economic Leaders of War Production in collaboration with the Armed Forces, are to be responsible for the preparing and carrying out of the mobilization of the armament industry and for directing it in time of war.”

* * * * * *

“A selected small circle of these persons is to act in an advisory capacity to the Armed Forces in all important economic questions both during peace and war.

“Subject to your approval, I intend to propose to the Reich Minister for War that you should be nominated as Economic Leader for War Production.” (D-62)

(b) In connection with his acceptance of the position of Leader of War Production, Krupp submitted a “secret” document entitled, “Declaration of Political Attitude,” dated 6 February 1937, in which he stated:

“I herewith declare that I stand by the National Socialist conception of the State without reserve and that I have not been active in any way against the interests of the people.”

* * * * * *

“I am aware that should I say or do anything which constitutes an attack against the National Socialist conception of the State, I must expect, in addition to legal proceedings, my dismissal from the post of Economic Leader of War Production.” (D-63).

E. KRUPP SUPPORTED THE CONSPIRATORS’ PROPAGANDA PROGRAM; LENT HIS ORGANIZATION TO THE DISSEMINATION OF NAZI PROPAGANDA ABROAD; AND USED HIS EMPLOYEES IN ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE AIMS AND PURPOSES OF THE NAZI CONSPIRACY.

(1) In April 1933, Krupp contributed 20,000 marks to Rosenberg for the purpose of counteracting anti-Nazi propaganda abroad. In a letter to Krupp dated 26 April 1933, Rosenberg said:

“Once more my most cordial thanks for not having shunned the inconvenience of the journey in order to participate at yesterday’s intimate conference. I am glad to determine, on the basis of our discussion, that you too welcome the organization of an active counter-action abroad, in the interest of State and Economy, and express to you the highest thanks for the support of a monetary kind as well, which you have subscribed to our work. Very shortly a quantity of material will be sent to you promptly and will subsequently be distributed throughout the world in a comprehensive compilation.” (D-158; see also D-208 and D-242)

(2) In a memorandum dated 12 October 1939, entitled “Distribution of Official Propaganda Literature Abroad with the Help of our Foreign Connections,” concerning a visit by a Mr. Lackmann of Ribbentrop’s private foreign office, Von Raussendorff, a Krupp official, wrote:

“I informed Mr. L. that our Firm had put itself years ago at the disposal of official Bureaus for purposes of foreign propaganda and that we had supported all requests addressed to us to the utmost. * * * Only by personal handling can our connections abroad be used and kept receptive to effective propaganda. With the present lively activity of the ‘Secret Service’ it must be avoided, not only in the interest of our Firm but also in the interest of Germany as a whole, that our agents in neutral foreign countries would come through improper handling to the attention of the ‘Secret Service’ and economically ruined by it within a short time.

“* * * If additional distributions of propaganda literature were desired, a propaganda-leaflet should be sent to us, and after examining it, we would advise the official Bureau what quantity of such printed matter could be mailed abroad through us, at our expense, as heretofore.” (D-206)

(3) In a memorandum dated 14 October 1937, concerning a visit by Menzel of the Intelligence Office of the Combined Services Ministry, Sonnenberg, a Krupp official, wrote:

“* * * Menzel asked for intelligence on foreign armaments (but not including matters published in newspapers) received by Krupp from their agents abroad and through other channels to be passed on to Combined Services Intelligence [Abwehrabteilung des RKM.]. * * *”

“On our part we undertook to supply information to the Combined Ministry [RKM] as required.” (D-167)

The results of a later visit by Menzel, in the company of Kapitaen zur See Globig, of the Information Department, Naval Armaments Branch, are reported in a memorandum dated 25 June 1939 by Dr. Conn, a Krupp official. In the course of this memorandum, which is entitled “Intelligence and Information,” Dr. Conn stated:

“1. Kapitaen zur See Globig whom I had known for a long time, spoke to me quite frankly and openly. It is therefore impossible to embody parts of our discussion in this report.”

* * * * * *

“Similarly to Kapitaen zur See Globig he [Menzel] stressed the point that in view of the progressive disappearance of public and easily accessible sources of information, the information obtained through our representatives abroad was of increasing value. This method of obtaining intelligence would have to be followed up much more drastically than in the past.”

* * * * * *

“His [Menzel’s] third point was a request to utilize foreign visitors for obtaining intelligence. I replied that this was being done already, but that it was necessary to proceed very carefully, to avoid arousing suspicion on the part of the visitors.”

“I gave him to understand that we were slightly disappointed with the collaboration with Intelligence [Abwehr Abteilung] since we had supplied information, but had received none in return. Menzel explained that Intelligence was only a collating centre and that they were merely passing on information, the value of which they were unable to judge by themselves, to the departments concerned; any information for us would therefore have to come from those departments only. Exceptions were only made in the case of intelligence of universal importance such as e.g. the long range gun [Ferngeschuetz] some time ago.”

“This remark is important concerning the way in which we should present our information at Berlin. The departments receiving the information through Intelligence, must be able to see that it originates from Krupp, so that they might feel themselves under obligation to let us have some information in return.” (D-167)

In a memorandum marked “secret,” relating to foreign anti-aircraft guns, Sonnenberg wrote on 8 May 1939:

“I have gained the impression that from no other side do the respective Army departments get such far reaching support in their investigation of foreign armaments as from Fr. Krupp.” (D-170).

F. KRUPP PUBLICLY APPROVED THE SUCCESSIVE CRIMES AGAINST THE PEACE PERPETRATED BY THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS.

(1) In a speech dated 6 April 1938, shortly after Schuschnigg had been compelled to capitulate to the Nazi conspirators’ threat of force, Krupp stated:

“At our family party, today as well, our first thought, our first glass, is raised in deep appreciation to our Fuehrer. We are still under the lasting impression of the mighty happenings of the last four weeks; so are those of us who until a short time ago were forced to wait impatiently for these developments outside our State frontiers. To the fulfillment of century-old dreams consciously arrived at, to the fulfillment of the life-long wish of Adolf Hitler—thanks to his faith, thanks to his determination, thanks to his heart, to him, our Fuehrer, a threefold, deeply thankful,

Sieg Heil.” (D-391).

(2) In a speech dated 7 April 1938, Krupp, in urging all Germans in the impending election of 10 April to approve Hitler’s invasion of Austria, stated:

“Three more days separate us from the day of the Plebiscite to which our Fuehrer calls us, from the Plebiscite concerning Greater Germany, at the same time a Plebiscite in which the proof of faith in our Fuehrer concerns every individual’s conscience.

“Full with thanks for what Adolf Hitler has bestowed and secured for the German people in little more than five years’ leadership through internal and external peace he is worthy of the deepest felt ‘Yes’ from everyone of us!

“To him, our Fuehrer and Chancellor a threefold

Sieg Heil!” (D-387)

(3) In a speech delivered on 13 October 1938, on the occasion of Hitler’s visit to the Krupp works after the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland, Krupp said:

“My Fuehrer,

“To be able to greet you at the Krupp Works, in our home, in the name of my wife and my own, as well as in the name of those close to me and also in that of the greater plant family, so shortly after the world-shaking events of the last weeks, is a great honour and a heart-felt joy to me.

“Perhaps no plant and no home can feel more deeply and more gratefully than ours the changes in the last decades; none can be more proudly conscious to be allowed to participate in the mighty tasks set by you.

“Before us stands now the basic and undeniable world-encircling success, in its total extent perhaps not fully grasped, which your faith and strong will, your nerves and your initiative have achieved.

“May no German ever forget how deeply gratitude therefore put us under obligation, how proud we may be to be recognized once more in the world as a free, equal, great German People.

“With the thanks of my family, of our plants, of our entire Ruhr District filled with the urge to work, I must express united gratitude, springing from a full warm heart, from the Sudeten District which is now a part of the German Reich.”

* * * * * *

“Heil to Thee, my Fuehrer.” (D-304)

(4) Shortly after the conspirators launched their aggression against Poland, Krupp stated to the workers in his plant:

“The Fuehrer has made his decision, not lightheartedly but in the consciousness of responsibility to his people, to the entire future of the German Nation—we have all heard that in his Reichstag speech last Friday.”

* * * * * *

“A hard struggle, perhaps hardly appreciated to its fullest extent, lies before us. The entire German Nation must face this test of fire in unshakable unity, young or old, man or woman, everyone must and will do his duty at his post, do more than just what his duty demands and devote his entire strength to the task assigned to him. Therefore let us also, as Krupp Members, remain determined. May God protect our Fuehrer and our people!” (D-363)

(5) In a speech dated 6 May 1941, commemorating the successes of the Nazi aggression in the West, Krupp stated:

“The one who, like myself, had the chance to visit and thoroughly inspect during the last weeks the fields where our superb troops made the breakthrough in the West—

“who could hear on that occasion the roar of our Airforce against England—

“who witnessed how our U-boats and speedboats distinguished themselves against the remains of England’s sea-might—

“such a person is bound to be thankfully proud to be able to contribute through his labours to assure to our fighters the weapons which they need for their battle—

“such a person is and remains devotedly and respectfully conscious that the nicest machines, the most effective instruments mean little, no, nothing, without the complete unselfish and trusting share of the individual, whose trust is assured through his knowledge of, and his faith in, the genius of his Fuehrer, who embodies the worth of the German people, their honour and might. To him, our Fuehrer, we direct also in this hour in the Spring month of May our thoughts, renew our solemn oath, present our heartiest wishes and give thanks to him.

“Adolf Hitler—Sieg Heil!” (D-390)

G. KRUPP AS HEAD OF THE KRUPP CONCERN, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMON PLAN TO EXPLOIT THE PEOPLE OF OCCUPIED COUNTRIES AND PRISONERS OF WAR, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPELLING PERSONS FORCIBLY DEPORTED FROM OCCUPIED COUNTRIES AND PRISONERS OF WAR TO WORK AGAINST THEIR WILL AND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ARMS AND MUNITIONS. THESE ACTS AND PRACTICES WERE CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 6 AND 52 OF THE HAGUE REGULATIONS, 1907, TO ARTICLE 31 OF THE PRISONERS OF WAR CONVENTION (GENEVA 1929), THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR, AND TO ARTICLES 6(b) AND 6(c) OF THE CHARTER.

(1) Charts marked “secret” have been found which show the number and nationalities of prisoners of war and foreign workers employed in each of the workshops in the Fried. Krupp Cast Steel Works at Essen, for the period from December 1940 to 1 February 1945. These charts, when read in conjunction with an affidavit by a Krupp official concerning the materials produced in the various Essen workshops, reveal that French and Russian prisoners of war and slave laborers from virtually every country occupied by Germany were used in the production of arms and munitions. Thus, they were compelled to work in departments engaged in the construction of turrets for tanks and carriages for heavy Army and Navy guns; the assembling of marine gun turrets, 10.5 cm. marine guns, and 15 cm. torpedo-boat guns; the manufacture of crankshafts for S-boats and aeroplanes, etc. (Charts and affidavit relating to production in the workshops of Fried. Krupp Cast Steel Works by prisoners of war and foreign workers, not here reproduced.) Affidavits of workers in the Krupp workshops afford added proof that prisoners of war and foreign laborers were used by Krupp in the manufacture of arms and munitions (see D-253, D-265, D-279).

(2) The prisoners of war and foreign workers at the Krupp factories did not voluntarily engage in the manufacture of arms and munitions; they were forced to do so. This fact is clearly shown by the following:

(a) Workers were brought to Essen from Poland and Russia in grossly overcrowded, unheated, and unsanitary cattle cars and upon debarking, were beaten, kicked, and otherwise inhumanely treated. An employee of the Reich Railway at Essen has described these conditions as follows:

“* * * In the middle of 1941 the first workers arrived from Poland, Galicia and Polish Ukraine. They came to Essen in goods wagons in which potatoes, building materials and also cattle have been transported; they were brought to perform work at Krupp. The cars were jammed full with people. * * * The people were squashed closely together and they had no room for free movement. The Krupp overseers laid special value on the speed the slave workers got in and out of the train. * * * the people were beaten and kicked and generally maltreated in a brutal manner. * * * I could see with my own eyes that sick people who could scarcely walk * * * were taken to work. One could see that it was sometimes difficult for them to move themselves. The same can be said for the Eastern workers and PWs who came to Essen in the middle of 1942.” (D-321; D-367).

(b) Foreign workers were compelled to go to work under guard and were closely watched. In a memorandum dated 7 April 1942, entitled “employment of foreign workers”, from the Ignitor workshop of the Krupp Essen plant, it is stated:

“In the course of last week, due to the fact that the foreign workers, especially Poles, could not be relied upon to appear at work, there was an extraordinary decrease in production; loss of money and fines did not obtain the desired results.

“Especially during short (bank) holidays we were not able to find a responsible person in the camp Seumannstrasse, to whom we could have referred. We ourselves are short of guards to fetch the Poles from their camp, and to guard them overnight.” (D-270; re compulsion exerted by guards in marching foreign workers to work, see also D-253).

(c) After working hours, foreign workers were confined in camps under barbed wire enclosures and were carefully guarded. Dr. Jaeger, senior camp doctor in Krupp’s workers’ camps, has stated in an affidavit:

“The eastern workers and Poles who laboured in the Krupp works at Essen were kept at camps at Seumannstrasse, Spenlestrasse, Grieperstrasse, Heegstrasse, Germaniastrasse, Kapitan-Lehmannstrasse, Dechenschule, and Kramerplatz. * * * All these camps were surrounded by barbed wire and were closely guarded.” (D-288)

H. CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 4, 6, 7, AND 46 OF THE HAGUE REGULATIONS, 1907, ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE PRISONERS OF WAR CONVENTION (GENEVA 1929), THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR, AND ARTICLES 6(b) AND 6(c) OF THE CHARTER, KRUPP, AS HEAD OF THE KRUPP CONCERN, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DENYING ADEQUATE FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHING, AND MEDICAL CARE AND ATTENTION TO PRISONERS OF WAR AND WORKERS FORCIBLY DEPORTED FROM OCCUPIED COUNTRIES, FOR FORCING THEM TO WORK UNDER INHUMANE CONDITIONS, AND FOR TORTURING THEM AND SUBJECTING THEM TO INDIGNITIES.

(1) The prisoners of war and foreign laborers at the Krupp works were undernourished and forced to work on a virtual starvation diet.

(a) In a memorandum upon Krupp stationery to Mr. Hupe, Director of the Krupp locomotive factory in Essen, dated 14 March 1942 and entitled “Employment of Russians”, it was said:

“During the last few days we have established that the food for the Russians employed here is so miserable, that the people are getting weaker from day to day.

“Investigations showed that single Russians are not able to place a piece of metal for turning into position for instance, because of lack of physical strength. The same conditions exist at all places of work where Russians are employed.” (D-316)

(b) In a memorandum dated 18 March 1942, the following was reported from the Krupp armoured car repair shop:

“I got the food this evening after Mr. Balz telephoned, but I had quite a struggle with the people responsible in the camp before I got anything at all. They always told me that the people had already received the day’s rations and there wasn’t any more. What the gentlemen understand under a day’s ration is a complete puzzle to me. The food as a whole was a puzzle too, because they ladled me out the thinnest of any already watery soup. It was literally water with a handful of turnips and it looked as if it were washing up water.

“Please tell Mr. Balz again definitely so that the matter is finally cleared up, that it cannot continue having people perish here at work.” (D-310)

(c) In a memorandum dated 20 March 1942 to Mr. Ihn, one of the Krupp Directors, Dinkelacker, a Krupp official, wrote:

“The Deputy Works Manager Mr. Mustin, who also employs a number of such Russian workers and who is quite satisfied with their performance, went to the camp in Kramerplatz on my inducement and had a talk with Mr. Welberg, the Camp Commandant. Mr. Hassel from the Works Police who was present at the time, butted in and declared that one should not believe what the people said. Also that one was dealing with Bolsheviks and they ought to have beatings substituted for food.” (D-318)

(d) In a memorandum dated 26 March 1942, to Mr. Hupe concerning the use of Russian prisoners of war and civilian workers, it was reported:

“The reason why the Russians are not capable of production is, in my opinion, that the food which they are given will never give them the strength for working which you hope for. The food one day, for instance, consisted of a watery soup with cabbage leaves and a few pieces of turnip. The punctual appearance of the food leaves a good deal to be desired too.” (D-297)

(e) In a memorandum dated 8 December 1942, Haller, a Krupp official, wrote:

“The complaints from our foreign workers about insufficient food have increased lately. * * *”

“We experienced a very forcible confirmation of these complaints the other day when we drew the food for the Eastern workers from the kitchen in Kramerplatz. On 5.12.42 the midday meal contained unpeeled, whole potatoes which were not even properly cooked; on 7.12.42, there was soup on which cabbage leaves floated, the sight of which made me feel sick.” (D-366)

(f) Dr. Jaeger, senior camp doctor in the Krupps’ workers’ camps, has stated under oath that not only did the plan for food distribution to foreign workers call for a very small quantity of meat every week, but also that they received only contaminated meats rejected by the health authorities, such as horse or tuberculin infested meat (D-288).

(2) The prisoners of war and foreign workers at the Krupp factories were forced to live in grossly overcrowded hutted camps and otherwise were denied adequate shelter.

(a) In a sworn statement, Dr. Jaeger, senior camp doctor of the Krupp workers’ camps, has stated with respect to the Krupp camps at which the eastern workers and Poles were kept:

“Conditions in all these camps were extremely bad. The camps were greatly overcrowded. In some camps there were over twice as many people in a barrack as health conditions permitted.”

* * * * * *

“Sanitary conditions were exceedingly bad. At Kramerplatz, where approximately 1,200 eastern workers were crowded into the rooms of an old school, the sanitary conditions were atrocious in the extreme. Only 10 children’s toilets were available for the 1,200 inhabitants. At Dechenschule, 15 children’s toilets were available for the 400-500 eastern workers. Excretion contaminated the entire floors of these lavatories. There were also very few facilities for washing.” (D-288)

(b) Statistics upon the Krupp camps compiled by Krupp officials in 1942 for the Essen health authorities show that in the Krupp Seumannstrasse camp 1784 beds were compressed into a surface area of 7844 square meters; in the Krupp Bottroperstrasse camp 874 beds were crowded into a surface area of 3585 square meters; and that in other Krupp camps the congestion was even greater (D-143).

(c) In a memorandum dated 12 June 1944, Dr. Stinnesbeck, a doctor retained by the Krupp works, reported, with respect to the Krupp prisoner of war camp at Noggerathstrasse that:

“315 prisoners are still accommodated in the camp. 170 of these are no longer in barracks but in the tunnel in Grunerstrasse under the Essen-Mulheim railway line. This tunnel is damp and is not suitable for continued accommodation of human beings. The rest of the prisoners are accommodated in 10 different factories in Krupps works.” (D-335)

(d) In a special medical report marked “strictly confidential”, dated 2 September 1944, concerning the same prisoner of war camp, Dr. Jaeger wrote:

“The P. O. W. camp in the Noggerathstrasse is in a frightful condition. The people live in ash bins, dog kennels, old baking ovens and in self-made huts.” (D-339).

(3) The prisoners of war and foreign workers at the Krupp factories were denied adequate clothing.

(a) Dr. Jaeger, senior camp doctor in Krupps’ workers’ camps, has stated under oath:

“The clothing of the eastern workers was likewise completely inadequate. They worked and slept in the same clothing in which they had arrived from the east. Virtually all of them had no overcoats and were compelled, therefore, to use their blankets as coats in cold and rainy weather. In view of the shortage of shoes, many workers were forced to go to work in their bare feet, even in the winter. Wooden shoes were given to some of the workers, but their quality was such as to give the workers sore feet. Many workers preferred to go to work in their bare feet rather than endure the suffering caused by the wooden shoes. Apart from the wooden shoes, no clothing of any kind was issued to the workers until the latter part of 1943, when a single blue work suit was issued to some of them. To my knowledge, this represented the sole issue of clothing to the workers from the time of their arrival until the American forces entered Essen.” (D-288)

(b) In a memorandum to Mr. Ihn, a Krupp director, dated 20 October 1942, Dr. Wiehle, head of the Krupp hospital in Essen, wrote:

“It has already been pointed out several times at conferences that the clothing for Eastern workers, men and women, is not sufficient. With regard to the cold weather, the camp physician today called our attention to the fact that the number of colds is going up because of the question of insufficient clothing.

“Many of the men and women still have to go barefooted. They have no underwear and it often happens that people who wear foot bandages because of injuries walk barefooted on these bandages.” (D-271; see also D-355, D-312)

(4) Prisoners of war and foreign laborers at the Krupp works were denied adequate medical care and treatment, and as a consequence, suffered severely from a multitude of diseases and ailments.

(a) In the above mentioned affidavit, Dr. Jaeger has stated:

“The percentage of eastern workers who were ill was twice as great as among the Germans. Tuberculosis was particularly widespread among the eastern workers. The T.B. rate among them was 4 times the normal rate (2% eastern workers, .5% Germans). At Dechenschule approximately 2½% of the workers suffered from open T.B. These were all active T.B. cases. The Tartars and Kirghiz suffered most; as soon as they were overcome by this disease they collapsed like flies. The cause was bad housing, the poor quality and insufficient quantity of food, overwork, and insufficient rest.

“These workers were likewise afflicted with spotted fever. Lice, the carrier of this disease, together with countless fleas, bugs and other vermin, tortured the inhabitants of these camps. As a result of the filthy conditions of the camps nearly all eastern workers were afflicted with skin disease. The shortage of food also caused many cases of Hunger-Odem, Nephritis and Shighakruse.

“It was the general rule that workers were compelled to go to work unless a camp doctor had prescribed that they were unfit for work. At Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse, Germaniastrasse, Kapitan-Lehmannstrasse, and Dechenschule, there was no daily sick call. At these camps, the doctors did not appear for two or three days. As a consequence, workers were forced to go to work despite illnesses.”

* * * * * *

“At the end of 1943, or the beginning of 1944,—I am not completely sure of the exact date—I obtained permission for the first time to visit the prisoner of war camps. My inspection revealed that conditions at these camps were even worse than those I had found at the camps of the eastern workers in 1942. Medical supplies at such camps were virtually non-existent. In an effort to cure this intolerable situation, I contacted the Wehrmacht authorities whose duty it was to provide medical care for the prisoners of war. My persistent efforts came to nothing. After visiting and pressing them over a period of two weeks, I was given a total of 100 aspirin tablets for over 3,000 prisoners of war.” (D-288)

(b) In a memorandum dated 7 May 1943, prepared at the Krupp hospital, entitled “Deaths of Eastern Workers,” report was made of the death of 54 “eastern workers.” Of this number, 38 died of tuberculosis, 2 of undernourishment, and 2 of intestinal disease. (D-283)

(c) In his “strictly confidential” report concerning the prisoner of war camp at Noggerathstrasse, Dr. Jaeger reported:

“The food is barely sufficient. Krupp is responsible for housing and feeding. The supply of medicine and bandages is so extremely bad that proper medical treatment was not possible in many cases. This fact is detrimental to the P. W. camp. It is astonishing that the number of sick is not higher than it is and it moves between 9 and 10 percent.” (D-339; also D-313).

(d) In a special medical report dated 28 July 1944, Dr. Jaeger wrote:

“The sick barrack in Camp Rabenhorst is in such bad condition, one cannot speak of a sick barrack anymore. The rain leaks through in every corner. The housing of the ill is therefore impossible. The necessary labour for production is in danger because those persons who are ill cannot recover. * * *” (D-338)

(5) Russian juveniles were compelled to work at the Krupp factories, and prisoners of war and foreign workers were generally forced to work long hours, to and beyond the point of exhaustion.

(a) In a memorandum marked “secret”, dated 14 August 1942, Reiff, a Krupp official, wrote:

“* * * I am under the impression that the better Russian workers are first of all chosen for the works in Central and Eastern Germany. We really get the bad remainders only. Just now 600 Russians, consisting of 450 women and 150 juveniles, 14 years of age, arrived.” (D-348; similar proof is contained in D-281).

(b) In a memorandum from the Chief of the Krupp Camp Catering Department, it is stated:

“* * * It is to be considered that foreigners must work 12 hours on principle out of which, 1 hour counts as a break and consequently will not be paid.” (D-233; for evidence concerning complete exhaustion of foreign workers and prisoners of war, see D-313).

(6) The prisoners of war and foreign laborers used at the Krupp works were beaten, tortured, and subjected to inhuman indignities.

(a) In a sworn statement, Heinrich Buschhauer has stated:

“* * * I admit that I hit Russians. The Russians were very willing and attentive. The clothing of the Russians was very bad and torn. Their feet were wrapped in rags. The appearance of the people was bad, they were thin and pale. Their cheeks had fallen in completely. In spite of this, I was forced to ill-treat the people on the orders of works manager Theile. I have boxed the people’s ears and beaten them with a ¾ rubber tube and a wooden stick. * * * The more energetic I went against these people, the more the Works Manager liked it. I * * * had to drive and beat the Russians in order to get increased production from them. At times, I had up to two thousand foreigners under me. The Russians could not possibly work more than they did, because the food was too bad and too little. The Works management, however, wanted to get still higher performance from them. It often happened that the Russians, so utterly weakened, collapsed. * * *”

* * * * * *

“The conditions which I have described above continued the whole of the years I was in the boiler making department. On 20th February 1943, I was transferred from the boiler making shop to Nidia.” (D-305).

(b) Walter Thoene, a Krupp employee, likewise admitted in a sworn statement that he constantly beat foreign workers. He stated:

“I admit that I punched and beat Hungarian Jewesses who I had to supervise in No. 3 Steel Moulding Shop. I did not do this of my own free will but was ordered to do so by my works manager Reif, who was a Party Member like I was. Almost every day this unscrupulous man held me to it in no mistakable manner to driving on these Jewesses and getting better performances from them. He also always emphasized that I should not be trivial in the choice of means, and if necessary, hit them like hitting a piece of cold iron. As soon as I saw that these women were standing near the ovens, I had to drive them back to their work.” (D-355)

Comparable admission were made by August Kleinschmidt, another Krupp employee. (D-306)

(c) Dr. Apolinary Gotowicki, a doctor in the Polish Army, who was taken a prisoner of war and in that capacity attended some Russian, Polish and French prisoners of war at the Krupp factories, has stated under oath:

“* * * Every day, at least 10 people were brought to me whose bodies were covered with bruises on account of the continual beatings with rubber tubes, steel switches or sticks. The people were often writhing with agony and it was impossible for me to give them even a little medical aid. * * * I could notice people daily who on account of hunger or ill-treatment, were slowly dying. Dead people often lay for 2 or 3 days on the pailliases until their bodies stank so badly that fellow prisoners took them outside and buried them somewhere. * * * I have seen with my own eyes the prisoners coming back from Krupps and how they collapsed on the march and had to be wheeled back on barrows or carried by their comrades. * * * The work which they had to perform was very heavy and dangerous and many cases happened where people had cut their fingers, hands or legs. These accidents were very serious and the people came to me and asked me for medical help. But it wasn’t even possible for me to keep them from work for a day or two, although I had been to the Krupp directorate and asked for permission to do so. At the end of 1941, 2 people died daily and in 1942 the deaths increased to 3-4 per day.” (D-313)

(d) A particular form of torture which was inflicted upon Russian workers was a steel cabinet specially manufactured by Krupp, into which workers were thrown after beatings. The cabinets are shown in photographs attached to a sworn statement wherein it is stated:

“Photograph ‘A’ shows an iron cupboard which was specially manufactured by the Firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian workers to such an extent that it is impossible to describe. Men and women were often locked in one compartment of the cupboard, in which a man could scarcely stand, for long periods. The measurements of this compartment are height 1.52 meters, breadth and depth 40 to 50 cm. each. In fact, people were often kicked and pressed into one compartment in pairs. At the top of the cupboard, there were sieve-like air holes through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims during the ice-cold winter.” (D-382; for further evidence of constant beatings of foreign workers, see D-253, D-312, D-354, and D-267).

(e) Records found in the Krupp files plainly indicate that the practice of beating and torturing prisoners of war and foreign workers was deliberately prescribed by Krupp officials. Steel switches which were used to beat the workers were distributed pursuant to the instructions of Kupke, head of the Krupp camps for foreign workers (D-230). In a memorandum dated 19 March 1942, from the Krupp Works Catering Department, it was said:

“* * * With regards to the times ahead it seems desirable to us, to draw attention to the authorities concerned, with the necessary pressure, to the fact that only severest treatment of the French prisoners of war will ensure that they maintain their performance even with the present food position, which is the same for German workers.” (D-278).

As previously shown, Hassel, an official in the Krupp works police, stated that the Russians “ought to have beatings substituted for food” (D-318).

(7) The Krupp companies specifically requested and actively sought out the employment of prisoners of war and foreign laborers.

(a) In a memorandum dated 13 July 1942 by Weinhold, a Krupp official, complaint was registered over the fact that “the foreign laborers are only available two to three months after they have been asked for by us.” (D-281).

(b) In a letter to the Krupp firm dated 27 August 1942, Colonel Zimmerman of the Oberkommando des Heeres, said:

“According to our estimate, there ought to be enough workers in your ignitor workshops to reach the demanded production figure. This especially, as the 105 Russians, demanded by your firm at the Conference of the special committee M 111 on the 24.4.42, were assigned to your works at the beginning of June re-letter from Wa J Ru (Mun. 2). * * *

“Unfortunately, I found out at the sitting of the special committee M 111 on the 26.8.42 that the firm of Krupp asks for another 55 workers, including 25 skilled labourers, without having a corresponding raise in the production figures. I cannot judge from here, what the reasons for this are.” (D-345)

(c) In a memorandum dated 21 December 1942 concerning the possibility of the Krupp works obtaining additional conscripted French workers, Dr. Lehmann, a Krupp official, stated:

“* * * We discussed how far it would be possible for complete shifts of workers conscripted from French factories to be transferred to Essen. We are to collaborate as far as practicable in the splitting up of our requirements amongst individual military government offices and military police posts. So far as possible one of our representatives is to assist in the selection from amongst the conscripts.” (D-196; see also D-280)

(8) Concentration camp laborers, who were brought to the Krupp works at the request of Krupp officials, were subjected to persecution, degradation, despoilment, and torture in a manner similar to that of prisoners of war and slave laborers.

(a) Mr. Ihn, a director of the Krupp firm, has stated in a signed but unsworn statement, that the Krupp firm first asked for concentration camp labor on 22 September 1942, and that the first group of them arrived “in the summer or autumn of 1944” (D-274).

(b) The fact that concentration camp labor was requested by the Krupp works; that such persons were to be confined behind barbed wire enclosures; and that they were to be closely guarded by SS personnel is further shown in a memorandum entitled “Visit of the Director of Distribution of Workers of the Weimar-Buchenwald Concentration Camp; SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Schwarz on 26-7-44”, written by Trockel, a Krupp official. In the course of this memorandum, Trockel stated:

“Herr Schwarz came on behalf of his Commandant SS Standartenfuehrer Pister to talk over with us, the question of employment of K1 detainees. He pointed out that the employment of men could not be reckoned with for a considerable period. Our last request was for 700 women.”

* * * * * *

“As not less than 500 women would be assigned, we agreed that the figure should remain at 500 women in order that the assignment should not be endangered. * * *”

* * * * * *

“* * * The main things are the erection of a barbed wire fence in front of the hall which allows a small exit and the erection of a small barracks for the Commander of the guard and his duty office and for the German female guard personnel. * * *”

* * * * * *

“The SS are providing a guard consisting of guard commander and 10 men. For 520 women we have to name approx. 45 German women who will be sworn in to the SS, given 3 weeks training in the women’s camp at Ravensbrueck and then given full official supervision duties by the SS. * * *” (D-238)

(c) Dr. Jaeger, senior camp doctor in the Krupp camps, has described conditions at the camp which the Krupp works maintained for concentration camp labor as follows:

“Camp Humboldtstrasse had been inhabited by Italian prisoners of war. After it had been destroyed by an air raid, the Italians were removed and 600 Jewish females from Buchenwald Concentration Camp were brought in to work at the Krupp factories. Upon my first visit at Camp Humboldtstrasse, I found these females suffering from open festering wounds and other diseases.

“I was the first doctor they had seen for at least a fortnight. There was no doctor in attendance at the camp. There were no medical supplies in the camp. They had no shoes and went about in their bare feet. The sole clothing of each consisted of a sack with holes for their arms and head. Their hair was shorn. The camp was surrounded by barbed wire and closely guarded by SS guards.

“The amount of food in the camp was extremely meagre and of very poor quality. The houses in which they lived consisted of the ruins of former barracks and they afforded no shelter against rain and other weather conditions. I reported to my superiors that the guards lived and slept outside their barracks as one could not enter them without being attacked by 10, 20 and up to 30 fleas. One camp doctor employed by me refused to enter the camp again after he had been bitten very badly. I visited this camp with a Mr. Grono on two occasions and both times we left the camp badly bitten. We had great difficulty in getting rid of the fleas and insects which had attacked us. As a result of this attack by insects of this camp, I got large boils on my arms and the rest of my body. I asked my superiors at the Krupp works to undertake the necessary steps to delouse the camp so as to put an end to this unbearable, vermin-infested condition. Despite this report, I did not find any improvement in sanitary conditions at the camp on my second visit a fortnight later.” (D-288)

(d) The conditions under which the concentration camp workers existed at the Krupp camps and factories and the indignities and barbarities to which they were subjected are vividly described in affidavits by such workers (D-256; D-277; D-272). In general, the affidavits disclose that these concentration camp laborers slept on bare floors of damp, windowless and lightless cellars; that they had no water for drinking or cleansing purposes; that they were compelled to do work far beyond their strength; that they were mercilessly beaten; that they were given one wretched meal a day, consisting of a dirty watery soup with a thin slice of black bread; and that many of them died from starvation, tuberculosis and overexertion. A chart entitled “Fried. Krupp Berthawerk, Markstaedt Breslau, Number of Occupied Foreigners, Prisoners of War and Concentration Camp Inmates” shows the use of concentration camp labor at that factory, as well as at the above-mentioned Krupp company in Essen (D-298).

(9) Charts prepared by Krupp officials show that in September 1943, the Krupp concerns employed 39,245 foreign workers and 11,224 prisoners of war, and that the number mounted steadily until September 1944, when 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war were used (Chart entitled “Foreigners and Prisoners of War of the Krupp Concern”; chart entitled “Cast Steel Works, Number of Prisoners of War and Foreigners”, not here reproduced.) The majority of the foreign laborers consisted of Russians, French, Poles, and Dutch.

I. AS REWARD FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS’ PROGRAM, KRUPP REAPED LARGE PROFITS, WAS PERMITTED TO EXPAND HIS INDUSTRIAL EMPIRE, AND RECEIVED HIGH HONORS AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FROM THE NAZI GOVERNMENT.

(1) Although the Krupp companies operated at a substantial loss in the years immediately preceding Hitler’s accession to power, the huge orders from the Nazi state enabled them to derive vast profits thereafter. In the fiscal year 1 October 1934 to 30 September 1935, the net profits of Fried. Krupp and subsidiaries, after the deduction of taxes, gifts and reserves recognized by the tax authorities, amounted to 57,216,392 marks. In the fiscal year 1937 to 1938 these net profits rose to 97,071,632 marks, and in the fiscal year 1941 they amounted to 111,555,216 marks (Chart entitled “Income and Loss of the Fried. Krupp Combine”; Graph entitled “Profits or Losses of Fried. Krupp and Subsidiaries as Reported to Tax Authorities,” not here reproduced.)

(2) Krupp was permitted, with the approval and at times connivance of Nazi officials, to extend in great measure his participation in other companies, both within and without Germany.

(a) On 1 October 1933 the participations of Fried. Krupp in other concerns had a book value of 75,962,000 marks. By 30 September 1942 the book value of the participations had grown to 132,944,000 marks. On 1 October 1942 the participation account was revalued and carried at a new figure of 187,924,621 marks. In the following year new acquisitions were made in the amount of 50,224,707 marks, so that the book value of the participations as of 1 October 1943 was 237,316,093 marks. Even this figure contains many going concerns in occupied countries which were arbitrarily assigned a book value of only 1 mark. Leaving out of account the revaluation of 1 October 1942, the participation account as of 1 October 1943 would have been 182,952,000 marks. The increment in the participation account is shown in a chart entitled, “Fried. Krupp Participations” (D-341). The expansion of the Krupp concern under the Nazi regime is likewise revealed by a comparison of charts showing the companies in the Krupp concern as of 30 September 1935 and 31 January 1944.

(b) Complete records of all acquisitions by Krupp have not been obtained because, according to Krupp officials, many records were lost or destroyed in air raids. Enough appears, however, to indicate that the Krupp firm did in fact call upon the Nazi authorities to facilitate or make possible the acquisition of property interests in occupied countries. Thus, when Mr. Erhard, the French custodian of Jewish property in France, resisted Krupp’s attempts to acquire a lease of a plant at Liancourt, France, the Krupp concern enlisted the support of the Army to gain its objective. Under threat of replacement by a German official, the French custodian of Jewish property acceded to Krupp’s demands. In a memorandum dated 29 July 1942, found in the Krupp files, it is stated:

“* * * M. Erhard delayed the negotiations to such an extent that finally the appropriate military authorities in Paris urged a settlement. This authority declared that if Mr. Erhard could not make up his mind to sell, at least he would have to give a three years’ lease to Krupp.

“The custodianship would be taken away from Mr. Erhard and a German Commissar would be appointed unless the lease were granted in a very short time.” (D-526).

(3) In recognition of his services to the Nazi State, Krupp was awarded the “Shield of the Eagle of the German Reich” with the inscription “To the German leader of Industry” (D-66).

(4) Because of his unique service to the military power of the Nazi State, Krupp was authorized by special decree of Hitler to transform Fried. Krupp A.G. into a private family concern in order to perpetuate control of the firm by a single member of the Krupp family.

(a) In a letter dated 11 November 1942 to Bormann, Krupp stated:

“* * * You have asked me to make proposals to you which would secure the future of the unified existence of the Krupp works more than this is feasible today. * * * On considering this question we have ascertained that under the present laws the principal solution of the question cannot be carried out. We had to find an entirely new way, therefore, which, just as the law regarding heritage of agricultural property, creates entirely new legislation.” (D-99)

(b) In reply to the above letter, Bormann wrote to Krupp that:

“I have reported the contents of your letters of the 11/11 to the Fuehrer today. He instructed me to inform you that he would be readily prepared to arrange for any possible safeguarding for the continued existence of the works as a family enterprise; it would be the simplest to issue a ‘Lex Krupp’ to start with.” (D-101).

(c) Krupp’s recognition of the unusual character of his proposal is indicated in his letter of 24 February 1943 to Lammers, wherein he said:

“Without doubt, the matter, which is without precedent in economic life, will have to be discussed with the Reichs Minister of Justice and the Reichs Minister of Finance also. * * *” (D-106).

(d) On 12 November 1943 Hitler signed the decree making possible the preservation of the Krupp firm as a family enterprise in recognition of the fact that

“for 132 years the firm of Fried. Krupp, as a family enterprise has achieved outstanding and unique merits for the armed strength of the German people.” (D-120)

In a letter dated 16 November 1943, Lammers wrote to Krupp:

“On 12 November the Fuehrer signed the decree regarding the family enterprise of the firm Fried. Krupp. * * * May I express my heartiest congratulations to you, your wife and the firm Fried. Krupp on the great honor which has been conferred on the merits of the firm Fried. Krupp with this recognition by the Fuehrer.” (D-124).

(e) As the final step in the proceeding, Hitler approved “the statute of the family enterprise Fried. Krupp” which gave effect to his decree of 12 November 1943 (D-131).

(f) In a letter of gratitude to Hitler dated 29 December 1943, Krupp stated:

“* * * By this, you have made a wish come true, which my wife and I had had for years, and thus relieved our hearts of great worry over the future of the Krupp works.”

* * * * * *

“My wife and I, as well as the whole family, are deeply grateful to you for this proof of your confidence. * * *”

“Our special thanks go to you, Mein Fuehrer, also for the great honour and recognition which you have awarded, in the introduction to your decree, to 130 years of the work of Krupps, the work of Krupps done by many generations of faithful followers, and steered and directed by 4 generations of the family Krupp.” (D-135)

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 64 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ *3054-PS │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion │ │ │picture composed of captured German │ │ │film. (USA 167) │ V │ 801 │ │ │ D-62 │Letter from Inspector of War │ │ │Production to Krupp, 21 January 1937. │ VI │ 1028 │ │ │ D-63 │Declaration of political attitude by │ │ │Krupp, 6 February 1937. │ VI │ 1029 │ │ │ D-64 │Letter to Krupp, 3 December 1941, │ │ │enclosing extracts from draft of │ │ │article entitled “Works Leader and │ │ │Armaments Works”, 5 April 1941. │ VI │ 1030 │ │ │ D-66 │Presentation certificate, 7 August │ │ │1940, concerning granting to Krupp of │ │ │Shield of the Eagle of German Reich. │ VI │ 1034 │ │ │ D-88 │Correspondence between Krupp and │ │ │Raeder, 7 and 10 August 1935. │ VI │ 1042 │ │ │ D-94 │Article by Krupp, Manager and Armament│ │ │Worker, from 1 March 1942 issue of │ │ │Krupp magazine. │ VI │ 1043 │ │ │ D-96 │Memorandum on establishment of an │ │ │experimental Tank Factory by the │ │ │Grusonwerk, 21 February 1944. │ VI │ 1047 │ │ │ D-99 │Letter from Krupp to Bormann, 11 │ │ │November 1942. │ VI │ 1048 │ │ │ D-101 │Letter from Bormann to Krupp, 21 │ │ │November 1942. │ VI │ 1050 │ │ │ D-106 │Letter from Krupp to Lammers, 24 │ │ │February 1943. │ VI │ 1050 │ │ │ D-120 │Fuehrer decree on family enterprise of│ │ │the firm Friedrich Krupp. │ VI │ 1051 │ │ │ D-124 │Letter from Lammers to Krupp, 16 │ │ │November 1943. │ VI │ 1053 │ │ │ D-131 │Hitler decree of 21 December 1943, │ │ │approving family enterprise of Krupp. │ VI │ 1054 │ │ │ D-135 │Letter from Krupp to Hitler, 29 │ │ │December 1943. │ VI │ 1054 │ │ │ D-143 │List of barracks and beds in workers │ │ │Hostels and PW camps of Friedrich │ │ │Krupp A.G., and covering letter of 30 │ │ │June 1942. │ VI │ 1058 │ │ │ *D-151 │Krupp, Schacht and Hess correspondence│ │ │in 1933 regarding the Hitler Fund. (GB│ │ │256; USA 831) │ VI │ 1060 │ │ │ D-152 │Memorandum by Pfirsrch on the │ │ │conference at Federal Ministry for │ │ │National Defense in Vienna, 28 │ │ │September 1936. │ VI │ 1062 │ │ │ D-154 │Memorandum, 23 June 1937, in files of │ │ │Friedrich Krupp A.G. concerning order │ │ │for armor plating from Bulgaria. │ VI │ 1062 │ │ │ *D-157 │Letter from Krupp to Hitler, 25 April │ │ │1933, with enclosure. (USA 765) │ VI │ 1063 │ │ │ D-158 │Letter from Rosenberg to Krupp, 26 │ │ │April 1933. │ VI │ 1066 │ │ │ *D-167 │Memoranda by Sonnenberg and Dr. Conn │ │ │concerning exchange of intelligence │ │ │involving Krupp works. (USA 766) │ VI │ 1069 │ │ │ D-170 │Notes of 8 May 1939 by Sonnenberg on │ │ │conference in Berlin concerning │ │ │foreign anti-aircraft guns. │ VI │ 1072 │ │ │ D-191 │Memorandum on reconstruction of │ │ │Krupp’s after war 1914-1918 with │ │ │special reference to armaments │ │ │exports, 25 March 1941. │ VI │ 1076 │ │ │ D-196 │Memoranda by Dr. Lehman concerning │ │ │recruiting of French workers. │ VI │ 1078 │ │ │ D-201 │Telegram from Goering to Krupp. │ VI │ 1080 │ │ │ *D-203 │Speech of Hitler to leading members of│ │ │industry before the election of March │ │ │1933. (USA 767) │ VI │ 1080 │ │ │ *D-204 │Statement of Krupp concerning │ │ │political organization of state and │ │ │economy, 22 February 1933. (USA 768) │ VI │ 1085 │ │ │ *D-206 │Memorandum, 12 October 1939, on │ │ │distribution of propaganda abroad │ │ │through foreign connections of Krupp │ │ │firm. (USA 769) │ VI │ 1085 │ │ │ D-208 │Letter from Krupp to Springorum, 26 │ │ │April 1933. │ VI │ 1087 │ │ │ *D-230 │Instruction for issuing steel switches│ │ │to Krupp camps, 3 January 1945. (USA │ │ │898) │ VI │ 1094 │ │ │ D-233 │Memorandum, 17 October 1944, │ │ │concerning working hours for foreign │ │ │workers. │ VI │ 1095 │ │ │ D-238 │Memorandum by Trockel, 28 July 1944, │ │ │concerning assignation of detainees. │ VI │ 1095 │ │ │ D-242 │Letter from Springorum to Krupp │ │ │concerning contribution of 20,000 │ │ │marks to Rosenberg. │ VI │ 1097 │ │ │ D-249 │Von Bulow memorandum on notes of │ │ │conference with Grassmann, Fuss and │ │ │Kraft, held 9 December 1942, │ │ │concerning History of War Economy. │ VI │ 1098 │ │ │ D-253 │Affidavit of Peter Gutersohn, 3 │ │ │October 1945. │ VI │ 1105 │ │ │ D-256 │Affidavit of Rene Koenigsberg and │ │ │Agnes Koenigsberg, 20 September 1945. │ VI │ 1107 │ │ │ D-265 │Affidavit of Heinrich Ruhnau, 3 │ │ │October 1945. │ VI │ 1108 │ │ │ D-267 │Affidavit of Heinrich Tiedtke, Karl │ │ │Hanke, Johann Berek, 27 September │ │ │1945. │ VI │ 1109 │ │ │ D-270 │Memorandum, 7 April 1942, concerning │ │ │employment of foreign workers. │ VI │ 1110 │ │ │ D-271 │Memorandum from Wiele to Ihn, 20 │ │ │October 1942. │ VI │ 1110 │ │ │ D-272 │Affidavit of Elizabeth and Ernestin │ │ │Roth, 21 September 1945. │ VI │ 1111 │ │ │ D-274 │Statement by Ihn, 1 October 1945. │ VI │ 1112 │ │ │ D-277 │Affidavit of Rosa Katz, 21 September │ │ │1945. │ VI │ 1115 │ │ │ D-278 │Memorandum from Works Catering │ │ │Department to Dr. Lehmann, Employment │ │ │Office, 19 March 1942. │ VI │ 1116 │ │ │ D-279 │Affidavit of Alexander Haverkarte, 1 │ │ │October 1945. │ VI │ 1116 │ │ │ D-280 │Secret memorandum, 17 June 1942, │ │ │concerning need for and obtaining of │ │ │workers for cast steel works. │ VI │ 1117 │ │ │ D-281 │Memorandum by Winhold, 13 July 1942, │ │ │concerning urgent production A.Z. 23 │ │ │(Pr). │ VI │ 1119 │ │ │ *D-283 │Report by Krupp hospitals, 7 May 1943,│ │ │concerning deaths of Eastern Workers. │ │ │(USA 899) │ VII │ 1 │ │ │ D-287 │Letter from Krupp to Raeder, 30 │ │ │October 1942. │ VII │ 1 │ │ │ *D-288 │Affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger, 15 │ │ │October 1945. (USA 202) │ VII │ 2 │ │ │ D-291 │Speech by Krupp, 1 May 1936. │ VII │ 7 │ │ │ D-297 │Memorandum from Theile to Hupe, 26 │ │ │March 1942, concerning employment of │ │ │Russian PWs and civilians. │ VII │ 9 │ │ │ D-298 │Affidavit by Dr. Georg Wolff and │ │ │chart, “Fried. Krupp Berthawerk, │ │ │Markstaedt Breslau, Number of Occupied│ │ │Foreigners, Prisoners of War and │ │ │Concentration Camp Inmates”. │ VII │ 10 │ │ │ D-304 │Krupp speech, 13 October 1938. │ VII │ 12 │ │ │ D-305 │Affidavit of Heinrich Buschhauer, 5 │ │ │October 1945. │ VII │ 13 │ │ │ D-306 │Affidavit of August Kleinschmidt, 11 │ │ │October 1945. │ VII │ 14 │ │ │ D-310 │Memorandum from Grollius to Kolsch, 18│ │ │March 1942. │ VII │ 15 │ │ │ D-312 │Affidavit of Karl Sehnbruch, 11 │ │ │October 1945. │ VII │ 16 │ │ │ *D-313 │Affidavit by Dr. Apolinary Gotowicki, │ │ │October 1945. (USA 901) │ VII │ 18 │ │ │ D-316 │Memorandum to Mr. Hupe, 14 March 1942,│ │ │concerning employment of Russians. │ │ │(USA 201) │ VII │ 20 │ │ │ *D-317 │Krupp speech, “Thoughts about the │ │ │Industrial Enterpriser”, January 1944.│ │ │(USA 770) │ VII │ 21 │ │ │ D-318 │Memorandum from Diwkelaker to Ihn, 20 │ │ │March 1942. │ VII │ 24 │ │ │ *D-321 │Affidavit of Adam Schmidt, 12 October │ │ │1945. (USA 895) │ VII │ 25 │ │ │ D-325 │Affidavit of 17 October 1945 │ │ │concerning payments of Fried. Krupp │ │ │Cast Steel Works to Party and Party │ │ │Organizations. │ VII │ 26 │ │ │ D-332 │Letter from Janssen to NSDAP, 27 June │ │ │1935. │ VII │ 26 │ │ │ *D-335 │Memorandum from Stinnesbeck to Jaeger,│ │ │12 June 1944. (USA 900) │ VII │ 27 │ │ │ D-338 │Special medical report by Dr. Jaeger, │ │ │28 July 1944. │ VII │ 27 │ │ │ D-339 │Special medical report by Dr. Jaeger, │ │ │2 September 1944. │ VII │ 28 │ │ │ D-341 │Affidavit of Johannes Schroeder │ │ │concerning Fried. Krupp │ │ │Participations. │ VII │ 29 │ │ │ D-345 │Letter from Col. Zimmermann to Krupp │ │ │firm, 27 August 1942. │ VII │ 30 │ │ │ D-348 │Secret memo by Reiff concerning │ │ │conference in Berlin, 14 August 1942. │ VII │ 31 │ │ │ D-353 │Speech by Krupp, 18 October 1933, at │ │ │first meeting of Committee for │ │ │Industrial and Social Policy of Reich │ │ │Association of German Industry. │ VII │ 32 │ │ │ D-354 │Affidavit of Paul Lenz, Wilhelm Sill, │ │ │Hermann Rosskothen, Fritz Schink, Karl│ │ │Fortkamp, Wilhelm Piegeler, 5 October │ │ │1945. │ VII │ 34 │ │ │ D-355 │Affidavit of Walter Thoene, 8 October │ │ │1945. │ VII │ 36 │ │ │ D-363 │Krupp speech, 4 September 1939. │ VII │ 37 │ │ │ D-366 │Memorandum from Haller to Schuermeyer,│ │ │8 December 1942. │ VII │ 37 │ │ │ D-367 │Affidavit of Heinrich Frauenrath, 12 │ │ │October 1945. │ VII │ 38 │ │ │ D-368 │Letter from Lutze, 15 August 1934, │ │ │concerning use of Hitler Fund. │ VII │ 39 │ │ │ D-373 │Letter from Terboven to Krupp, 24 June│ │ │1935, thanking Krupp for │ │ │contributions. │ VII │ 40 │ │ │ D-375 │Letter from Krupp to Hitler, 24 July │ │ │1942. │ VII │ 40 │ │ │ *D-382 │Affidavit of Raimund Becker, Aloys │ │ │Hoefer, Josef Dahm, 4 October 1945. │ │ │(USA 897) │ VII │ 41 │ │ │ D-385 │Speech by Krupp at first showing of │ │ │Krupp film on 27 October 1935. │ VII │ 42 │ │ │ D-386 │Speech by Krupp on election after │ │ │death of Hindenburg, on 10 August │ │ │1934. │ VII │ 43 │ │ │ D-387 │Speech by Krupp, 7 April 1938. │ VII │ 43 │ │ │ D-390 │Krupp speech to jubilees of plant on 6│ │ │May 1941. │ VII │ 43 │ │ │ D-391 │Speech by Krupp, 6 April 1938. │ VII │ 44 │ │ │ D-392 │Speech by Krupp, 26 January 1934. │ VII │ 45 │ │ │ D-393 │Speech by Krupp, “The Day of Fate of │ │ │the German People”. │ VII │ 47 │ │ │ D-526 │File memorandum, 29 July 1942, │ │ │concerning acquisition of Liancourt │ │ │lease. │ VII │ 71

14. KARL DOENITZ

A. NAVAL AND POLITICAL CAREER.

After his appointment in 1935 as commander of the Weddigen U-boat flotilla—the first flotilla to be formed after the World War in 1918—Doenitz, who thus became in effect commander of U-boats, rose steadily in rank as the U-boat arm expanded until he became an admiral. On 30 January 1943 he was appointed Grand Admiral and succeeded Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, retaining his command of the U-boat arm. Then, on 1 May 1945, he succeeded Hitler as leader of Germany (2887-PS).

Doenitz was awarded the following decorations: On 18 September 1939 he received the Cluster of the Iron Cross, first class, for the U-boat successes in the Baltic during the Polish campaign. This award was followed on 21 April 1940 by the high award of the Knight’s Cross to the Iron Cross, while on 7 April 1943 he received personally from Hitler the Oak Leaf to the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, as the 223rd recipient.

Doenitz’s services in building up the German Navy, and in particular the offensive U-boat arm for the coming war, were outstanding. An extract from the official publication “Das Archiv” on the occasion of Doenitz’s promotion to vice-admiral, dated 27 September 1940, reads as follows:

“* * * In four years of untiring and in the fullest sense of the word uninterrupted work of training, he [Doenitz] succeeds in developing the young U-boat arm, personnel, and material till it is a weapon of a striking power unexpected even by the experts. More than three million gross tons of sunken enemy shipping in only one year achieved with only few boats speak better than words of the services of this man.” (D-436)

An extract from the diary for the German Navy, 1944 edition (1463-PS) emphasizes Doenitz’s contribution. It describes in detail Doenitz’s work in building up the U-boat arm; his ceaseless work in training night and day to close the gap of seventeen years, during which no training had taken place; his responsibility for new improvements and for devising the “pack” tactics which were later to become famous. His position is summarized further as follows:

“* * * In spite of the fact that his duties took on unmeasurable proportions since the beginning of the huge U-boat construction program, the chief was what he always was and always will be, leader and inspiration to all the forces under him. * * * In spite of all his duties, he never lost touch with his men and he showed a masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war.” (1463-PS)

It was not only, however, his ability as a naval officer which won Doenitz these high honors: his promotion to succeed Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy; the personal position he acquired as one of Hitler’s principal advisers; and finally, earlier candidates such as Goering having betrayed Hitler’s trust or finding the position less attractive than they had anticipated, the doubtful honour of becoming Hitler’s successor. These he owed, to his fanatical adherence to Hitler and to the Party, to his belief in the Nazi ideology with which he sought to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people, and to his “masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war” (1463-PS), which may be regarded as synonymous with a capacity for utter ruthlessness.

B. INDOCTRINATION OF NAVAL PERSONNEL WITH NAZI POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.

Doenitz’s attitude to the Nazi Party and its creed is shown by his public utterances. In a speech—subsequently circulated by Doenitz as a Top Secret document for senior officers only and by the hand of officers only—at a meeting of commanders of the Navy in Weimar on 17 December 1943, Doenitz stated (D-443):

“* * * I am a firm adherent of the idea of ideological education. For what is it in the main? Doing his duty is a matter of course for the soldier. But the whole importance, the whole weight of duty done, are only present when the heart and spiritual conviction have a voice in the matter. The result of duty done is then quite different to what it would be if I only carried out my task literally, obediently, and faithfully. It is therefore necessary for the soldier to support the execution of his duty with all his mental, all his spiritual energy, and for this his conviction, his ideology are indispensable. It is therefore necessary for us to train the soldier uniformly, comprehensively, that he may be adjusted ideologically to our Germany. Every dualism, every dissension in this connection, or every divergence, or unpreparedness, imply a weakness in all circumstances. He in whom this grows and thrives in unison is superior to the other. Then indeed the whole importance, the whole weight of his conviction comes into play. It is also nonsense to say that the soldier or the officer must have no politics. The soldier embodies the state in which he lives; he is the representative, the articulate exponent of this state. He must therefore stand with his whole weight behind this state.

“We must travel this road from our deepest conviction. The Russian travels along it. We can only maintain ourselves in this war if we take part in it with holy zeal, with all our fanaticism.

“Not I alone can do this, but it can only be done with the aid of the man who holds the production of Europe in his hand, with Minister Speer. My ambition is to have as many warships for the Navy as possible so as to be able to fight and to strike. It does not matter to me who builds them.” (D-443)

In a speech on the same subject by Doenitz as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to the Commanders in Chief on 15 February 1944, he had this to say:

“From the very start the whole of the officer corps must be so indoctrinated that it feels itself co-responsible for the National Socialist State in its entirety. The officer is the exponent of the state; the idle chatter that the officer is non-political is sheer nonsense.” (D-640)

Doenitz’s position was made unmistakably clear in a speech which he made to the German Navy and the German people on Heroes’ Day, 12 March 1944:

“German men and women!

“* * * What would have become of our country today, if the Fuehrer had not united us under National-Socialism! Split into parties, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, and lacking, as a defense, our present uncompromising world outlook, we would long since have succumbed to the burdens of this war and been subject to the merciless destruction of our adversaries. * * *” (2878-PS) A speech by Doenitz to the Navy on 21 July 1944 shows his fanaticism:

“Men of the Navy! Holy wrath and unlimited anger fill our hearts because of the criminal attempt which was intended to have cost the life of our beloved Fuehrer. Providence wished it otherwise—watched over and protected our Fuehrer, and did not abandon our German fatherland in the fight for its destiny.” (2878-PS)

And then he goes on to deal with the fate which should be meted out to the traitors.

The abolition of the German military salute and the adoption of the Nazi salute in the German forces was due to Doenitz along with Goering and Keitel (2878-PS).

When Adolf Hitler was reported dead, Doenitz spoke over the German radio announcing the Fuehrer’s death and his own succession. The German announcer made this statement:

“It has been reported from the Fuehrer’s Headquarters that our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler has died this afternoon in his battle headquarters at the Reichschancellery fighting to the last breath for Germany against Bolshevism.

“On the 30th April the Fuehrer nominated Grand Admiral Doenitz to be his successor. The Grand Admiral and Fuehrer’s successor will speak to the German nation.” (D-444)

Whereupon Doenitz spoke as follows:

“German men and women, soldiers of the German Armed Forces. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler is dead. The German people bow in deepest sorrow and respect. Early he had recognized the terrible danger of Bolshevism and had dedicated his life to the fight against it. His fight having ended, he died a hero’s death in the capital of the German Reich, after having led an unmistakably straight and steady life.” (D-444)

Doenitz proceeded to issue an order of the day, to the same effect (D-444).

C. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF AGGRESSIVE WARS.

Apart from his services in building up the U-boat arm, there is ample evidence that Doenitz, as Officer Commanding U-boats, took part in the planning and execution of the aggressive wars against Poland, Norway, and Denmark.

(1) Poland. The distribution list on a memorandum by Raeder, dated 16 May 1939, shows that the sixth copy went to the Fuehrer der Unterseeboote, who was Doenitz. This document was a directive for the invasion of Poland (Fall Weiss) (C-126). Another memorandum from Raeder’s headquarters, dated 2 August 1939, is addressed to the fleet, and The Flag Officer, U-boats—this is, Doenitz (C-126). This was merely a covering letter on operational directions for the precautionary employment of U-boats in the Atlantic in the event that the intention to carry out Fall Weiss remained unchanged. The second sentence is significant:

“Flag Officer, U-boats, is handing in his operational orders to SKL [Seekriegsleitung, the German Admiralty] by 12 August. A decision on the sailings of U-boats for the Atlantic will probably be made at the middle of August.” (C-126)

Doenitz proceeded to give operational instructions to his U-boats for the operation Fall Weiss. These instructions, signed by him, are not dated, but it is clear from the subject matter that the date must have been before 16 July 1939 (C-172). These operational instructions gave effect to Raeder’s directive (C-126).

(2) Norway and Denmark. An extract from the War Diary of the Naval War Staff of the German Admiralty, dated 3 October 1939, records the fact that the Chief of the Naval War Staff has called for views on the possibility of taking operational bases in Norway (C-122). It states Doenitz’s views as follows:

“* * * Flag Officer U-boats already considers such harbors extremely useful as equipment—and supply—bases for Atlantic U-boats to call at temporarily.” (C-122)

A communication from Doenitz as Flag Officer U-boats, addressed to the Supreme Command of the Navy (the Naval War Staff) dated 9 October 1939, sets out Doenitz’s views on the advantages of Trondheim and Narvik as bases. Doenitz proposes the establishment of a base at Trondheim with Narvik as an alternative (C-5).

Doenitz then gave operation orders to his U-boats for the occupation of Denmark and Norway. This Top Secret order, dated 30 March 1940, under the code name “Hartmut,” provided:

“The naval force will, as they enter the harbor, fly the British flag until the troops have landed, except presumably at Narvik.” (C-151)

(3) England. The preparations for war against England are perhaps best shown by the disposition of the U-boats under Doenitz’s command on 3 September 1939, when war broke out between Germany and the Western Allies. The locations of the sinkings in the following week, including that of the Athenia, provide corroboration. These matters are contained in two charts prepared by the British Admiralty. The first chart sets out the disposition of German submarines on 3 September 1939. The certificate attached to this chart reads:

“This chart has been constructed from a study of the orders issued by Doenitz between 21 August 1939 and 3 September 1939, and subsequently captured. The chart shows the approximate disposition of submarines ordered for the 3rd of September 1939, and cannot be guaranteed accurate in every detail, as the file of captured orders are clearly not complete and some of the submarines shown apparently had received orders at sea on or about September 3 to move to new operational areas. The documents from which this chart was constructed are held by the British Admiralty in London.”

It will be apparent that U-boats which were in the positions indicated on this chart on 3 September 1939 had left Kiel a considerable time before. The location of the U-boat U-30 is particularly significant.

The second chart sets out the sinkings during the first week of the war. The attached certificate reads:

“This chart has been constructed from the official records of the British Admiralty in London. It shows the position and sinkings of the British merchant vessels lost by enemy action in the seven days subsequent to 3 September 1939.”

The location of the sinking of the Athenia is significant.

D. PARTICIPATION IN CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT VIOLATIONS OF RULES OF WARFARE.

The course of the war waged against neutral and allied merchant shipping by German U-boats followed, under Doenitz’s direction, a course of consistently increasing ruthlessness.

(1) Attacks on Merchant Shipping. Doenitz displayed “his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war” (1463-PS). From the very early days, merchant ships, both allied and neutral, were sunk without warning, and when operational danger zones had been announced by the German Admiralty, these sinkings continued to take place both within and without those zones. With some exceptions in the early days of the war, no regard was taken for the safety of the crews or passengers of sunken merchant ships, and the announcement claiming a total blockade of the British Isles merely served to confirm the established situation under which U-boat warfare was being conducted without regard to the established rules of international warfare or the requirements of humanity.

The course of the war at sea during the first eighteen months is summarized by two official British reports made at a time when those who compiled them were ignorant of some of the actual orders issued which have since come to hand. An official report of the British Foreign Office summarizes German attacks on merchant shipping during the period 3 September 1939 to September 1940, that is to say, the first year of the war (D-641-A). This report, made shortly after September 1940, states in part as follows:

“* * * During the first twelve months of the war, 2,081,062 tons of Allied shipping, comprising 508 ships, have been lost by enemy action. In addition, 769,213 tons of neutral shipping comprising 253 ships, have also been lost. Nearly all these merchant ships have been sunk by submarine, mine, aircraft or surface craft, and the great majority of them sunk while engaged on their lawful trading occasions. 2,836 Allied merchant seamen have lost their lives in these ships.

“In the last war the practice of the Central Powers was so remote from the recognized procedure that it was thought necessary to set forth once again the rules of warfare in particular as applied to submarines. This was done in the Treaty of London 1930, and in 1936 Germany acceded to these rules. The rules laid down:

“(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of International Law to which surface vessels are subjected.

“(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being summoned, or of active resistance to visit and search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew, and ship’s papers in a place of safety. For this purpose, the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.

“At the beginning of the present war, Germany issued a Prize Ordinance for the regulation of sea warfare and the guidance of her naval officers. Article 74 of this ordinance embodies the submarine rules of the London Treaty. Article 72, however, provides that captured enemy vessels may be destroyed if it seems inexpedient or unsafe to bring them into port, and Article 73 (i) (ii) makes the same provision with regard to neutral vessels which are captured for sailing under enemy convoy, for forcible resistance, or for giving assistance to the enemy. These provisions are certainly not in accordance with the traditional British view but the important point is that, even in these cases, the Prize Ordinance envisages the capture of the merchantman before its destruction. In other words, if the Germans adhered to the rules set out in their own Prize Ordinance, we might have argued the rather fine legal point with them, but we should have no quarrel with them, either on the broader legal issue or on the humanitarian one. In the event, however, it is only too clear that almost from the beginning of the war the Germans abandoned their own principles and waged war with steadily increasing disregard for International Law, and for what is, after all, the ultimate sanction of all law, the protection of human life and property from arbitrary and ruthless attacks.” (D-641-A)

Two instances are then set out:

“On the 30th of September, 1939, came the first sinking of a neutral ship by a submarine without warning and with loss of life. This was the Danish ship ‘Vendia’ bound for the Clyde in ballast. The submarine fired two shots and shortly after torpedoed the ship. The torpedo was fired when the master had already signalled that he would submit to the submarine’s orders and before there had been an opportunity to abandon ship. By November submarines were beginning to sink neutral vessels without warning as a regular thing. On the 12th November the Norwegian ‘Arne Kjode’ was torpedoed in the North Sea without any warning at all. This was a tanker bound from one neutral port to another. The master and four of the crew lost their lives and the remainder were picked up after many hours in open boats. Henceforward, in addition to the failure to establish the nature of the cargo, another element is noticeable, namely an increasing recklessness as to the fate of the crew.” (D-641-A)

And then, dealing with attacks on allied merchant vessels, certain figures are given:

“Ships sunk 241 “Recorded attacks 221 “Illegal attacks 112

“At least 79 of these 112 ships were torpedoed without warning.” (D-641-A)

The report continues:

“By the middle of October submarines were sinking merchant vessels without any regard to the safety of the crews. Yet four months later the Germans were still officially claiming that they were acting in accordance with the Prize Ordinance. Their own semi-official commentators however, had made the position clearer. As regards neutrals, Berlin officials had early in February stated that any neutral ship that is either voluntarily or under compulsion bound for an enemy port—including contraband control harbours—thereby loses its neutrality and must be considered hostile. At the end of February the cat was let out of the bag by a statement that a neutral ship which obtained a navicert from a British Consul in order to avoid putting into a British contraband control base was liable to be sunk by German submarines, even if it was bound from one neutral port to another. As regards Allied ships, in the middle of November 1939 a Berlin warning was issued against the arming of British vessels. By that date a score of British merchantmen had been illegally attacked by gunfire or torpedo from submarines, and after that date some fifteen more unarmed Allied vessels were torpedoed without warning. It is clear, therefore, that not only was the arming fully justified as a defensive measure, but also that neither before nor after this German threat did the German submarines discriminate between armed and unarmed vessels.” (D-641-A)

A similar report covering the next six months (D-641-B) makes these statements:

“On the 30th January 1941, Hitler proclaimed that ‘every ship, with or without convoy, which appears before our torpedo tubes is going to be torpedoed.’ On the face of it, this announcement appears to be uncompromising; and the only qualification provided by the context is that the threats immediately preceding it are specifically addressed to the peoples of the American Continent. German commentators, however, subsequently tried to water it down by contending that Hitler was referring only to ships which attempted to enter the area within which the German ‘total blockade’ is alleged to be in force.

“From one point of view it probably matters little what exactly was Hitler’s meaning, since the only conclusion that can be reached after a study of the facts of enemy warfare on merchant shipping is that enemy action in this field is never limited by the principles which are proclaimed by enemy spokesmen, but solely by the opportunities or lack of them which exist at any given time.”

* * * * * *

“The effect of the German total blockade is to prohibit neutral ships from entering an enormous stretch of sea round Britain (the area extends to about 500 miles west of Ireland, and from the latitude of Bordeaux to that of the Faroe Islands), upon pain of having their ships sunk without warning and their crews killed. As a matter of fact, at least thirty-two neutral ships, exclusive of those sailing in British convoys, have been sunk by enemy action since the declaration of the ‘total blockade’.”

* * * * * *

“Yet, though information is lacking in very many cases, details are available to prove that, during the period under review, at least thirty-eight Allied merchant ships, exclusive of those in convoys, have been torpedoed without warning in or near the ‘total blockade’ area.

“That the Germans themselves have no exaggerated regard for the area is proved by the fact that of the thirty-eight ships referred to at least sixteen were torpedoed outside the limits of the war-zone.”

* * * * * *

“The sinking of the ‘City of Benares’ on the 17th September 1940 is a good example of this. The ‘City of Benares’ was an 11,000-ton liner with 191 passengers on board, including nearly 100 children. She was torpedoed without warning just outside the ‘war zone,’ with the loss of 258 lives, including 77 children. It was blowing a gale, with hail and rain squalls and a very rough sea when the torpedo struck her at about 10 p. m. In the darkness and owing to the prevailing weather conditions, at least four of the twelve boats lowered were capsized. Others were swamped and many people were washed right out of them. In one boat alone sixteen people, including 11 children, died from exposure; in another 22 died, including 15 children; in a third 21 died. The point to be emphasized is not the unusual brutality of this attack but rather that such results are inevitable when a belligerent disregards the rules of sea warfare as the Germans have done and are doing.”

“There are hundreds of similar stories, stories of voyages for days in open boats in Atlantic gales, of men in the water clinging for hours to a raft and gradually dropping off one by one, of crews being machine-gunned as they tried to lower their boats or as they drifted away in them, of seamen being blown to pieces by shells and torpedoes and bombs. The enemy must know that such things are the inevitable result of the type of warfare he has chosen to employ.” (D-641-B)

The total sinkings by U-boats during the war (1939 to 1945) amounted to 2,775 British, Allied, and Neutral ships totalling 14,572,435 gross tons (D-641-C).

Another example of the ruthless nature of the actions conducted by Doenitz’s U-boat commanders, particularly as both British and German versions of the sinking are available, is the sinking of “S. S. Sheaf Mead.” The British report, which includes the German account in the shape of a complete extract from the U-boat’s log, states:

“The British ‘S. S. Sheaf Mead’ was torpedoed without warning on 27 May 1940 with the loss of 31 of the crew. The commander of the U-boat responsible is reported to have behaved in an exceptionally callous manner towards the men clinging to upturned boats and pieces of wood. It was thought that this man was Kapitaenleutnant Oehrn of U-37. The following extract from his diary for 27 May 1940 leaves no doubt on the matter and speaks for itself as to his behaviour.” (D-644)

The relevant extract from the log, at 1554 hours, reads:

“Surface. Stern [referring to the ship which has been torpedoed] is underwater. Bows rise higher. The boats are now on the water. Lucky for them. A picture of complete order. They lie at some distance. The bows rear up quite high. Two men appear from somewhere in the forward part of the ship. They leap and rush with great bounds along the deck down to the stern. The stern disappears. A boat capsizes. Then a boiler explosion. Two men fly through the air, limbs outstretched. Bursting and crashing. Then all is over. A large heap of wreckage floats up. We approach it to identify the name. The crew have saved themselves on wreckage. We fish out a buoy. No name on it. I ask a man on the raft. He says, hardly turning his head—‘Nix Name.’ A young boy in the water calls ‘Help, help, please.’ The others are very composed. They look damp and somewhat tired. An expression of cold hatred is on their faces. On to the old course. After washing the paint off the buoy, the name comes to light: Greatafield, Glasgow. 5006 gross registered tons.” (D-644)

“On to the old course” means merely that the U-boat makes off.

The report of the Chief Engineer of the “S. S. Sheaf Mead” contains this description of the situation:

“When I came to the surface I found myself on the port side, that is, nearest to the submarine, which was only about five yards away. The submarine Captain asked the steward the name of the ship, which he told him, and the enemy picked up one of our lifebuoys, but this had the name ‘Gretaston’ on it, as this was the name of our ship before it was changed to ‘Sheaf Mead’ last January.”

* * * * * *

“She had cutaway bows, but I did not notice a net cutter. Two men stood at the side with boat hooks to keep us off.

“They cruised around for half an hour, taking photographs of us in the water. Otherwise they just watched us, but said nothing. Then she submerged and went off, without offering us any assistance whatever.” (D-644)

The U-boats log at 1444 hours contains a description of the sighting of the ship, the difficulty in identification, and then the sinking:

“The distance apart is narrowing. The steamship draws in quickly, but the position is still 40-50. I cannot see the stern yet. Tube ready. Shall I or not? The gunnery crews are also prepared. On the ship’s side a yellow cross in a small, square, dark blue ground. Swedish? Presumably not. I raise the periscope a little. Hurrah, a gun at the stern, an ack-ack gun or something similar. Fire! I cannot miss.” (D-644)

The actual documents by which Doenitz and his fellow conspirators issued their orders in disregard of International Law indicate that the compiler of the above reports understated the case. These orders cover not only the period referred to in the above reports, but also the subsequent course of the war. It is interesting to note in them the steps by which the conspirators progressed. At first they were content with breaching the rules of International Law to the extent of sinking merchant ships, including neutral ships, without warning where there was a reasonable prospect of being able to do so without discovery. The facts already quoted show that the question of whether ships were defensively armed or outside the declared operational areas was in practice immaterial.

A memorandum by the German Naval War Staff, dated 22 September 1939, (C-191) provides:

“Flag Officer U-boats intends to give permission to U-boats to sink without warning any vessels sailing without lights. * * * In practice there is no opportunity for attacking at night, as the U-boat cannot identify a target which is a shadow in a way that entirely obviates mistakes being made. If the political situation is such that even possible mistakes must be ruled out, U-boats must be forbidden to make any attacks at night in waters where French and English Naval forces or merchant ships may be situated. On the other hand, in sea areas where only English units are to be expected, the measures desired by F. O. U-boats can be carried out; permission to take this step is not to be given in writing, but need merely be based on the unspoken approval of the Naval War Staff. U-boat commanders would be informed by word of mouth and the sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary cruiser. In the meanwhile, U-boats in the English Channel have received instructions to attack all vessels sailing without lights.” (C-191)

The War Diary of the Naval War Staff of the German Admiralty contains the following report by Ia (Staff Operations Officer on the Naval War Staff) on directive of the Armed Forces High Command of 30 December 1939:

“According to this the Fuehrer, on report of the Commander in Chief, Navy, has decided:

“(a) Greek merchant vessels are to be treated as enemy vessels in the zone blockaded by U.S.A. and Britain.

“(b) In the Bristol Channel all ships may be attacked without warning. For external consumption these attacks should be given out as hits by mines.

“Both measures may be taken with immediate effect.” (C-21)

Another report by Ia, refers to intensified measures in naval and air warfare in connection with “Fall Gelb”.

“In consequence of this Directive, the Navy will authorize, simultaneously with the general intensification of the war, the sinking by U-boats, without any warning, of all ships in those waters near the enemy coasts in which mines can be employed. In this case, for external consumption, pretence should be made that mines are being used. The behaviour of, and use of weapons by, U-boats should be adapted to this purpose.” (C-21)

A third extract from the Naval War Diary, dated 6 January 1940, states:

“* * * the Fuehrer has in principle agreed (see minutes of report of C. in C. Navy of 30 December) to authorize firing without warning whilst maintaining the pretence of mine hits in certain parts of the American blockaded zone.” (C-21)

Whereupon, the order is given to Flag Officer, Submarines, carrying out that decision (C-21).

The report for 18 January 1940 states:

“The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued the following Directive dated 17th of January, cancelling the previous order concerning intensified measures of warfare against merchantmen.

“The Navy will authorize, with immediate effect, the sinking without warning by U-Boats of all ships in those waters near the enemy coasts in which the use of mines can be pretended. U-Boats must adapt their behavior and employment of weapons to the pretence, which is to be maintained in these cases, that the hits were caused by mines. Ships of the United States, Italy, Japan and Russia are exempted from these attacks.” (C-21)

An extract from the BDU War Diary (Doenitz’s War Diary) dated 18 July 1941, reveals a further extension of the above order so as to cut down the protected categories:

“Supplementary to the order forbidding, for the time being, attacks on U. S. warships and merchant vessels in the operational area of the North Atlantic, the Fuehrer has ordered the following:

“1. Attack on U. S. merchant vessels sailing in British or U. S. convoys or independently is authorized in the original operational area which corresponds in its dimensions to the U. S. blockade zone and which does not include the sea-route U. S. to Iceland.” (C-118)

As these orders show, at one date the ships of a particular neutral under certain conditions could be sunk, while those of another could not. The attitude to be adopted toward ships of particular neutrals changed at various times, for Doenitz conducted the U-Boat war against neutrals with cynical opportunism. It all depended on the political relationship of Germany toward a particular country at a particular time whether her ships were sunk or not.

(2) The Orders Concerning Treatment of Survivors. A series of orders led up to the issue of an order which enjoined U-Boat commanders not merely to abstain from rescuing crews and give them no assistance, but deliberately to annihilate them.

Among these preliminary standing orders of the U-Boat Command is Order Number 154, signed by Doenitz:

“Paragraph (e). Do not pick up survivors and take them with you. Do not worry about the merchant-ship’s boats. Weather conditions and distance from land play no part. Have a care only for your own ship and strive only to attain your next success as soon as possible. We must be harsh in this war. The enemy began the war in order to destroy us, so nothing else matters.” (D-642)

In 1942, when the United States entered the war with its enormous ship-building capacity, the change thus brought about necessitated a further adjustment in the methods adopted by the U-Boats. Doenitz accordingly issued an order, which intended not merely the sinking of merchant ships, not merely the abstention from rescue of the crews, but their deliberate extermination.

The course of events is shown by the record of a conversation between Hitler and the Japanese Ambassador, Oshima, (D-423) in the presence of Ribbentrop, on 3 January 1942:

“The Fuehrer, using a map, explains to the Japanese Ambassador the present position of marine warfare in the Atlantic, emphasizing that he considers his most important task is to get the U-Boat warfare going in full swing. The U-Boats are being reorganized. Firstly, he had recalled all U-Boats operating in the Atlantic. As mentioned before, they would now be posted outside United States ports. Later, they would be off Freetown and the larger boats even as far down as Capetown.”

* * * * * *

“After having given further explanations on the map, the Fuehrer pointed out that, however many ships the United States built, one of their main problems would be the lack of personnel. For that reason, even merchant ships would be sunk without warning with the intention of killing as many of the crew as possible. Once it gets around that most of the seamen are lost in the sinkings, the Americans would soon have difficulties in enlisting new people. The training of sea-going personnel takes a very long time. We are fighting for our existence and our attitude cannot be ruled by any humane feelings. For this reason he must give the order that in case foreign seamen could not be taken prisoner, which is not always possible on the sea, U-boats were to surface after torpedoing and shoot up the lifeboats.

“Ambassador Oshima heartily agreed with the Fuehrer’s comments, and said that the Japanese too are forced to follow these methods.” (D-423)

An extract from the BDU War Diary of 16 September 1942 is part of the story in the sense that it was on the following day that the annihilation order was issued. It records an attack on a U-boat, which was rescuing survivors, chiefly the Italian survivors of the Allied liner “Laconia,” when it was attacked by an Allied aircraft (D-446).

A Top Secret order, sent to all commanding officers of U-boats from Doenitz’s headquarters, dated 17 September 1942, provided:

“1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk, and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats, and handing over food and water. Rescue runs counter to the rudimentary demands of warfare for the destruction of enemy ships and crews.

“2. Orders for bringing in Captains and Chief Engineers still apply.

“3. Rescue the shipwrecked only if their statements will be of importance for your boat.

“4. Be harsh, having in mind that the enemy takes no regard of women and children in his bombing attacks on German cities.” (D-630)

The intentions of this carefully worded order are made clear by an extract from Doenitz’s War Diary which is personally signed by Doenitz. The War Diary entry for 17 September 1942 reads:

“The attention of all commanding officers is again drawn to the fact that all efforts to rescue members of the crews of ships which have been sunk contradict the most primitive demands for the conduct of warfare by annihilating enemy ships and their crews. Orders concerning the bringing in of the Captains and Chief Engineers still stand.” (D-630).

In this connection, a telegram from the Commander of the U-boat “Schacht” to Doenitz’s headquarters, and the reply, are significant. “Schacht” had been taking part in the rescue of survivors from the “Laconia.” The telegram from “Schacht,” dated 18 September 1942, reads:

“163 Italians handed over to ‘Annamite.’ Navigating Officer of ‘Laconia’ and another English Officer on board.” (D-630)

The telegram goes on to set out the position of English and Polish survivors in boats.

The reply from Doenitz’s headquarters was sent on the 20th:

“Action as in wireless telegram message of 17th of September was wrong. Boat was detailed to rescue Italian allies and not for the rescue of English and Poles.” (D-630)

Such were Doenitz’s plans before the bombing incident ever occurred.

“Operation Order Atlantic No. 56,” dated 7 October 1943, contains the sailing orders of a U-boat (D-663). Although the date of this order is 7 October 1943, in fact it is only a reproduction of an order issued earlier, in the autumn of 1942. The following is an extract from this order:

“Rescue ships: A so-called rescue ship is generally attached to every convoy, a special ship of up to 3000 gross registered tons, which is intended for the picking up of survivors after U-boat attacks. These ships are, for the most part, equipped with a shipborne aircraft and large motor-boats, are strongly armed with depth-charge throwers, and very manoeuverable, so that they are often called U-Boat Traps by the commander. In view of the desired destruction of ships’ crews, their sinking is of great value.” (D-663)

The Prosecution does not complain against attacks on rescue ships. They are not entitled to protection. But the point of the foregoing order to U-boats was that priority in attack should be given to rescue ships. This order, therefore, is closely allied with the order of 17 September 1942 (D-630): in view of the Allied shipbuilding program the German Navy had resolved to take all means to prevent Allied ships from being manned.

To summarize, it would appear from the War Diary entry of 17 September that orders on the lines discussed between Hitler and Oshima were, in fact, issued. They have not, however, been captured. It may be that they were issued orally, and that Doenitz awaited a suitable opportunity before confirming them. The incident of the bombing of the U-boats detailed to rescue the Italian survivors from the “Laconia” afforded the opportunity, and the order to all commanders was issued. Its intent is clear when it is considered in the light of the War Diary entry. The wording is, of course, extremely careful, but to any officer of experience its intention was obvious: he would know that deliberate action to annihilate survivors would be approved under that order.

It may be contended that this order, although perhaps unfortunately phrased, was merely intended to stop a commander from jeopardizing his ship by attempting a rescue, which had become increasingly dangerous as a result of the extended coverage of the ocean by Allied aircraft; and that the notorious action of U-Boat Commander Eck in sinking the Greek steamer “Peleus” and then machine-gunning the crew on their rafts in the water, was an exception; and that, although it may be true that a copy of the order was on board, this action was taken solely, as Eck himself swore, on his own initiative.

In reply it may be said that if the intention of this order was to stop rescue attempts, in the interests of the preservation of the U-boat, it would have been done by calling attention to Standing Order 154. Secondly, this very fact would have been prominently stated in the order. Drastic orders of this nature are not drafted by experienced staff officers without the greatest care and an eye to their possible capture by the enemy. Thirdly, if it was necessary to avoid the risks attendant on surfacing, not only would this have been stated but there would have been no question of taking any prisoners at all except possibly in circumstances where virtually no risk in surfacing was to be apprehended. Fourthly, the final sentence of the first paragraph would have read very differently. And fifthly, if in fact—and the Prosecution does not accept it—Doenitz did not mean to enjoin murder, his order was so worded that he cannot escape the responsibility which attaches to such a document.

The instructions given by Admiral Doenitz with regard to the murder of shipwrecked Allied seamen are described in an affidavit by Oberleutnant Zur See Peter Josef Heisig (D-566). (Heisig was called as a prosecution witness in the case against Doenitz and testified on direct examination to the same effect, in substance, as the statements in his affidavit.) In September 1942 Heisig was a Midshipman in a training course for U-boat officers of the watch. On the last day of the course Grand Admiral Doenitz, who was then Commander-in-Chief, U-boats, held an inspection tour and made a speech to the officers in training. Heisig describes the content of Doenitz’s speech as follows:

“* * * According to news received from America we were bound to reckon with the possibility that in the Allied countries more than 1,000,000 net registered tons of new merchant shipping space would be brought into service monthly. This was more shipping space than would be sunk even with good U-boat successes. The bottleneck of the Allies lay only in the problem of personnel for these newly built ships. The Atlantic route was too dangerous for seamen so that they even had to be brought aboard ship under compulsion. This was the point where we, the U-boat crews, had to take a hand. He therefore demanded that we should from now on carry on total warfare against ship and crew. That meant: so far as possible, no seaman from a sunk ship was to get home any more. Only thus could the supply line of the British Isles be seriously endangered and only thus in the long run could we strike a noticeable blow at Allied merchant shipping traffic. In this way it would be impossible for the opponent even to make use of his newly built ships, since no more crews would be available to him. After the sinking of a ship, every possibility of rescue must be denied to the crew, through the destruction of every means of saving life.

“I later discussed these remarks of Admiral Doenitz’s with the others, and all present unanimously and unambiguously took them to mean that after the sinking of a ship, all possibility of escape, whether in boats, on rafts, or by any other means, must be denied to the crew and the destruction of the crew was to be attempted by every means. This mode of warfare was for me as for most of my comrades completely new. Owing to Admiral Doenitz’s authoritative position, it was nevertheless fully and completely accepted by many of them. He sought to invalidate in advance any doubts which might arise, by pointing to the air war and the bombing.” (D-566)

Further light on the real meaning of the Top Secret radio message sent by the Commander in Chief, U-boats, to all U-boat and operational flotillas in September 1942 (D-630) is contained in the statement of Korvettenkapitaen Karl Heinz Moehle (382-PS). (Moehle was called as a Prosecution witness in the case against Doenitz and testified on direct examination to the same effect, in substance, as the statements in his affidavit.) Concerning this order which was couched in terms of a prohibition against the rescue of survivors, Moehle states as follows:

“This W/T message was without any doubt, sent out at the instigation of the Commander in Chief U-boats himself, i.e. Grand Admiral Doenitz. In view of my knowledge of the way in which the Staff of the Chief Command U-boats worked, I consider it quite impossible that an order of such importance could have been given without his knowledge.”

* * * * * *

“So far as concerns the order itself, it undoubtedly states, and in particular for those who know the manner in which Commander in Chief U-Boats is wont to give his orders, that the High Command regard it as desirable that not only ships but also their crews should be regarded as objects of attack, i.e. that they should be destroyed; at that time German propaganda was continually stressing the shortage of crews for enemy merchant ships and the consequent difficulties. I too understood this order in that way.

“Had the point of view of the High Command been otherwise the order would undoubtedly have been expressed in different words. It would then only have stated that for reasons of security rescue measures were to cease and this order would have passed as a normal secret W/T message. It was perhaps even the intention that this order could be interpreted in two ways and the reason may be that in the first place, it contravenes international laws of warfare and secondly, that it was an order which must give rise to serious conflicts of conscience in commanding officers.”

* * * * * *

“To conclude, I can only stress that the order of September 1942 appeared to me personally to go too far and I am in total disagreement with it at heart. As a serving officer I had however to carry out the command to pass on this order to commanding officers for their instruction.

“During the long time that I was senior officer of the Flotilla no single commanding officer mentioned to me that he could not reconcile obedience to this order with his conscience and that he was therefore unable to carry it out.” (382-PS)

Moehle graphically describes Doenitz’s incitement of his men to the murder of survivors:

“A type VII boat (500-tonner) reported in her war log that when outward bound from a base in France she met far out in the Bay of Biscay a raft with five enemy airmen, but was not able to take them on board owing to shortage of room (she had a complement of 54 and carried full provisions for 14 weeks). The boat therefore proceeded without taking any notice of the survivors.

“This action of the U-boat was vehemently denounced by the Commander in Chief U-boats’ staff. It was stated that she would have acted more correctly in destroying this raft since it was highly probably that the enemy air crew would be rescued by the enemy and in the meantime might once more have destroyed a German U-boat.

“This occurrence made the views of the Commander in Chief U-boats clear to me.” (382-PS)

As senior officer of the Fifth U-boat Flotilla, it was Moehle’s duty to transmit orders from the Commander in Chief, U-boats, to commanding officers of U-boats. In this connection, Doenitz’s ambiguous order against the rescue of survivors caused difficulties.

“I was wont to pass on this controversial and serious order with more or less the following words:—‘I have now to inform you of a High Command order concerning conduct towards survivors. It is a very ticklish matter. Commander in Chief U-boats in September 1942 gave the following order in an ‘officers only’ signal (* * * the exact words of the order were then read out).’

“Since I am myself in my innermost conscience in disagreement with this order, I was very glad that in most cases commanding officers raised no queries and I was therefore relieved of any further discussion on this point.

“Sometimes however queries were raised and I was wont to answer somewhat as follows:—

“‘I will explain the viewpoint of the High Command, which gave this order, by reference to the following event:’ I then mentioned the example of the Type VII boat in the Bay of Biscay together with the explanation and viewpoint expressed to me by Commander in Chief U-boats’ staff. I then went on to say, ‘Gentlemen, you must yourselves decide what is compatible with your own consciences. The safety of your own boat must always remain your prime consideration.’”

* * * * * *

“I also remember that many commanding officers after the order of September 1942 had been read said, ‘That is quite clear and unequivocal however hard it may be.’ Had this order been given to me as a commanding officer I would have taken note of it in silence but in practice would always have been able with a clear conscience not to carry it out since I consider I would endanger my own boat by acting in this way, (i.e., by shooting at lift-boats).” (382-PS)

Finally, Moehle describes the orders to omit from U-boat logs the notation of any actions in violation of International Law:

“There was an order—I do not remember whether it was in the form of a written or verbal instruction—that no events during a war patrol which contravened established international agreements should be entered in the war log. I believe that the reason for this order was that eight copies were made of war logs and were available to many authorities; there was always the danger therefore that events of this nature would become known and it was undoubtedly undesirable for reasons of propaganda that this should be so.

“Events of this nature were only to be reported if asked for when commanding officers made their personal reports; these were invariably made after every patrol to Commander in Chief U-boats or later in certain instances to Captain U-boats.” (382-PS)

Two cases may be noted in which the order of 17 September 1942 (D-630) was apparently put into effect. The first case is the sinking of a steam trawler, the “Noreen Mary,” which was sunk by U-247 on 5 July 1944. The log of the U-Boat shows that at 1943 hours two torpedoes were fired, which missed (D-645).

At 2055 hours the log reads:

“Surfaced.

“Fishing Vessels: [Bearings of 3 ships given].

“Engaged the nearest. She stops after three minutes.” (D-645)

There follows an account of a shot fired as the trawler lay stopped, and then, the final entry:

“Sunk by flak, with shots into her side. Sank by the stern.” (D-645)

The U-Boat Command made this comment on the action:

“Recognized success: Fishing vessel ‘Noreen Mary’ sunk by flak.” (D-645)

An affidavit by James MacAlister, who was a deck-hand on board the “Noreen Mary” at the time of the sinking, describes the torpedo tracks which missed the trawler, and continues as follows:

“At 2110 hours, while we were still trawling, the submarine surfaced on our starboard beam, about 50 yards to the northeast of us, and without any warning immediately opened fire on the ship with a machine gun. We were 18 miles west from Cape Wrath, on a north-westerly course, making 3 knots. The weather was fine and clear, sunny, with good visibility. The sea was smooth, with light airs.”

* * * * * *

“When the submarine surfaced I saw men climbing out of the conning tower. The skipper [of the trawler] thought at first the submarine was British, but when she opened fire he immediately slackened the brake to take the weight off gear, and increased to full speed, which was about 10 knots. The submarine chased us, firing her machine gun, and with the first rounds killed two or three men, including the skipper, who were on deck and had not had time to take cover. The submarine then started using a heavier gun from her conning tower, the first shot from which burst the boiler, enveloping everything in steam and stopping the ship.

“By now the crew had taken cover, but in spite of this all but four were killed. The submarine then commenced to circle round ahead of the vessel, and passed down her port side with both guns firing continuously. We were listing slowly to port all the time but did not catch fire.

“The Mate and I attempted to release the lifeboat, which was aft, but the Mate was killed whilst doing so, so I abandoned the attempt. I then went below into the pantry, which was below the water line, for shelter. The ship was listing more and more to port, until finally at 2210 she rolled right over and sank, and the only four men left alive on board were thrown into the sea. I do not know where the other three men had taken cover during this time, as I did not hear or see them until they were in the water.

“I swam around until I came across the broken bow of our lifeboat, which was upside down, and managed to scramble on top of it. Even now the submarine did not submerge, but deliberately steamed in my direction and when only 60 to 70 yards away fired directly at me with a short burst from the machine gun. As their intention was quite obvious, I fell into the water and remained there until the submarine ceased firing and submerged, after which I climbed back on to the bottom of the boat. The submarine had been firing her guns for a full hour.” (D-645)

The affidavit goes on to describe the attempts of the Second Engineer and others to rescue themselves and to help each other; they were later picked up by another trawler. The affidavit continues:

“Whilst on board the ‘Lady Madeleine’ the Second Engineer and I had our wounds dressed. I learned later that the Second Engineer had 48 shrapnel wounds, also a piece of steel wire 2½ inches long embedded in his body. * * * I had 14 shrapnel wounds.”

* * * * * *

“This is my fourth wartime experience, having served in the whalers ‘Sylvester’ (mined) and ‘New Seville’ (torpedoed), and the Trawler ‘Ocean Tide’, which ran ashore.

“As a result of this attack by U-boat, the casualties were six killed, two missing, two injured.” (D-645).

The next case is that of the ship “Antonico”, which was torpedoed, set afire, and sunk on 28 September 1942, off the coast of French Guiana. The date of the incident is some eleven days after the issue of the order (D-630). A statement given by the Second Officer describes the attack on the ship, which by then was on fire (D-647):

“* * * That the witness saw the dead on the deck of the ‘Antonico’ as he and his crew tried to swing out their lifeboat; that the attack was fulminant, lasting almost 20 minutes; and that the witness already in the lifeboat tried to get away from the side of the ‘Antonico’ in order to avoid being dragged down by the same ‘Antonico’ and also because she was the aggressor’s target; that the night was dark, and it was thus difficult to see the submarine, but that the fire aboard the ‘Antonico’ lit up the locality in which she was submerging, facilitating the enemy to see the two lifeboats trying to get away; that the enemy ruthlessly machined-gunned the defenseless sailors in No. 2 lifeboat, in which the witness found himself, and killed the Second Pilot Arnaldo de Andrade de Lima, and wounded three of the crew; that the witness gave orders to his company to throw themselves’ overboard to save themselves from the bullets; in so doing, they were protected and out of sight behind the lifeboat, which was already filled with water; even so the lifeboat continued to be attacked. At that time the witness and his companions were about 20 meters in distance from the submarine.” (D-647)

The U-boat’s log in that case is not available, but it may be surmised, in view of the order that nothing compromising should be included in entries in logs, that it would be no more helpful than in the case of the previous incident.

A broadcast by a German Naval War Reporter on the long wave propaganda service from Friesland, (D-646-A) in English, on 11 March 1943, stated:

“Santa Lucia, in the West Indies, was an ideal setting for romance, but nowadays it was dangerous to sail in these waters—dangerous for the British and Americans and for all the colored people who were at their beck and call. Recently a U-boat operating in these waters sighted an enemy windjammer. Streams of tracer bullets were poured into the sails and most of the Negro crew leaped overboard. Knowing that this might be a decoy ship, the submarine steamed cautiously to within 20 yards, when hand grenades were hurled into the rigging. The remainder of the Negroes then leaped into the sea. The windjammer sank. There remained only wreckage. Lifeboats packed with men, and sailors swimming. The sharks in the distance licked their teeth in expectation. Such was the fate of those who sailed for Britain and America.” (D-646-A)

This statement shows that it was the policy of the enemy to seek to terrorize crews. It is a part with the order with regard to rescue ships and with the order on the destruction of steamers.

After Doenitz succeeded Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy he presumably also succeeded to the equivalent rank of a Minister of the Reich, which Raeder had held (2098-PS).

An official report certified by an official of the British Admiralty sets out the number of meetings, the dates of the meetings, and those present, on the occasion of meetings between Doenitz or his representative with Hitler from the time that he succeeded Raeder until the end (D-648). The certificate states:

“* * * I have compiled from them [captured documents] the attached list of occasions on which Admiral Doenitz attended conferences at Hitler’s headquarters. The list of other senior officials who attended the same conferences is added when this information was contained in the captured documents concerned. I certify that the list is a true extract from the collective documents which I have examined, and which are in the possession of the British Admiralty, London.”

Either Admiral Doenitz or his deputy, Konteradmiral Voss, was present at each of the numerous meetings listed. Among those who were also constantly present were Speer, Keitel, Jodl, Ribbentrop, Goering, and Himmler or his lieutenants, Fegelein or Kaltenbrunner. The inference is clear that from the time that he succeeded Raeder, Doenitz was one of the rulers of the Reich and was undoubtedly aware of all major decisions of policy.

(3) The Order to Kill Commandos. An internal memorandum of the Naval War Staff, written by the division dealing with International Law to another division, discusses the order of 18 October 1942, with regard to the shooting of Commandos (C-178).

Doubt appears to have arisen in some quarters with regard to the understanding of this order. Accordingly, in the last sentence of the memorandum it is suggested:

“As far as the Navy is concerned, it remains to be seen whether or not this case should be used to make sure, after a conference with the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, that all departments concerned have an entirely clear conception regarding the treatment of members of commando units.” (C-178)

Whether that conference took place or not is not known. The document is dated some 11 days after Doenitz had taken over command from Raeder.

But in July 1943, the Navy handed over to the SD Norwegian and British Navy personnel, whom the Navy decided came under the terms of the order, for shooting. An affidavit by a British Barrister-at-Law who served as judge advocate at the trial of the members of the SD who executed the order states (D-649):

“The accused were charged with committing a war crime, in that they at Ulven, Norway, in or about the month of July 1943, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were concerned in the killing of * * *” [there follow the names of six personnel of the Norwegian Navy, including one officer, and one telegraphist of the British Navy, prisoners of war.].

* * * * * *

“There was evidence before the Court, which was not challenged by the Defense, that Motor Torpedo Boat No. 345 set out from Lerwick in the Shetlands on a naval operation for the purpose of making torpedo attacks on German shipping off the Norwegian coast, and for the purpose of laying mines in the same area. The persons mentioned in the charge were all the crew of the Torpedo Boat.

“The defense did not challenge that each member of the crew was wearing uniform at the time of capture, and there was abundant evidence from many persons, several of whom were German, that they were wearing uniform at all times after their capture.

“On 27th July, 1943, the Torpedo Boat reached the island of Aspo off the Norwegian coast, north of Bergen. On the following day the whole of the crew were captured and were taken on board a German naval vessel which was under the command of Admiral von Schrader, the Admiral of the west coast. The crew were taken to the Bergenhus, where they had arrived by 11 p. m. on 28th July. The crew were there interrogated by Leut. H. P. W. W. Fanger, a Naval Leutnant of the Reserve, on the orders of Korvettenkapitaen Egon Drascher, both of the German Naval Intelligence Service. This interrogation was carried out upon the orders of the staff of the Admiral of the west coast. Leut. Fanger reported to the Officer in Charge of the Intelligence Branch at Bergen that in his opinion all the members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and that officer in turn reported both orally and in writing to the Sea Commander, Bergen, and in writing to the Admiral of the west coast.

“The interrogation by the Naval Intelligence Branch was concluded in the early hours of 29th July, and almost immediately all the members of the crew were handed over on the immediate orders of the Sea Commander, Bergen, to Obersturmbannfuehrer of the SD, Hans Wilhelm Blomberg, who was at that time Kommandeur of the Sicherheitspolizei at Bergen. This followed a meeting between Blomberg and Admiral von Schrader, at which a copy of the Fuehrer order of the 18th October 1942 was shown to Blomberg. This order dealt with the classes of persons who were to be excluded from the protection of the Geneva Convention and were not to be treated as prisoners of war, but when captured were to be handed over to the SD. Admiral von Schrader told Blomberg that the crew of this Torpedo Boat were to be handed over in accordance with the Fuehrer order, to the SD.” (D-649)

The affidavit goes on to describe the interrogation by officials of the SD. These officials took the same view as the Naval Intelligence officers, that the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. Nevertheless, the crew were taken out and shot by an execution squad composed of members of the SD. The affidavit concludes as follows:

“It appeared from the evidence that in March or April, 1945, an order from the Fuehrer Headquarters, signed by Keitel, was transmitted to the German authorities in Norway. The substance of the order was that members of the crew of commando raids who fell into German captivity were from that date to be treated as ordinary prisoners of war. This order referred specifically to the Fuehrer order referred to above.” (D-649)

The date mentioned is important; it was time “in March or April, 1945,” for these men to put their affairs in order.

(4) Reasons for Not Renouncing the Geneva Convention. The minutes of conferences on 19 and 20 February 1945 between Doenitz and Hitler read as follows:

“The Fuehrer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention * * *” [the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention].

* * * * * *

“The Fuehrer orders the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to consider the pros and cons of their step and to state his opinion as soon as possible.” (C-158)

Doenitz then stated his opinion in the presence of Jodl and a representative of Ribbentrop:

“* * * On the contrary, the disadvantages [of renouncing the convention] outweigh the advantages. It would be better to carry out the measures considered necessary without warning, and at all costs to save face with the outer world.” (C-158)

An extract from the minutes of another meeting between Doenitz and Hitler, on 1 July 1944,—the extract is signed by Doenitz—states:

“* * * Regarding the General Strike in Copenhagen, the Fuehrer says that the only weapon to deal with terror is terror. Court martial proceedings create martyrs. History shows that the names of such men are on everybody’s lips, whereas there is silence with regard to the many thousands who have lost their lives in similar circumstances without court martial proceedings.” (C-171)

(5) Use of Concentration Camp Labor in Shipyards. In a memorandum signed by Doenitz sometime late in 1944, which was distributed to Hitler, Keitel, Jodl, Speer, and the Supreme Command of the Air Force, Doenitz reviews German shipping losses, and concludes:

“Furthermore, I propose reinforcing the shipyard working parties by prisoners from the concentration camps and as a special measure for relieving the present shortage of coppersmiths, especially in U-boat construction, I propose to divert coppersmiths from the construction of locomotives to shipbuilding.” (C-195)

In dealing with sabotage, Doenitz has this to say:

“Since, elsewhere, measures for exacting atonement taken against whole working parties amongst whom sabotage occurred, have proved successful, and, for example, the shipyard sabotage in France was completely suppressed, possibly similar measures for the Scandinavian countries will come under consideration.” (C-195)

Item 2 of the summing-up reads:

“12,000 concentration camp prisoners will be employed in the shipyards as additional labor (security service [SD] agrees to this)” (C-195).

It was not for nothing that at these meetings Himmler and his Lieutenants, Fegelein and Kaltenbrunner, were present.

They were not there to discuss U-boats or the use of battleships. It is clear from this document that Doenitz knew all about concentration camps and concentration camp labor, and as one of the rulers of Germany he must bear his full share of that responsibility.

(6) Doenitz’s Incitement of Ruthless Conduct By His Men. The orders issued by Doenitz in April 1945 (D-650) show his fanatical adherence to the Nazi creed, and his preparedness even at that stage to continue a hopeless war at the expense of human life, and with the certainty of increased destruction and misery to his country:

“I therefore demand of the commanding officers of the Navy: That they clearly and unambiguously follow the path of military duty, whatever may happen. I demand of them that they stamp out ruthlessly all signs and tendencies among the men which endanger the following of this path.

“I demand from Senior Commanders that they should take just as ruthless action against any commander who does not do his military duty. If a commander does not think he has the moral strength to occupy his position as a leader in this sense, he must report this immediately. He will then be used as a soldier in this fateful struggle in some position in which he is not burdened with any tasks as a leader.” (D-650)

In the secret Battle order of the day of 19 April 1945, Doenitz gives an example of the type of under-officer who should be promoted:

“An example: In a prison camp of the auxiliary cruiser ‘Cormorau’, in Austria, a petty officer acting as camp senior officer, had all communists who made themselves noticeable among the inmates of the camp systematically done away with in such a way that the guards did not notice. This petty officer is sure of my full recognition for his decision and his execution. After his return, I shall promote him with all means, as he has shown that he is fitted to be a leader.” (D-650)

E. CONCLUSION.

Doenitz was no plain sailor, playing the part of a service officer, loyally obedient to the orders of the government of the day. He was an extreme Nazi who did his utmost to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people with the Nazi creed. It is no coincidence that it was he—not Goering, not Ribbentrop, not Goebbels, not Himmler—who was chosen to succeed Hitler. He played a large part in fashioning the U-boat fleet, one of the most deadly weapons of aggressive war. He helped to plan and execute aggressive wars, which he knew well were in deliberate violation of treaties. He was ready to stoop to any ruse where he thought he would not be found out: breaches of the Geneva Convention or of neutrality, where it might be asserted that sinking was due to a mine. He was ready to order, and did order, the murder of helpless survivors of sunken ships, an action only paralleled by that of his Japanese ally.

There can be few countries which do not mourn for men of the merchant navies whose destruction was due to the callow brutality with which, at the orders of this man, the German U-boats did their work.

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO KARL DOENITZ

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 67 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ *382-PS │Affidavit of Korvettenkapitaen Moehle,│ │ │England, 19 July 1945, concerning the │ │ │interpretation of Doenitz’s order of │ │ │September 1942. (GB 202) │ III │ 290 │ │ │ *498-PS │Top Secret Fuehrer Order for killing │ │ │of commandos, 18 October 1942. (USA │ │ │501) │ III │ 416 │ │ │ 503-PS │Letter signed by Jodl, 19 October │ │ │1942, concerning Hitler’s explanation │ │ │of his commando order of the day │ │ │before (Document 498-PS). (USA 542) │ III │ 426 │ │ │ *526-PS │Top secret notice, 10 May 1943, │ │ │concerning saboteurs captured and shot│ │ │in Norway. (USA 502) │ III │ 434 │ │ │ *1463-PS │Diary of the Navy, 1944, by Admiral │ │ │Doenitz. (GB 184) │ IV │ 45 │ │ │ *2098-PS │Decree relating to Status of Supreme │ │ │Commanders of Army and Navy, 25 │ │ │February 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │ │Part I, p. 215. (GB 206) │ IV │ 725 │ │ │ *2878-PS │Extracts from The Archive. (GB 187) │ V │ 540 │ │ │ *2887-PS │Certificate of positions held by │ │ │Doenitz, 8 November 1945. (USA 12) │ V │ 552 │ │ │ 2988-PS │Affidavit of Gerhard Wagner, Nurnberg,│ │ │19 November 1945, who identified │ │ │document C-158 as expressing opinion │ │ │of Doenitz and initialled by him. │ V │ 693 │ │ │ 3150-PS │Interrogation of Doenitz, 3 November │ │ │1945. │ V │ 911 │ │ │ 3151-PS │Interrogation of Falkenhorst, 24 │ │ │October 1945. │ V │ 912 │ │ │ *3260-PS │“Churchill Sank the Athenia”, │ │ │published in Voelkischer Beobachter, │ │ │23 October 1939. (GB 218) │ V │ 1008 │ │ │ *C-5 │Memorandum to Supreme Command of the │ │ │Navy by Doenitz, 9 October 1939, │ │ │concerning base in Norway. (GB 83) │ VI │ 815 │ │ │ *C-21 │Extracts from file on Intensification │ │ │of U-boat warfare. (GB 194) │ VI │ 825 │ │ │ *C-105 │Extract from German Naval War Diary, │ │ │21 December 1940, p. 252. (GB 455) │ VI │ 913 │ │ │ C-118 │Extract from German Naval file, 18 │ │ │July 1941, concerning authorization of│ │ │attacks on U. S. Merchantmen. (GB 195)│ VI │ 916 │ │ │ *C-120 │Directives for Armed Forces 1939-40 │ │ │for “Fall Weiss”, operation against │ │ │Poland. (GB 41) │ VI │ 916 │ │ │ *C-122 │Extract from Naval War Diary. │ │ │Questionnaire on Norway bases, 3 │ │ │October 1939. (GB 82) │ VI │ 928 │ │ │ *C-126 │Preliminary Time Table for “Fall │ │ │Weiss” and directions for secret │ │ │mobilization. (GB 45) │ VI │ 932 │ │ │ *C-151 │Details for execution of operation │ │ │“Weseruebung”, 3 March 1940, signed by│ │ │Doenitz. (GB 91) │ VI │ 965 │ │ │ *C-158 │Minutes of conference of C-in-C of │ │ │Navy with Hitler, 19 and 20 February │ │ │1945. (GB 209) │ VI │ 971 │ │ │ *C-171 │Minutes of conference between Hitler │ │ │and C-in-C of Navy regarding │ │ │Copenhagen General Strike, 1 July │ │ │1944. (GB 210) │ VI │ 1002 │ │ │ *C-172 │Order No. 1 for “Fall Weiss” signed by│ │ │Doenitz. (GB 189) │ VI │ 1002 │ │ │ *C-178 │Order of Navy concerning treatment of │ │ │saboteurs, 11 February 1943. (USA 544)│ VI │ 1012 │ │ │ *C-179 │Hitler’s second decree, 18 October │ │ │1942, regarding annihilation of terror│ │ │and sabotage units. (USA 543) │ VI │ 1014 │ │ │ *C-191 │Demands by defendant Doenitz on │ │ │sinking of merchant ships, 22 │ │ │September 1939. (GB 193) │ VI │ 1018 │ │ │ *C-195 │Report signed by Doenitz, 1944, giving│ │ │support to Navy and Merchant Marine. │ │ │(GB 211) │ VI │ 1022 │ │ │ D-423 │Memorandum of conversation between │ │ │Hitler and Oshima, 3 January 1942. (GB│ │ │197) │ VII │ 53 │ │ │ *D-436 │Citation on promotion of Doenitz to │ │ │Vice Admiral, published in The │ │ │Archive, 27 September 1940. p. 550. │ │ │(GB 183) │ VII │ 54 │ │ │ *D-443 │Speech by Doenitz to Naval officers at│ │ │Weimar, 17 December 1943. (GB 185) │ VII │ 54 │ │ │ *D-444 │Order of day and speech of Doenitz on │ │ │death of Hitler, 1 May 1945. (GB 188) │ VII │ 55 │ │ │ *D-446 │Extract from B.d.U. War Diary, 16 │ │ │September 1942. (GB 198) │ VII │ 57 │ │ │ *D-566 │Affidavit by Peter-Joseph Heisig, 27 │ │ │November 1945. (GB 201) │ VII │ 72 │ │ │ *D-630 │Extracts from B.d.U. War Diary and │ │ │Order to all U-boat commanders; │ │ │telegram from Schacht and in reply to │ │ │Schacht. (GB 199) │ VII │ 100 │ │ │ *D-638 │Affidavit of Doenitz concerning │ │ │sinking of Athenia, 17 November 1945. │ │ │(GB 220) │ VII │ 114 │ │ │ *D-640 │Speech by C-in-C of Navy to Commanders│ │ │in Chief, 15 February 1944. (GB 186) │ VII │ 116 │ │ │ *D-641-A │Extracts from official reports │ │ │concerning German attacks on merchant │ │ │shipping, 3 September 1939 to │ │ │September 1940. (GB 191) │ VII │ 116 │ │ │ *D-641-B │Extracts from official reports │ │ │concerning German attacks on merchant │ │ │shipping, 1 September 1940 to 28 │ │ │February 1941. (GB 191) │ VII │ 120 │ │ │ *D-641-C │Sinkings by U-boats during the war, │ │ │1939-1945. (GB 191) │ VII │ 124 │ │ │ *D-642 │Extract from Befehlshaber der │ │ │U-bootes; Secret Standing Order No. │ │ │154 signed by Doenitz. (GB 196) │ VII │ 124 │ │ │ D-644 │Report of sinking of “Sheaf Mead”. (GB│ │ │192) │ VII │ 124 │ │ │ *D-645 │Report on sinking of “Noreen Mary”; │ │ │affidavit by survivor. (GB 203) │ VII │ 128 │ │ │ *D-646-A │Wireless talk by German naval reporter│ │ │concerning Windjammer sunk by U-boat. │ │ │(GB 205) │ VII │ 133 │ │ │ D-646-B │Extract from War Diary of U-105, 12 │ │ │January 1943. │ VII │ 133 │ │ │ *D-647 │Statement on sinking of SS “Antonico”,│ │ │which was torpedoed, set afire and │ │ │sunk, 28 September 1942. (GB 204) │ VII │ 134 │ │ │ *D-648 │List of Hitler-Doenitz meetings. (GB │ │ │207) │ VII │ 136 │ │ │ *D-649 │Affidavit by Judge Advocate, 28 │ │ │December 1945. (GB 208) │ VII │ 145 │ │ │ *D-650 │Orders issued by Doenitz, 11 April │ │ │1945. (GB 212) │ VII │ 148 │ │ │ *D-663 │Operation Order “Atlantic” No. 56 for │ │ │U-boats in Atlantic, 7 October 1943. │ │ │(GB 200) │ VII │ 170 │ │ │ Statement I │The Laconia Case and German Submarine │ │ │Warfare, by Karl Doenitz, Nurnberg, 7 │ │ │and 19 October 1945. │ VIII │ 657 │ │ │ Statement IX │My Relationship to Adolf Hitler and to│ │ │the Party, by Erich Raeder, Moscow, │ │ │fall 1945. │ VIII │ 707

15. ERICH RAEDER

A. POSITIONS HELD BY RAEDER.

Erich Raeder was born in 1876 and joined the German Navy in 1896. By 1915 he had become commander of the Cruiser Koeln. In 1928 he became an admiral, Chief of Naval Command, and head of the German Navy. In 1935 he became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. In 1936 he became General Admiral, a creation of Hitler’s, on his forty-seventh birthday. In 1937 he received the golden badge of honor of the Nazi Party. In 1938 he became a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. In 1939 he was made Grand Admiral, a rank created by Hitler, who presented Raeder with a marshal’s baton. In 1943 he became Admiral Inspector of the German Navy, which was a kind of retirement into oblivion, since after January 1943 Doenitz was the effective commander of the German Navy. (2888-PS)

B. RAEDER’S PART IN THE CONSPIRACY TO PLAN AND WAGE WARS OF AGGRESSION.

During the years of Raeder’s command of the German Navy, from 1928 to 1943, he played a vital role in building up the Navy as an instrument of war, to implement the Nazis’ general plan of aggression.

(1) Concealed rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In successive and secret steps, the small Navy permitted to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles was enormously expanded under the guidance of Raeder.

The story of Germany’s secret rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles is told in a history of the fight of the German Navy against Versailles, 1919 to 1935, which was published secretly by the German Admiralty in 1937 (C-156). This history shows that before the Nazis came to power the German Admiralty was deceiving not only the governments of other countries, but its own legislature and at one stage its own government, regarding the secret measures of rearmament ranging from experimental U-Boat and E-Boat building to the creation of secret intelligence and finance organizations. Raeder’s role in these developments are described as follows:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Raeder, had received hereby a far-reaching independence in the building and development of the Navy. This was only hampered insofar as the previous concealment of rearmament had to be continued in consideration of the Versailles Treaty.” (C-156)

An illustration of Raeder’s concealment of rearmament is contained in his statement that:

“In view of Germany’s treaty obligations and the disarmament conference, steps must be taken to prevent the first E-boat Half-Flotilla from appearing openly as a formation of torpedo-carrying boats, as it was not intended to count these E-boats against the number of torpedo-carrying boats allowed them.” (C-141)

It appears that even in 1930 the intention ultimately to attack Poland was already current in German military circles. An extract from the History of War Organization and of the Scheme for Mobilization (C-135) which is headed “All 850/38”, suggesting that the document was written in 1938, reads:

“Since under the Treaty of Versailles all preparations for mobilization were forbidden, these were at first confined to a very small body of collaborators and were at first only of a theoretical nature. Nevertheless, there existed at that time an ‘Establishment Order’ and ‘Instructions for Establishment,’ the forerunners of the present-day scheme for Mobilization.

“An ‘establishment organization’ and ‘adaptable instructions for establishment’ were drawn up for each A-year, the cover name for a mobilization year.

“As stated, the ‘Establishment Organizations’ of that time were to be judged purely theoretically, for they had no positive basis in the form of men and materials. They provided, nevertheless, a valuable foundation for the establishment of a War Organization as our ultimate aim.”

* * * * * *

“The crises between Germany and Poland, which were becoming increasingly acute, compelled us, instead of making theoretical preparations for war, to prepare in a practical manner for a purely German-Polish conflict.

“The strategic idea of a rapid forcing of the Polish base of Gdynia was made a basis, and the fleet on active service was to be reinforced by the auxiliary forces which would be indispensable to attain this strategic end, and the essential coastal and flak batteries, especially those in Pillau and Swinemuende were to be taken over. Thus in 1930 the Reinforcement Plan was evolved.” (C-135)

The extract further shows that Hitler had made a clear political request to build up for him in five years, that is, by April 1938, armed forces which he could place in the balance as an instrument of political power. (C-135)

The Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was a signal to Raeder to go full speed ahead on rearmament. In June 1934 Raeder told Hitler that the German fleet must be developed to oppose England, and that therefore from 1936 on, the big ships must be armed with big guns to match the British “King George” class of battleship. Raeder also went along with Hitler’s demand that the construction of U-Boats should be kept completely secret, especially in view of the Saar plebiscite (C-189). In November 1934 Raeder had a further talk with Hitler on the financing of naval rearmament, and on that occasion Hitler told him that in case of need he would get Doctor Ley to put 120,000,000 to 150,000,000 RM. from the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy. (C-190)

Another example of the deceit used by Raeder in building up the German Navy is the fact that the true displacement of certain German battleships exceeded by twenty percent the displacement which the Nazis had reported to the British (C-23). In similar vein, it was ordered that auxiliary cruisers, which were being secretly constructed, should be referred to as “transport ships O.” (C-166)

The support given by the German Navy to the German Armament Industry illustrates Raeder’s concern with the broader aspects of Nazi policy and of the close link between Nazi politicians, German Service Chiefs, and German armament manufacturers. (C-29)

A commentary on post-1939 naval rearmament is contained in a letter from Raeder to the German Navy, dated 11 June 1940. This letter was given extensive distribution; in fact there is provision in the distribution list for 467 copies. This letter of Raeder’s, which is marked with both self-justification and apology, reads:

“The most outstanding of the numerous subjects of discussion in the Officer Corps are the Torpedo position and the problem whether the naval building program, up to Autumn 1939, envisaged the possibility of the outbreak of war as early as 1939, or whether the emphasis ought not to have been laid, from the first, on the construction of U-boats.

“If the opinion is voiced in the Officer Corps that the entire naval building program has been wrongly directed, and that, from the first, the emphasis should have been on the U-boat weapon and, after its consolidation, on the large ships, I must emphasize the following matters:

“The building up of the Fleet was directed according to the political demands, which were decided by the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer hoped, until the last moment, to be able to put off the threatening conflict with England until 1944-45. At that time the Navy would have had available a fleet with a powerful U-boat superiority and a much more favorable ratio as regards strength in all other types of ships, particularly those designed for warfare on the high seas.

“The development of events forced the Navy, contrary to the expectation even of the Fuehrer, into a war, which it had to accept while still in the initial stage of its rearmament. The result is that those who represent the opinion that the emphasis should have been laid, from the start, on the building of the U-boat arm, appear to be right. I leave undiscussed, how far this development, quite apart from difficulties of personnel, training and dockyards, could have been appreciably improved in any way in view of the political limits of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. I leave also undiscussed, how the early and necessary creation of an effective Air Force slowed down the desirable development of the other branches of the forces. I indicate, however, with pride the admirable and, in spite of the political restraints in the years of the Weimar Republic, far-reaching preparation for U-boat construction, which made the immensely rapid construction of the U-boat arm, both as regards equipment and personnel, possible immediately after the assumption of power.” (C-155)

This letter shows no trace of reluctance in cooperating with the Nazi program. On the contrary, it is evident that Raeder welcomed and became one of the pillars of the Nazi power.

(2) Conversion of the Navy into a tool of the Nazi conspiracy. Raeder, more than anyone else, was responsible for securing the unquestioned allegiance of the German Navy to the Nazi movement—an allegiance which Doenitz was to make even more firm and fanatical.

Raeder’s approval of Hitler was shown particularly clearly on 2 August 1934, the day of Hindenburg’s death, when Raeder and all the men under him swore a new oath of loyalty with considerable ceremony, this time to Adolf Hitler and no longer to the Fatherland (D-481). The new oath ran as follows:

“I swear this holy oath by God that I will implicitly obey the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and that, as a brave soldier, I will be willing to stake my life at any time for this oath.” (D-481)

For his fatherland, Raeder substituted the Fuehrer.

There is no need to elaborate upon the step by which the German Navy was progressively drawn into the closest alliance with the Nazi Party. The facts of history—such as the incorporation of the swastika into the ensign under which the German Fleet sailed, and the wearing of the swastika on the uniform of naval officers and men—these facts speak for themselves.

The Nazis, for their part, were not ungrateful for Raeder’s obeisance and collaboration. His services in rebuilding the German Navy were widely recognized by Nazi propagandists and by the Nazi press. On his 66th birthday, the Chief Party Organ, the “Voelkischer Beobachter,” published a special article about him, which summed up Raeder’s contribution to Nazi development:

“It was to Raeder’s credit to have already built up by that time a powerful striking force from the numerically small fleet, despite the fetters of Versailles.

“With the assumption of power through National Socialism began, too, the most fruitful period in the reconstruction of the German Fleet.

“The Fuehrer openly expressed his recognition of Raeder’s faithful services and unstinted cooperation, by appointing him General Admiral on the 20th of April, 1936”.

* * * * * *

“As a soldier and a seaman, the General-Admiral has proved himself to be the Fuehrer’s first and foremost naval collaborator.” (D-448)

(3) Raeder’s political activities and responsibilities. Raeder’s personal part in the Nazi conspiracy arises from the fact that, from the time of the Nazi seizure of power, he became increasingly involved in responsibility for the general policies of the Nazi State.

Long before he was promoted to General-Admiral in 1936, he had become a member of the secret Reich Defense Council, joining it when it was founded, on 4 April 1933. Thus, at an early date, he was involved, both militarily and politically, in the Nazi conspiracy. These facts are contained in a document which contains the classic Nazi directive:

“Matters communicated orally cannot be proven; they can be denied by us in Geneva.” (EC-177)

On 4 February 1938, Raeder was appointed to be a member of a newly formed Secret Advisory Council for Foreign Affairs (2031-PS). Three weeks later, a decree of Hitler’s stated that, as well as being equal in rank with a Cabinet Minister, Raeder was also to take part in the sessions of the Cabinet (2098-PS). It is thus clear that Raeder’s responsibility for the political decisions of the Nazi State was steadily developed from 1933 to 1938, and that in the course of time he had become a member of all the main political advisory bodies. He was a member of the inner councils of the conspirators.

As an illustration, Raeder was present at two of the key meetings at which Hitler openly declared his intention of attacking neighboring countries. The first of these was Hitler’s conference at the Reichs Chancellery on 5 November 1937, concerning matters which were said to be too important to discuss in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet. The minutes of this meeting establish conclusively that the Nazis premeditated their crimes against peace (386-PS). The second meeting which Raeder attended was Hitler’s conference on 23 May 1939 (L-79). This was the conference at which Hitler confirmed his intention to make a deliberate attack upon Poland at the first opportunity, well knowing that this must cause widespread war in Europe.

In addition to those two key conferences, Raeder was also present at many others, where he placed his knowledge and professional skill at the service of the Nazi war machine. Raeder’s promotion of the military planning and preparation for the Polish campaign is discussed in Section 8 of Chapter IX.

(4) The “Athenia Case”. Once the war was underway, Raeder also showed himself to be a master of one of the conspirators’ favorite techniques—deceit on the grand scale. His handling of the case of the “Athenia” is a case in point.

The “Athenia” was a passenger liner which was sunk in the evening of 3 September 1939, when she was outward bound to America. About one hundred lives were lost.

On 23 October 1939, the Nazi Party paper, the “Voelkischer Beobachter,” published in screaming headlines the story, “Churchill sank the Athenia” (3260-PS). The scale on which this deliberate lie was perpetrated is indicated by the rest of the “Voelkischer Beobachter” for that day; on the front page, with large red underlining, were the words: “Now we indict Churchill” (3260-PS). An extract from the third page of this issue of the “Voelkischer Beobachter” refers to photograph of the ship and reads as follows:

“Churchill sank the ‘Athenia’. The above picture shows the proud ‘Athenia’, the ocean giant, which was sunk by Churchill’s crime. One can clearly see the big radio equipment on board the ship. But nowhere was an SOS heard from the ship. Why was the ‘Athenia’ silent? Because her captain was not allowed to tell the world anything. He very prudently refrained from telling the world that Winston Churchill attempted to sink the ship, through the explosion of an infernal machine. He knew it well, but he had to keep silent. Nearly fifteen hundred people would have lost their lives if Churchill’s original plan had resulted as the criminal wanted. Yes, he longingly hoped that the one hundred Americans on board the ship would find death in the waves so that the anger of the American people, who were deceived by him, should be directed against Germany as the presumed author of the deed. It was fortunate that the majority escaped the fate intended for them by Churchill. Our picture on the right shows two wounded passengers. They were rescued by the freighter, ‘City of Flint’, and as can be seen here, turned over to the American coast guard boat ‘Gibb’ for further medical treatment. They are an unspoken accusation against the criminal Churchill. Both they and the shades of those who lost their lives call him before the Tribunal of the world and ask the British people, ‘How long will the office, one of the richest in tradition known to Britain’s history, be held by a murderer?’” (3260-PS)

Contrary to these Nazi allegations, the “Athenia” made repeated wireless distress signals, which were in fact intercepted and answered by His Majesty’s ships “Electra” and “Escort,” as well as by the Norwegian steamship “Knute Nelson” and the Swedish yacht “Southern Cross.” In fact, the “Athenia” was sunk by the German U-boat U-30. So unjustifiable was the torpedoing of the “Athenia,” however, that the German Navy embarked on a course of falsification of their records and on other dishonest measures, in the hope of hiding the guilty secret. Meanwhile, the Nazi propagandists sought to shift the responsibility to the British. The Captain of U-boat 30, Oberleutnant Lemp, was later killed in action, but some of the original crew of the U-30 have survived to tell the tale as prisoners of war. An affidavit by a member of the crew of the U-30 establishes the truth of this episode and reveals the Nazis’ attempt to conceal the true facts (D-654). The affidavit reads:

“I, Adolf Schmidt, Official Number N 1043-33T,

“Do solemnly declare that:

“I am now confined to Camp No. 133, Lethbridge, Alberta.

“That on the first day of war, 3 September 1939, a ship of approximately 10,000 tons was torpedoed in the late hours of the evening by the U-30.

“That after the ship was torpedoed and we surfaced again, approximately half an hour after the explosion, the Commandant called me to the tower in order to show me the torpedoed ship.

“That I have seen the ship with my very eyes, but that I do not think that the ship could see our U-boat at that time on account of the position of the moon.

“That only a few members of the crew had an opportunity to go to the tower in order to see the torpedoed ship.

“That apart from myself, Oberleutnant Hinsch was in the tower when I saw the steamer after the attack.

“That I observed that the ship was listing.

“That no warning shot was fired before the torpedo was launched.

“That I myself observed much commotion on board of the torpedoed ship.

“That I believe that the ship had only one smoke stack.

“That in the attack on this steamer one or two torpedoes were fired which did not explode but that I myself heard the explosion of the torpedo which hit the steamer.

“That Oberleutnant Lemp waited until darkness before surfacing.

“That I was severely wounded by aircraft 14 September 1939.

“That Oberleutnant Lemp, shortly before my disembarkation in Reykjavik 19 September 1939, visited me in the forenoon in the Petty Officers quarters where I was lying severely wounded.

“That Oberleutnant Lemp then had the Petty Officers’ quarters cleared in order to be alone with me.

“That Oberleutnant Lemp then showed me a declaration under oath according to which I had to bind myself to mention nothing concerning the incidents of 3 September 1939 on board the U-30.

“That this declaration under oath had approximately the following wording: ‘I, the undersigned, swear hereby that I shall shroud in secrecy all happenings of 3 September 1939 on board the U-30, regardless whether foe or friend, and that I shall erase from my memory all happenings of this day.’

“That I have signed this declaration under oath, which was drawn up by the Commandant in his own handwriting, with my left hand very illegibly.

“That later on in Iceland when I heard about the sinking of the ‘Athenia,’ the idea came into my mind that the U-30 on the 3 September 1939 might have sunk the ‘Athenia,’ especially since the Captain caused me to sign the above-mentioned declaration.

“That up to today I have never spoken to anyone concerning these events.

“That due to the termination of the war I consider myself freed from my oaths.” (D-654)

Doenitz’s part in the “Athenia” episode is described in an affidavit which he has sworn, in English (D-638). At the end of the affidavit four words are added in Doenitz’s handwriting, the significance of which will be adverted to shortly. Doenitz states:

“U-30 returned to harbor about Mid-September. I met the captain, Oberleutnant Lemp, on the lockside at Wilhelmshaven, as the boat was entering harbor, and he asked permission to speak to me in private. I noticed immediately that he was looking very unhappy and he told me at once that he thought he was responsible for the sinking of the ‘Athenia’ in the North Channel area. In accordance with my previous instructions, he had been keeping a sharp lookout for possible armed merchant cruisers in the approaches to the British Isles, and had torpedoed a ship he afterwards identified as the ‘Athenia’ from wireless broadcasts, under the impression that she was an armed merchant cruiser on patrol. I had never specified in my instructions any particular type of ship as armed merchant cruiser nor mentioned any names of ships. I despatched Lemp at once by air to report to the SKL at Berlin; in the meantime, I ordered complete secrecy as a provisional measure. Later the same day or early on the following day, I received a verbal order from Kapitaen zur See Fricke [head of the Operations Division of the Naval War Staff] that:

“1. The affair was to be kept a total secret.

“2. The OKM considered that a court martial was not necessary as they were satisfied that the captain had acted in good faith.

“3. Political explanations would be handled by the OKM.

“I had had no part whatsoever in the political events in which the Fuehrer claimed that no U-boat had sunk the ‘Athenia.’

“After Lemp returned to Wilhelmshaven from Berlin, I interrogated him thoroughly on the sinking and formed the impression that although he had taken reasonable care, he had still not taken sufficient precautions to establish fully the identity of the ship before attacking. I had previously given very strict orders that all merchant vessels and neutrals were to be treated according to naval prize law, before the occurrence of this incident. I accordingly placed him under cabin arrest, as I felt certain that a court-martial could only acquit him and would entail unnecessary publicity” [whereat Doenitz has added the words, “and too much time”]. (D-638)

Doenitz’s suggestion that the captain of the U-30 sank the “Athenia” in mistake for a merchant cruiser must be considered in the light of Doenitz’s order of 22 September 1939, that

“the sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary cruiser.” (C-191)

The U-30 returned to Wilhelmshaven on 27 September 1939. On that date another fraudulent entry was made in the War Diary of the Chief of U-boats:

“U-30 comes in. She had sunk: ‘S.S. Blairlogie’; ‘S.S. Fanad Head’.” (D-659)

There is no reference at all to the sinking of the “Athenia.”

Perhaps the most elaborate forgery in connection with this episode was made on the log book of the U-30, which was responsible for sinking the “Athenia” (D-662). The Prosecution submits that the first page of that log book is a forgery which shows a curiously un-German carelessness about detail. It is clear on the original document that the first page of the text is a substitute for pages that have been removed: The dates in the first column of that page are in Arabic numerals. On the second and more authentic-looking page, and throughout the other pages of the log book, they are in Roman numerals. (D-662)

Furthermore, all reference to the sinking of the “Athenia” on 3 September is omitted. The log book shows that at 1400 hours on 3 September 1939 the position of the U-30 is given as AL 0278, which is one of the few positions quoted at all upon that page, and which was some 200 miles west of the position where the “Athenia” was sunk. The recorded course (due south) and the recorded speed (10 knots)—those entries are obviously designed to suggest that the U-30 was well clear of the “Athenia’s” position on 3 September. (D-662)

Finally, the original shows Lemp’s own signature upon the page dealing with 3 September differs from his other signature in the text. The difference appears in the final letter of his name. The signature in question shows a Roman “p”, whereas on the other signatures there is a script “p.” The inference is that either the signature is a forgery or it was made by Lemp at some other, and probably considerably later, date. (D-662)

The story of the “Athenia” establishes that the German Navy under Raeder embarked upon deliberate fraud. Even before receiving Lemp’s reports, the German Admiralty had repeatedly denied the possibility that a German U-boat could be in the area concerned. The charts which showed the disposition of U-boats and the position of sinking of the “Athenia” (discussed in Section 14 on Doenitz) have shown the dishonesty of these announcements. The conclusion to be drawn is this: Raeder, as head of the German Navy, knew all the facts. Censorship and information control in Nazi Germany were so complete that Raeder, as head of the Navy, must have been party to the falsification published in the “Voelkischer Beobachter,” which was an attempt by the Nazi conspirators to save face with their own people and to uphold the myth of an infallible Fuehrer backed by an impeccable war machine.

(5) The Attack on Norway and Denmark. Truth mattered little in Nazi propaganda, and Raeder’s camouflage was not confined to painting his ships or sailing them under the British flag, as he did in attacking Norway or Denmark. Raeder’s proud comment upon the invasions of Denmark and Norway, in which he played a leading part, (see Section 9 of Chapter IX on aggression against Norway and Denmark), is contained in a letter of Raeder’s to the Navy, which stated in part:

“The operations of the Navy in the occupation of Norway will for all time remain the great contribution of the Navy to this war.” (C-155)

(6) The Attack on the U.S.S.R. With the occupation of Norway and much of Western Europe safely completed, Hitler turned his eyes towards Russia. Raeder was against the attack on Russia and tried his best to dissuade Hitler from embarking upon it. Raeder approached the problem with cynicism. He did not object to the aggressive war on Russia because of its illegality, its immorality, its inhumanity. His only objection to it was its untimeliness. He wanted to finish England first before going further afield.

The story of Raeder’s part in the deliberations upon the war against Russia is told in extracts from a German compilation of official naval notes by the German Naval War Staff (C-170). The first entry, dated 26 September 1940, shows that Raeder was advocating to Hitler an aggressive Mediterranean policy, in which the Navy would play a paramount role, as opposed to a continental land policy. The entry reads:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Fuehrer: Naval Supreme Commander presents his opinion about the situation: the Suez Canal must be captured with German assistance. From Suez advance through Palestine and Syria; then Turkey in our power. The Russian problem will then assume a different appearance. Russia is fundamentally frightened of Germany. It is questionable whether action against Russia from the North will then be still necessary.” (C-170)

The entry for 14 November reads:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Fuehrer: Fuehrer is still inclined to instigate the conflict with Russia. Naval Supreme Commander recommends putting it off until the time after the victory over England since there is heavy strain on German forces and the end of warfare is not in sight. According to the opinion of the Naval Supreme Commander, Russia will not press for a conflict within the next year, since she is in the process of building up her Navy with Germany’s help—38 cm. turrets for battleships, etc.:—thus, during these years she continues to be dependent upon German assistance.” (C-170)

And again, the entry for 27 December states:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Fuehrer: Naval Supreme Commander emphasizes again that strict concentration of our entire war effort against England as our main enemy is the most urgent need of the hour. On the one side England has gained strength by the unfortunate Italian conduct of the war in the eastern Mediterranean and by the increasing American support. On the other hand, however, she can be hit mortally by a strangulation of her ocean traffic which is already taking effect. What is being done for submarine and naval air force construction is much too little. Our entire war potential must work for the conduct of the war against England; thus for Navy and air force every fissure of strength prolongs the war and endangers the final success. Naval Supreme Commander voices serious objections against Russia campaign before the defeat of England.” (C-170)

The entry for 18 February 1941 reads as follows:

“Chief, Naval Operations (SKL) insists on the occupation of Malta even before ‘Barbarossa’.” (C-170)

The 23 February entry reads:

“Instruction from Supreme Command, Armed Forces (OKW) that seizure of Malta is contemplated for the fall of 1941 after the execution of ‘Barbarossa’.” (C-170)

The entry for 19 March 1941 shows that by March 1941 Raeder had begun to consider what prospects of naval action the Russian aggression had to offer. The entry states:

“In case of ‘Barbarossa’, Supreme Naval Commander describes the occupation of Murmansk as an absolute necessity for the Navy. Chief of the Supreme Command, Armed Forces, considers compliance very difficult.” (C-170).

In the meantime, the entries show that Mussolini was crying out for a more active Nazi Mediterranean policy. The entry for 30 May reads:

“[Duce] demands urgently decisive offensive Egypt-Suez for fall 1941; 12 divisions are needed for that; ‘This stroke would be more deadly to the British Empire than the capture of London’; Chief Naval Operations agrees completely.” (C-170)

Finally, the entry for 6 June indicates the strategic views of Raeder and the German Navy at that stage:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Fuehrer: Memorandum of the Chief, Naval Operations. Observation on the strategic situation in the Eastern Mediterranean after the Balkan campaign and the occupation of Crete and further conduct of the war.”

* * * * * *

“The memorandum points with impressive clarity to the decisive aims of the war in the Near East. Their advancement has moved into grasping distance by the successes in the Aegean area, and the memorandum emphasizes that the offensive utilization of the present favorable situation must take place with the greatest acceleration and energy, before England has again strengthened her position in the Near East with help from the United States of America. The memorandum realizes the unalterable fact that the campaign against Russia would be opened very shortly; demands, however, that the undertaking ‘Barbarossa’, which because of the magnitude of its aims naturally stands in the foreground of the operational plans of the armed forces leadership, must under no circumstances lead to an abandonment, diminishing delay of the conduct of the war in the Eastern Mediterranean.” (C-170)

Thus Raeder, throughout, was seeking an active role for his Navy in the Nazi war plans.

Once Hitler had decided to attack Russia, Raeder sought a role for the Navy in the Russian campaign. The first naval operational plan against Russia was characteristically Nazi. The entry for 15 June 1941 in the notes of the German Naval War Staff reads:

“On the proposal of Chief Naval Operations, use of arms against Russian submarines, south of the northern boundary of the Poland warning area is permitted immediately; ruthless destruction is to be aimed at.” (C-170)

Keitel provides a typically fraudulent pretext for this action in his letter dated 15 June 1941 (C-38):

“Subject: Offensive action against enemy submarines in the Baltic Sea.

“To:

“High Command of the Navy—OKM (SKL)

“Offensive action against submarine south of the line Memel—southern tip of Oeland is authorized if the boats cannot be definitely identified as Swedish during the approach by German naval forces.

“The reason to be given up to B-day is that our naval forces believed to be dealing with penetrating British submarines.” (C-38).

This order was given on 15 June 1941, although the Nazi attack on Russia did not take place until 22 June 1941.

(7) Instigation of Japanese aggression. In the meantime, Raeder was urging Hitler, as early as 18 March 1941, to enlarge the scope of the world war by inducing Japan to seize Singapore. Raeder’s views at his audience with Hitler on 18 March were as follows:

“Japan must take steps to seize Singapore as soon as possible, since the opportunity will never again be as favorable (whole English Fleet contained; unpreparedness of U.S.A. for war against Japan; inferiority of U. S. Fleet vis-a-vis the Japanese). Japan is indeed making preparations for this action, but according to all declarations made by Japanese officers she will only carry it out if Germany proceeds to land in England. Germany must therefore concentrate all her efforts on spurring Japan to act immediately. If Japan has Singapore all other East Asiatic questions regarding the U.S.A. and England are thereby solved (Guam, Philippines, Borneo, Dutch East Indies).

“Japan wishes if possible to avoid war against U.S.A. She can do so if she determinedly takes Singapore as soon as possible.” (C-152)

By 20 April 1941 Hitler had agreed with Raeder’s proposition to induce the Japanese to take offensive action against Singapore. The entry in the notes of the German Naval War Staff, for 20 April 1941, reads:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Fuehrer: Navy Supreme Commander asks about result of Matsuoka’s visit, and evaluation of Japanese-Russian pact. Fuehrer has informed Matsuoka, ‘that Russia will not be touched if she behaves friendly according to the treaty. Otherwise, he reserves action for himself.’ Japan-Russia pact has been concluded in agreement with Germany, and is to prevent Japan from advancing against Vladisvostok, and to cause her to attack Singapore.” (C-170).

The real purpose of Hitler’s words to Matsuoka is revealed in another description of their conversation:

“* * * At that time the Fuehrer was firmly resolved on a surprise attack on Russia, regardless of what was the Russian attitude to Germany. This, according to reports coming in, was frequently changing. The communication to Matsuoka was designed entirely as a camouflage measure and to ensure surprise.” (C-66)

The Axis partners were not even honest with each other. This is typical of the jungle diplomacy with which Raeder associated himself.

C. RAEDER’S PART IN THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES.

(1) Instigation of the Navy to Violate the Rules of Warfare. Raeder throughout his career showed a complete disregard for any international rule or usage of war which conflicted with his intention of carrying through the Nazi program of conquest. Raeder has himself summarized his attitude in a long memorandum compiled by Raeder and the German Naval War Staff and dated 15 October 1939, only a few weeks after the war started (UK-65). The memorandum, which concerns the intensification of the war at sea, reads in part as follows:

“I. Military requirements for the decisive struggle against Great Britain.

“Our naval strategy will have to employ all the military means at our disposal as expeditiously as possible. Military success can be most confidently expected if we attack British sea-communications wherever they are accessible to us with the greatest ruthlessness; the final aim of such attacks is to cut off all imports into and exports from Britain. We should try to consider the requirements. It is desirable to base all military measures taken on existing International Law; however measures which are considered necessary from a military point of view, provided a decisive success can be expected from them, will have to be carried out, even if they are not covered by existing International Law. In principle therefore, any means of warfare which is effective in breaking enemy resistance should be used on some legal conception, even if that entails the creation of a new code of naval warfare.

“The supreme War Council will have to decide what measures of military and legal nature are to be taken. Once it has been decided to conduct economic warfare in its most ruthless form, in fulfilment of military requirements, this decision is to be adhered to under all circumstances and under no circumstances may such a decision for the most ruthless form of economic warfare, once it has been made, be dropped or released under political pressure from neutral powers; that is what happened in the World War to our own detriment. Every protest by neutral powers must be turned down. Even threats of further countries, including the U. S. coming into the war, which can be expected with certainty should the war last a long time, must not lead to a relaxation in the form of economic warfare once embarked upon. The more ruthlessly economic warfare is waged, the earlier will it show results and the sooner will the war come to an end. The economic effect of such military measures on our own war economy must be fully recognized and compensated through immediate re-orientation of German war economy and the re-drafting of the respective agreements with neutral states; for this, strong political and economic pressure must be employed if necessary.” (UK-65)

Those comments of Raeder are revealing and show that as an active member of the inner councils of the Nazi state up to 1943, Raeder must share responsibility for the many war crimes committed by his confederates and underlings in the course of their wars.

(2) The Navy’s Crimes at Sea. Apart from this over-all responsibility of Raeder, certain war crimes were essentially initiated or ordered through the naval chain of command by Raeder himself.

(a) Attacks on neutral shipping. The minutes of a meeting between Hitler and Raeder on 30 December 1939 read in part as follows:

“The Chief of Naval War Staff requests that full power be given to the Naval War Staff in making any intensification suited to the situation and to the means of war. The Fuehrer fundamentally agrees to the sinking without warning of Greek ships in the American prohibited area in which the fiction of mine danger can be upheld, e.g., the Bristol Channel.” (C-27)

At this time Greek ships also were neutral. This is another demonstration that Raeder was a man without principle.

This incitement to crime was a typical group effort, since a directive effectuating those naval views was issued on 30 December 1939 by the OKW, and signed by Jodl (C-12). This directive reads:

“On the 30th of December 1939, according to a report of Ob.d.M., the Fuehrer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces decided that:

“(1) Greek merchant ships in the area around England declared by U.S.A. to be a barred zone are to be treated as enemy vessels.

“(2) In the Bristol Channel, all shipping may be attacked without warning—where the impression of a mining incident can be created.

“Both measures are authorized to come into effect immediately.” (C-12)

A pencilled note at the foot of this directive reads:

“Add to (1) Attack must be carried out without being seen. The denial of the sinking of these steamships in case the expected protests are made must be possible.” (C-12)

Another example of the callous attitude of Raeder’s Navy towards neutral shipping is found in an entry in Jodl’s diary for 16 June 1942 (1807-PS). This extract reads as follows:

“The operational staff of the Navy (SKL) applied on the 29th May for permission to attack the Brazilian sea and air forces. The SKL considers that a sudden blow against the Brazilian naval and merchant ships is expedient at this juncture (a) because defense measures are still incomplete; (b) because there is the possibility of achieving surprise; and (c) because Brazil is to all intents and purposes fighting Germany at sea.” (1807-PS).

This was a plan for a kind of Brazilian “Pearl Harbor,” although war did not in fact break out between Germany and Brazil until the 22 August 1942.

Raeder also caused the Navy to participate in war crimes ordered by other conspirators. A single example will suffice.

(b) The order to shoot commandos. On 28 October 1942 the head of the Operations Division of the Naval War Staff promulgated to naval commands Hitler’s order of 18 October 1942 requiring the shooting of commandos. The effect of this order was to deny the protection of the Geneva Convention to captured commandos. The document dated 28 October 1942 reads:

“Enclosed please find a Fuehrer Order regarding annihilation of terror and sabotage units.

“This order must not be distributed in writing by Flotilla leaders, Section Commanders or officers of this rank.

“After verbal distribution to subordinate sections the above authorities must hand this order over to the next highest section which is responsible for its confiscation and destruction.” (C-179).

It will be difficult to conceive of clearer evidence than this, that Raeder appreciated the wrongfulness of Hitler’s commando order.

One example will show that this order was executed by the German Navy during the period when Raeder was its Commander.

A certain commando operation of December 1942 had as its objective an attack on shipping in Bordeaux harbor. The Wehrmacht account of this incident states that six of the ten participants in that commando raid were arrested, and that all were shot on 23 March 1943 (UK-57). On this particular occasion the Navy under Raeder had implemented Hitler’s order much more expeditiously. This fact appears in extracts from the war diary of Admiral Bachmann, who was the German Flag Officer in charge of Western France (C-176). The entry for 10 December 1942 reads:

“About 1015. Telephone call from personal representative of the Officer-in-charge of the Security Service in Paris, SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Schmidt to Flag Officer-in-charge’s Flag Lieutenant, requesting postponement of the shooting, as interrogation had not been concluded. After consultation with the Chief of Operations Staff the Security Service had been directed to get approval direct from Headquarters.

“1820. Security Service, Bordeaux, requested Security Service authorities at Fuehrer’s headquarters to postpone the shooting for three days. Interrogations continued for the time being.” (C-176)

The entry for the next day, 11 December 1942, reads:

“Shooting of the two prisoners was carried out by a unit (strength 1/16) belonging to the naval officer in charge Bordeaux, in the presence of an officer of the Security Service, Bordeaux, on order of the Fuehrer.” (C-176)

A note in green pencil in the margin opposite this entry reads:

“Security Service should have done this. Phone Flag Officer in Charge in future cases.” (C-176)

This provision for “future cases” was in fact an order that commandos should be handed over to the Security Service to be shot.

It is therefore evident from Admiral Bachmann’s war diary (C-176) that the first two men to be shot from the Bordeaux operation were actually put to death by a naval firing party on 11 December 1942.

The Naval War Staff had this comment to make upon that shooting:

“The Naval Commander, West France, reports that during the course of the day explosives with magnets to stick on, mapping material dealing with the mouth of the Gironde, aerial photographs of the port installations at Bordeaux, camouflage material and food and water for several days were found. Attempts to salvage the canoe were unsuccessful. The Naval Commander, West France, has ordered that both soldiers be shot immediately for attempted sabotage, if their interrogation, which has begun, confirms what has so far been discovered. Their execution has, however, been postponed in order to obtain more information.

“According to a Wehrmacht report, both soldiers have meanwhile been shot. The measure would be in accordance with the Fuehrer’s special order, but is nevertheless something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform.” (D-658)

That last sentence shows clearly that the Naval High Command under Raeder accepted allegiance to the Nazi conspiracy as of greater importance than any question of moral principle or professional honor. The shooting of commandos was not an act of war, but simple murder.

D. RAEDER’S ASSISTANCE TO THE CONSPIRACY THROUGH HIS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.

Raeder was not just a military puppet carrying out political orders. Before the Nazis came to power he had worked actively to rebuild the German Navy behind the back of the Reichstag. When the Nazis seized power, he unreservedly joined forces with them. He was the prime mover in transferring the loyalty of the German Navy to the Nazi Party. He himself was as much a member of the inner councils of the Nazis as any other defendant. He accepted membership in their main political advisory bodies.

He was well aware of the designs of the Nazis and assisted in their realization not only as a military technician, but also as a mendacious politician. And he furthered brutal methods of warfare. And yet of all the conspirators Raeder was one of the first to fall from his high position. It is true that the extension of the war beyond the boundaries of Poland came as a disappointment to him. His vision of a Nazi Armada mastering the Atlantic reckoned without Ribbentrop’s diplomacy and Hitler’s ideas of strategy.

In a memorandum dated 10 January 1943, just before his retirement, entitled, “The Importance of German Surface Forces for the War by powers signatory to the Three Power Pact,” Raeder stated:

“It was planned by the leaders of the National Socialist Reich to give the German Navy by 1944/45 such a strength that it would be possible to strike at the British vital arteries in the Atlantic with sufficient ships, fighting power and range.

“In 1939, the war having begun five years earlier, the construction of these forces was still in its initial stages.” (C-161).

This memorandum shows how completely Raeder was cheated in his ambitious plans by miscalculation as to when his high seas fleet would be required. Raeder made a great effort to recover some of his lost glory with his attack on Norway. He made many efforts to liven up the war at sea, both at the expense of neutrals and also of the customs and laws of the sea. His further schemes, however, were disregarded by his fellow conspirators, and in January 1943 he retired, and thereafter was a leader in name only.

The record, in Raeder’s handwriting, of his interview with Hitler on 6 January 1943, which led to Raeder’s retirement, states in part:

“If the Fuehrer was anxious to demonstrate that the parting was of the friendliest and wished that the name Raeder should continue to be associated with the Navy, particularly abroad, it would perhaps be possible to make an appointment to General Inspector, giving appropriate publicity in the press, etc. But a new C. in C. Navy with full responsibility for this office must be appointed. The position of General Inspector, or whatever it was decided to call it, must be purely nominal.

“Hitler accepted this suggestion with alacrity. The General Inspector could perhaps carry out special tasks for him, make tours of inspection, etc. The name of Raeder was still to be associated with the Navy. After C. in C. Navy had repeated his request, the Fuehrer definitely agreed to 30th January as his release date. He would like to think over the details.” (D-655)

This was Raeder’s twilight, different from the period of his ascendancy in 1939, when on 12 March he spoke on the occasion of the German Heroes’ Day (D-653). In that speech, during the celebration of “freedom to rearm,” Raeder stated, in the presence of Hitler and representatives of the Party and Armed Forces:

“* * * National Socialism, which originates from the spirit of the German fighting soldier, has been chosen by the German people as its ideology. The German people follow the symbols of its regeneration with the same great love and fanatical passion. The German people has had practical experience of National Socialism and it has not been imposed, as so many outside critics believe. The Fuehrer has shown his people that in the National Socialist racial community lies the greatest and invincible sources of strength, whose dynamic power ensures not only peace at home, but also enables to make use of all the Nation’s creative powers.” (D-653).

After eulogies of Hitler, Raeder continued as follows:

“This is the reason for the clear and unsparing summons to fight Bolshevism and international Jewry, whose race-destroying activities we have sufficiently experienced on our own people. Therefore, the alliance with all similar-minded Nations who, like Germany, are not willing to allow their strength, dedicated to construction and peaceful work at home, to be disrupted by alien ideologies as by parasites of a foreign race. * * * If later on we instruct in the technical handling of weapons, this task demands that the young soldier should also be taught National Socialist ideology and the problems of life. This part of the task, which becomes for us both a duty of honor and a demand which cannot be refused, can and will be carried out if we stand shoulder to shoulder and in sincere comradeship to the Party and its organization. The armed forces and the Party thus became more and more united in attitude and spirit.”

* * * * * *

“Germany is the protector of all Germans within and beyond our frontiers. The shots fired at Almeria are proof of that.” (D-653)

(The reference is to the bombardment of the Spanish town of Almeria, carried out by a German naval squadron on 31 May 1937 during the course of the Spanish Civil War.) After further panegyries on the Fuehrer and his leadership, Raeder hinted of what was to come:

“They all planted into a younger generation the great tradition of death for a holy cause, knowing that their blood will lead the way towards the freedom of their dreams.” (D-653)

That speech of Raeder’s illustrates his deep personal involvement in the Nazi conspiracy. There is the mixture of heroics and fatalism that led millions of Germans to slaughter. There are boasts of the violence used on the people of Almeria. There is the lip service to peace by a man who planned conquest. “Armed forces and party have become more and more united in attitude and spirit”—there is the authentic Nazi voice. There is the assertion of racialism. Finally, there is the anti-Semitic gesture, Raeder’s contribution to the outlook that produced Belsen. Imbued with these ideas, he became an active participant on both the political and military level in the Nazi conspiracy to wage wars of aggression and to wage them ruthlessly.

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ERICH RAEDER

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 67 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ *386-PS │Notes on a conference with Hitler in │ │ │the Reich Chancellery, Berlin, 5 │ │ │November 1937, signed by Hitler’s │ │ │adjutant, Hossbach, and dated 10 │ │ │November 1937. (USA 25) │ III │ 295 │ │ │ *498-PS │Top Secret Fuehrer Order for killing │ │ │of commandos, 18 October 1942. (USA │ │ │501) │ III │ 416 │ │ │ *503-PS │Letter signed by Jodl, 19 October │ │ │1942, concerning Hitler’s explanation │ │ │of his commando order of the day │ │ │before (Document 498-PS). (USA 542) │ III │ 426 │ │ │ *798-PS │Hitler’s speech to │ │ │Commanders-in-Chief, at Obersalzberg, │ │ │22 August 1939. (USA 29) │ III │ 581 │ │ │ *1807-PS │Extract from Jodl Diary, 16 June 1942,│ │ │concerning attack on Brazilian sea and│ │ │air forces. (GB 227) │ IV │ 377 │ │ │ *2031-PS │Decree establishing a Secret Cabinet │ │ │Council, 4 February 1938. 1938 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 112. (GB│ │ │217) │ IV │ 654 │ │ │ 2098-PS │Decree relating to Status of Supreme │ │ │Commanders of Army and Navy, 25 │ │ │February 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │ │Part I, p. 215. (GB 206) │ IV │ 725 │ │ │ *2194-PS │Top secret letter from Ministry for │ │ │Economy and Labor, Saxony, to Reich │ │ │Protector in Bohemia and Moravia, │ │ │enclosing copy of 1938 Secret Defense │ │ │Law of 4 September 1938. (USA 36) │ IV │ 843 │ │ │ 2879-PS │Extracts from The Archives. │ V │ 542 │ │ │ *2888-PS │Certificate of positions held by │ │ │Raeder, 14 November 1945. (USA 13) │ V │ 553 │ │ │ *3260-PS │“Churchill Sank the Athenia”, │ │ │published in Voelkischer Beobachter, │ │ │23 October 1939. (GB 218) │ V │ 1008 │ │ │ *C-12 │OKW directive, signed Jodl, 20 │ │ │December 1939, concerning conduct of │ │ │U-Boat warfare on Merchant shipping │ │ │against England. (GB 226) │ VI │ 818 │ │ │ *C-21 │Extracts from file on Intensification │ │ │of U-boat warfare. (GB 194) │ VI │ 825 │ │ │ *C-23 │Unsigned documents found in official │ │ │Navy files containing notes year by │ │ │year from 1927 to 1940 on │ │ │reconstruction of the German Navy, and│ │ │dated 18 February 1938, 8 March 1938, │ │ │September 1938. (USA 49) │ VI │ 827 │ │ │ *C-27 │Minutes of Meeting between C-in-C Navy│ │ │and the Fuehrer. (GB 225) │ VI │ 829 │ │ │ *C-29 │Directive of 31 January 1933 by Raeder│ │ │for German Navy to support the │ │ │armament industry. (USA 46) │ VI │ 830 │ │ │ C-32 │Survey report of German Naval Armament│ │ │after conference with Chief of “A” │ │ │Section, 9 September 1933. (USA 50) │ VI │ 833 │ │ │ *C-38 │Letter, 13 June 1941, requesting │ │ │decision on action against enemy │ │ │submarines and Order to attack Soviet │ │ │submarines, 15 June 1941. (GB 223) │ VI │ 855 │ │ │ *C-64 │Raeder’s report, 12 December 1939, on │ │ │meeting of Naval Staff with Fuehrer. │ │ │(GB 86) │ VI │ 884 │ │ │ *C-66 │Memorandum from Raeder to Assman, 10 │ │ │January 1944, concerning “Barbarossa” │ │ │and “Weseruebung”. (GB 81) │ VI │ 887 │ │ │ *C-105 │Extract from German Naval War Diary, │ │ │21 December 1940, p. 252. (GB 455) │ VI │ 913 │ │ │ *C-115 │Naval deception and camouflage in │ │ │invasion of Norway taken from file of │ │ │naval operation orders for operation │ │ │“Weseruebung”. (GB 90) │ VI │ 914 │ │ │ C-116 │Extract from German Naval file, 9 │ │ │August 1941, concerning Order to │ │ │blockade Norwegian ships. │ VI │ 915 │ │ │ C-117 │Extract from German Naval file, 13 │ │ │July 1941, concerning preparations for│ │ │laying of minefield near the │ │ │Bosphorus. │ VI │ 915 │ │ │ *C-120 │Directives for Armed Forces 1939-40 │ │ │for “Fall Weiss”, operation against │ │ │Poland. (GB 41) │ VI │ 916 │ │ │ *C-122 │Extract from Naval War Diary. │ │ │Questionnaire on Norway bases, 3 │ │ │October 1939. (GB 82) │ VI │ 928 │ │ │ C-124 │Secret letter, 29 September 1941, │ │ │concerning future of St. Petersburg. │ VI │ 931 │ │ │ *C-126 │Preliminary Time Table for “Fall │ │ │Weiss” and directions for secret │ │ │mobilization. (GB 45) │ VI │ 932 │ │ │ *C-135 │Extract from history of war │ │ │organization and of the scheme for │ │ │mobilization. (GB 213) │ VI │ 946 │ │ │ *C-141 │Order for concealed armament of │ │ │E-boats, 10 February 1932, signed by │ │ │Raeder. (USA 47) │ VI │ 955 │ │ │ *C-152 │Extract from Naval War Staff files, 18│ │ │March 1941, concerning audience of │ │ │C-in-C of Navy with Hitler on 18 March│ │ │1941. (GB 122) │ VI │ 966 │ │ │ *C-155 │Memorandum, 11 June 1940, signed by │ │ │Raeder. (GB 214) │ VI │ 969 │ │ │ *C-156 │Concealed Rearmament under Leadership │ │ │of Government of Reich, from “Fight of│ │ │the Navy against Versailles │ │ │1919-1935”. (USA 41) │ VI │ 970 │ │ │ *C-161 │Memo by Raeder, 10 January 1943, │ │ │entitled: Importance of German Surface│ │ │forces for conducting of war by powers│ │ │signatory to Three Power Pact. (GB │ │ │230) │ VI │ 976 │ │ │ *C-166 │Order from Command Office of Navy, 12 │ │ │March 1934, signed in draft by Groos, │ │ │concerning preparation of auxiliary │ │ │cruisers. (USA 48) │ VI │ 977 │ │ │ *C-170 │File of Russo-German relations found │ │ │in OKM files covering period 25 August│ │ │1939 to 22 June 1941. (USA 136) │ VI │ 977 │ │ │ *C-176 │Extracts from War Diary of Admiral │ │ │Bachmann, concerning shooting of │ │ │commandos in Bordeaux. (GB 228) │ VI │ 1011 │ │ │ C-179 │Hitler’s second decree, 18 October │ │ │1942, regarding annihilation of terror│ │ │and sabotage units. (USA 543) │ VI │ 1014 │ │ │ *C-189 │Conversation with the Fuehrer in June │ │ │1934 on occasion of resignation of │ │ │Commanding Officer of “Karlsruhe”. │ │ │(USA 44) │ VI │ 1017 │ │ │ *C-190 │Memorandum of conversation with Hitler│ │ │on financing Naval rearmament and │ │ │assembling six submarines, 2 November │ │ │1934. (USA 45) │ VI │ 1018 │ │ │ *C-191 │Demands by defendant Doenitz on │ │ │sinking of merchant ships, 22 │ │ │September 1939. (GB 193) │ VI │ 1018 │ │ │ *D-448 │Announcement of birthday celebration │ │ │of Doenitz in Voelkischer Beobachter, │ │ │25 April 1942. (GB 216) │ VII │ 58 │ │ │ *D-481 │Law regarding the swearing in of │ │ │officials and soldiers of Armed │ │ │Forces, 20 August 1934. 1934 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 785. (GB│ │ │215) │ VII │ 66 │ │ │ *D-638 │Affidavit of Doenitz concerning │ │ │sinking of Athenia, 17 November 1945. │ │ │(GB 220) │ VII │ 114 │ │ │ *D-653 │Raeder speech, 12 March 1939, │ │ │published in The Archive, March 1939, │ │ │pp. 1841-1846. (GB 232) │ VII │ 153 │ │ │ *D-654 │Affidavit of Adolf Schmidt, 9 August │ │ │1945. (GB 219) │ VII │ 156 │ │ │ *D-655 │Raeder interview with Hitler on 6 │ │ │January 1943. (GB 231) │ VII │ 158 │ │ │ *D-658 │Extract from SKL War Diary, 9 December│ │ │1942. (GB 229) │ VII │ 164 │ │ │ D-659 │Extract from War Diary of Chief of │ │ │U-boats, 27 September 1939. (GB 221) │ VII │ 164 │ │ │ *D-662 │War Diary of Commanding Officer of │ │ │U-boat U-30. (GB 222) │ VII │ 169 │ │ │ *D-663 │Operation Order “Atlantic” No. 56 for │ │ │U-boats in Atlantic, 7 October 1943. │ │ │(GB 200) │ VII │ 170 │ │ │ *EC-177 │Minutes of second session of Working │ │ │Committee of the Reich Defense held on│ │ │26 April 1933. (USA 390) │ VII │ 328 │ │ │ *L-79 │Minutes of conference, 23 May 1939, │ │ │“Indoctrination on the political │ │ │situation and future aims”. (USA 27) │ VII │ 847 │ │ │ *UK-57 │Keitel directives, 4 January 1944 and │ │ │21 April 1944, concerning │ │ │counteraction to Kharkov show trial. │ │ │(GB 164) │ VIII │ 539 │ │ │ *UK-65 │Report by Raeder to Hitler, 16 October│ │ │1939, and memorandum regarding │ │ │intensified naval war against England,│ │ │15 October 1939. (GB 224) │ VIII │ 545 │ │ │ Statement I │The Laconia Case and German Submarine │ │ │Warfare, by Karl Doenitz, Nurnberg, 7 │ │ │and 19 October 1945. │ VIII │ 657 │ │ │ Statement VII │The Development of German Naval │ │ │Policy—1933-1939, by Erich Raeder, │ │ │Moscow, fall 1945. │ VIII │ 684 │ │ │ Statement VIII │The Breakthrough in the Channel Early │ │ │in 1942, by Erich Raeder, Moscow, 30 │ │ │August 1945. │ VIII │ 701 │ │ │ Statement IX │My Relationship to Adolf Hitler and to│ │ │the Party, by Erich Raeder, Moscow, │ │ │fall 1945. │ VIII │ 707

16. BALDUR VON SCHIRACH

A. SCHIRACH’S NSDAP MEMBERSHIP, NSDAP POSITIONS, AND GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.

In an affidavit (3302-PS), Schirach has declared that he held the following positions:

Positions in the Nazi Party

(1) NSDAP member, 1925 to 1945.

(2) Leader of the National Socialist Students League, 1929-1931.

(3) Leader of the Hitler Youth organization, 1931-1940.

(4) Reich Youth Leader (Reichsjugendfuehrer) on the Staff of the SA Supreme Command under Ernst Roehm, 1931-1932.

(5) Reich Youth Leader (Reichsjugendfuehrer) of the NSDAP, 1931-1940; in 1932 Schirach became an independent Reich Leader (Reichsleiter), and no longer remained on the Staff of the SA Supreme Command.

(6) Gruppenfuehrer (Lt. General) of the SA, 1931-1941.

(7) Reich Leader (Reichsleiter) for Youth Education in the NSDAP, 1932-1945.

(8) Gau Leader (Gauleiter) of the Reichsgau Vienna, 1940-1945.

(9) Obergruppenfuehrer (General) of the SA, 1941-1945.

Governmental Positions

(1) Reich Youth Leader, 1933-1940.

(2) Reich Governor (Reichsstatthalter) of the Reichsgau Vienna, 1940-1945.

(3) Reich Defense Commission of Vienna, 1940-1945.

(4) Deputy to the Fuehrer for the Inspection of the Hitler Youth (_Beauftragter der Fuehrer fuer die Inspektion der Gesamten Hitler Jugend_), 1940-1945.

Schirach was also a member of the Reichstag from 1932 to 1945 (2973-PS).

B. SCHIRACH WAS AN INTIMATE AND SLAVISH FOLLOWER OF HITLER SINCE 1925.

As early as 1925 Baldur von Schirach, then 18 years old, joined the Nazi conspirators. Upon special request of Hitler, he went to Munich in order to study Party affairs. After having joined the NSDAP in 1925, he became active in converting students to National Socialism (3302-PS). This was the start of Schirach’s conspiratorial activities, which he continued for two decades in the spirit of unbending loyalty to Hitler and to the principles of National Socialism. Schirach shows his slavish loyalty to Hitler in his principal book, “The Hitler Youth,” published in 1934:

“We were not yet able to account for our conception in detail, we simply believed. And when Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, was published it was our bible which we almost learned by heart in order to answer the questions of the doubters and superior critics. Almost everyone today who is leading youth in a responsible position joined us in those years.”

* * * * * *

“In my apartment on Koenigin Strasse, I was lucky enough to be able to express my apprehensions about Strasser to the Fuehrer, otherwise I never discussed these things with anybody with the exception of Julius Streicher.” (1458-PS).

C. SCHIRACH WAS THE LEADING NAZI CONSPIRATOR IN DESTROYING INDEPENDENT YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS AND IN BUILDING THE NAZI YOUTH MOVEMENT.

(Reference is made at this point to section 8 of Chapter VII on “Reshaping of Education and Training of Youth”. See also 3054-PS.)

It was Schirach’s task to perpetuate the Nazi regime through generations by poisoning the mind of youth, and thereby the mind of the German people, and to prepare the German nation for aggressive wars.

The basic law concerning the Hitler Youth, which under Schirach’s tutelage became an instrument of the Nazi State, declares:

“The future of the German Nation depends on its youth, and the German youth shall have to be prepared for its future duties. * * *

“All German youth in the Reich is organized within the Hitler Youth.

“The German youth besides being reared within the family and school, shall be educated physically, intellectually, and morally in the spirit of National Socialism to serve the people and the community, through the Hitler Youth.

“The task of educating the German Youth through the Hitler Youth is being entrusted to the Reich Leader of German Youth in the NSDAP. * * *” (1392-PS).

For the five years preceding the promulgation of this law Schirach had been leader of the Hitler Youth and Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP. He continued in these positions until the Nazis launched their aggressive wars. As late as 4 December 1945, Schirach declared his own feeling of responsibility for Nazi policies concerning youth:

“I feel myself responsible for the policy of the youth movement in the Party and later within the Reich.” (3302-PS).

(1) Schirach actively promoted the NSDAP and its affiliated youth organizations before the Nazis seized power. In 1929 Hitler appointed Schirach leader of the National Socialist German Students League and in 1931 leader of the Hitler Jugend. After 1931, Schirach devoted his full time to Party work (3302-PS). Before 1933, Schirach moved throughout Germany, leading demonstrations and summoning German youth to the Hitler Youth. When this organization and the wearing of its uniform were forbidden by law, Schirach continued by illegal means. Of this period he writes:

“Whoever came to us during this illegal time, boy or girl, risked everything. * * * With pistols in our belts we drove through the Ruhr district while stones came flying after us.” (1458-PS)

Schirach admits that Rosenberg and he were not successful before 1933 in efforts to reach “an understanding” with other youth organizations. Schirach states that he thereupon arrived at a conclusion which later was to spell the doom of independent youth groups:

“I realized at that time that an understanding with the leaders of the League would never be possible and devoted myself to the principle of the totality [Totalitaet] of the Hitler Youth which in the year 1933 cost all those leagues their independent existence.” (1458-PS).

(2) Schirach, on behalf of the Nazi conspirators, destroyed all independent youth organizations or caused them to be absorbed within the Hitler Youth (Hitler Jugend). After the Nazi conspirators seized political control of Germany, Schirach was aggressive in bringing the entire German youth within the Nazi orbit of control and domination. Referring to the period immediately following 30 January 1933, Schirach declared:

“Now the problem was to apply the victory of the movement to the entire youth. Our cabinet ministers were overburdened with their new tasks and were working day and night. We could not wait until they could find time to solve the youth question by their own initiative. Therefore, we had to act ourselves. My co-workers met in my Munich apartment and advised me to occupy the Reichs Committee [Reichsausschuss] of the German Youth Leagues [Jugendverbaende]. I commissioned General [Obergebietsfuehrer] Nabersberg with 50 members of the Berlin HJ to make a surprise raid on the Reich Committee in the Alsenstrasse early the next morning. This was done and at noon the press had the report that the HJ [Hitler Youth] had taken over the leadership of the Reich Committee.” (1458-PS).

By a second surprise raid, Schirach took over the Youth Hostels. Of this Schirach writes in the same book:

“In the meantime I gained control over the Reich League for German Youth Hostels [Reichsverband fuer deutsche Jugendherbergen] in a similar manner to the one employed with the Reich Committee.” (1458-PS)

By using the records of the seized Reich Committee, Schirach states that he obtained knowledge of the strength and influential personalities of all the German youth groups.

“From this point I recognized the necessity of coming to grips with the Greater German Union [Grossdeutscher Bund].” (1458-PS)

In June 1933, Schirach was appointed Youth Leader of the German Reich (Jugendfuehrer des Deutschen Reiches) in a solemn ceremony before Hitler. Concerning the period immediately following, Schirach writes in the same book:

“The first thing I did was to dissolve the Greater German Union [Grossdeutscher Bund]. Since I headed all German youth organizations and I had the right to decide on their leadership, I did not hesitate for a moment to take this step, which was for the Hitler Youth the elimination of an unbearable state of affairs.” (1458-PS)

The dissolution of this and other youth organizations was accomplished by orders issued by Schirach as Youth Leader of the German Reich. (2229-PS)

In this position Schirach also appointed deputies to the various German states (Landesbeauftragte) “to carry out my instructions, and I appointed district leaders [Gebietsfuehrer] to these positions in all of the states in execution of my right” (1458-PS). In this book Schirach also admits directing the further assimilation or destruction of other youth organizations:

“The Marxist youth as well as all political youth organizations I prohibited after the occupation of the Reich Committee. The one million members of the HJ which we had on 30 January 1933 had grown to a round 3,000,000. Only the two large professional groups, the Protestant and Catholic youth, were opposed to us.” (1458-PS)

Schirach proceeded to hold discussions with the Hitler-appointed Reich Bishop Ludwig Mueller,

“And in December 1933, the Reich Bishop and myself were able to inform the Fuehrer that incorporation of the Protestant youth into the HJ had become a reality.” (1458-PS)

When this book was written, Schirach had not yet accomplished the complete coordination of Catholic youth into the Hitler Youth, though he argued that:

“No reasonable man in Germany can give a reason for the necessity of the existence of Catholic youth organizations in their present form.” (1458-PS)

Schirach’s objective of forcing all German youth into the Hitler Youth was finally accomplished by a decree in December 1936. (1392-PS)

(3) Schirach was mainly responsible for the indoctrination and training of German youth outside home and school. The law making compulsory the organization of all German Youth within the Hitler Youth declared that:

“The task of educating the German Youth through the Hitler Youth is being entrusted to the Reich Youth Leader in the NSDAP.” (1392-PS)

To make Schirach’s sole competence even clearer, the first executive order concerning the basic youth law stated:

“The youth leader of the German Reich is solely competent for all missions of the physical, ideological, and moral education of the entire German youth outside of the house of the parents and the school.” (1462-PS)

(4) Schirach was the principal Nazi conspirator in applying the Leadership principle to German youth. As a Reich Leader (Reichsleiter) in the NSDAP, Schirach was responsible only to Hitler or his deputy (Stellvertreter), Hess. In youth affairs he was at the top of the Nazi leadership pyramid, and under him German youth was directed by and completely subjected to the Leadership Principle. The Leadership Principle, one of the principal control-techniques of the Nazis was explained and glorified by Schirach as it applied to German youth:

“A single will leads the HJ. The power of authority of the HJ leaders, that of the smallest as well as of the largest unit, is absolute, i.e., he has the unlimited right to give orders because he bears the unlimited responsibility. He knows that the responsibility of the higher one comes before that of the lower ones. Therefore, he submits silently to the instructions of his leaders even if they are directed against him personally. To him as well as to all young Germany the history of the HJ is proof of the fact that a youth community also can only be successful if it unconditionally recognizes the authority of leadership. The success of National Socialism is a success of discipline. The structure of National Socialist Youth is built on the foundation of discipline and obedience. The teachings of the time of persecution apply even more to the period of victory and power.” (1458-PS)

(5) Schirach indoctrinated youth with the Nazi ideology. Schirach states that:

“It was my task to educate the youth in the aims, ideology and directives of the NSDAP, and beyond this to direct and to shape them.” (3302-PS)

For this purpose the Hitler Youth had an elaborate propaganda apparatus which published numerous periodicals, ranging from a daily press service to monthly magazines. Through liaison agents the Hitler Youth Propaganda Office had permanent contact with Dr. Goebbels’ Propaganda Office of the NSDAP and with the Ministry of People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda. (3349-PS).

Schirach, together with Dr. Robert Ley, established the Adolf Hitler Schools in January 1937. These schools, according to the joint statement of Reich Leaders (Reichsleiter) Schirach and Ley, were open to outstanding and proven members of the Youth Folk (Jungvolk), the junior section of the Hitler Youth organization. The Adolf Hitler Schools were destined to train youth free of charge for responsible positions in National Socialist Germany. These schools were units of and under the jurisdiction of the Hitler Youth. Schirach shared with Reich Organization Leader (Reichsorganisationsleiter) Ley the general supervision of the contents of the teaching, the curriculum, and the staff of the Adolf Hitler Schools (2653-PS). Schirach encouraged a close relation between members of the Hitler Youth and the German League for Germandom abroad (Verein fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland, or “VDA”). An agreement between Schirach and the leaders of the VDA in 1933 states:

“(1) With a complete respect for the important racial-political task the Hitler Youth recommends to its members membership in collaboration with the VDA.”

* * * * * *

“(3) The school groups of the VDA (racial-German work cells) assist the Hitler Youth in their work.” (L-360-H)

Schirach thus subscribed to the “racial-political task” of the NSDAP and extended his jurisdiction even beyond the border of the German Reich. His encouragement and approval of anti-Jewish terror by youth is discussed below.

(6) Through the Hitler Youth, Schirach assisted the Nazi conspirators in developing leaders and members of the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations, including the SA and the SS. Sometime before the launching of aggressive wars, the Hitler Youth had become the principal source of zealous members for the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations. Orders of the Party Chancellery concerned with “successor problems” of the Party emphasize constant attention to Hitler Youth members as future Nazi leaders, thus attempting the perpetuation of the Nazi regime and Nazi ideology for the immediate future and even into future generations. Only Hitler Youth members who distinguished themselves were to be admitted to the Party. Nazi leaders were instructed to use “properly qualified full-time Hitler Youth leaders * * * for the continuation of their political work in the Party service,” so that a necessary succession of full-time leaders in the Leader Corps (Fuehrerkorps) of the Party would be secured. (3348-PS)

The Party manual also discusses the Hitler Youth as a recruitment agency for future Nazi leaders and members of affiliated organizations of the NSDAP:

“To secure for the Party valuable and trained recruits for leadership, suitable Hitler Jugend boys of over 17 can be assigned for education and training to leaders from local unit leaders on upwards.”

* * * * * *

“Besides the above-mentioned conditions for selections in general, a process of elimination results from the fact that from youth on the German is cared for, guided, and educated by the Party. First they are assembled in the Young Folk [Jungvolk] from which the young people are transferred into the HJ. The boy of the HJ enters the SA, the SS, the NSKK or the NSFK or participates in the work of the affiliated organizations of the Party. After labor and army service, he returns for service to the Party and its affiliates, respectively.” (2401-PS)

Special arrangements existed between Himmler’s SS and Schirach’s Hitler Youth concerning the recruiting of members of the Hitler Jugend for later service in the SS. Within the Hitler Youth was a special group called the Streifendienst (Patrol Service). Concerning this special group, an official handbook on youth laws states:

“Organization of the Streifendienst.

“1. Since the Streifendienst in the HJ has to perform tasks similar to those of the SS for the whole movement, it is organized as a special unit for the purpose of securing recruits for the general SS; however, as much as possible, recruits for the SS special troops, for the SS Death Head Troops, and for the officer candidate schools should also be taken from these formations.”

* * * * * *

“4a. The selection of Streifendienst members is made according to the principles of racial selection of the Schutzstaffel [SS]; the competent officials of the SS, primarily unit leaders, race authorities, and SS physicians, will be consulted for the admission test.”

* * * * * *

“5. To insure from the beginning a good understanding between Reich youth leadership and Reich SS leadership, a liaison office will be ordered from the Reich youth leadership to the SS main office starting 1 October 1938. The appointment of other leaders to the SS sections is a subject for a future agreement.

“6. After the organization is completed, the SS takes its replacement primarily from these Streifendienst members. Admission of youths of German blood who are not members of the HJ is then possible only after information and advice of the competent Bann leader.” (2396-PS)

Shortly afterwards, on 17 December 1938, Schirach and Himmler entered into and signed another agreement for recruiting SS members from the ranks of the Hitler Youth:

“To secure full success for the common effort of the SS and the Hitler Youth by strict cooperation, to stem the flight from the land, to build a new peasant class, to bring the best part of the people into contact with the earth of the homeland, the following arrangement has been made in connection with the agreement of 26 August 1938.

“1. The farm service of the Hitler Youth is according to education and aim, particularly well suited as a recruiting organization for the Schutzstaffel (general SS and the armed sections of the SS; SS special troops and SS death head battalions).

“2. Boys who suit the special demands of the SS according to physical conditions and moral attitude are preferably admitted into the farm service of the Hitler Youth.”

* * * * * *

“5. All farm service members who pass the general admission test of the SS will be taken over into the general SS after leaving the farm service.” (2567-PS)

Thus, by the end of 1938, the Hitler Youth had become the main source for future SS members. (For the criminal activities of the SS formations for which Hitler Youth members were recruited, see Section 5 of Chapter XV of the Schutzstaffeln (SS).)

(7) Schirach actively engaged in militarizing the Hitler Youth. In June 1933, under an agreement between Hitler and Franz Seldte, which was negotiated in the presence of the Reich Minister of War, the “Steel Helmet League of Front Line Soldiers” (Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten) was incorporated into the Nazi movement. The Scharnhorst, the youth organization of the Stahlhelm, was integrated into the Hitler Youth. (2260-PS)

The Hitler Youth was generally set up along military lines with uniforms, ranks, and titles. It contained divisions called Naval Hitler Youth, Motorized Hitler Youth, Hitler Youth Flyers, and Signal Hitler Youth. According to an official document published by the Reich Youth Leadership under Schirach, the object of these divisions within the Hitler Youth was to prepare boys, respectively, for the German merchant marine and Navy, the National Socialist Motorized Corps (NSKK), for civil and military aviation, and for service with signal troops. (2654-PS)

On or about 11 August 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, an agreement was entered into between Schirach and Wilhelm Keitel, then Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, which was declared by Das Archiv to represent “the result of close cooperation” between these two conspirators. The agreement itself stated:

“While it is exclusively the task of the Hitler Youth to attend to the training of their units in this direction, it is suitable in the sense of a uniform training corresponding to the demands of the Wehrmacht to support the leadership of the Hitler Youth for their responsible task as trainers and educators in all fields of training for defense by special courses * * * A great number of courses are in progress.” (2398-PS)

The agreement stated that it “gives the possibility of roughly redoubling” the same 30,000 leaders in the Hitler Youth schools for directing shooting practice and field training. Under the agreement, specific arrangements were made for messing and billeting the Hitler Youth leaders at Wehrmacht installations. Former Hitler Youth leaders in the Wehrmacht, who were specially selected volunteers, were to be assigned as liaison officers and deputies for carrying out this military training. (2398-PS)

Hitler, in a speech in February 1938, represented that thousands of German boys had received specialized training in naval, aviation, and motorized groups within the Hitler Youth, and that over 1 million Hitler Youth members had received instructions in rifle shooting from 7,000 instructors. (2454-PS)

D. SCHIRACH PROMOTED THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS.

This allegation of the Indictment is born out by Schirach’s activities in converting students to National Socialism and by his Leadership of the Hitler Youth before the Nazis’ seizure of political power. These activities are described above.

E. SCHIRACH PROMOTED THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER OF THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS.

Schirach’s acts in accomplishing the Nazis’ complete control over German youth are described above. These acts were of notable assistance to the Nazi conspirators in acquiring complete control of Germany during the pre-war years. Schirach’s own words in 1938 leave no doubt as to his own feeling of personal responsibility in this connection:

“The struggle for the unification of the German youth is finished. I considered it as my duty to conduct it in a hard and uncompromising manner. Many might not have realized why we went through so much trouble for the sake of the youth. And yet: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party, whose trustee I felt I always was and always will be, this Party considered the struggle for the youth as the decisive element for the future of the German nation.”

* * * * * *

“And I promise the German public that the youth of the German Reich, the youth of Adolf Hitler, will accomplish its duty in the spirit of the man to whom alone their lives belong.” (2306-PS)

F. SCHIRACH PROMOTED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL PREPARATIONS FOR AGGRESSIVE WAR AND THE MILITARIZATION OF NAZI-DOMINATED ORGANIZATIONS.

A general outline of Schirach’s acts bearing on this allegation of the Indictment appears above. By his own admission, Schirach was the principal Nazi responsible for driving the entire Nazi ideology into the minds of German youths, many of whom grew up to be fanatical Nazis like Schirach himself. From Hitler, in 1938, came boastings of the accomplishments of the Hitler Youth in military training. Through the vast propaganda network of the Reich Youth Leadership, through the Adolf Hitler Schools, through the minute regimentation of youth and its subjection to the Leadership Principle, and through the military training of German youth, Schirach fulfilled the edict of the basic law concerning the Hitler Youth:

“The future of the German nation depends on its youth, and the German youth shall have to be prepared for its future duties”.

It has been demonstrated that the future duties of the youth entrusted to Schirach were participation in aggressive wars.

G. SCHIRACH’S GENERAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS PARTY AND GOVERNMENT LEADER IN THE REICHSGAU VIENNA.

(1) Gau Leader (Gauleiter). Schirach was Gau Leader of the NSDAP for the Reichsgau Vienna from July 1940 to 1945. In common with all other Gau Leaders, Schirach was the highest representative of Hitler, the supreme Party Leader, in his Gau, and he was the bearer of sovereignty (Hoheitstraeger) of the Party for this regional division of the Party. As such, he possessed “sovereign political rights”; he represented the Party with his Gau; and he was “responsible for the entire political situation within” this Gau. (1893-PS)

The Party manual makes it mandatory that each Gau Leader meet at least once a month with leaders of the affiliated organizations of the NSDAP, including the SA and the SS, “for the purpose of mutual orientation”, and authorizes the Gau Leader to call upon SA leaders and SS leaders as “needed for the execution of a political mission.” As a Gau Leader Schirach was appointed by Hitler and was “directly subordinate” to him. He was responsible for coordinating activities of the NSDAP with various state authorities, including the police and the Gestapo. (1893-PS)

(2) Reich Governor (Reichsstatthalter). Schirach was Reich Governor of the Reichsgau Vienna from July 1940 to 1945. After the Anschluss the Nazi conspirators abolished the State of Austria as a sovereign state and divided Austria into seven Reich Gaus, the most important of which was the Reichsgau Vienna (Reichsgau Wien). Schirach, in his capacity as Reich Governor, was the lieutenant of the head of the German State, Hitler, in his Gau. As Reich Governor he was authorized to make decrees and issue orders within the limitations set by the supreme Reich authorities (Oberste Reichsbehoerden). He was especially under the administrative supervision of Frick, Reich Minister of Interior. The Reich Governor was also first mayor (Erster Buergermeister) of Vienna. (3301-PS)

Schirach was also Reich Defense Commissar of Vienna from 1940 to 1945. These government positions, along with his leadership of the Party in Vienna, made Schirach the most important representative of the Nazi conspirators in the Reichsgau Vienna. Schirach himself states that as Reich Governor his “field was the direction of the general administration” in Vienna. (3302-PS)

As the highest Party and State leader in the Reichsgau Vienna, Schirach was responsible for all the crimes of the Nazi conspirators in the Reichsgau Vienna on the ground that he either initiated, approved, executed, or abetted them. Specific examples, described below, demonstrate that in fact he was actively and personally engaged in Nazi crimes.

H. SCHIRACH PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, PARTICULARLY ANTI-SEMITIC MEASURES.

Schirach bears responsibility for providing many, if not most, of the Death Head (Totenkopf) members of the SS, who, in the main, administered the concentration camps. As particularized above, the SS, by agreement between Himmler and Schirach, took “its replacement primarily” from Streifendienst members of the Hitler Youth and only upon special permission could a non-Hitler Youth become an SS man. Nor can Schirach escape responsibility for his assistance in implanting in youth the Nazi ideology, with its tenets of a master race, “sub-human” peoples, and world domination. For such notions were the psychological prerequisites for the instigation and toleration of the atrocities which zealous Nazis committed throughout Germany and the occupied countries.

(1) Schirach directed and participated in the Nazi conspirators’ slave labor program.

(For a full discussion of the slave labor program see Chapter X.)

Vienna was one of the principal cities and an independent Reichsgau of Greater Germany. Schirach, as Gau Leader and Reich Governor, was delegated far-reaching responsibilities concerning the slave labor program and hence shares responsibility for crimes of slave labor. (3352-PS)

This document proves that the Gau Leaders were required to be the supreme integrating and coordinating agents of the Nazi conspirators in executing the entire manpower program. A circular of the Party Chancellery of 22 March 1942 states that Goering, upon the suggestion of Sauckel, had agreed that the Gau Leaders were to become active as Sauckel’s special Plenipotentiaries (Bevollmaechtigte) in order that—

“By the leadership of the Party in full appreciation of the competence of the corresponding Reich authorities, the highest efficiency in the field of manpower shall be guaranteed.” (3352-PS)

Goering gave Sauckel authority to issue orders to “the agencies of the Party, its member organizations and affiliated organizations” as well as to governmental authorities. By an order of 6 April 1942 Sauckel appointed the Gau Leaders as his “plenipotentiaries for manpower within their respective Gaus,” and charged them with the—

“* * * establishment of a harmonious cooperation of all agencies of the State, of the Party, of the Armed Forces, and of the Economy, charged with problems of manpower and thus to create agreement between the different conceptions and requirements to obtain the highest efficiency in the field of manpower.” (3352-PS).

To insure that the Gau Leaders could efficiently perform their manpower tasks, the entire staff of the Provincial Labor Offices were—

“* * * directed to be at the disposal of the Gau Leaders for information and advice and to fulfill the suggestions and demands of the Gau Leader for the purpose of improvements or manpower.” (3352-PS)

In this same order Sauckel said:

“By the above mentioned commission of the Gau Leaders of the NSDAP, I intend to lead manpower utilization to the greatest success.” (3352-PS)

Thus, Sauckel, himself an experienced Gau Leader, bears witness to the involvement after 1942 of the Gau Leaders, including Schirach, in the manpower utilization program of the Nazi conspirators.

Furthermore, a circular from the Party Chancellery of 4 August 1942, shows that “Bearers of Sovereignty” (Hoheitstrager) of the NSDAP (which included the Gau Leaders and hence Schirach) were to familiarize themselves with the execution of manpower directives on Eastern workers. One of the purposes of this directive was to prevent “inept Factory heads” from giving “too much consideration for the care of the Eastern Workers and thereby causing justified annoyance among the German workers” (3352-PS). What “consideration” was in fact meted out to Eastern Workers in the conspirators’ manpower utilization program is discussed in Chapter X.

(2) Schirach participated in the conspiracy to persecute the Churches. The activity of Schirach in persecuting churches by dissolving religious youth organizations or by incorporating them in the Hitler Youth has been set forth above.

Official letters of Martin Bormann and Hans Lammers, in March 1941, show that church properties in Austria had been confiscated for various pretexts after Schirach had become Gau Leader and Reich Governor of the Reichsgau Vienna. Upon a visit of Hitler to Vienna, Schirach and two other officials raised with him a complaint that the confiscations should be made in favor of Gaus rather than of the Reich. Thereafter all Gauleiters were notified that the decision had been made in favor of the position Schirach had taken before Hitler, namely in favor of the Gaus. (R-146)

(3) Schirach participated in the conspiracy to persecute the Jews. Even before assuming his Governmental functions in the Reichsgau Vienna, Schirach was responsible for encouraging anti-Jewish terror. Before 1939, at a meeting of Heidelberg students of the National Socialist German Students Bund (NSDStB), Schirach was chief speaker. After praising the students for devoting so much of their time to the affairs of the Party,

“* * * he declared that the most important phase of German University life in the Third Reich was the program of the NSDStB. He extolled various activities of the Bund. He reminded the boys of the service they had rendered during the Jewish purge. Dramatically he pointed across the river to the old University town of Heidelberg where several burnt-out synagogues were mute witnesses of the efficiency of Heidelberg students. Those skeleton buildings would remain there for centuries, as inspiration for future students, as warning to enemies of the State.” (2441-PS)

Immediately after becoming Gau Leader and Reich Governor of the Reichsgau Vienna, Schirach’s anti-Jewish measures assumed more formidable proportions. As early as 7 November 1940, one Dr. Fischer, “by order” of the Reich Governor Schirach, stated that—

“investigations are being made at present by the Gestapo, to find out how many able-bodied Jews are still available in order to make plans for the contemplated mass projects. It is assumed that there are not many more Jews available. If some still should be available, however, the Gestapo has no scruples to use the Jews even for the removal of the destroyed synagogues. SS Colonel Huber will report personally to the ‘Regierungspraesident’ in this matter.” (1948-PS)

The Regierungspraesident was Reich Governor Schirach’s personal representative “within the governmental administration” (in der staatlichen Verwaltung) of the Reichsgau. (3301-PS)

The above letter indicates that Schirach and his immediate subordinates not only knew of the atrocities which had been committed against the Jews by the Nazi conspirators in the Reichsgau, but also that they endorsed further forced labor of Jews and worked intimately with the Gestapo and the SS in their measures of persecution. Within six months after Schirach became Gau Leader and Reich Governor of Vienna, Dr. Hans Lammers informed Schirach that—

“the Fuehrer has decided after receipt of one of the reports made by you, that the 60,000 Jews still residing in the Reichsgau Vienna, will be deported most rapidly, that is still during the war, to the General Government because of the housing shortage prevalent in Vienna.” (1950-PS)

Lammers’ letter, dated 3 December 1940, informed Schirach that the Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, and the Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, had been informed of the Fuehrer’s decision. (1950-PS)

Schirach’s guilt in this connection, by his own admission, however, runs even deeper. In a statement to the so-called European Youth League in Vienna in 1942, Schirach stated:

“Every Jew who exerts influence in Europe is a danger to European culture. If anyone reproaches me with having driven from this city, which was once the European metropolis of Jewry, tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Jews into the ghetto of the East, I feel myself compelled to reply: I see in this an action contributing to European culture.” (3048-PS)

(4) Conclusion. Schirach bears responsibility for rendering significant aid to the Nazi conspirators in each major phase of the conspiracy; winning Nazi supporters before the seizure of power; consolidating the Nazis’ control of Germany after the seizure of power; preparing for aggressive wars; and conducting aggressive wars. From the beginning he held important policy-making and administrative positions. From 1931 to the Nazis’ downfall, he was one of the small group of Reich Leaders (Reichsleiter) of the NSDAP who consorted together, directly subordinate only to Hitler himself, and who provided the innermost leaven of the Leadership Corps of the Party. For nearly a decade he was fully in charge of perpetrating the Nazi regime by poisoning the minds of the young generation. Although his principal assistance to the conspiracy was given by his commission of German youth to the conspirators’ objectives, still he also conspired to wage crimes against humanity as a Party and governmental administrator of high standing after the conspiracy had reached its inevitable involvement in war of aggression.

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO BALDUR VON SCHIRACH

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 65 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ 1392-PS │Law on the Hitler Youth, 1 December │ │ │1936. 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │p. 993. │ III │ 972 │ │ │ *1458-PS │The Hitler Youth by Baldur von │ │ │Schirach, Leipzig, 1934. (USA 667) │ IV │ 22 │ │ │ 1462-PS │First Execution Order to the Law of │ │ │the Hitler Youth, 25 March 1939. 1939 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 709. │ IV │ 44 │ │ │ *1893-PS │Extracts from Organization Book of the│ │ │NSDAP, 1943 edition. (USA 323) │ IV │ 529 │ │ │ *1948-PS │Letter from Governor in Vienna, 7 │ │ │November 1940, evidencing RSHA │ │ │instructions to recruit Jews from │ │ │forced labor. (USA 680) │ IV │ 586 │ │ │ *1950-PS │Secret letter from Lammers to │ │ │defendant von Schirach, 3 December │ │ │1940, concerning deportation of Jews. │ │ │(USA 681) │ IV │ 592 │ │ │ *2229-PS │The Reich Youth Leader at Work, │ │ │published in National Socialist Party │ │ │Press Service Release, 22 June 1933, │ │ │pp. 2-3. (USA 668) │ IV │ 870 │ │ │ 2260-PS │Settlement of Relationship between │ │ │NSDAP and Stahlhelm (Steel Helmets) │ │ │published in National Socialist Party │ │ │Press Service release, 21 June 1933. │ IV │ 933 │ │ │ 2306-PS │Revolution of Education, by Baldur von│ │ │Schirach, 1938, pp. 51-52, 63. (USA │ │ │860) │ IV │ 997 │ │ │ *2396-PS │Handbook of Collected Youth Laws, Vol.│ │ │I, Group 1, pp. 19a, 19b, 20. (USA │ │ │673) │ V │ 63 │ │ │ *2398-PS │Cooperation of Hitler Jugend with │ │ │Wehrmacht, 11 August 1939, published │ │ │in The Archive, No. 65, August 1939, │ │ │pp. 601-602. (USA 677) │ V │ 66 │ │ │ *2401-PS │The Hitler Youth as recruits for │ │ │future leaders, from Organization Book│ │ │of NSDAP, 1938, pp. 80-81. (USA 430) │ V │ 69 │ │ │ *2441-PS │Affidavit of Gregor Ziemer, 4 October │ │ │1945, from his book “Education for │ │ │Death”. (USA 679) │ V │ 141 │ │ │ *2454-PS │Quotations from speeches of Hitler, │ │ │published in Voelkischer Beobachter, │ │ │Munich edition. (USA 676) │ V │ 196 │ │ │ *2567-PS │Decree signed by Himmler and von │ │ │Schirach, concerning cooperation of HJ│ │ │and SS, printed in The Young Germany, │ │ │Berlin, February 1939. (USA 674) │ V │ 301 │ │ │ *2653-PS │The Way of German Youth, from The │ │ │Third Reich, 5th Year, 1937, pp. │ │ │117-118. (USA 669) │ V │ 359 │ │ │ *2654-PS │Organization and Insignia of the │ │ │Hitler Youth, edited by Reich Youth │ │ │Headquarters of NSDAP. (USA 675) │ V │ 361 │ │ │ *2973-PS │Statement by von Schirach concerning │ │ │positions held. (USA 14) │ V │ 679 │ │ │ *3048-PS │Speech by von Schirach before European│ │ │Youth Congress in Vienna, published in│ │ │Voelkischer Beobachter, 15 September │ │ │1942. (USA 274) │ V │ 776 │ │ │ 3054-PS │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion │ │ │picture composed of captured German │ │ │film. (USA 167) │ V │ 801 │ │ │ 3301-PS │Law concerning construction of │ │ │Administration in Austria, 14 April │ │ │1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │p. 777. │ V │ 1093 │ │ │ *3302-PS │Affidavit of von Schirach, 4 December │ │ │1945, concerning positions held. (USA │ │ │665) │ V │ 1096 │ │ │ *3348-PS │Young Replacement Problems, published │ │ │in Decrees, Regulations, │ │ │Announcements, Vol. I, pp. 298-9, 303.│ │ │(USA 410) │ VI │ 79 │ │ │ *3349-PS │Press and propaganda Office of Hitler │ │ │Youth, published in Organization Book │ │ │of the NSDAP, 1936, pp. 452-453. (USA │ │ │666) │ VI │ 79 │ │ │ *3352-PS │Manpower, published in Decrees, │ │ │Regulations, Announcements, Vol. II, │ │ │pp. 507-513, 567. (USA 206) │ VI │ 81 │ │ │ *3459-PS │Article on Meeting of Reich Group of │ │ │Young Law Guardians on 19 May 1939, │ │ │from Congress of German Law, 1939. │ │ │(USA 670) │ VI │ 159 │ │ │ *3464-PS │National Socialist Students League │ │ │from Organization Book of NSDAP, 1936 │ │ │and 1937. (USA 666) │ VI │ 166 │ │ │ *3870-PS │Affidavit of Hans Marsalek, 8 April │ │ │1946, concerning Mauthausen │ │ │Concentration Camp and dying statement│ │ │of Franz Ziereis, the Commandant. (USA│ │ │797) │ VI │ 790 │ │ │ *L-360-H │Agreement between the League for │ │ │Germandom in Foreign Countries and the│ │ │Hitler Youth, 6 May 1933. (USA 671) │ VII │ 1108 │ │ │ R-146 │Letter from Bormann to all Gauleiters,│ │ │20 March 1941, enclosing letter of Dr.│ │ │Lammers to the Reich Minister of the │ │ │Interior, 14 March 1941. (USA 678) │ VIII │ 250 │ │ │ *Chart No. 1 │National Socialist German Workers’ │ │ │Party, (2903-PS; USA 2) │ VIII │ 770

17. MARTIN BORMANN

A. POSITIONS HELD BY BORMANN.

(1) Between 1925 and 1945 Bormann held the following positions:

(a) Member of the Nazi Party 1925-1945.

(b) Member of the Reichstag, November 1933-1945.

(c) Member of the Staff of the Supreme Command of the SA, 15 November 1928 to August 1930.

(d) Founder and head of Hilfskasse der NSDAP, August 1930 to July 1933.

(e) Reichsleiter, July 1933-1945.

(f) Chief of Staff, Office of the Fuehrer’s Deputy, July 1933 to May 1941.

(g) Head of the Party Chancery, 12 May 1941-1945.

(h) Secretary of the Fuehrer, 12 April 1943-1945. (2981-PS)

(i) Member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, 29 May 1942-1945. (2099-PS)

(j) Political and organizational head of the Volkssturm. (3018-PS)

(k) General in the SS. (3234-PS)

(2) During this period Bormann also held the following position: Member of the Reich Cabinet, 29 May 1941 to 1945. (2099-PS)

B. PROMOTION OF THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS, ESTABLISHMENT OF TOTALITARIAN CONTROL OVER GERMANY, AND PREPARATION FOR WAR.

Within the conspiracy Martin Bormann had the managerial task of operating the Nazis’ Party as a center of control for the benefit of the conspirators. First as the executive chief of the Nazi Party under Hess, and since 1941 himself the head of the Party, subject only to Hitler’s supreme authority, Bormann was a key member of the Nazi conspiracy. The Party constituted the most powerful instrument of public control at the disposal of the conspirators. Through the Party the conspirators were able to gain and retain power in Germany. Through it they imposed their will on the German nation and obtained its support for their aggressive wars. Bormann is thus responsible for the crimes committed by the Party under the orders of the conspirators.

Bormann began his conspiratorial activities more than 20 years ago. In 1922, when only 22 years old, he joined the Organization Rossbach, one of the armed illegal groups which developed the aggressive traditions of the German Army and established a regime of terror against the small pacifist minority in Germany. While he was District Leader of the Organization for Mecklenburg, he was arrested and tried for his part in a political terror assassination. On 15 May 1924 he was found guilty by the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic and sentenced to one year in prison. (2981-PS; 3355-PS)

Upon his release from jail in 1925, Bormann again took up his subversive activities. First, he joined the Militarist Organization Frontbann. Then, in the same year, he became a member of the reconstituted Nazi Party, and began his rise to one of the most influential positions in the conspiracy. In 1927 he became Press Chief for the Party Gau of Thuringia. On 1 April 1928 he was made a District Leader in Thuringia, and Business Manager for the entire Gau.

From 15 November 1928 to August 1930 he was on the Staff of the Supreme Command of the SA. Thus he participated decisively in the development of these uniformed shock troops with which the conspirators terrorized and destroyed their opposition inside Germany. (See Section 4 of chapter XV on the SA.)

In August 1930 Bormann organized the Aid Fund (Hilfskasse) of the Nazi Party, of which he became the head. Through this Fund he collected large sums for the Party Treasury, allegedly for the purpose of aiding families of Party members who had been killed or imprisoned while “fighting” for the Party. (3236-PS)

On 30 January 1933 the conspirators and their Party took over the government of Germany. Shortly thereafter, in July 1933, Bormann was given the number-three post in the Party Organization, that of Chief of Staff to Rudolf Hess, then Hitler’s Deputy. At the same time he was made a member of the Party Directorate (Reichsleiter). In November 1933, he was made a member of the Reichstag. (3236-PS)

As Hess’ Chief of Staff, Bormann was responsible for channeling to him the demands of the Party in all the fields of government action. These demands were then imposed by Hess, through his participation in Cabinet meetings, on legislation, public administration, and appointments. (Chart Number 15; 1395-PS; 2001-PS; D-138; 3180-PS)

Bormann also used the Party in order to strengthen the hold of the Gestapo and the SD over the German people. On 14 February 1935 Bormann ordered all Party officers to assist the SD in its work described as “benefiting principally the Party” (3237-PS). On 3 September 1935 Bormann ordered Party agencies to hand persons who criticize the Nazi Party or institutions over to the Gestapo. (3239-PS) An order of the Party Chancery issued on 14 December 1938, demanded closest cooperation between Party agencies and Gestapo (1723-PS).

After the flight of Hess to Scotland on 10 May 1941, Bormann succeeded him as head of the Party under Hitler, with the title of Chief of the Party Chancery. In that position he took over all offices and powers formerly held by Hess, especially his membership in the Cabinet and on the Ministers’ Council for the Defense of the Reich (2099-PS).

Only 8 months later, Hitler issued another Decree which extended Bormann’s powers even beyond those which had been granted to Hess. By that Decree Bormann was given extensive control over the preparation of all laws and directives of the Cabinet, the Fuehrer, and the Ministers’ Council for the Defense of the Reich, and over the appointment of all public officials (the latter, in Germany, included Judges and university teachers) (2100-PS). Under this legislation Bormann must be held at least jointly responsible for every law and order issued after 24 January 1942 by which the conspirators carried out their crimes.

This decisive participation of Bormann and the Party agencies under his direct control in the day-to-day administration of the German war program was buttressed by the Order of the Ministers’ Council for the Defense of the Reich, dated 1 December 1942, under which all Party Gau Leaders were appointed Reich Defense Commissioners and all Gaus became Reich Defense Districts (3235-PS). Under this Order the Gau leaders, who were Party functionaries under the orders of Bormann, became the Chief Administrators of the entire civilian war effort, not only in Germany proper but also in all incorporated territories.

This development constituted the culmination of the integration of Party and State which had begun almost ten years earlier. From then on, the Party, through Bormann, became a decisive factor in the initiation and execution of all German war policies, after having been charged in the preceding years with much of the political and pre-military preparation of the German people for the aggressive wars of the Conspirators. (3242-PS)

C. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AND PERSECUTION OF OPPOSITION.

Bormann participated actively in the execution of that part of the conspirators’ program relating to the persecution and destruction of independent groups which were opposed to the aims of the Conspiracy.

(1) Persecution of the Churches. Bormann was among the most relentless members of the conspirators in the persecution of the churches. In a secret order of 6 June 1941 he stated bluntly the aim of the conspirators—to destroy Christianity altogether:

“National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable * * *. No human being would know anything of Christianity if it had not been drilled into him in his childhood by pastors. The so-called dear God in no wise gives knowledge of his existence to young people in advance, but in an astonishing manner in spite of his omnipotence leaves this to the efforts of the pastors. If, therefore, in the future our youth learns nothing more of this Christianity whose doctrines are far below ours, Christianity will disappear by itself.” (D-75; see also 098-PS)

In pursuance of this aim, Bormann’s first efforts in the conspiracy’s fight against religion were directed toward the elimination of churchmen and church influence from the Party itself. On 3 July 1938 a Bormann order prohibited clergymen from holding Party offices (113-PS). A Bormann circular of 3 June 1939 excluded Christian Scientists from Party membership (838-PS). Bormann Decrees of 9 February 1937 and 14 July 1939 excluded clergymen and theology students from membership in the Nazi Party (840-PS). And a Bormann directive of 17 June 1938, prohibited all religious activities by members of the Labor Service. (107-PS)

Bormann also opposed religious instruction in the schools. A letter from Bormann’s office to Rosenberg on 25 April 1941 reported success in reducing the holding of religious morning services in schools and proposed the substitution of National Socialist school services. (070-PS)

In order further to weaken the churches, Bormann enforced the elimination of numerous Catholic and Protestant Divinity Schools in Germany and Austria. In a letter to The Minister of Education, dated 24 January 1939, Bormann denied the scientific value of theological instruction and suggested a legal basis for the suppression and restriction of Divinity Schools (116-PS). This was followed by a report of The Ministry of Education, dated 6 April 1939, concerning the suppression and consolidation of Divinity Schools (122-PS). A confidential letter from Bormann to The Minister of Education, dated 23 June 1939, in reply to memorandum of 6 April 1939 (122-PS), reported the Party’s decision to order the suppression of numerous Divinity Schools (123-PS). In a letter to Rosenberg on 12 December 1939 Bormann agreed with the suggestion that the University Chairs belonging to the Divinity School in the University of Munich be used for instructors at the Nazi Academy (Hohe Schule). (131-PS)

Bormann also used his power and position in order to demand that other government departments deprive the churches of their property and subject them to a discriminatory legal regime. A Bormann letter to The Reich Minister of Finance in January 1940, demanded that church assessments for special war tax be greatly increased (099-PS). In a letter to Amann on 8 March 1940, Bormann demanded reduction in the paper allotment of church publications (089-PS). A Bormann letter to Rosenberg on 24 June 1940 submitted the draft of a discriminatory church law for Danzig and West Prussia (066-PS). Throughout 1940-1941 Bormann corresponded with numerous officials concerning confiscation of religious art treasures. (1600-PS)

Finally, as the war took an increasing part of Germany’s youth into the Armed Forces, Bormann insisted that soldiers be removed from all religious influence. In a letter to the Army High Command in January 1939, Bormann opposed the establishment of an Army Corps of Chaplains (117-PS). A Bormann letter to Rosenberg on 17 January 1940 suggested the publication of special Nazi literature for members of the Wehrmacht in order to replace religious literature which the writer had as yet been unable to suppress completely (101-PS). In a letter to Rosenberg the next day (18 January 1940) Bormann stated that the publication of Nazi literature for Army recruits as a countermeasure to the circulation of religious writings was “the most essential demand of the hour.” (100-PS)

When the prosecution of this anti-Church program was turned over to the RSHA under Himmler, the “Church Specialists” of that organization received clear instructions as to the aims which the Conspirators wanted them to achieve, at a meeting of the “Church Specialists” called for that purpose on 26 September 1941:

“The immediate aim: the church must not regain one inch of the ground it has lost.

“The ultimate aim: destruction of the churches to be brought about by the collection of all material obtained through Nachrichtendienst activities, which will, at a given time, be produced as evidence for the charge of treasonable activities during the German fight for existence.” (1815-PS)

Five years earlier, Bormann had already issued an order to all Party members demanding that they turn priests who criticized the Party over to the Gestapo (3246-PS). Bormann thus bears responsibility for the mistreatment of priests in concentration camps throughout these years. (3249-PS)

(2) Persecution of the Jews. It was Bormann who was charged by Hitler with the transmission and implementation of the latter’s instructions for the “liquidation” of the Jewish population in Germany.

After the pogrom of 8-9 November 1938, Bormann, acting on orders of Hitler, instructed Goering to proceed to the “final settlement of the Jewish question” in Germany. (1816-PS)

As a result of this conference a series of anti-Jewish decrees were issued. A Bormann order of 17 January 1939 demanded compliance with new regulations under which Jews were denied access to housing, travel, and other facilities. (069-PS; see 1409-PS)

Bormann also acted through other government agencies to wipe out the economic existence of a large part of the Jewish population. A Bormann order of 8 January 1937 communicated an order by Frick, issued at his instigation, that government employees who consult Jewish doctors, lawyers, etc., will be denied financial assistance. (3240-PS)

In addition to these purely economic measures Bormann, again acting on instructions from Hitler, caused Goering to issue a secret order severely restricting the living conditions of Jews in Germany. (841-PS)

After the outbreak of the war these anti-Jewish measures increased in intensity and brutality. Thus, Bormann participated in the issuance of rulings under which 60,000 Jewish inhabitants of Vienna were deported to the Government General of Poland, in cooperation with the SS and the Gestapo. (1950-PS)

After Bormann succeeded Hess as the executive head of the Party, he was one of the prime movers in the campaign of total spoliation, starvation, and extermination of the Jews living under the rule of the Conspirators. A Bormann order of 23 October 1942 announced a Ministry of Foods decree, issued at his instigation, depriving Jews of many essential food items, and of all special sickness and pregnancy rations, and ordering the confiscation of food parcels (3243-PS). On 9 October 1942 Bormann ordered that the problem of eliminating forever the millions of Jews from Greater German territory could no longer be solved by emigration but only by the application of “ruthless force” in special camps in the East (3244-PS). The Thirteenth Ordinance under The Reich Citizen Law of 1 July 1943 (RGBl, 1943, Part I, p. 372), signed by Bormann, completely excluded Jews from the ordinary courts and handed them over to the exclusive jurisdiction of Himmler’s police. (1422-PS; see also 3085-PS)

D. THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES.

Bormann’s broad powers over all political aspects of the war as a member of the Reich Cabinet and the Ministers’ Council for the Defense of the Reich, and as executive head of the Party, were buttressed by the creation of the post of Secretary of the Fuehrer, to which he was appointed on 12 April 1943 (2981-PS). In that position Bormann participated in all Hitler’s conferences and became involved in the planning of war crimes by his co-conspirators.

Even before April 1943, however, Bormann took part in planning the basic war policies of the conspiracy. Thus, on 16 July 1941, just three weeks after the invasion of USSR Territory, Bormann participated in a conference at Hitler’s field headquarters with Goering, Rosenberg, Keitel, and Reich Minister Lammers. This conference resulted in the adoption of detailed plans for the enslavement, depopulation, and annexation of extensive territories in Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe. In his report on this conference, Bormann included numerous suggestions of his own for the effective execution of these plans. (L-221)

During subsequent years, Bormann took a prominent part in the implementation of this conspiratorial program. A conference on Eastern Territories between Hitler, Rosenberg, Lammers, and Bormann on 8 May 1942, concerned inter alia the suppression of religious freedom, the forceable resettlement of Dutch peasants in Latvia, the extermination program in Russia, and the economic exploitation of Eastern Territories (1520-PS). Rosenberg and Bormann corresponded concerning the confiscation of property, especially art treasures, in the East (072-PS; 071-PS). A secret Bormann letter of 11 January 1944 discussed large-scale organization for the withdrawal of commodities from occupied territories for the use of the bombed-out population in Germany. (061-PS; see also 327-PS)

At the same time, Bormann issued a series of orders establishing Party jurisdiction over the treatment of prisoners of war, especially when employed as forced labor (232-PS). In the exercise of that jurisdiction, he called for excessively harsh and brutal treatment of Allied Prisoners of War. Bormann issued instructions on 5 November 1941 prohibiting decent burials with religious ceremonies for Russian Prisoners of War (D-163). A Bormann circular of 25 November 1943 demanded harsher treatment of prisoners of war and the fuller utilization of their man-power (228-PS). In a secret circular transmitting OKH instructions of 29 January 1943, Bormann provided for the enforcement of labor demands on Prisoners of War through the use of fire-arms and corporal punishment. (656-PS)

These instructions issued by Bormann culminated in the decree of September 30 1944, signed by him. This decree took jurisdiction over all prisoners of war out of the hands of the OKW, handed them over to the control of Himmler, and provided that all prisoner of war camp commanders should be under the orders of the local SS Commanders (058-PS). Through this order, Himmler was enabled to proceed with his program of extermination of Prisoners of War. Bormann also bears part of the responsibility for the organized lynching of Allied airmen. As early as March 1940 Hess had ordered all Party leaders to instruct the civilian population to “arrest or liquidate” all bailed-out allied fliers (062-PS). In order to assure the success of this scheme Bormann issued a secret circular prohibiting any police measures or criminal proceedings against civilians who had lynched British or American fliers (057-PS). For the execution of these decrees, regulations were issued to cover the systematic application of Lynch Law against captured Allied airmen (735-PS). That such lynchings actually took place has since been fully established in a series of American Military Commission proceedings, which resulted in the conviction of German civilians for the murder of Allied fliers. (2559-PS; 2560-PS; 2561-PS)

E. THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Bormann played an important role in the administration of the forced labor program. A Bormann circular of 5 May 1943 contained detailed directions as to the treatment of foreign workers, stating especially that they were subject to SS control for all security matters and that differentiation between them and Germans was all-important (205-PS). At a conference held on 4 September 1942 it was decided that recruiting, mobilization, and treatment of 500,000 female domestic workers from the East would be handled exclusively by Sauckel, Himmler, and Bormann. (025-PS; see also D-226)

Bormann also imposed his views on the administration of the occupied areas and insisted on the ruthless exploitation of the subjected populations in the East. His views were stated in an official memorandum of the Ministry for the Eastern Territories, headed by Rosenberg, in which they were described as governing actual administrative practice in the East:

“The Slavs are to work for us. In so far as we don’t need them, they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use contraceptives or practice abortion, the more the better. Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100. At best an education which produces useful stooges for us is admissible. Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave to them as a means of diversion. As for food they won’t get any more than is necessary. We are the masters, we come first.” (R-36)

A secret conference on 12 January 1943 discussed Bormann’s order of 12 August 1942 under which all Party agencies were placed at Himmler’s disposal for the latter’s program of forced resettlement and denationalization of occupied populations (705-PS). Correspondence from the Office of the Fuehrer’s Deputy reveals Bormann’s demands that non-German populations of occupied territories be subjected to a special discriminatory legal regime (R-139). An agreement between Thierack and Himmler was made at Bormann’s suggestion, under which all Eastern populations are subjected to brutal police regime, and under which all disputes between the parties to the agreement are to be settled by Bormann. (654-PS)

In issuing these orders Bormann took a large part in the conspiracy to exterminate millions of people in the Eastern occupied areas.

F. CONCLUSION.

Martin Bormann, only 45 years old at the time of Germany’s defeat, devoted his entire adult life to the Nazi conspiracy. When he joined the Nazi Party at the age of 25 he had already been active for several years in conspiratorial and terroristic organizations working secretly to prepare Germany for war, and had spent one year in jail for his participation in a political murder.

Bormann’s important contribution to the conspiracy remained throughout in the sphere of the Nazi Party. First, as Chief of Staff to Hess, the Fuehrer’s Deputy, then as Head of the Party Chancery, he managed the entire organization of the Party in the service of the conspiracy. He was responsible for channelling the Party’s demands concerning legislation, education, civil service, and all other fields of public and private life to Hess, who was a member of the Reich Cabinet, which was then Germany’s legislative, administrative, and judicial organ. Thus, Bormann advanced the Party’s conspiratorial program through the control of his co-conspirators over the German government machinery. He used this power for various criminal purposes, among them the persecution of the independent churches, demanding their complete elimination from German life on the ground that Christianity and National Socialism were irreconcilable.

After having acceded in 1941 to the highest position in the Nazi Party, directly under Hitler, Bormann exercised the broadest influence in the direction of Germany’s aggressive wars. Here he acted in two capacities:

(1) As executive head of the Party he commanded the Party Gauleaders who, as District Defense Commissioners, controlled all civilian and political war activities in German and the annexed territories. In that position he became responsible for the multiple war crimes committed by the German civilian population, especially the lynching of allied flying personnel, and the cruel mistreatment of forced laborers.

(2) As Secretary to the Fuehrer, Bormann took an active part in the policy-making conferences and discussions of Hitler and his political and military staffs. Here, Bormann became jointly responsible for the illegal annexation of Allied territories, the enslavement and spoliation of the civilian population in occupied countries, and the planned persecution and extermination of the populations in Eastern territories especially the Jews.

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO MARTIN BORMANN

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 60 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ *025-PS │Conference report of 4 September 1942 │ │ │concerning the importation of domestic│ │ │workers from the East into the Reich. │ │ │(USA 698) │ III │ 67 │ │ │ 057-PS │Circular letter from Bormann to │ │ │Political Leaders, 30 May 1944, │ │ │concerning justice exercised by people│ │ │against Anglo-American murderers. (USA│ │ │329) │ III │ 102 │ │ │ *058-PS │Hitler Order of 30 September 1944 │ │ │concerning reorganization of the │ │ │concerns of prisoners of war. (USA │ │ │456) │ III │ 103 │ │ │ *061-PS │Secret Bormann letter, 11 January │ │ │1944, concerning large-scale │ │ │organization for withdrawal of │ │ │commodities from occupied territories │ │ │for use of bombed-out population in │ │ │Germany. (USA 692) │ III │ 105 │ │ │ *062-PS │Top secret Hess directive of 13 March │ │ │1940, concerning behavior in case of │ │ │landings of enemy planes or │ │ │parachutists. (USA 696) │ III │ 107 │ │ │ *066-PS │Bormann letter to Rosenberg, 24 June │ │ │1940, submitting draft for │ │ │discriminatory church law for Danzig │ │ │and West Prussia. (USA 689) │ III │ 112 │ │ │ *069-PS │Letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, 17 │ │ │January 1939, enclosing order of 28 │ │ │December 1938, concerning decisions on│ │ │Jewish question. (USA 589) │ III │ 116 │ │ │ *070-PS │Letter of Deputy Fuehrer to Rosenberg,│ │ │25 April 1941, on substitution of │ │ │National Socialist mottos for morning │ │ │prayers in schools. (USA 349) │ III │ 118 │ │ │ *071-PS │Rosenberg letter to Bormann, 23 April │ │ │1941, replying to Bormann’s letter of │ │ │19 April 1941 (Document 072-PS). (USA │ │ │371) │ III │ 119 │ │ │ *072-PS │Bormann letter to Rosenberg, 19 April │ │ │1941, concerning confiscation of │ │ │property, especially of art treasures │ │ │in the East. (USA 357) │ III │ 122 │ │ │ 089-PS │Letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, 8 │ │ │March 1940, instructing Amann not to │ │ │issue further newsprint to │ │ │confessional newspapers. (USA 360) │ III │ 147 │ │ │ *098-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 22 │ │ │February 1940, urging creation of │ │ │National Socialist Catechism, etc. to │ │ │provide moral foundation for NS │ │ │religion. (USA 350) │ III │ 152 │ │ │ *099-PS │Bormann letter to Reich Minister of │ │ │Finance, January 1940, demanding that │ │ │church assessments for the special war│ │ │tax be greatly increased. (USA 688) │ III │ 158 │ │ │ *100-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 18 │ │ │January 1940, urging preparation of │ │ │National Socialist reading material to│ │ │replace Christian literature for │ │ │soldiers. (USA 691) │ III │ 160 │ │ │ *101-PS │Letter from Hess’ office signed │ │ │Bormann to Rosenberg, 17 January 1940,│ │ │concerning undesirability of religious│ │ │literature for members of the │ │ │Wehrmacht. (USA 361) │ III │ 160 │ │ │ *107-PS │Circular letter signed Bormann, 17 │ │ │June 1938, enclosing directions │ │ │prohibiting participation of │ │ │Reichsarbeitsdienst in religious │ │ │celebrations. (USA 351) │ III │ 162 │ │ │ *113-PS │Secret Order issued by Hess’ Office │ │ │signed Bormann, 27 July 1938, making │ │ │clergymen ineligible for Party │ │ │offices. (USA 683) │ III │ 164 │ │ │ *116-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, │ │ │enclosing copy of letter, 24 January │ │ │1939, to Minister of Education │ │ │requesting restriction or elimination │ │ │of theological faculties. (USA 685) │ III │ 165 │ │ │ 117-PS │Bormann letter to Army High Command, │ │ │28 January 1939, opposing the │ │ │establishment of an Army Corps of │ │ │Chaplains. │ III │ 167 │ │ │ *122-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 17 │ │ │April 1939, enclosing copy of Minister│ │ │of Education letter, 6 April 1939, on │ │ │elimination of theological faculties │ │ │in various universities. (USA 362) │ III │ 173 │ │ │ *123-PS │Confidential letter from Bormann to │ │ │Minister of Education, 23 June 1939, │ │ │in reply to memorandum of 6 April 1939│ │ │(122-PS) reporting the Party’s │ │ │decision to order the suppression of │ │ │numerous Divinity Schools. (USA 686) │ III │ 175 │ │ │ *131-PS │Bormann letter to Rosenberg, 12 │ │ │December 1939, agreeing with │ │ │suggestion that the University Chairs │ │ │belonging to the Divinity School in │ │ │the University of Munich be used for │ │ │instructors at the Nazi Academy (Hohe │ │ │Schule). (USA 687) │ III │ 184 │ │ │ 205-PS │Bormann Circular, 5 May 1943, │ │ │containing detailed directions as to │ │ │the treatment of foreign workers │ │ │employed within the Reich. │ III │ 218 │ │ │ *228-PS │Bormann Circular, 25 November 1943, │ │ │demanding harsher treatment of │ │ │Prisoners of War and the fuller │ │ │utilization of their manpower. (USA │ │ │695) │ III │ 225 │ │ │ *232-PS │Bormann Order of 13 September 1944 │ │ │establishing Party jurisdiction over │ │ │the use of Prisoners of War for forced│ │ │labor. (USA 693) │ III │ 229 │ │ │ 327-PS │Letter of Rosenberg to Bormann, 17 │ │ │October 1944, concerning liquidation │ │ │of property in Eastern Occupied │ │ │Territories. (USA 338) │ III │ 257 │ │ │ *654-PS │Thierack’s notes, 18 September 1942, │ │ │on discussion with Himmler concerning │ │ │delivery of Jews to Himmler for │ │ │extermination through work. (USA 218) │ III │ 467 │ │ │ *656-PS │Letter, undated, from Bormann to │ │ │Political leaders, enclosing Order of │ │ │Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, 29 │ │ │January 1943, relating to self-defense│ │ │against prisoners of war. (USA 339) │ III │ 470 │ │ │ 705-PS │Secret conference, 12 January 1943, of│ │ │the SS-Committee for General Labor in │ │ │the German Zone. │ III │ 511 │ │ │ *735-PS │Minutes of meeting, 6 June 1944, to │ │ │fix the cases in which the application│ │ │of Lynch Law against Allied airmen │ │ │would be justified. (GB 151) │ III │ 533 │ │ │ *838-PS │Letter from Hess’ office signed │ │ │Bormann, 3 June 1939, referring to │ │ │Hitler’s Decree of 6 March 1939 which │ │ │precluded Christian Scientists from │ │ │joining the Party. (USA 684) │ III │ 605 │ │ │ *840-PS │Party Directive, 14 July 1939, making │ │ │clergy and theology students │ │ │ineligible for Party membership. (USA │ │ │355) │ III │ 606 │ │ │ 841-PS │Secret Order of Goering, 28 December │ │ │1938, concerning Jewish problem. │ III │ 606 │ │ │ 1395-PS │Law to insure the unity of Party and │ │ │State, 1 December 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016. │ │ │(GB 252) │ III │ 978 │ │ │ 1409-PS │Order concerning utilization of Jewish│ │ │property, 3 December 1938. 1938 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1709. │ IV │ 1 │ │ │ 1422-PS │Thirteenth regulation under Reich │ │ │Citizenship Law, 1 July 1943. 1943 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 372. │ IV │ 14 │ │ │ *1520-PS │Memorandum of conference, 8 May 1942 │ │ │between Hitler, Rosenberg, Lammers, │ │ │Bormann. (GB 156) │ IV │ 65 │ │ │ *1600-PS │Bormann correspondence, 1940-1941, │ │ │concerning confiscation of religious │ │ │art treasures. (USA 690) │ IV │ 128 │ │ │ *1723-PS │Order concerning cooperation of Party │ │ │offices with the Secret State Police, │ │ │25 January 1938, published in Decrees,│ │ │Regulations, Announcements, 1937, Vol.│ │ │II, pp. 430-439. (USA 206) │ IV │ 219 │ │ │ *1815-PS │Documents on RSHA meeting concerning │ │ │the study and treatment of church │ │ │politics. (USA 510) │ IV │ 415 │ │ │ *1816-PS │Stenographic report of the meeting on │ │ │The Jewish Question, under the │ │ │Chairmanship of Fieldmarshal Goering, │ │ │12 November 1938. (USA 261) │ IV │ 425 │ │ │ *1950-PS │Secret letter from Lammers to │ │ │defendant von Schirach, 3 December │ │ │1940, concerning deportation of Jews. │ │ │(USA 681) │ IV │ 592 │ │ │ 2001-PS │Law to Remove the Distress of People │ │ │and State, 24 March 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 141. │ IV │ 638 │ │ │ 2099-PS │Fuehrer decree relating to Chief of │ │ │Party Chancellery of 29 May 1941. 1941│ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 295. │ IV │ 725 │ │ │ 2100-PS │Decree on position of leader of Party │ │ │Chancellery, 24 January 1942. 1942 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 35. │ IV │ 726 │ │ │ 2559-PS │Military Commission Order No. 2, │ │ │Headquarters Fifteenth U. S. Army, 25 │ │ │June 1945, concerning trial of German │ │ │civilian by U. S. Military Commission.│ V │ 294 │ │ │ 2560-PS │Military Commission Order No. 5, │ │ │Headquarters Third U. S. Army and │ │ │Eastern Military District, 18 October │ │ │1945, concerning trial of German │ │ │national by U. S. Military Commission.│ V │ 296 │ │ │ 2561-PS │Military Commission Order No. 3, │ │ │Headquarters Third U. S. Army, 4 │ │ │October 1945, concerning trial of four│ │ │German nationals by U. S. Military │ │ │Commission. │ V │ 298 │ │ │ 2981-PS │Biographical information on Martin │ │ │Bormann, published in The Greater │ │ │German Reichstag, 1943, p. 167. │ V │ 686 │ │ │ 3018-PS │Hitler decree of 18 October 1944 in │ │ │Voelkischer Beobachter, South German │ │ │Edition, 20 October 1944, p. 1. │ V │ 736 │ │ │ 3085-PS │Himmler’s ordinance of 3 July 1943 │ │ │charging Gestapo with execution of │ │ │Thirteenth Ordinance under Reich │ │ │Citizen Law. 1943 Ministerial Gazette │ │ │of Reich and Prussian Ministry of │ │ │Interior, p. 1085. │ V │ 892 │ │ │ 3180-PS │Decree providing for the participation│ │ │of the Fuehrer’s Deputy in appointment│ │ │of officials, 24 September 1935. 1935 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1203. │ V │ 918 │ │ │ 3234-PS │Promotions in the SS, published in The│ │ │Archive, July 1940, p. 399. │ V │ 938 │ │ │ 3235-PS │Every Party Region Becomes a Reich │ │ │Defense District, from The Archive, │ │ │December 1942, p. 805. │ V │ 938 │ │ │ 3236-PS │Biographical material on Martin │ │ │Bormann, published in The German │ │ │Reichstag, 1936, p. 113. │ V │ 939 │ │ │ 3237-PS │Bormann Order of 14 February 1935, │ │ │demanding that all Party officers │ │ │assist the SD in its work, published │ │ │in Decrees of the Deputy of the │ │ │Fuehrer. │ V │ 939 │ │ │ 3239-PS │Bormann Order of 3 September 1935 │ │ │calling on Party agencies to hand │ │ │persons who criticize the Nazi Party │ │ │or institutions over to Gestapo, │ │ │published in Decrees of the Deputy of │ │ │the Fuehrer. │ V │ 940 │ │ │ 3240-PS │Bormann Order of 8 January 1937 │ │ │concerning refusal of financial │ │ │assistance to patients who consult │ │ │Jewish Doctors, published in Decrees │ │ │of the Fuehrer’s Deputy. │ V │ 941 │ │ │ 3242-PS │The Reich Offices of the NSDAP, │ │ │published in National Socialist │ │ │Yearbook, 1944, pp. 181-182. │ V │ 941 │ │ │ 3243-PS │Food Supply of the Jews, published in │ │ │Decrees, Orders, Announcements, Vol. │ │ │II, pp. 147-150. │ V │ 944 │ │ │ 3244-PS │Preparatory Measures for the Solution │ │ │of the Jewish Problem in Europe, │ │ │published in Decrees, Regulations, │ │ │Announcements, Vol. 2, pp. 131-132. │ V │ 945 │ │ │ 3246-PS │Bormann Order of 7 January 1936, │ │ │published in Decrees of the Deputy of │ │ │the Fuehrer. │ V │ 948 │ │ │ *3249-PS │Affidavit of Dr. Franz Blaha, 24 │ │ │November 1945. (USA 663) │ V │ 949 │ │ │ *3355-PS │Affidavit of Robert M. W. Kempner, 8 │ │ │December 1945. (USA 682) │ VI │ 85 │ │ │ 3569-PS │Private will and testament and │ │ │political will of Adolf Hitler, 29 │ │ │April 1945. │ VI │ 258 │ │ │ 3734-PS │Summary of Interrogation of Hanna │ │ │Reitsch, 8 October 1945. │ VI │ 551 │ │ │ 3735-PS │Testimony of Erich Kempka on the last │ │ │days of Hitler. │ VI │ 571 │ │ │ *D-75 │SD Inspector Bierkamp’s letter, 12 │ │ │December 1941, to RSHA enclosing copy │ │ │of secret decree signed by Bormann, │ │ │entitled Relationship of National │ │ │Socialism and Christianity. (USA 348) │ VI │ 1035 │ │ │ *D-138 │Decree of 27 July 1934, providing for │ │ │participation of Fuehrer’s deputy in │ │ │the drafting of all legislation. (USA │ │ │403) │ VI │ 1055 │ │ │ *D-163 │Bormann instructions, 5 November 1941,│ │ │prohibiting burials with religious │ │ │ceremonies for Russian Prisoners of │ │ │War. (USA 694) │ VI │ 1067 │ │ │ *D-226 │Speer circular of 10 November 1944, │ │ │distributing Himmler’s decree for │ │ │ensuring the discipline and output of │ │ │foreign workers. (USA 697) │ VI │ 1088 │ │ │ *D-753-A │Letter from Lammers to Bormann, 1 │ │ │January 1945. (GB 323) │ VII │ 214 │ │ │ D-753-B │Letter from Bormann to Lammers, 5 │ │ │January 1945. (GB 323) │ VII │ 219 │ │ │ *L-172 │“The Strategic Position at the │ │ │Beginning of the 5th Year of War”, a │ │ │lecture delivered by Jodl on 7 │ │ │November 1943 at Munich to Reich and │ │ │Gauleiters. (USA 34) │ VII │ 920 │ │ │ *L-221 │Bormann report on conference of 16 │ │ │July 1941, concerning treatment of │ │ │Eastern populations and territories. │ │ │(USA 317) │ VII │ 1086 │ │ │ *R-36 │Memorandum to Rosenberg, 19 August │ │ │1942, concerning Bormann letter of 23 │ │ │July 1942, prepared by an official in │ │ │the Rosenberg Ministry. (USA 699) │ VIII │ 52 │ │ │ R-139 │Correspondence between Hess’ office │ │ │and the Ministry of Justice concerning│ │ │civil law in Eastern Territories. │ VIII │ 209 │ │ │ *Chart No. 1 │National Socialist German Workers’ │ │ │Party. (2903-PS; USA 2) │ VIII │ 770

18. FRANZ VON PAPEN

A. POSITIONS HELD BY VON PAPEN.

(1) Awarded the Golden Party Badge by Hitler, thereby becoming member of NSDAP (2902-PS; Das Archiv vol. 48, p. 1614).

(2) Member of Reichstag, 1933-1945 (2902-PS).

(3) Reich Chancellor, 1 June 1932 to 2 December 1932, acting pro-tem between 17 November and 2 December (2902-PS).

(4) Vice Chancellor, 30 January 1933 to August 1934 (?) (Papen admits holding office only to 30 June 1934; he also admits that decrees published on 1 and 2 August 1934 carry his signature as Vice-Chancellor, but claims this was either mistake or forgery) (2902-PS).

(5) Special Plenipotentiary for the Saar (13 November 1933 to 30 June 1934) (2902-PS).

(6) Negotiator of Concordat with Vatican (concluded 20 July 1933) (2655-PS).

(7) German Ambassador at Vienna (26 July 1934 to 4 February 1938), continuing thereafter to arrange Berchtesgaden meeting between Hitler and Schuschnigg and to participate in meeting itself (2902-PS).

B. AS EX-REICH CHANCELLOR AND PROMINENT POLITICAL LEADER, VON PAPEN USED HIS PERSONAL INFLUENCE TO PROMOTE THE ACCESSION OF THE NAZIS TO POWER.

(1) When von Papen began these efforts he was well aware of the Nazi program and Nazi methods. The official NSDAP program was open and notorious. For many years it had been published and republished in the Yearbook of the NSDAP and elsewhere. The Nazis made no secret of their intention to make it the fundamental law of the State. The first three points of this program forecast a foreign policy predicated upon the absorption of “Germanic” populations outside the boundaries of the Reich, the abrogation of Versailles treaty limitations, and the acquisition of “Lebensraum.” Points 4 to 8 foretold the ruthless elimination of the Jews, and the 25th point demanded “unlimited authority” of the central regime over the entire Reich as a means “for the execution of all this” (1708-PS).

Hitler and the other leaders of the Party repeatedly reiterated these views before 1933. Hitler himself subsequently pointed out that there was no excuse for misinterpreting Nazi intentions:

“When I came to power in 1933, our path lay unmistakably before us. Our internal policy had been, exactly defined by our fifteen-year-old struggle. Our program, repeated a thousand times, obligated us to the German people. I should be a man without honor, worthy of being stoned, had I retracted a single step of the program I then enunciated * * *”

* * * * * *

“My foreign policy had identical aims. My program was to abolish the Treaty of Versailles. It is futile nonsense for the rest of the world to pretend today that I did not reveal this program until 1933 or 1935 or 1937. Instead of listening to the foolish chatter of emigres, these gentlemen would have been wiser to read what I have written thousands of times.” (2541-PS)

Hitler and other Nazi leaders repeatedly made clear their willingness to use force if necessary to achieve their purposes. They glorified war. Mein Kampf is replete with early evidence of such intentions, which subsequently were reaffirmed from time to time in the years preceding 1933 (D-660; 2771-PS; 2512-PS).

The Nazi leaders prior to 1933 had openly declared their intentions to subvert democratic processes as a means to achieve their purposes, and to this end to harass and embarrass democratic forces at every turn. Thus Hitler himself had declared that,

“We shall become members of all constitutional bodies, and in this manner make the Party the decisive factor. Of course, when we possess all constitutional rights we shall then mould the State into the form we consider to be the right one.” (2512-PS)

Frick, writing in the National Socialist Yearbook, declared:

“Our participation in the parliament does not indicate a support, but rather an undermining of the parliamentarian system. It does not indicate that we renounce our anti-parliamentarian attitude, but that we are fighting the enemy with his own weapons and that we are fighting for our National Socialist goal from the parliamentary platform.” (2742-PS)

The practical application of these purposes was thus subsequently described by a leading Nazi constitutional authority, Ernst Rudolf Huber:

“It was necessary above all to make formal use of the possibilities of the party-state system but to refuse real cooperation and thereby to render the parliamentary system, which is by nature dependent upon the responsible cooperation of the opposition, incapable of action.” (2633-PS).

This practical application of Nazi purposes and methods was manifest at the time von Papen was a member of the Reichstag and Vice Chancellor. By this time the Nazi members of the Reichstag were engaging in tactics of disturbance which finally culminated in physical attacks upon members of the Reichstag and upon visitors, and were using terroristic measures to assure their election (L-83).

Von Papen not only had the opportunity to observe early manifestations of Nazi violence and irresponsibility. He fully understood the true character of the Nazi menace before 1933 and publicly condemned it.

At the time of the German elections in the summer of 1932, von Papen, President Hindenburg, and certain other German leaders were hoping that the rising Nazi menace would be dissipated by providing for National Socialist participation in a rightist-centrist government. Hitler refused all overtures inviting such participation, even when suggested by President Hindenburg himself, insisting upon assuming the chancellorship without obligation to other parties. Hitler’s refusal at this time to collaborate with Hindenburg and Papen marked the beginning of a series of public declarations in which von Papen revealed a clear understanding of Nazi methods and objections. Thus, on the occasion of his Munster speech of 28 August 1932 von Papen declared:

“The licentiousness emanating from the appeal of the leader of the National Socialist Movement does not comply very well with his claims to governmental power.”

* * * * * *

“I do not concede him the right to regard the mere minority following his banner solely as the German nation, and to treat all our fellow countrymen as ‘free game’.”

* * * * * *

“I am advocating the constitutional state, the community of the people, law and order in government. In doing so, it is I, and not he, who is carrying on the struggle against the domination of parties, against arbitrarianism and injustice, a struggle which millions of his supporters had been wholeheartedly longing for years to fight.”

* * * * * *

“I am firmly determined to stamp out the smouldering flame of civil war, to put an end to political unrest and political violence, which today is still such a great obstacle to the positive work representing the sole task of the State.” (3314-PS)

Writing in the September 1932 issue of the periodical “_Volk und Reich_,” von Papen declared:

“The present situation clearly shows that party domination and State leadership are concepts incompatible with one another. It is conceivable theoretically that a party might gain the majority in parliament and claims the government (State leadership) for itself. The NSDAP has proclaimed this theoretical possibility as its practical goal and has come very close to attaining it. It is to be hoped that the leaders of this movement will place the nation above the party and will thus lend a visible expression to the faith of millions looking for a way out of the spiritual and material distress of the nation provided also by the leadership of the State.”

* * * * * *

“* * * The hope in the hearts of millions of national socialists can be fulfilled only by an authoritarian government. The problem of forming a cabinet on the basis of a parliamentary coalition has again been brought into the field of public political discussion. If such negotiations, in the face of growing distress, are conducted with the motif of destroying the political opponent by the failure of his governmental activity, this is a dangerous game against which one cannot warn enough. In the last analysis such plans can mean nothing else but a tactics which counts on the possibility that matters get worse for the people and that the faith of millions will turn into the bitterest disappointment, if these tactics only result in the destruction of the political adversary. It is within the nature of such party-tactical maneuvers that they are veiled and will be disclaimed in public. That, however, cannot prevent me from warning publicly against such plans, about which it may be undecided who is the betrayer and who the betrayed one; plans, though, which will certainly cheat the German people out of their hope for improvement of their situation. Nothing can prove more urgently the necessity for an authoritarian government than such a prospect of maneuvers of a tactical game by the parties.” (Papen article quoted in “Frankfurter Zeitung”, 2 Sept. 1932, p. 2).

In his Munich speech on 13 October 1932 von Papen was especially clear:

“The essence of conservative ideology is its being anchored in the divine order of things. That too is its fundamental difference compared with the doctrine advocated by the NSDAP. The principle of ‘exclusiveness’ of a political ‘everything or nothing’ which the latter adheres to, its mythical Messiah-belief in the bombastic Fuehrer who alone is destined to direct fate, gives it the character of a political sect. And therein I see the unbridgeable cleavage between a conservative policy born of faith and a national-socialist creed as a matter of politics. It seems to me that today names and individuals are unimportant when Germany’s final fate is at stake. What the nation demands is this: it expects of a movement which has written upon its banner the internal and external national freedom that it will act, at all times and under all circumstances, as if it were the spiritual, social and political conscience of the nation. If it does not act that way; if this movement follows merely tactical points of view, democratic-parliamentarian points of view, if it engages in the soliciting of mass support using demagogic agitation and means of proletarian class struggle—then it is not a movement any more, it has become a political party.

“And, indeed, the Reich was almost destroyed by the political parties. One simply cannot, on one side, despise mercilessly masses and majorities, as Herr Hitler is doing, and on the other hand surrender to parliamentarian democracy; surrender to the extent of adopting resolutions against one’s own government together with Bolshevists.”

* * * * * *

“In the interest of the entire nation we decline the claim to power by parties which want to own their followers body and soul, and which want to put themselves, as a party or a movement, over and above the whole nation.” (3317-PS)

In a series of interviews and speeches in the fall of 1932 von Papen castigated the Nazi party for its ambitions to achieve a total and centralized control of Germany. He contrasted its objectives and methods to his own “conservatism” and emphasized its incompatibility with the preservation of the “federalistic” type of government to which he was committed. His public pronouncements in this connection were clearly reflected in the contemporary press:

“Von Papen claimed that it had been his aim from the very beginning of his tenure in office to build a new Reich for and with the various states [Laender]. The Reich government is taking a definite federalist attitude. Its slogan is not a dreary centralism or unitarianism.”

* * * * * *

“Wherever one did hear von Papen express himself in public, one did hear a chancellor who took special care to be regarded as an unconditional federalist.” (3318-PS)

The Vice Chancellor’s campaign against the Nazis culminated finally in a radio speech to the German public on 4 November 1932, in which he severely criticized Nazi political methods. He damned the Nazis’ “pure party egoism” which resulted in methods described by him as “sabotage” and as “a crime against the nation.” He accused the Nazis of wanting complete and permanent power in Germany (Deutsche Reichsgeshichte in Dokumenten IV, p. 523 (Rundfunkrede des Reichkanzlers von Papen)).

Nor was von Papen content merely to make speeches against the Nazis. As late as November 1932, Papen was prepared to use all the forces at the command of the state in a supreme effort to suppress the rising Nazi menace. He was deterred from this purpose only by a failure to secure the support of his cabinet. The inner struggles of the German cabinet at this time are recounted by Otto Meissner (in a statement made at Nurnberg, 28 November 1945), Chief of the Chancery of Reichspresident Hindenburg.

“Papen’s reappointment as Chancellor by President Hindenburg would have been probable if he had been prepared to take up an open fight against the National Socialists, which would have involved the threat or use of force. Almost up to the time of his resignation, Papen and some of the other ministers agreed on the necessity for pressing the fight against the Nazis by employing all the resources of the State and relying on Article 48 of the Constitution, even if this might lead to armed conflict. Other ministers, however, believed that such a course would lead to civil war.

“The decision was provided by Schleicher, who in earlier times had recommended energetic action against the National Socialists—even if this meant the use of police and army. Now, in the decisive cabinet meeting, he abandoned this idea and declared himself for an understanding with Hitler.

“The gist of Schleicher’s report—which was given partly by himself, partly by Major Ott, who adduced detailed statistical material—was that the weakened Reichswehr, which was dispersed over the whole Reich, even if supported by civilian volunteer formations, would not be equal to military operations on a large scale, and was not suited and trained for civil war. The police, in particular the Prussian police, had been undermined by propaganda and could not be considered as absolutely reliable. If the Nazis began an armed revolt, one must anticipate a revolt of the Communists and a general strike at the same time. The forces of these two adversaries were very strong. If such a ‘war against two fronts’ should take place, the forces of the State would undoubtedly be disrupted. The outcome of a civil war would be at the least most uncertain.

“In his, Schleicher’s view, it was impossible to take the risks implied in such a policy. In case of failure, which he believed likely, the consequences for Germany would be terrible. All present in the cabinet meeting were deeply impressed by Schleicher’s statement, and even those who had been in favor of energetic action against the National Socialists now changed their mind, so that Papen was isolated and felt himself to be isolated.

“In the interview which Papen had with Hindenburg after this meeting, on November 17th 1932 Papen did not conceal his deep disappointment over Schleicher’s altered position. Although Hindenburg asked him to make a new attempt to form a government, Papen stood on his decision to resign and Hindenburg gave in.”

(2) Despite his appreciation of the Nazi menace, von Papen rigorously proceeded to conduct negotiations which resulted in placing Hitler and the Nazi regime in power. Following his resignation as Chancellor on 17 November 1932 von Papen continued as Chancellor pro-tem until 2 December 1932, when General Schleicher was appointed to replace him (2902-PS).

Almost as soon as he vacated the Chancery, von Papen began plotting to unseat his arch-rival Schleicher. On about 10 December 1932—less than a month after he was willing to use force to suppress the Nazis—von Papen requested Kurt von Schroeder, the Cologne banker, to arrange a meeting between Hitler and von Papen (according to the statement of Schroeder, made at Nurnberg, 5 December 1945). Schroeder was one of a group of rightist industrial and financial leaders who had previously been organized by Hitler’s man, Wilhelm Keppler, to provide means of bolstering Nazi economic power.

Hitler himself at this time understood von Papen. He knew that Papen’s ideas were not too different from his own to preclude agreement. He knew that Papen’s personal rivalry with Schleicher would make Papen amenable to some agreement whereby Schleicher might be unhorsed and Papen restored to a position of public prominence. He accordingly asked Keppler to arrange for a meeting with Papen (reported in an affidavit of Wilhelm Keppler, executed at Nurnberg, 26 November 1945).

The result of these maneuvers was the now-famous meeting between Hitler and Papen at banker Schroeder’s Cologne home in January 1933. It was at this meeting that Hitler and Papen reached an understanding, subject only to the ironing out of minor details. It was at this meeting that Papen completely committed himself to go along with Nazi policy.

The events of this day have been described by Kurt von Schroeder (in a statement referred to above):

“On January 4, 1933, Hitler, von Papen, Hess, Himmler and Keppler came to my house in Cologne. Hitler, von Papen and I went to my den where we were closeted in a discussion lasting about two hours. Hess, Himmler and Keppler did not participate in this discussion but were in the next room. Keppler, who had helped arrange this meeting, came from Berlin; von Papen came alone from his home in the Saar; and Hitler brought Hess and Himmler with him, as they were traveling with him to Lippe in connection with the election campaign. The discussion was only between Hitler and Papen; I personally had nothing to say in the discussion. The meeting started about 11:30 A.M. and the first question was raised by Hitler as to why it was necessary to punish the two Nazis who had killed the Communist in Silesia. Von Papen explained to Hitler that it had been necessary to punish these two Nazis, although they had not been put to death, because the law was on the books and all political offenders under the law must have some punishment. He further explained to Hitler that it might be possible to get a pardon from President Hindenburg to give serious consideration to making Hitler the Chancellor at the time that Hindenburg met with Hitler and von Papen and that he had understood that Hindenburg was perfectly willing to discuss this matter with Hitler at that time. He said that it came as a great surprise and shock to him when Hindenburg was unwilling to do so and he felt that someone, probably von Schleicher, was responsible for the change in Hindenburg’s point of view. Next, von Papen told Hitler that it seemed to him the best thing to have the conservatives and nationalists who had supported him join with the Nazis to form a government. He proposed that this new government should, if possible, be headed by Hitler and von Papen on the same level. Then Hitler made a long speech in which he said if he were made Chancellor, it would be necessary for him to be head of the government but that supporters of Papen could go into his (Hitler’s) government as ministers when they were willing to go along with him in his policy of changing many things. These changes he outlined at this time included elimination of Social Democrats, Communists and Jews from leading positions in Germany and the restoration of order in public life. Von Papen and Hitler reached an agreement in principle so that many of the points which had brought them in conflict could be eliminated and they could find a way to get together. They agreed that further details would have to be worked out and that this could be done in Berlin or some other convenient place.

“I understand they met later with von Ribbentrop and worked out further details.

“The meeting broke up about 1:30 and the three of us joined Hess, Himmler and Keppler at lunch, during which there was general conversation which lasted until about four o’clock when they, all the guests, departed.”

Having reached an understanding with Hitler, von Papen directed his energy toward convincing President Hindenburg to allow Hitler to form a new government. In this task he had to overcome Hindenburg’s fears that this appointment would lead to domestic oppressions and risk of war (according to a statement of Otto Meissner, Nurnberg, 28 November 1945).

Von Papen himself subsequently admitted the important role he played in bringing Hitler to power. At Berchtesgaden on 12 February 1938, immediately after Hitler had forced Schuschnigg to sign the document which led to the Austrian Anschluss, Hitler turned to Papen and remarked:

“Herr von Papen, through your assistance I was appointed Chancellor of Germany and thus the Reich was saved from the abyss of communism. I will never forget that.”

Papen replied:

“Ja, wohl, Mein Fuehrer.” (2995-PS)

C. AS VICE-CHANCELLOR, VON PAPEN USED HIS POSITION AND PERSONAL INFLUENCE TO FACILITATE THE CONSOLIDATION OF NAZI CONTROL OVER GERMANY.

(1) In the first critical year and a half of Nazi consolidation of control over Germany, von Papen was second only to Hitler in the Cabinet which established the legal basis for furtherance of the Nazi program. As Vice-Chancellor, van Papen was the only member of the government empowered to act for the Fuehrer in his absence.

(2) Von Papen actively participated in the general abolition of civil liberties by promoting legislation which paved the way for the Nazi police state. At the first meeting of Hitler’s Cabinet, there was intensive discussion concerning the possibility of securing passage of an Enabling Law which in practical effect would liquidate the Reichstag and make the Nazi Cabinet the supreme law-making power of the Reich. The conspirators, including von Papen, at this meeting clearly indicated that they did not at the time hold sufficient power to achieve this measure by normal constitutional methods (351-PS).

Seizing the Reichstag fire as a pretext, the Cabinet forthwith arranged for the suspension of those fundamental civil liberties (including freedom of speech, press, assembly and association) which would protect citizens who dared to oppose the plans of the conspirators. The suspension of civil liberties was accomplished by issuance of a Presidential decree, which presumably, according to German usage, was proposed to the Reich President by the Cabinet and countersigned by those Ministers whose departments were involved (1390-PS; 2050-PS).

This basic law was only the first of a series which placed the individual dissenter at the mercy of the Nazi state. As if to underscore explicitly the basic policy behind this legislation, von Papen personally signed the decree which implemented this legislation by creating Special Courts to enforce its provisions. This decree abolished rights, including the right of appeal, which had previously characterized the administration of justice by the German judicial system. It thus constituted also the first legislative measure for the Nazification of the German judiciary (2076-PS).

The subsequent creation of the dreaded Volksgericht and the wholesale Nazification of the German system of criminal law was merely the logical development of these earlier steps. This too was achieved by decree of the Cabinet in which von Papen was Vice-Chancellor (2014-PS).

(3) Von Papen actively participated in substitution of the Nazi Cabinet for the Reichstag as Germany’s supreme law-giving authority, notwithstanding his doubts as to the advisability of giving Hitler such extensive power. Von Papen actively participated in the Cabinet deliberations concerning the proposed so-called Enabling Act, and concerning the means by which it might be made law (351-PS; 2962-PS; 2963-PS).

The enactment of this law deprived the Reichstag of its legislative functions, so that legislative as well as executive powers were concentrated in Hitler and his Cabinet (2001-PS).

Enactment of the law was made possible only by the application of Nazi pressure and terror against the potential opponents of this legislation, and by taking advantage of the Presidential decree of 28 February 1933, suspending constitutional guarantees of freedom. (See section 2 of Chapter VII on the Acquisition of Totalitarian Political Control.)

As if to indorse the methods by which this legislation was enacted, von Papen personally signed the Amnesty Decree of 21 March 1933, liberating all persons who had committed murder between 30 January and 21 March 1933 against anti-Nazi politicians, writers, and Reichstag Deputies (2059-PS).

Von Papen participated in this program notwithstanding the fact that he foresaw at that time the implications of granting to Hitler the complete powers conferred by the Enabling Act. He has so testified (in an interrogation at Nurnberg, 3 September 1945):

“Q. After Hitler became Chancellor, when for the first time did you have any doubts about the wisdom of having allowed him to become Chancellor?

“A. Well, that’s difficult to say. I mean the first doubt certainly I had when the Reichstag gave in to his request for the law, to enable him to rule the country without parliament.”

(4) Von Papen not only participated in the seizure by the cabinet of supreme power for the Nazis, but as a member of the cabinet participated in the systematic elimination of all potential enemies of the Nazi conspiracy. The Reichstag fire and the ensuing suppression of civil liberties marked the beginning of the destruction of all rival political parties. The immediate elimination of the legally elected Communist members from the Reichstag was merely the forerunner of the rapid and complete liquidation of all political parties other than the National Socialists (2403-PS; 1396-PS; 2058-PS; 1388-PS). By these measures the suppression of all democratic opposition became complete, within one year of the time when von Papen was warning his countrymen of the dangers of authoritarianism.

Having substituted the autocracy of the Hitler cabinet for the democratic force of the Reichstag, the cabinet proceeded immediately to enact a series of laws abolishing the states and coordinating them with the Reich (2004-PS; 2005-PS; 2006-PS). The enactment of these laws, which had been clearly indicated by point 25 of the Party program, removed all possible retarding influences which the German federal States might have exerted against the overwhelming centralization of power in Hitler’s Reich Cabinet.

The importance of this step, as well as the role played by Papen, is reflected in an exchange of letters between Reichs President Hindenburg, von Papen in his capacity as Reichskommissar for Prussia, and Reichs Minister Goering. The exchange occurred in connection with the recall of the Reichskommissar and the appointment of Goering to the post of Minister President of Prussia. In tendering his resignation, on 7 April 1933, von Papen wrote to Hitler:

“With the draft of the law for the coordination of the states with the Reich, passed today by the Reich Chancellor, legislative work has begun which will be of historical significance for the political development of the German state. The step taken by the Reich Government, which I headed at the time, is now crowned by this new inter-locking of the Reich. You, Herr Reich Chancellor, will now, as once Bismarck, be able to coordinate in all points the policy of the greatest of German states with that of the Reich. Now that the new law enables you to appoint a Prussian Prime Minister I ask you to inform the Reich President that I return to his hands my post of Reichs Commissar for Prussia.” (3357-PS)

In transmitting this resignation request to President Hindenburg, Hitler stated:

“Vice-Chancellor von Papen has sent a letter to me which I enclose for your information. Herr von Papen already informed me within the last few days that he agreed with Minister Goering to resign on his own volition, as soon as the unified conduct of the governmental affairs in the Reich and in Prussia would be assured by the new law on coordination of policy in the Reich and the states [Laender].

“On the eve of the day when the new law on the institution of Reich governors [Reichs-Statthalter] was adopted, Herr von Papen considered this aim as having been attained and he requested of me to undertake the appointment of the Prussian Prime Minister, when at the same time he would offer his full time services in the Reich Government.

“Herr von Papen, in accepting the commission for the Government of Prussia in these difficult times since 30 January, has rendered a very meritorious service to the realization of the idea of coordinating the policy in the Reich and the States. His collaboration in the Reich cabinet, for which he now offers all his strength, is infinitely valuable; my relationship to him is such a heartily friendly one, that I sincerely rejoice at the great help I shall thus receive.

“For profound reverence, “A.H.” (3357-PS)

The enactment of this legislation followed repeated declarations in which Papen had warned his countrymen of the dangers of the exaggerated degree of centralized authority which would result from abolition of the federal system. These warnings began before Hitler’s accession to power and continued by implication in the reassurances which Papen gave in February 1933 to Bavarian political leaders who expressed their fears of Nazi centralized authority (Cuno Horkenbach, Das Deutsche Reich von 1918 bis Heute. (The German Reich from 1918 until today) (Berlin 1933), p. 44). As late as 3 March 1933, in an election speech at Stuttgart, von Papen warned that:

“Federalism saves us from centralism, that organizational form which concentrically draws all the vital forces of a people to one point, as a mirror will do with the rays of the sun. No people is less suited for being governed centralistically than the German people.” (3313-PS)

Less than one month after its seizure of the legislative power, the cabinet of which von Papen was a member enacted the first of a series of laws aimed at establishing firm Nazi control over the entire civil service and judiciary (2012-PS; 1400-PS; 1398-PS). Having been a public servant himself, von Papen was aware of the far-reaching effect of these first legislative and administrative steps in attaining full totalitarian control over the entire governmental machinery of Germany.

The cabinet of which von Papen was a member embarked upon a state policy of persecution of the Jews. The first organized act in this program was the boycott of Jewish enterprises on 1 April 1933, which was approved by the entire cabinet. This was followed by a series of laws beginning the systematic elimination of the Jews from public and professional life in Germany. (See Section 7 of Chapter VII on the Program for Persecution of Jews.)

All these suppressive measures were in line with long-standing basic objectives of the NSDAP to which von Papen had agreed in his January conference with Hitler and von Schroeder.

(5) To complete its suppression of all rival influences, the Cabinet of which von Papen was a member enacted a series of decrees which strengthened the Nazi movement by conferring upon it a para-governmental status. Followers of the Party, through a decree signed personally by von Papen, were granted amnesty “for penal acts committed in the material revolution of the German People, in its preparation of the fight for the German soil” (2059-PS). The perpetrators of Nazi terrorism were thereby placed above the law, and a pattern was established for the subsequent handling of Nazi excesses.

This cabinet enacted measures which gave legal protection to the status and symbols of the Party and its formations (1652-PS; 2759-PS).

This cabinet enacted a series of measures to assure the Nazi movement’s spiritual control over Germany (2029-PS; 2030-PS; 2415-PS; 2083-PS; 2078-PS; 2088-PS).

Having first outlawed all political parties other than the NSDAP, the cabinet of which von Papen was a member formally decreed that:

“1. After the victory of the National Socialistic Revolution, the National Socialistic German Labor Party is the bearer of the concept of the German State and is inseparably the state.

“2. It will be a part of the public law. Its organization will be determined by the Fuehrer.” (1395-PS).

Having granted para-governmental status to the Nazi party, and having assured legal unity of the Party’s Fuehrer and the Reich’s Chancellor, the Nazis next step was to combine in the same person the Presidency of the German Reich. This was accomplished by merging the offices of President and Chancellor, by means of a decree signed by von Papen (2003-PS). An important consequence of this law was to give to Hitler the supreme command of the German armed forces, always a perquisite of the Presidency (2050-PS).

(6) Despite disagreements as to detail, von Papen fundamentally agreed with basic Nazi objectives and publicly endorsed the regime for which he shared responsibility as Vice Chancellor. Von Papen’s basic political philosophy was not so divergent from Nazism as to preclude an easy bridging of the gap. In 1932, while still Chancellor, von Papen had been willing to head a government in which Nazism would be strongly represented. By January 1933 he found it possible—as a price for his restoration to a position of public prominence—to submerge his differences with Hitler and to direct his energies to the installation of a Nazi regime (see B above).

In addition to his participation as a cabinet member in the process of Nazifying Germany, von Papen’s devotion to the Nazi cause was repeatedly demonstrated throughout this period by public statements and acts both by himself and by Hitler. Thus, as noted above in connection with his role in the elimination of the Laender as a political force, von Papen wrote Hitler in April 1933, that

“You, Herr Reich Chancellor, will now, as once Bismarck, be able to coordinate in all points the policy of the greatest of German states with that of the Reich,”

And Hitler on that occasion took notice of Papen’s services by declaring that

“His collaboration in the Reich cabinet, for which he now offers all his strength, is infinitely valuable; my relationship to him is such a heartily friendly one, that I sincerely rejoice at the great help I shall thus receive.” (3357-PS).

And again on 2 November 1933, speaking from the same platform with Hitler and Gauleiter Terboven, in the course of the campaign for Reichstag election and the referendum on Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations, von Papen declared:

“Ever since Providence called upon me to become the pioneer of national resurrection and the rebirth of our homeland, I have tried to support with all my strength the work of the national socialist movement and its leader; and just as I at the time of taking over the chancellorship have advocated to pave the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement, just as I on January 30 was selected by a gracious fate to put the hands of our chancellor and Fuehrer into the hand of our beloved field marshal, so do I today again feel the obligation to say to the German people and all those who have kept confidence in me:

“The kind Lord has blessed Germany by giving it in times of deep distress a leader who will lead it, through all distresses and weaknesses, through all crisis and moments of danger, with the sure instinct of the statesman into a happy future.”

* * * * * *

“Let us in this hour say to the Fuehrer of the new Germany that we believe in him and his work.” (3375-PS).

By this time as noted above, the cabinet of which Papen was a member had abolished the civil liberties which were a condition to any effective protest against Nazism, had sanctioned political murder committed in aid of Nazism’s seizure of power, had substituted itself for the Reichstag as Germany’s supreme law-making authority, had destroyed all rival political parties, had enacted the basic laws for abolition of the political influence of the Laender, had provided the legislative basis for purging the civil service and judiciary of anti-Nazi elements, had embarked upon a state policy of persecution of the Jews, had legislated Nazi influence into the cultural life of the German nation, and had taken its first steps toward conferring a para-governmental status upon the Nazi party and its principal formations.

Even after von Papen’s Marburg speech of June 1934, in which he again showed some understanding of the dangers of Nazism, he remained a pillar of Nazi policy and influence. Thus Hitler himself, in attempting to justify the Blood Purge of 30 June 1934, tacitly admitted that Papen was still considered a loyal member of the regime:

“The allegations [of foreign newspapers] that Vice-Chancellor von Papen, Reichsminister Seldte, or other gentlemen of the Reich Cabinet had entertained connections with the rebels is refuted by the fact that one of the first intentions of the rebels was to assassinate these men.” (Hitler Reichstag address, 18 July 1934, as quoted in Das Archiv, Vol. IV, pp. 495, 507.)

The Fuehrer thus made a tacit bid for the continuing loyalty of von Papen. Von Papen’s subsequent career demonstrated that this was not a vain expectation. He left the vice-chancellorship only to assume the new task of special emissary of the Fuehrer to Austria. But before leaving, while still Vice Chancellor, von Papen signed the decree combining the positions of President and Reichs Chancellor on 1 August 1934, and on 5 August 1934 he delivered the document—the so-called Hindenburg Testament—which purported to confer the revered president’s dying blessing upon Hitler and the Nazi regime (Notice concerning delivery of Hindenburg’s testament by Vice Chancellor von Papen, Das Archiv, Vol. V, page 648).

D. AS GERMANY’S MOST FAMOUS CATHOLIC LAYMAN AND AS NEGOTIATOR OF THE VATICAN CONCORDAT, VON PAPEN USED HIS POSITION AND PERSONAL INFLUENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSOLIDATION OF NAZI CONTROL OVER GERMANY AND IN NAZI PREPARATION FOR AGGRESSION.

(1) Immediately upon Nazi seizure of power within Germany, von Papen endeavored to weld German Catholicism into a powerful body of support for the Nazi state. When Naziism seized control of Germany in January 1933, its relations with the church were at a low ebb. The period of the Reichstag elections of July and November 1932 was marked by certain widely circulated anti-Nazi pronouncements of the German bishops, especially in such Catholic papers as Germania, Koelnische Volkszeitung, and the Rhein-Mainische Volkszeitung. These bishops discerned the fundamental incompatibility between the Church and the Nazis’ own declarations of State policy. They accordingly publicly stigmatized the Nazi movement as anti-Christian, forbade the Catholic clergy to participate in any ceremonies (such as funerals) in which the Nazi Party was officially represented, refused the sacraments to Party officials, and in several pastorals expressly warned the faithful against the danger to German Catholicism created by the Party (3389-PS).

Immediately upon seizure of power, the main concern of the new regime was to liquidate political opposition. Achievement of this objective was predicated upon the strategy of “divide and rule”. A first step in this strategy was to convince conservatives that the efforts of the government were being directed primarily against the Communists and other forces of the extreme Left, and that their own interests would remain safe in Nazi hands as long as they would consent to refrain from political activity. The result was a brief but active period of rapprochement between Church and Party. Von Papen was a leader in this strategy. The minutes of the Reich cabinet meeting of 15 March 1933 contain the following notation in connection with discussions on the Enabling Act:

“The Vice Chancellor and Reich Commissar for the State of Prussia said it is of decisive importance to integrate into the new State the masses standing behind the Parties. He said that the question of coordination of political Catholicism into the new State is of special importance.” (2962-PS)

Eight days later, speaking at the second meeting of the Reichstag of 1933, on 23 March 1933, Hitler asked for adoption of the Enabling Act. In this speech he declared:

“While the government is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring prerequisites for a truly religious life. The government sees in both Christian confessions the factors most important for the maintenance of our Folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the states. However, it expects that its work will meet with a similar appreciation. The government will treat all other denominations with equal objective justice. However, it can never condone that belonging to a certain denomination or to a certain race might be regarded as license to commit or tolerate crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere living together of Church and State.” (3387-PS).

The immediate effect of this assurance was action by the conference of German bishops, meeting in Fulda on 28 March 1933. This conference lifted restrictions imposed on members of the church adhering to the Nazi movement. In a cautious statement which placed full faith and credit in the Papen-inspired Hitler assurances, the bishops declared:

“The high shepherds of the dioceses of Germany in their dutiful anxiety to keep the Catholic faith pure and protect the untouchable aims and rights of the Catholic Church have adopted, for profound reasons, during the last years, an oppositional attitude toward the National Socialist movement, through prohibitions and warnings, which was to be in effect as long and as far as those reasons remained valid.

“It must now be recognized that there are official and solemn declarations issued by the highest representative of the Reich Government—who at the same time is the authoritarian leader of that movement—which acknowledge the inviolability of the teachings of Catholic faith and the unchangeable tasks and rights of the church, and which expressly assure the full value of the legal pacts concluded between the various German States and the Church.

“Without lifting the condemnation of certain religious and ethical errors implied in our previous measures, the Episcopate now believes it can entertain the confidence that those prescribed general prohibitions and warnings may not be regarded as necessary any more.” (3389-PS)

This action opened the door for mass Party adherence by practicing Catholics. All those German Catholics who were inclined to adopt Nazi political views and had hesitated only because of the anti-Nazi attitude of the hierarchy hastened now to join the victorious party of the “National Revolution”. This tendency was marked by a tremendous and sudden burst of activity by the so-called “bridge-builders,” who rushed to close the gap between the Church and the Nazi State. Von Papen, who only a short time before had been willing to use armed force to suppress the Nazis, was foremost among these “bridge-builders”, who not only claimed an ideological affinity between the Nazi system and the alleged anti-liberal character of Catholic politics, but affirmatively apologized for excesses of the State which even then had begun to shock the world.

Existing agencies were used for this purpose. Thus, the Union of Catholic Germans (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Katholischer Deutscher), of which von Papen was president, insisted in its program that the church, like the Nazi movement itself, was guided by the leadership principle (Cuno Horkenbach, Das Deutsche Reich von 1918 bis Heute (The German Reich from 1918 Until Today) (Berlin 1935), pp. 436, 504). The same organization, in the course of the election campaign which preceded adoption of the Enabling Act, had bitterly criticized the Catholic political opposition to Marxism and urged that Catholics “by all means vote unanimously the National Socialist ticket”, because “We Catholics do not wish to be denied to march in the lead in this election campaign” (Election Appeal, Voelkischer Beobachter, 23 February 1933, p. 2). Later, on the eve of the Nazis’ first anti-Jewish boycott, this same organization played its part in the extensive campaign replying to foreign newspaper reports concerning atrocities committed against German Jews. On 1 April 1933 it published through the Prussian News Service, an “Appeal to all Christians”, viewing “with great indignation” this “irresponsible campaign against Germany” which “continues in spite of official German declarations and corrections”. This “Appeal” characterized the foreign reports as “intentional lies and falsifications” and “a reckless, crafty campaign of destruction conducted by the Jewish world alliance and moneyed powers against the right of self-determination of all peoples and against the entire Christian civilization”. It called upon “the Christians of all countries, irrespective of denominations, to form a world-wide front of defense against that Jewish conspiracy disturbing the true peace” (“Appeal to All Christians”, Voelkischer Beobachter (People’s Observer), 30 March 1933, p. 2).

Notwithstanding the force of these activities, this Nazification by existing agencies was not deemed adequate to the task of organizing Catholic lay support. The result was the creation, in early April 1933, under the sponsorship of von Papen, of a new “Bund” of Catholic Germans called “Cross and Eagle” (“Kreuz und Adler”) which made it its task “to contribute enthusiastic devotion to the upbuilding of the future Reich” (Gerd Ruehle, Das Dritte Reich (The Third Reich), p. 250).

This whole program of rapprochement between Church and Party manifests the Papen “touch”—the same quality of handiwork which had manifested itself in Hitler’s accession to power and which later was to reappear in Austria: First, gentle hints by Papen as to strategy, followed within eight days by reassurances in Hitler’s Reichstag speech. Next, again following merely by days, the formal lifting of the restrictions on Nazi membership by the leaders of the Church of which von Papen was the most famous lay member. Finally, again within a few days, the open campaign by which Papen-sponsored organizations endeavoured to align Church and Party. The close timing of these events was not a coincidence.

(2) Having achieved initial successes in consolidating Catholic support within Germany, von Papen undertook international consolidation of Nazi-Church relationships by negotiation of a Concordat with the Vatican. The program of rapprochement and the public declarations bridging the gap between the Church and the Nazi movement were merely advertising media by which Nazi-minded Catholics were herded into the movement, and slogans by which the conspirators might placate the Catholic hierarchy. Throughout this period there continued an undercurrent of anti-Catholic activity. A thorough job was done in purging Reich, state, and municipal administrations of officials appointed for their adherence to the Centre or Bavarian People’s parties. Former leaders of those parties, including priests, joined Communists and Social Democrats in the concentration camps, and the campaign of hatred against the “black” was resumed. By April 1933 the bishops were making appeals for clemency toward former civil servants, who, they pointed out, were not able to join the celebration of national awakening because they had been dismissed from positions in which they had given their best to the community of the German people. And on 31 May 1933, a meeting of the Bavarian bishops adopted a solemn statement directed against the tendency of attributing to the State alone the right of educating, organizing, and leading ideologically the German youth (Dismissal of Catholics, Excerpts from Voelkischer Beobachter, February-March 1933; Excerpt, Voelkischer Beobachter, 19 April 1933 (Munich ed.), p. 2).

By this maintenance of a certain amount of pressure against Catholic interests, the hierarchy was reminded of the dangers of not coming to a definite agreement with the Nazi State. The stage was thus set for von Papen’s negotiation of a Concordat with the Vatican.

At the time of these activities, the government of which von Papen was Vice Chancellor had already launched its program to mold the state machinery into the Nazi image. The Enabling Act had become law, and the general outlines of the Nazi State were already manifest. Notwithstanding the doubts created in his mind by Hitler’s insistence upon the Enabling Act, von Papen undertook negotiations with the Vatican. In fact, he since has claimed that these fears gave rise to the negotiation of the Concordat (Interrogation at Nurnberg, 3 Sept. 1945):

“I became alarmed, you remember, somewhere in June when I went to Rome to negotiate a concordat because I certainly feared that the particular powers of the Hitler Party would create difficulties on the religious side. So that with the consent of Hitler I went to Rome to make that concordat.”

It is clear, however, that these alleged fears of the Enabling Act were not fears at all. They were merely an understanding of the threat they carried to all persons and instrumentalities antagonistic to the Nazi system. Von Papen understood the significance of these developments. What he actually feared was that the rest of the world would also understand Nazi methods and would erect barriers to the consummation of the plans of the conspirators. The situation plainly called for a neutralizing of these potential barriers to Nazi plans. One method of achieving this result at that time was the negotiation of solemn agreements whereby other powers would commit themselves to a policy of non-intervention by either armed or moral force.

When von Papen concluded the Concordat with the Vatican, the political objectives of furthering the purposes of the Nazi conspiracy were thus foremost in his mind. Even at that time, in the first half of 1933, von Papen had in mind, in concluding this Concordat, not only the consolidation of Catholicism behind the Nazi regime within Germany, but also the psychological build-up of the Austrians in preparation for Anschluss. Von Papen’s own words eloquently characterize these manoeuvres (monograph entitled “Austria” written at Nurnberg, 1945):

“Although the ‘Heimwehr’ movement [in Austria] had brought these patriotic elements together before this, and had fought with them to free the country from strong Socialistic pressure, yet they were armed only from the standpoint of domestic politics and remained aloof from all ambitions for a greater Germany. The cause lay mostly in the Catholic nature of the country, and in the strong influence of the clergy in political leadership. The Reich was considered a bulwark of Protestantism, despite its twenty million Catholics. The anti-clerical wave, which was dominant in the Reich under the leadership of Prussia, itself led by Socialists, appeared to have verified the fears of the Austrian clergy. For in spite of Catholics at the head of the Reich—Wirth, Marx, Bruening—the Centre Party had always put through its cultural demands by logrolling with the Socialists. There were at least two Socialist officials, university professors or teachers for every Catholic appointee. In contrast to the obviously badly functioning Weimar Constitution, there was an effort in Austria, under clerical leadership and with the strong support of the Vatican, to develop into a corporate state.

“Those were serious obstacles on both sides. When, after the seizure of power of the NSDAP in 1933, as the first remedy against a new ‘Kulturkampf’, I safely concluded the Concordat of the New Reich with the Holy See, my thoughts at the time were not focused only on the Reich. For a peaceful evolution of the German-Austrian question it was of the greatest importance that the doubts of the clergy on the Austrian side be completely eliminated.”

* * * * * *

“It was my first purpose in the diplomatic field to deprive the Austrian problem of its European character, and to develop it gradually into an exclusively internal problem between the Reich and Austria.

“It therefore had to be my primary aim to convince the Vatican that a union could not endanger the Vatican’s interests. A Concordat of the Reich with the Vatican had been my first attempt to prevent religious difficulties arising from Nazism’s revolutionary doctrine; the attempt had obviously failed. Under the growing influence of his Party, Hitler sabotaged the Concordat. Rome was deeply disappointed and in the greatest excitement.”

On 20 July 1933 the Reich Concordat with the Vatican was signed by von Papen as representative of the Nazi Government of Germany. This instrument was an international treaty which purported to give the church an official guarantee of all the church rights it had sought. In addition it purported to confer freedom for Catholic organizations, maintenance of parochial schools, and preservation of the general influence of the church on the education of the German Catholic youth. Among the 33 articles of the Concordat, 21 treated exclusively the rights and prerogatives accorded to the church. Reciprocation consisted only in a pledge of loyalty by the clergy to the Reich Government and a promise that Catholic religious instruction would emphasize the patriotic duties of the Christian citizen and insist on a loyal attitude toward the Fatherland. Since it had always been the practice of the Catholic church to abide by established governments and to promote patriotic convictions among the faithful, these stipulations of the Concordat were no more than legalizations of an existing custom. They were no more than a guarantee of goodwill betokening harmonious Church-State relations (2655-PS).

(3) The signing of the Concordat was only an interlude in the church policy of the Nazi Conspirators, which was a policy of reassurances and repression. The signing of the Concordat merely marked the beginning of evasions and violations of both its spirit and letter. The ink was hardly dry before it became necessary for the Vatican to complain about a false interpretation of the text, made by the Nazi government in its own favour. (See Section 6 of Chapter VII on Suppression of the Christian Churches.)

By action taken only ten days after the signing of the Concordat, and despite its provision for the continuance of the Catholic Youth Association, simultaneous membership in the Hitler Jugend and the Catholic Youth Association was forbidden, and the campaign to smash the latter organization thereby commenced (2456-PS).

These first steps were merely a foretaste of a long series of violations which were to commence almost immediately and eventually to result in papal denunciation and serious excesses committed against the clergy (3280-PS).

The continuing character of the conspirators’ church policy—and of von Papen’s participation in it—is further revealed by von Papen’s action of 19 September 1934, when, as president of the Union of Catholic Germans (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Katholischer Deutscher), he ordered dissolution of this organization. By this time the Nazis were dropping all pretext that rival organizations might be permitted to exist, and were well along in their plans for the integration of all German institutions into the Nazi system. The official published announcement of dissolution is a revealing document:

“Since the Reich Party Leadership through its department for spiritual peace increasingly and immediately administers all cultural problems and those concerning the relationship of State and Churches, the tasks at first delegated to the Union of Catholic Germans are now included in those of the Reich Party Leadership in the interest of a stronger coordination.

“Vice-Chancellor von Papen, up to now the Leader of the Union of Catholic Germans, declared about the Dissolution of this organization that it was done upon his suggestion, since the attitude of the national socialist State toward the Christian and Catholic Church had been explained often and inequivocally through the leader and chancellor himself.” (3376-PS).

E. AS ENVOY AT VIENNA, VON PAPEN USED HIS POSITION AND INFLUENCE DELIBERATELY TO WEAKEN THE AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT, AND PARTICIPATED IN THE POLITICAL PLANNING AND PREPARATION FOR MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST AUSTRIA.

(1) Von Papen accepted appointment as envoy at Vienna knowing he would “front” for a Nazi fifth column in Austria. In July 1934, the Austrian policy of the Nazi government of Germany was in bad odor throughout the civilized world. The historical record of this period was written in the newspaper headlines of the day. A period of Nazi pressure and terror culminated on 25 July 1934 in an attempted revolutionary putsch, the murder of the Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss, in which the German Minister, Reith, was implicated. (See Section 3 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Austria.) The situation was such as to call for removal of the German Minister, Reith, and for the prompt substitution of a man who was an enthusiast for Anschluss with Germany, who could be tolerant of Nazi objectives and methods, but who could lend an aura of respectability to official German representation in Vienna. Hitler’s reaction was immediate. He chose von Papen as quickly as he heard the news of the Dollfuss murder. Writing of this event in 1945 after his arrest by Allied authorities, von Papen dramatically describes the Fuehrer’s response to the situation (monograph on “Austria” referred to above):

“Suddenly, at three o’clock in the morning, there was a loud ringing of my doorbell. SS men demanded admission. My son and I were of the opinion that I was going to be imprisoned. We went to the front door armed with pistols. Our suspicions were unfounded. The SS men declared that they had come from the Chancellery with the order to put through a telephone connection between Hitler and myself.

“Hitler was in Bayreuth and had been trying for hours without success to get in touch with me. The connection was made.

“Hitler started, ‘You know of course what has happened in Vienna. You must go there immediately and try to set things in order.’

“I replied, ‘I have no idea what has happened in Vienna. I have just returned from the country and I don’t understand what you want with me in Vienna. I am in the act of packing my trunk to leave Berlin once and for all.’

“Hitler, highly excited, gave thereupon a short description of the dramatic events in Vienna which led to the murder of Dollfuss, and continued, ‘You are the only person who can save the situation. I implore you to carry out my request.’”

As a result of this telephone call, von Papen flew immediately to join Hitler at Bayreuth. There it was clear that the Nazi leadership feared international repercussions from their Austrian policy and felt themselves in dire need of a respectable “front” man. Von Papen has described this meeting:

“There I found Hitler and his entire entourage, excited as an ant-hill. It was difficult to get anything approaching an exact picture of the Vienna ‘Putsch’ and the role of Hitler’s promoters. Even if one had come into this gathering in complete ignorance of the different circumstances involved, one could have gathered with one look that they had a very bad conscience and now were fearing the consequences. From the very first moment I was certain that the immoderate policy of the Austrian NSDAP under the leadership of Hitler’s condottiere, Habig, had led to this coup d’etat.

“This was, then, a few days after the 30 June, the second bloody excess of the Party which had promised to bring Germany by peaceful means to social tranquility, welfare, and respect. It was obvious that both events had made a deep impression on the entire world, and that the governmental methods of the Party must damage most seriously the political credit of the Reich”.

At this meeting it was Papen himself who drafted the letter of appointment. This letter was a masterpiece of deceit, calculated to conceal completely Hitler and Papen’s goal of annexation. It stated:

“As a result of the events in Vienna I am compelled to suggest to the Reichs-President the removal of the German Minister to Vienna, Dr. Reith, from his post, because he, at the suggestion of Austrian Federal Ministers and the Austrian rebels respectively consented to an agreement made by both these parties concerning the safe conduct and retreat of the rebels to Germany without making inquiry of the German Reich Government. Thus the Minister has dragged the German Reich into an internal Austrian affair without any reason.

“The assassination of the Austrian Federal Chancellor which was strictly condemned and regretted by the German Government has made the situation in Europe, already fluid, more acute, without any fault of ours. Therefore, it is my desire to bring about if possible an easing of the general situation, and especially to direct the relations with the German Austrian State, which have been so strained for a long time, again into normal and friendly channels.

“For this reason, I request you, dear Mr. von Papen, to take over this important task, just because you have possessed and continue to possess my most complete and unlimited confidence ever since we have worked together in the Cabinet.

“Therefore, I have suggested to the Reichs-President that you, upon leaving the Reich-Cabinet and upon release from the office of Commissioner for the Saar, be called on special mission to the post of the German Minister in Vienna for a limited period of time. In this position you will be directly subordinated to me.

“Thanking once more for all that you have at a time done for the coordination of the Government of the National Revolution and since then together with us for Germany, I remain.” (2799-PS).

The actual mission of von Papen was stated more frankly, shortly after his arrival in Vienna, in the course of a private conversation with the American Minister, George S. Messersmith. Mr. Messersmith has described this meeting:

“When I did call on von Papen in the German Legation, he greeted me with ‘Now you are in my Legation and I can control the conversation’. In the baldest and most cynical manner he then proceeded to tell me that all of Southeastern Europe, to the borders of Turkey, was Germany’s natural hinterland, and that he had been charged with the mission of facilitating German economic and political control over all this region for Germany. He blandly and directly said that getting control of Austria was to be the first step. He definitely stated that he was in Austria to undermine and weaken the Austrian Government and from Vienna to work towards the weakening of the Governments in the other states to the South and South East. He said that he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to gain influence with certain Austrians, such as Cardinal Innitzer, towards that end. He said that he was telling me this because the German Government was bound on this objective of getting this control of Southeastern Europe and there was nothing which could stop it and that our own policy and that of France and England was not realistic.

“The circumstances were such, as I was calling on him in the German Legation, that I had to listen to what he had to say and of course I was prepared to hear what he had to say although I already knew what his instructions were. I was nevertheless shocked to have him speak so baldly to me and when he finished I got up and told him how shocked I was to hear the accredited representative of a supposedly friendly state to Austria admit that he was proposing to engage in activities to undermine and destroy that Government to which he was accredited. He merely smiled and said, of course this conversation was between us and that he would, of course, not be talking to others so clearly about his objectives. I have gone into this detail with regard to this conversation as it is characteristic of the absolute frankness and directness with which high Nazi officials spoke of their objectives.” (1760-PS)

(2) Von Papen proceeded forthwith to accomplish his mission—the maintenance of an outward appearance of non-intervention while keeping appropriate contacts useful in the eventual overthrow of the Austrian government. Throughout the earlier period of his mission to Austria, von Papen’s activity was characterized by the assiduous avoidance of any appearance of intervention. His true mission was reaffirmed with clarity, several months after its commencement, when he was instructed by Berlin that “during the next two years nothing can be undertaken which will give Germany external political difficulties”. Every “appearance” of German interference in Austrian affairs “must be avoided” (1760-PS). As von Papen himself stated to Berger-Waldenegg, the Austrian Foreign Minister:

“Yes, you have your French and English friends now and you can have your independence a little longer.” (1760-PS).

Throughout this period, the Nazi movement was gaining strength in Austria without openly-admitted German intervention, and Germany needed more time to consolidate its diplomatic position. These reasons for German policy were frankly expressed by the German Foreign Minister von Neurath in conversation with the American Ambassador to France (L-150).

Von Papen accordingly restricted his public activity to the normal ambassadorial function of cultivating all respectable elements in Austria and ingratiating himself in these circles—particularly if they were well-disposed (but not too obviously) to notions of Pan-Germanism. In these efforts he was particularly careful to exploit his background as a former professional officer and a Catholic (1760-PS).

Meanwhile, however, the Austrian Nazis continued illegal organization in anticipation of the possibility of securing their objectives by force if necessary. In these efforts they were aided by Germany, which permitted the outlawed Austrian Nazis to meet and perfect their plots within Germany and with German Nazi assistance; which harbored the Austrian Legion; which made funds available to National Socialists in Austria; and which established appropriate contact with them through the Reich Propaganda Ministry and through “respectable” Austrian “front” personalities (1760-PS; 812-PS). (See also Section 3 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Austria.)

Von Papen was fully aware of the existence and activities of these groups, and of their potentialities in effecting an Anschluss. Thus, in a report to Hitler dated 27 July 1935, entitled “Reflections on the Anniversary of Dollfuss’ Death”, he reviewed the activities of these illegal groups and concluded that National Socialism could “certainly become the rallying point of all racially German units beyond the borders”. In this report he declared:

“The Third Reich will be with Austria, or it will not be at all. National Socialism must win it or it will perish, if it is unable to solve this task.” (2248-PS).

These sentiments concerning the role of National Socialism were something more than idle speculation. Von Papen knew that the presence of the Austrian Legion in Germany in itself produced incidents, and that the Austrian Nazi movement was dependent on German support. He has so testified (at an interrogation in Nurnberg, 13 October 1945). In fact, despite his facade of strict non-intervention, he remained in contact with subversive and potentially subversive elements within Austria. Thus, in a report to Hitler dated 17 May 1935 he advised concerning the Austrian Nazi strategy as proposed by Captain Leopold, leader of the illegal Austrian Nazis (2247-PS). In subsequent statements he has revealed his modus operandi in the use of his embassy staff. This method provided him with an opportunity to disclaim responsibility if these activities should be questioned. Thus, his military attache, Mutz, “maintained good relations with the Army circles which were inclined towards National Socialism”. Von Papen’s all-around contact man with the Austrian Nazis was a member of his staff, Baron von Kettler, who “had always maintained intimate contact with a group of young Austrian National Socialists who, as we both agreed, had a conservative coating and fought for a healthy development within the Party”. The practical effect of these contacts has been clarified in questioning of von Papen (at Nurnberg, 8 October 1945):

“* * * A. As I told you, I charged one of my younger people of the Embassy, von Kettler—he was made the go-between with these Nazi people, to smooth them down and talk with them. Personally I had not very much to do with them.

“Q. Well, I know that. That is what you always said. But the result of your time in Austria was that their interests were furthered through your office. Whether you did it personally or somebody working for you did it, I don’t think it is too important for what we have in mind here tonight; do you?

“A. No.

“Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that their interests were furthered through your office, if not through you as an individual during those years that you were there?

“A. Yes, I wanted to know about their doings, you see. I must have been informed what was going on.”

(3) Conclusion of the Agreement of 11 July 1936 merely constituted another step towards Anschluss. Prior to 1936, sponsorship of political subversion was not the only pressure applied by Germany in its efforts to gain control of Austria. The German Government in addition had placed certain economic barriers against trade between German and Austrian subjects, the most serious of which was the 1000 mark law, which crippled the Austrian tourist traffic by levying a 1000 RM tax on any German citizen crossing the border into Austria. The effect of these pressures was to induce the Austrian Chancellor, Kurt von Schuschnigg, to seek from Hitler an agreement to “lift the 1000 Mark barrier he had levied against Austria and reassure Austria that he had no political designs concerning our state, Austria” (2994-PS).

The result was the agreement of 11 July 1936 between Germany and Austria, which was negotiated by von Papen as Hitler’s representative. The published form of this agreement provided:

“Being convinced that they are making a valuable contribution towards the whole European development in the direction of maintaining peace, and in the belief that they are thereby best serving the manifold mutual interests of both German States, the Governments of the Federal State of Austria and of Germany have resolved to return to relations of a normal and friendly character. In this connection it is declared—

“(1) The German Government recognizes the full sovereignty of the Federal State of Austria in the spirit of the pronouncements of the German Fuehrer and Chancellor of May 21, 1935.

“(2) Each of the two Governments regards the inner political order (including the question of Austrian National-Socialism) obtaining in the other country as an internal concern of that country, upon which it will exercise neither direct nor indirect influence.

“(3) The Austrian Federal Government will constantly follow in its policy in general, and in particular towards Germany, a line in conformity with leading principles corresponding to the fact that Austria regards herself as a German State.

“By such a decision neither the Rome Protocols of 1934 and their additions of 1936, nor the relationships of Austria to Italy and Hungary as partners in these protocols, are affected. Considering that the detente desired by both sides cannot become a reality unless certain preliminary conditions are fulfilled by the Governments of both countries, the Austrian Federal Government and the German Government will pass a number of special measures to bring about the requisite preliminary state of affairs.” (TC-22).

More interesting was the secret part of this agreement, the most important provisions of which have been summarized by Mr. Messersmith:

“Austria would (1) appoint a number of individuals enjoying the Chancellor’s confidence but friendly to Germany to positions in the Cabinet; (2) would devise means to give the ‘National opposition’ a role in the political life of Austria and within the framework of the Patriotic Front, and (3) would amnesty all Nazis save those convicted of the most serious offenses.” (1760-PS)

Especially interesting was the manner in which this agreement contained German economic concessions and further solemn assurances regarding Austrian independence and integrity, on the one hand, alongside far-reaching political concessions to the Nazi movement (2994-PS). The effect was to place Austria completely at the mercy of German good faith. Von Papen has correctly described it (in an interrogation at Nurnberg, 8 October 1945) as “the first step” toward preparation for Anschluss, notwithstanding his clear understanding at the time that the Austrian government desired and intended to retain its independence.

The Germans lost no time in making the most of their new opportunities, solemn assurances notwithstanding. The agreement merely heralded a new era in “legitimizing” the German fifth column in Austria. Thus, the immediate amnesty to political prisoners in itself presented serious police problems. The freedom granted to political demonstrations and organization by German Nazis made it difficult to police the propagandizing of Austrians. And the agreement specifically gave the German Nazis an opening wedge to representation in the Austrian government. The terroristic activities and pressure of the illegal Nazis continued without interruption under German sponsorship, until their hand was strengthened to the point of openly asking for official recognition (812-PS; 1760-PS; 2994-PS).

The importance of this agreement to the Germans was underscored by the promotion of its negotiator from Gesandter to Botschafter, at the time of its signing (Announcement, Das Archiv, XXVIII, p. 571).

Von Papen himself participated in this pressure game by maintaining contact with the illegal Nazis, by trying to influence appointments to strategic cabinet positions, and by attempting to secure official recognition of Nazi “front” organizations. Reporting to Hitler shortly after conclusion of the 11 July 1936 agreement, he succinctly summarized his program for “normalizing” Austro-German relations under the regime of the new agreement:

“The progress of normalizing relations with Germany at the present time is obstructed by the continued persistence of the Ministry of Security, occupied by the old anti-National Socialistic officials. Changes in personnel are therefore of utmost importance. But they are definitely not to be expected prior to the conference on the abolishing of the Control of Finances [Finanzkontrolle] at Geneva. The Chancellor of the League has informed Minister de Glaise-Horstenau, of his intention, to offer him the portfolio of the Ministry of the Interior. As a guiding principle [Marschroute] I recommend on the tactical side, continued, patient psychological manipulations, with slowly intensified pressure directed at changing the regime. The proposed conference on economic relations, taking place at the end of October will be a very useful tool for the realization of some of our projects. In discussion with government officials as well as with leaders of the illegal party (Leopold and Schattenfreh) who conform completely with the concordat of July 11, I am trying to direct the next developments in such a manner to aim at corporative representation of the movement in the fatherland front [Vaterlaendischen Front] but nevertheless refraining from putting National-Socialists in important positions for the time being. However such positions are to be occupied only by personalities, having the support and the confidence of the movement. I have a willing collaborator in this respect in Minister Glaise-Horstenau.” (2246-PS).

This activity continued through 1937. In fact, by 14 January 1937 the negotiations with the Austrian Minister of Security and the development of “front” organizations had proceeded so far that “a very intensive crisis has arisen for the illegal party” with respect to its future program. In urging a patient attitude toward these problems, von Papen appeared less concerned with the legitimacy of their position under the 11 July 1936 agreement than with his fear that

“a too strong and far-reaching connection (with a proposed conservative ‘German Action’ front organization) would be understood neither in our own ranks nor could it be of use to the action itself.” (2831-PS)

On the other hand when an Austrian cabinet minister failed to show sufficient energy to suit von Papen’s purpose, he showed no hesitancy, under the terms of his 11 July 1936 agreement, to urge replacement by a more cooperative individual. Thus, von Papen has summarized his efforts to remove the Austrian Minister of the Interior (monograph “Austria”):

“I had tried to persuade Schuschnigg to appoint another minister to his cabinet beside Herr von Glaise, who was not very active. The new minister was to act as trusted liaison man between the two governments, able to work on innumerable problems directly without diplomatic intervention. This simplification would also bring the men on both sides of the fence closer together.”

By the beginning of 1938, the Nazi hand had been so strengthened in Austria, and the differences and misunderstandings regarding the agreement of 11 July had become so serious and frequent, that Chancellor Schuschnigg found it expedient to accept von Papen’s invitation to meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden, notwithstanding serious misgivings on the part of Schuschnigg (2995-PS). Von Papen showed no hesitancy in extending this invitation despite the fact that he knew Hitler’s “idea to swallow Austria”, despite his knowledge of Schuschnigg’s distrust of Hitler, and despite his own doubts concerning the value of Hitler’s word. Notwithstanding the situation, he found it possible even to urge Schuschnigg that Hitler was a man upon whom Schuschnigg could rely. And in making these representations, he was fully aware of the extent of German rearmament and of its possible use as a diplomatic pressure device (according to interrogations, Nurnberg, 19 September and 8 October 1945).

On 11 February 1938, Schuschnigg left for Berchtesgaden to meet Hitler. At this meeting the severest pressure was exerted to extort far-reaching concessions from Austria, including reorganization of the cabinet, appointment of Seyss-Inquart as Minister of Security and the Interior, and a general amnesty to Nazis convicted of crimes (2995-PS; 2461-PS; 1544-PS; 1780-PS).

It was at this meeting that Papen urged upon Hitler the appointment of Seyss-Inquart as Minister of Security and the Interior (according to monograph “Austria”).

Thoroughly entrenched in the government, the Nazis were now able to seize upon Schuschnigg’s plebiscite as an excuse to seize power, and to call for military intervention by Germany (812-PS; 2996-PS). (See also Section 3 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Austria.)

Thereafter it was only a matter of hours before Austria became a province of the Reich—by a law signed by von Papen’s man, Seyss-Inquart (2307-PS).

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO FRANZ VON PAPEN

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 63 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ *351-PS │Minutes of First Meeting of Cabinet of│ │ │Hitler, 30 January 1933. (USA 389) │ III │ 270 │ │ │ *812-PS │Letter from Rainer to Seyss-Inquart, │ │ │22 August 1939 and report from │ │ │Gauleiter Rainer to Reichskommissar │ │ │Gauleiter Buerckel, 6 July 1939 on │ │ │events in the NSDAP of Austria from │ │ │1933 to 11 March 1938. (USA 61) │ III │ 586 │ │ │ 1388-PS │Law concerning confiscation of │ │ │Property subversive to People and │ │ │State, 14 July 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 479. │ III │ 962 │ │ │ 1390-PS │Decree of the Reich President for the │ │ │Protection of the People and State, 28│ │ │February 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │ │Part I, p. 83. │ III │ 968 │ │ │ *1395-PS │Law to insure the unity of Party and │ │ │State, 1 December 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016. │ │ │(GB 252) │ III │ 978 │ │ │ 1396-PS │Law concerning the confiscation of │ │ │Communist property, 26 May 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 293. │ III │ 979 │ │ │ 1398-PS │Law to supplement the Law for the │ │ │restoration of the Professional Civil │ │ │Service, 20 July 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 518. │ III │ 986 │ │ │ 1400-PS │Law changing the regulations in regard│ │ │to public officer, 30 June 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 433. │ III │ 987 │ │ │ *1544-PS │Von Papen’s notes, 26 February 1938, │ │ │on his parting visit with Chancellor │ │ │Schuschnigg. (USA 71) │ IV │ 103 │ │ │ 1652-PS │Decree of the Reich President for │ │ │protection against treacherous attacks│ │ │on the government of the Nationalist │ │ │movement, 21 March 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 135. │ IV │ 160 │ │ │ *1708-PS │The Program of the NSDAP. National │ │ │Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153. │ │ │(USA 255, USA 324) │ IV │ 208 │ │ │ *1760-PS │Affidavit of George S. Messersmith, 28│ │ │August 1945. (USA 57) │ IV │ 305 │ │ │ *1780-PS │Excerpts from diary kept by General │ │ │Jodl, January 1937 to August 1939. │ │ │(USA 72) │ IV │ 360 │ │ │ 2001-PS │Law to Remove the Distress of People │ │ │and State, 24 March 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 141. │ IV │ 638 │ │ │ 2003-PS │Law concerning the Sovereign Head of │ │ │the German Reich, 1 August 1934. 1934 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 747. │ IV │ 639 │ │ │ 2004-PS │Preliminary law for the coordination │ │ │of Federal States under the Reich, 31 │ │ │March 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │ │Part I, p. 153. │ IV │ 640 │ │ │ 2005-PS │Second law integrating the “Laender” │ │ │with the Reich, 7 April 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 173. │ IV │ 641 │ │ │ 2006-PS │Law for the reconstruction of the │ │ │Reich, 30 January 1934. 1934 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 75. │ IV │ 642 │ │ │ 2012-PS │First regulation for administration of│ │ │the law for the restoration of │ │ │professional Civil Service, 11 April │ │ │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │p. 195. │ IV │ 647 │ │ │ 2014-PS │Law amending regulations of criminal │ │ │law and criminal procedure, 24 April │ │ │1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │p. 341. │ IV │ 648 │ │ │ 2029-PS │Decree establishing the Reich Ministry│ │ │of Public Enlightenment and │ │ │Propaganda, 13 March 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 104. │ IV │ 652 │ │ │ 2030-PS │Decree concerning the Duties of the │ │ │Reich Ministry for Public │ │ │Enlightenment and Propaganda, 30 June │ │ │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │p. 449. │ IV │ 653 │ │ │ 2050-PS │The Constitution of the German Reich, │ │ │11 August 1919. 1919 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1383. │ IV │ 662 │ │ │ 2058-PS │Decree for the securing of the State │ │ │Leadership, 7 July 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 462. │ IV │ 699 │ │ │ 2059-PS │Decree of the Reich President relating│ │ │to the granting of Amnesty, 21 March │ │ │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │p. 134. │ IV │ 701 │ │ │ 2076-PS │Decree of the Government concerning │ │ │formation of Special Courts, 21 March │ │ │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │ │pp. 136-137. │ IV │ 705 │ │ │ 2078-PS │Decree concerning establishment of │ │ │Ministry for Science, Education and │ │ │Popular Culture, 1 May 1934. 1934 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 365. │ IV │ 706 │ │ │ 2083-PS │Editorial control law, 4 October 1933.│ │ │1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │ │713. │ IV │ 709 │ │ │ 2088-PS │Decree relating to tasks of Reichs │ │ │Ministry for Education, 11 May 1934. │ │ │1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │ │375. │ IV │ 718 │ │ │ *2246-PS │Report of von Papen to Hitler, 1 │ │ │September 1936, concerning Danube │ │ │situation. (USA 67) │ IV │ 930 │ │ │ *2247-PS │Letter from von Papen to Hitler, 17 │ │ │May 1935, concerning intention of │ │ │Austrian government to arm. (USA 64) │ IV │ 930 │ │ │ *2248-PS │Report of von Papen to Hitler, 27 July│ │ │1935, concerning National Socialism in│ │ │Austria. (USA 63) │ IV │ 932 │ │ │ *2307-PS │Law concerning reunion of Austria with│ │ │German Reich, 13 March 1938. 1938 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 237. (GB│ │ │133) │ IV │ 997 │ │ │ 2403-PS │The End of the Party State, from │ │ │Documents of German Politics, Vol. I, │ │ │pp. 55-56. │ V │ 71 │ │ │ 2415-PS │First decree for the implementation of│ │ │law relating to The Reich Chamber of │ │ │Culture, 1 November 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 797. │ V │ 89 │ │ │ 2456-PS │Youth and the Church, from Complete │ │ │Handbook of Youth Laws. │ V │ 198 │ │ │ *2461-PS │Official German communique of meeting │ │ │of Hitler and Schuschnigg, 12 February│ │ │1938, published in Documents of German│ │ │Politics, 1939, Vol. VI, Part I. (GB │ │ │132) │ V │ 206 │ │ │ 2512-PS │Hitler’s Testimony Before the Court │ │ │for High Treason, published in │ │ │Frankfurter Zeitung, 26 September │ │ │1931. │ V │ 246 │ │ │ 2541-PS │Extracts from German Publications. │ V │ 285 │ │ │ 2633-PS │Extracts from Constitutional Law of │ │ │the Greater German Reich, 1939. │ V │ 344 │ │ │ 2655-PS │Concordat between the Holy See and the│ │ │German Reich, Article 31. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part II, pp. 679, │ │ │687-8. │ V │ 364 │ │ │ 2742-PS │Passage written by Frick in National │ │ │Socialist Yearbook, 1927, p. 124. │ V │ 383 │ │ │ 2759-PS │Law for the protection of Nationalist │ │ │Symbols, 19 May 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 285. │ V │ 394 │ │ │ 2771-PS │U. S. State Department, National │ │ │Socialism, published by U. S. │ │ │Government Printing Office, 1943. │ V │ 417 │ │ │ **2799-PS │Letter from Hitler to von Papen, 26 │ │ │July 1934, published in Documents of │ │ │German Politics, Vol. II, p. 83, No. │ │ │38. (Referred to but not offered in │ │ │evidence.) │ V │ 441 │ │ │ *2830-PS │Letter from von Papen to Hitler, 12 │ │ │May 1936, concerning May Rally of │ │ │Freedom Union. (GB 243) │ V │ 496 │ │ │ 2831-PS │Letter from Office of Extraordinary │ │ │and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of │ │ │German Government to Reich │ │ │Chancellery, inclosing report on │ │ │Political situation in Austria, 14 │ │ │January 1937. │ V │ 498 │ │ │ 2902-PS │Statement of von Papen, 13 November │ │ │1945, prepared by his defense lawyer. │ │ │(GB 233) │ V │ 569 │ │ │ *2962-PS │Minutes of meeting of Reich Cabinet, │ │ │15 March 1933. (USA 578) │ V │ 669 │ │ │ *2963-PS │Minutes of meeting of Reich Cabinet, │ │ │20 March 1933. (USA 656) │ V │ 670 │ │ │ **2994-PS │Affidavit of Kurt von Schuschnigg, │ │ │former Chancellor of Austria, │ │ │concerning Austrian-German Treaty of │ │ │11 July 1936. (USA 66) (Objection to │ │ │admission in evidence upheld.) │ V │ 703 │ │ │ 2995-PS │Affidavit of Kurt von Schuschnigg, │ │ │former Chancellor of Austria, │ │ │concerning his visit to Berchtesgaden │ │ │on 12 February 1938. │ V │ 709 │ │ │ 2996-PS │Affidavit of Kurt von Schuschnigg, │ │ │former Chancellor of Austria, │ │ │concerning events of 11 March 1938. │ V │ 713 │ │ │ *3280-PS │Extract from Papal Encyclical “Mit │ │ │Brennender Sorge”, set forth in │ │ │Appendix II, p. 524, of “The │ │ │Persecution of the Catholic Church in │ │ │the Third Reich”. (USA 567) │ V │ 1079 │ │ │ *3313-PS │Von Papen, Appeal to the German │ │ │Conscience, Stuttgart speech of 3 │ │ │March 1933. (GB 240) │ VI │ 1 │ │ │ *3314-PS │Von Papen’s address as Chancellor, 28 │ │ │August 1932, published in Frankfurter │ │ │Zeitung, 29 August 1932. (GB 234) │ VI │ 2 │ │ │ *3317-PS │Von Papen’s address as Chancellor, 12 │ │ │October 1932, published in Frankfurter│ │ │Zeitung, 13 October 1932. (GB 235) │ VI │ 3 │ │ │ *3318-PS │Visit of von Papen as Chancellor in │ │ │Munich, 11 October 1932, published in │ │ │Frankfurter Zeitung, 12 October 1932. │ │ │(GB 241) │ VI │ 4 │ │ │ 3357-PS │Exchange of letters, │ │ │Papen-Hitler-Hindenburg, from │ │ │Documents of German Politics, Vol. I, │ │ │p. 158. (GB 239) │ VI │ 85 │ │ │ *3375-PS │Von Papen’s speech at Essen, 2 │ │ │November 1933, published in │ │ │Voelkischer Beobachter, Southern │ │ │German Edition, 4 November 1933. (GB │ │ │245) │ VI │ 101 │ │ │ *3376-PS │Dissolution of Union of Catholic │ │ │Germans, published in The Archives, │ │ │September 1934, Vol. VI, pp. 767-768. │ │ │(GB 244) │ VI │ 103 │ │ │ *3387-PS │Hitler Reichstag speech, 23 March │ │ │1933, asking for adoption of Enabling │ │ │Act, from Voelkischer Beobachter, 24 │ │ │March 1933, p. 1. (USA 566) │ VI │ 104 │ │ │ *3389-PS │Fulda Declaration of 28 March 1933, │ │ │from Voelkischer Beobachter, 29 March │ │ │1933, p. 2. (USA 566) │ VI │ 105 │ │ │ 3463-PS │Extracts from Dates from the History │ │ │of the NSDAP by Dr. Hans Volz. │ VI │ 165 │ │ │ *D-472 │Ribbentrop’s actions as Foreign │ │ │Minister, from International │ │ │Biographical Archives, 22 April 1943. │ │ │(GB 130) │ VII │ 59 │ │ │ *D-631 │Decree of Reichs president against │ │ │political excesses, 14 June 1932. 1932│ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, pp. │ │ │297-300. (GB 236) │ VII │ 101 │ │ │ *D-632 │Biography of Papen, from International│ │ │Biographical Archives, 26 October │ │ │1944. (GB 237) │ VII │ 102 │ │ │ D-633 │Letter from von Papen to Hitler, 13 │ │ │November 1932. (GB 238) │ VII │ 106 │ │ │ *D-634 │Letter from Hitler to von Papen, 16 │ │ │November 1932. (GB 238) │ VII │ 107 │ │ │ *D-635 │Radiogram from von Papen to Board of │ │ │Trade for German-American Commerce, 27│ │ │March 1933. (Translation published in │ │ │New York Times.) (GB 242) │ VII │ 111 │ │ │ *D-660 │Extracts from Hutchinson’s Illustrated│ │ │edition of Mein Kampf. (GB 128) │ VII │ 164 │ │ │ *L-83 │Affidavit of Gerhart H. Seger, 21 July│ │ │1945. (USA 234) │ VII │ 859 │ │ │ *L-150 │Memorandum of conversation between │ │ │Ambassador Bullitt and von Neurath, │ │ │German Minister for Foreign Affairs, │ │ │18 May 1936. (USA 65) │ VII │ 890 │ │ │ *TC-22 │Agreement between Austria and German │ │ │Government and Government of Federal │ │ │State of Austria, 11 July 1936. (GB │ │ │20) │ VIII │ 369

19. ARTUR SEYSS-INQUART

Within the Nazi conspiracy Seyss-Inquart became the expert manipulator and subjugator of countries to be invaded or already invaded by the Nazi conspirators, first of Austria, later of Poland and The Netherlands. For the benefit of the Nazi conspirators he enslaved these countries, making them vassals of the Nazi regime.

A. POSITIONS HELD BY SEYSS-INQUART.

(1) _Positions Held by Artur Seyss-Inquart in the Order Set Forth in the Indictment._ (a) Member of the NSDAP (Nazi Party), 13 March 1938 to 8 May 1945. (b) General in the SS, 15 March 1938 to 8 May 1945. (c) State Councillor of Austria, May 1937 to 12 February 1938. (d) Minister of Interior and Security of Austria, 16 February 1938 to 11 March 1938. (e) Chancellor of Austria, 11 March 1938 to 15 March 1938. (f) Member of the Reichstag, April 1938 to 8 May 1945. (g) Member of the Reich Cabinet, 1 May 1939 to 1945. (h) Reich Minister without Portfolio, 1 May 1939 to September 1939. (i) Chief of the Civil Administration of South Poland, early September 1939. (j) Deputy Governor-General of the Polish Occupied Territory, 12 October 1939 to 18 May 1940. (k) Reich Commissar for Occupied Netherlands 18 May 1940 to 8 May 1945. (2910-PS)

(2) _Positions Held in Addition to Those Set Forth in the Indictment._ (a) Reich Governor of Austria, 15 March 1938 to 1 May 1939. (2910-PS) (b) President of the German Academy, Munich, 1943. (3457-PS)

(3) Previous Occupations of Seyss-Inquart. (a) Commissioned officer in a Tyrol-Kaiserjaeger Regiment of the Austrian Army in World War I, 1914-1918. (b) Lawyer in Vienna, Austria. (3425-PS)

B. SEYSS-INQUART USED HIS POSITIONS AND INFLUENCE SO AS TO PROMOTE THE NAZI SEIZURE AND CONSOLIDATION OF CONTROL OVER AUSTRIA.

(1) Seyss-Inquart was a member of the Nazi Party and held the rank of General in the SS. Seyss-Inquart has admitted that he became a member of the Nazi Party on 13 March 1938; that he was made a General in the SS on 15 March 1938, and held both membership and rank until 8 May 1945. (2910-PS)

Seyss-Inquart, in a letter to Goering, on 14 July 1939, asserted that he had been a member of the Nazi Party since 1931. The following is an excerpt from that letter:

“Until July 1934, I conducted myself as a regular member of the Party. And if I had quietly in whatever form paid my membership dues, the first one according to a receipt, I paid in December 1931.” (2219-PS)

In a voluntary statement signed by Seyss-Inquart, with the advice of his counsel, he discussed his affiliation with the Nazi Party as follows:

“I supported also the National Socialist Party as long as it was legal, because it declared itself with particular determination in favor of the Anschluss. From 1932 onward I made financial contributions to this Party, but I discontinued financial support when it was declared illegal in 1934.” (3425-PS)

In contrast with the foregoing assertions of the defendant, Seyss-Inquart wrote a letter to Heinrich Himmler on 19 August 1939 in which he confirmed the fact that he became a member of the Nazi Party in 1931 and also stated that he continued his membership in the Nazi Party even after it was declared illegal in Austria. The following is an excerpt from that letter:

“Concerning my membership in the Nazi Party, I want to state that I never was asked to enter the Nazi Party but I asked Dr. Kier in December 1931 to take care of my relation to the Party. At that time I saw the basis of the solution of the Austrian question only in the Party. I wrote this already in the year 1929 to Dr. Neubacher to adjust his hopes which he had put in the Austria-German Volksbund. After that, I paid my membership fees and, as I remember, direct to the Gau Wien. The payments were made even after the party was forbidden. Some time later, I got in direct touch with the Ortsgruppe in Dornbach. The membership fees were paid by my wife but the Blockwart couldn’t possibly have any doubt that those payments were for my wife and myself since the amount of the fees, S 40 [40 Schillings] a month, was a sure indication of this fact and I was treated in every respect as a Party member. Besides that, I was, since 1932, a member of the Steirischen Heimatschutzes Kammerhofer. In this organization I made every effort to absorb the Steirische Heimatschutz in the Party and mainly on account of my efforts, von Habicht declared that the members of the Steirische Heimatschutz were members of the Party. That proves that I felt myself, in every respect, as a member of the Party and I was regarded as belonging to the Party and as I said before, already in December 1931.” (3271-PS)

(2) Seyss-Inquart, even before he became a member of the Nazi Party, belonged to an organization conceived and founded upon principles which later became those of the Nazi Party. Seyss-Inquart has stated in writing that he had been a member of a secret organization known as the “German Brotherhood” (Deutsche Gemeinschaft). This is evidenced by the following excerpts from his letter to Himmler of 19 August 1939:

“It must be known to you that at the time of the Black-Red Coalition, there existed an extremely secret organization under the name of ‘German Community.’ Here met all sorts of Nationalists and Catholic elements who, at least at that time, were anti-Semitic and anti-Marxists. Dr. Doelter, who was my office chief, was one of the leaders of this association and through him I came into this movement. Dolfuss was also active here. He was of my age and was a very active anti-Semitic. It is through success of the activities of this organization that the Black-Red Coalition was broken and the Marxists never came back in the government. After the establishment of National Socialism, this organization was dissolved.” (3271-PS)

The secret organization, “German Brotherhood”, (Deutsche Gemeinschaft), was organized to promote the anti-Semitic and anti-Free Mason doctrines later adopted by the Nazi Party. This fact is evidenced by Seyss-Inquart’s copy of the minutes of a meeting of this organization on 28 December 1918 and by its constitution and by-laws, a portion of which appear in the following quotation:

“The purpose of this organization is the liberation of the German people from Jewish influences, and combat against Jewry with all available means. The organization is secret. Since a contact of the organization with the public can’t be avoided it has to be done under pretense of unsuspicious purposes and without showing the actual set-up.” (3400-PS)

New members of this organization were required to make a sworn statement, i.e.:

“As a German man, I assure with my honor, as far as I know, there is no Jewish blood in my descendency. Furthermore, I am not connected by marriage with a wife or other companion of Jewish descendency, and I never will have relation with one of those. I am not a Free Mason, I assure to be forever a good member of the Deutsche Gemeinschaft and I will always represent the interest of the German people against the Jewish people and I am willing to fight the Jewish people with all my power, any place and at any time. I promise to obey all orders and decrees of the leadership of the organization and to preserve complete secrecy about their institution, about the persons of the organization, and the events within it, as long as I live.” (3400-PS)

New members were also asked the question: “In case you will be accepted, are you willing to employ only Aryan physicians, attorneys, and businessmen?” (3400-PS)

(3) Seyss-Inquart, after the Austrian Nazi Party was declared illegal in July 1934, posed as a non-member of the Nazi Party but continued to support it in its activities, principles, and objectives in a subversive manner.

Seyss-Inquart has stated that:

“Before the Anschluss, I worked for the legal, political activities of the Austrian Socialists under the conditions laid down in the Austrian Constitution. * * * From 1932 onwards I made financial contributions to this party but I discontinued financial support when it was declared illegal in 1934. From July 1934 until the year 1936 I supported individual National Socialists as lawyer and in collaboration with the welfare work Langoth in Linz. From July 1936 onwards, I endeavored to help the National Socialists to regain their legal status and finally to participate in the Austrian Government. * * * I was sympathetic towards the efforts of the Austrian Nazi Party to gain political power and corresponding influence because they were in favor of the Anschluss. * * * On 10 March 1938 I suggested to Chancellor Schuschnigg, as a solution to the difficulties resulting from his plebiscite plan, that the National Socialists be appointed to the Cabinet, after I became in May 1937 State Councillor and then on 16-2-1938 Minister of Interior and Security.” (3425-PS)

Seyss-Inquart was an official in the Austrian Government, yet he rendered services, and physical and moral support to the illegal Austrian Nazi Party during those years, knowing that the radical elements engaged in terroristic acts.

“During this time, particularly after the Party was forbidden in July 1934, I knew that the radical element of the Party was engaged in terroristic activities, such as the attacks on railroads, bridges, telephone communications, etc. I knew that the governments of both Chancellors Dolfuss and Schuschnigg, although they held the same total German viewpoint in principle, were opposed to the Anschluss then because of the National Socialist regime in the Reich. I was sympathetic towards the efforts of the Austrian Nazi Party to gain political power and corresponding influence, because they were in favor of the Anschluss. On the day of the unsuccessful ‘putsch,’ 25 July 1934, I was at my home in Stannern near Iglau, Czechoslovakia. I learned later that the murder of Chancellor Dolfuss on that day was the outcome of a ‘putsch’ plan, in which SS circles were mainly involved, to arrest the Chancellor and put in an Austrian government with National Socialist participation. Eight or ten days before this unsuccessful ‘putsch’ Chancellor Dolfuss sent for me. We discussed the disturbances and troubled state of affairs created in Austria by the radical element of the Austrian National Socialists. I advised Chancellor Dolfuss to make an arrangement with Hitler because the Austrian National Socialists and even this radical element would obey Hitler’s orders. I conjectured—later I found confirmation—that these terroristic activities had a certain support from the Reich. Chancellor Dolfuss told me he would think the matter over and made a tentative future appointment for a further discussion. I informed among others, also acquaintances, of this conversation whom I knew had influence among the Austrian National Socialists. About one week later Chancellor Dolfuss informed me that at the moment he had no time for further discussion.” (3425-PS)

(4) Seyss-Inquart derived personal benefits and political power as the result of the subversive manipulations and terroristic activities of his fellow Nazi collaborators. He was appointed State Councillor of Austria in May 1937, and Minister of the Interior and Security of that country as the direct result of Nazi manipulation. These facts he has admitted:

“My appointment as State Councillor was the result of an agreement between Austria and Germany on 11-7-1936. My appointment as Minister of the Interior and Security was one of the results of the conference between Chancellor Schuschnigg and Hitler at Berchtesgaden on 12-2-1938.” (3425-PS)

Another result of the Berchtesgaden conference was that Austrian Nazis were thereafter allowed openly to demonstrate their conviction, an advantage which they exploited to the full.

“The Austrian National Socialists must certainly have taken my appointment as Minister of Interior and Security as an indication of their right to activity. Still more, however, the outcome of the agreement of 12-2-1938 allowed them to demonstrate their convictions. This right they utilized in more and more widespread demonstrations.” (3425-PS)

(5) Seyss-Inquart used his affiliation with the Nazis to promote the absorption of Austria into the Greater German Reich, according to plan as conceived by his fellow Nazi conspirators. Seyss-Inquart had had a continuous and constant interest in the union of Austria and Germany for twenty years, and during all that time worked, planned, and collaborated with others until the union became an accomplished fact.

“In 1918 I became interested in the Anschluss of Austria with Germany. From that year on I worked, planned, and collaborated with others of a like mind to bring about a union. * * * It was my desire to effect this union of the two countries—in an evolutionary manner and by legal means. Among my Austrian collaborators were Dr. Neubacher, City Councillor Speiser, the University Professor Hugelmann, and Dr. Wilhelm Bauer, Professor Wettstein and others. Later, during the rise of National Socialism, Dr. Friedrich Rainer, Dr. Jury, Glaise-Horstenau, Major Klausner, Dr. Muehlmann, Globotschnigg, and others. * * * After I became State Councillor, I discussed several times with von Papen, the German Ambassador, the possibilities of an understanding between the Austrian government and the Austrian National Socialists, respectively the Reich. We did not talk of the Anschluss as an actual program. However, we were both of the opinion that a successful understanding would bring about in the course of time the Anschluss by evolutionary means in some form. The last time I spoke to von Papen was in January 1938 in Garmisch where I met him by chance.” (3425-PS)

Seyss-Inquart contributed his efforts to revive the Austrian Nazi Party after the unsuccessful “putsch” of July 25, 1934, and to provide relief for the families of arrested and condemned Nazis. He has described these activities in the following words:

“The effect of the ‘Putsch’ was a complete catastrophe to the National Socialist Camp. Not merely the leaders, but party members were arrested in so far as they did not escape; the confiscation of their fortunes was announced; the revolt which led to military actions in Steiriermark, Karnten and Oberoesterreich did cost victims; the political management was seriously compromised by the Nazis and above all, a most sinister looking situation was created in regard to foreign politics. In any case, the idea of a union had suffered a severe setback. I was in agreement about the effect with Dr. Neubacher, and it was our desire to assist easing the tension. Following this situation I felt urged to take up politics beyond the question of the ‘Anschluss.’ * * * The former National delegate to the ‘Langoth’ in Linz was working with Rheintaller. Dr. Neubacher and myself contacted this circle and met there some other men whose names I have forgotten, but who later did not play a particular role. After some time, the lawyer applicant from Linz, Dr. Kaltenbrunner, joined this circle. He was said to be an SS man. The main activities consisted in organizing an institution to succor the needy families of those arrested and condemned Nazis. * * * As matters calmed down, the Austrian National Socialists collected themselves again into an illegal party, the organization was built up for better or worse according to the old schedule, those who returned from the Reich were considered to be more ‘in the know’ and authoritative. The institution of succor, ‘Langoth,’ remained outside the party organization. But here were also men in the Nazi circles who considered an absolute dependence on the Reich as politically wrong and endeavored for an independent Austrian National Socialist Party. In effect, Dr. Rainer from Karnten belonged to those, and by his influence the future Gauleiter Klausner who is now dead; also Globotschnigg was in it, though I doubt he was sincerely convinced, and also others. Dr. Neubacher took a keener interest in political affairs and entered into relationship with the proper Party circles.” (3254-PS)

The defendant submitted his plans to Hitler, Hess, and Goering for their approval, and contacted other German Nazis.

“After my appointment as State Councillor, Wilhelm Keppler, the German Secretary of State for Austrian affairs, arranged a visit for me with Hess and Goering. I explained my intentions and plans to them, namely, the attainment of the legal activity for the Austrian National Socialist, independent of the Reich Party. Hess expressed his interest and said to me among other things: he regretted that I was not one of the original ‘old fighters.’ I believe that at that time Goering had already established direct connections with the Austrian State Secretary, Guido Schmid. After my appointment as Minister of Interior and Security of Austria, I went to Berlin to visit Hitler. I arrived in Berlin on 17-2-1938 where I was met by Keppler who took me to Himmler. This visit was not anticipated in my program. Himmler wanted to talk over police matters, I informed him, however, that I was not conversant to speak about them. I did not follow the suggestions which he made. I greeted Hitler with raised hand—permissible after the agreement of 12-2—advised him, however, immediately that as Austrian Minister, my responsibility lay with Austria. I explained to Hitler my plans, namely: I was to be the living guaranty for Dr. Schuschnigg of the evolutionary way. The Austria National Socialists must only conduct their activities according to the Austrian Constitution and on those lines find their way to the Reich; they must not make any totalitarian claim nor conduct a cultural struggle. The leadership of the Austrian National Socialists must be independent of the Reich and remain responsible to Austria. I would have, as Minister of Security, to oppose any kind of illegal activity. Against this the Austrian National Socialist would be permitted full freedom of activity to work for the closest cooperation of Austria and Germany. Hitler agreed to my plans but expressed certain doubts whether Dr. Schuschnigg would be willing to go so far. During my conference with Hitler, Keppler and Ribbentrop waited in the ante-room of Hitler’s office.” (3425-PS)

Seyss-Inquart’s fellow Nazi conspirators regarded his position as Councillor of State in the Austrian Government as most important to them, because he had a mandate from the German Nazis in power, which he was attempting to carry out. Because his negotiations with Chancellor Schuschnigg seemed to be running aground, Seyss-Inquart sent a report of that fact to Keppler by courier, stating that he felt compelled to return his mandate, and expressing a desire to discuss the matter before acting accordingly. Keppler immediately sought advice from Goering in a letter dated 6 January 1938. On that same day Goering’s secretary was instructed to telephone instructions to Keppler to do anything to avoid the resignations of Councillor of State Dr. Seyss-Inquart and State Minister Glaise von Horstenau. Keppler received this telephone message on 7 January 1938, and on 8 January 1938 wrote a letter to Seyss-Inquart informing him of Goering’s instructions and relaying Goering’s request not to give up the mandate under any circumstances without discussing the matter with Goering. (3473-PS; 3397-PS)

Despite assertions, in statements since his arrest and indictment, to the effect that he desired a union of Austria and Germany in an evolutionary manner and by legal means, Seyss-Inquart has on other occasions made statements to the contrary. His letter of 14 July 1939 to Goering is particularly illuminating on this point:

“I told myself in July 1934 that we must fight this clerical regime on its own ground in order to give the Fuehrer a chance to use whatever method he desires. I told myself that this Austria was worth a mass. I have stuck to this attitude with an iron determination because I and my friends have had to fight against the whole political church, and Free Masonry, the Jewry, in short, against everything in Austria. The slightest weakness which we might have displayed would undoubtedly have led to our political annihilation; it would have deprived the Fuehrer of the means and tools to carry out his ingenious political solution for Austria as became evident in the days of March 1938. I have been fully conscious of the fact that I am following a path which is not comprehensible to the masses and also not to my party comrades. I have followed it calmly and would without hesitation follow it again because I am satisfied that at one point I could serve the Fuehrer as a tool in his work, even though my former attitude, even now, gives occasion to very worthy and honorable Party comrades to doubt my trustworthiness. I have never paid attention to such things because I am satisfied with the opinion which the Fuehrer and the men close to him have of me.” (2219-PS)

Another statement of the defendant, which throws some light on this point, is found in his letter to Himmler dated 19 August 1939:

“On November 8, 1938, the Fuehrer invited several political leaders for supper. The Fuehrer asked me to be next to him. We discussed the situation in Ostmark. I told him that in accordance with his order, we started to dissolve the competence of the Austrian government by giving the powers partly to the Gauen and partly to the central leaders. But there still would remain certain affairs which would be common for all Gauen.” (3271-PS)

Furthermore, Seyss-Inquart has made the following statement:

“I was happy that the Anschluss of Austria with the German Reich had come at last after so many vain endeavors since 1918 because I was in favor of the Anschluss of Austria with the Reich under many conditions. I was aware at least to a certain extent of the harshness of the National Socialist regime, but I was of the opinion that these two German countries belonged together and that the German people should solve their own internal affairs and difficulties. I was convinced that the harshness of the National Socialist regime chiefly because of its achievement of the National aim—cancellation of discriminatory peace treaties and achievement of the right of self-determination—would in time be surmounted.” (3425-PS)

The subversive machinations of the Austrian Nazis to bring about the absorption of Austria by the Greater German Reich was described in detail by Dr. Friedrich Rainer, a leading Austrian Nazi and a collaborator of Seyss-Inquart who became one of Hitler’s Gauleiters, in a report prepared by him and forwarded to Buerckel. A copy of this report accompanied by a letter of transmittal was later sent to Seyss-Inquart by Dr. Rainer. In substance, the report related how the Nazi party lost a parliamentary battle in 1933, continued its efforts to force admission of its representatives into the Austrian government, and finally flowered into the unsuccessful “Putsch” of July 1934, which, in effect, destroyed the Nazi organization. Following the unsuccessful “Putsch”, Hitler liquidated the first stage of the battle, and instructed Franz von Papen to restore normal relationships between the two countries. Accordingly, a new method of political penetration was adopted. The result was that Hinterleitner, an Austrian Nazi got in touch with the lawyer Seyss-Inquart, who had connections with Dr. Wachter originating from Seyss-Inquart’s support of the July uprising. Seyss-Inquart also had a good position in the legal field and especially well established relations with Christian Social politicians. Dr. Seyss-Inquart came from the ranks of the “Styrian Heimatschutz” and had become a Nazi party member when the entire “Styrian Heimatschutz” was incorporated in the NSDAP. The reason for utilizing Seyss-Inquart appears in the following excerpt from the covering letter which accompanied Dr. Rainer’s report to Reich Commissar Gauleiter Josef Buerckel, dated 6 July 1939:

“I think the main reason for the fact that the person of Dr. Seyss-Inquart seemed to Hitler and to public opinion to have stepped in the limelight in those March days, was that no position existed in the party which one might have presented oneself to the public, and that there was no man who had the guts to let himself be presented. The actual reason was that the party leadership had to remain secret during the whole illegal fight, secret even from the Reich German public.” (812-PS)

Thus it is clear why Seyss-Inquart was surreptitiously a member of the Austrian Nazi Party after it was declared illegal in 1934.

Dr. Rainer goes on to report that full recognition of the party leadership was given by Seyss-Inquart and also that the defendant was in permanent contact with Captain Leopold, who became a member of the staff of Hess. After Hinterleitner was arrested, Dr. Rainer became his successor as leader of the Austrian Nazi Party, and, on 16 July 1936, Dr. Rainer and Globocnik visited Hitler at Obersalzburg, where they received a clear explanation of the situation and the wishes of the Fuehrer. Subsequently, on 17 July 1936, all illegal Gauleiters met in Anif near Salzburg, where they received a complete report from Dr. Rainer on the statement of the Fuehrer and his political instructions for carrying out the fight. After the agreement between Germany and Austria on 11 July 1936, Hitler appointed Wilhelm Keppler as Chief of a mixed commission to supervise the execution of the agreement. At the same time Keppler was given full authority for the Nazi Party in Austria. (812-PS)

(6) The activities of Seyss-Inquart and his fellow Nazi conspirators and collaborators forced the then Austrian government into a critical situation and a struggle for survival. As the result of the plans, maneuvers, and disturbances created by the Nazis in Austria, Schuschnigg, Chancellor of Austria, accompanied by his State Secretary, Guido Schmid, conferred with Hitler at Berchtesgaden on 12 February 1938. Dr. Muehlmann was also present but not as a member of the Schuschnigg delegation. At this meeting the possibilities for military action by Germany against Austria were demonstrated to the Chancellor. The ultimate result was that Chancellor Schuschnigg had no choice but to accept the demands of Hitler that the Austrian Nazi Party be legalized; that amnesty be granted to Austrian Nazis already convicted for illegal activities; and that Seyss-Inquart be appointed Minister of the Interior and Security in the Austrian cabinet, (2995-PS; 3254-PS; 3425-PS; 2469-PS; 2464-PS)

A few days after the Berchtesgaden meeting of Hitler and Schuschnigg, and immediately after his appointment as Minister of the Interior and Security of Austria, Seyss-Inquart went to Berlin for a conference with Hitler. Upon arrival in Berlin he was met by Keppler, Hitler’s special delegate on Austrian affairs, who took him to Himmler. After a short conference with Himmler, the defendant was conducted to Hitler, to whom he gave the Nazi salute and with whom he had a conference lasting two hours and ten minutes. Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop and Keppler waited in the ante-chamber during the conference. Seyss-Inquart first offered Hitler an explanation for greeting him with the Hitler salute, by saying: “I consider him as the Fuehrer of the German people who led us out of the discriminations of the peace treaties.” During the conference, he rendered a report to Hitler concerning the Austrian situation since June of 1934 and presented his own program for Hitler’s approval. Hitler expressed his approval of the plan but told Seyss-Inquart that he doubted whether Chancellor Schuschnigg would be willing to go so far. It seems clear that Hitler’s doubt concerning Schuschnigg’s approval of the Seyss-Inquart plan referred solely to Seyss-Inquart’s proposal to allow Austrian Nazis to “conduct their activities according to the Austrian Constitution and on those lines find their way to the Reich,” because all other portions of his plan had previously been adopted as a result of the Berchtesgaden Agreement. (3254-PS; 3425-PS; 2484-PS)

Seyss-Inquart has asserted that, upon his return to Vienna after his conference with Hitler, he reported to Chancellor Schuschnigg the content of his discussion and urged the Chancellor to make a decision about the Austrian National Socialist question. He then attended rallies of the Austrian National Socialists held in various places in Austria to inform them of the content of his conference with Hitler. Two of the principal meetings were held at Graz and Linz (3425-PS; 3254-PS). Considerable doubt is cast upon the truth of Seyss-Inquart’s assertions that he reported the contents of his conference with Hitler to Chancellor Schuschnigg and in public meetings of the Austrian Nazis, by a statement contained in a letter written by Seyss-Inquart to Himmler on 19 August 1939. The statement is as follows:

“I had a conversation of over two hours with the Fuehrer on February 17, 1938, in which I explained to him my point of view. I would only be able to make statements about the content of this conversation if the Fuehrer would grant me permission. I left this discussion as a very sincere man and with a feeling of great happiness to be of help to the Fuehrer.” (3271-PS)

(7) Finally Chancellor Schuschnigg determined to go before the people for a decision on the question of Austrian independence. Chancellor Schuschnigg planned to hold a plebiscite on that precise question and fixed 13 March 1938 as a date upon which the plebiscite would be held. The Chancellor took Seyss-Inquart into his confidence and discussed the matter of the plebiscite with him. The Chancellor requested Seyss-Inquart to keep the matter a secret until noon of the next day, and the defendant promised to do so. Thereafter, Seyss-Inquart prepared a letter to Schuschnigg objecting to the plebiscite on constitutional grounds and alleging that the manner in which the plebiscite was to be held would not allow the Austrians to express their own desires. Seyss-Inquart admits that a copy of his letter was delivered to Hitler in Berlin by Globotschnigg. (3254-PS; 3425-PS)

On 9 March 1938, a meeting of the Austrian Nazis was held because they had learned, through an illegal information service, that a plebiscite was to be held. Dr. Rainer describes this meeting in the following language:

“The ‘Landesleitung’ received word about the planned plebiscite through illegal information services on 9 March 1938 at 10 a. m. At the session, which was called immediately afterwards, Seyss-Inquart explained that he had known about this information only a few hours, but that he could not talk about it because he had given his word to keep silent on this subject. But during the talks he made us understand that the illegal information we received was based on truth, and that in view of the new situation, he had been cooperating with the ‘Landesleitung’ from the very first moment. Klausner, Jury, Rainer, Globotschnigg, and Seyss-Inquart were present at the first talks which were held at 10 a. m. There it was decided that first, the Fuehrer had to be informed immediately; secondly, the opportunity for the Fuehrer to intervene must be given to him by way of an official declaration made by Minister Seyss-Inquart to Schuschnigg; and thirdly, Seyss-Inquart must negotiate with the government until clear instructions and orders were received from the Fuehrer. Seyss-Inquart and Rainer together composed a letter to Schuschnigg, and only one copy of it was brought to the Fuehrer by Globocnik, who flew to him on the afternoon of 9 March 1938.” (812-PS).

Seyss-Inquart himself admits that he attended this meeting, which was held at the Regina Hotel, Vienna (3425-PS; 3254-PS). The defendant was informed at this meeting that he would receive a letter from Hitler by messenger the next morning. (3425-PS; 3254-PS).

Early on the morning of 11 March 1938, Seyss-Inquart received Hitler’s letter. He describes it as having contained several erroneous statements and containing a demand that a decision should be arrived at before noon; that in case of rejection the Reich Government would denounce the agreement of 12 February 1938 and military action must be understood. According to Seyss-Inquart, Hitler also gave expression to his belief that there would be disturbances in Austria if Chancellor Schuschnigg would not relent and that the Reich would come to the help of Austria if Austria demanded so. Glaise-Horstenau arrived by plane in Vienna early that same morning with the information that Berlin was greatly excited and that military steps were in preparation. (3254-PS; 3425-PS)

(8) Seyss-Inquart then proceeded to carry out Hitler’s orders and to fulfill the plans made by himself and his fellow Nazi conspirators. Dr. Rainer in his report to Reich Commissar Gauleiter Josef Buerckel, and in his covering letter dated 6 July 1939, related his version of the sequence of events during this period and described the precise role of Seyss-Inquart, as he viewed it. He complained about the fact that Hitler and the general public seemed to give Seyss-Inquart all the credit for the annexation of Austria by Germany. The following quotation from this letter and report is significant:

“Soon after taking over in Austria, Klausner, Globocnik, and I flew to Berlin to report to Hitler’s deputy, Hess, about the events which led to our taking over the government. We did this because we had the impression that the general opinion, perhaps also Hitler’s own, was that the liberation depended more on Austrian matters of state rather than the Party. To be more exact, Hitler especially mentioned Dr. Seyss-Inquart alone; and public opinion gave him alone credit for the change and thus believed him to have played the sole leading role.” (812-PS)

Dr. Rainer then proceeded to describe just what happened in those critical days, and outlined the final instructions given by him for Friday, 11 March 1938. He explained that three situations might develop within the following days:

“1st Case: The plebiscite will not be held. In this case, a great demonstration must be held.

“2nd Case: Schuschnigg will resign. In this case, a demonstration was ordered in taking over the government power.

“3rd Case: Schuschnigg will take up the fight. In this case, all party leaders were ordered to act upon their own initiative, using all means to capture the position of power.” (812-PS)

Dr. Seyss-Inquart took part in these talks with the Gauleiters.

“On Friday, 11 March, the Minister Glaise-Horstenau arrived in Vienna after a visit with the Fuehrer. After talks with Seyss-Inquart he went to see the chancellor. At 11:30 a. m. the ‘Landesleitung’ had a meeting at which Klausner, Rainer, Globocnik, Jury, Seyss-Inquart, Glaise-Horstenau, Fishboeck and Muehlmann participated. Dr. Seyss-Inquart reported on his talks with Dr. Schuschnigg which had ended in a rejection of the proposal of the two ministers.

“In regard to Rainer’s proposal, von Klausner ordered that the government be presented with an ultimatum, expiring at 1400 hours, signed by legal political, ‘Front’ men, including both ministers and also State Councillors Fishboeck and Jury, for the establishment of a voting date in three weeks and a free and secret ballot in accordance with the constitution.

“On the basis of written evidence which Glaise-Horstenau had brought with him, a leaflet, to be printed in millions of copies, and a telegram to the Fuehrer calling for help, were prepared.

“Klausner placed the leadership of the final political actions in the hands of Rainer and Globocnik. Schuschnigg called a session of all ministers for 2:00 p. m. Rainer agreed with Seyss-Inquart that Rainer would send the telegram to the Fuehrer and the statement to the population at 3:00 p. m. and at the same time he would start all necessary actions to take over power unless he received news from the session of the ministers’ council before that time. During this time all measures had been prepared. At 2:30 Seyss-Inquart ’phoned Rainer and informed him that Schuschnigg had been unable to take the pressure and had recalled the plebiscite but that he had refused to call a new plebiscite and had ordered the strongest police measures for maintaining order. Rainer asked whether the two ministers had resigned, and Seyss-Inquart answered: ‘No.’ Rainer informed the ‘Reichskanzlei’ through the German Embassy, and received an answer from Goering through the same channels that the Fuehrer will not consent to partial solutions and that Schuschnigg must resign. Seyss-Inquart was informed of this by Globocnik and Muehlmann; talks were had between Seyss-Inquart and Schuschnigg: Schuschnigg resigned. Seyss-Inquart asked Rainer what measures the party wished taken. Rainer’s answer: Reestablishment of the government by Seyss-Inquart, legalization of the party, and calling up of the SS and SA as auxiliaries to the police force. Seyss-Inquart promised to have these measures carried out, but very soon the announcement followed that everything might be threatened by the resistance of Miklas. Meanwhile word arrived from the German Embassy that the Fuehrer expected the establishment of a government under Seyss-Inquart with a national majority, the legalization of the party, and permission for the legion to return, all within the specified time of 7:30 p. m.; otherwise, German troops would cross the border at 8:00 p. m. At 5:00 p. m. Rainer and Globocnik, accompanied by Muehlmann, went to the Chancellor’s office to carry out this errand.

“Due to the cooperation of the above-mentioned people with group leader Keppler and other officials of the Reich and due to the activities of other contact-men in Austria, it was possible to obtain the appointment of Seyss-Inquart as ‘Staatsrat’ [councillor of State] in July 1937. Due to the same facts, the Chancellor Dr. Schuschnigg was forced to take a new so-called ‘satisfactory action’. Through all this a new and stronger political position was won in the Austrian system. The National-Socialist Party became acceptable again in the political field and became a partner with whom one had to negotiate, even when it was not officially incorporated into internal Austrian political developments. This complicated political maneuver, accompanied by the steadily increasing pressure from the Reich, led to talks between the Fuehrer and Schuschnigg at the Obersalzberg. Here Gruppenfuehrer Keppler presented the concrete political demands of the fighting underground movement, which he estimated according to his personal experiences and the information he received. The results of these talks were the right of a free acknowledgment of the National Socialist movement on the one hand and the recognition of an independent Austrian state on the other hand, as well as the appointment of Seyss-Inquart as Minister of Interior and Public Safety, as a person who will guarantee to both sides the proper carrying out of the agreements. In this way Seyss-Inquart occupied the key position and was in the center of all obvious political actions. A legal base in the government was won for the party. This resulted in a paralysis of the ‘system apparates’ [Schuschnigg government] at a time when a revolution needed to be carried out. Through this, the basis for a new attack on the Schuschnigg government was won.

“Situation: Miklas negotiated with Ender for the creation of a government which included, blacks, reds and National Socialists, and proposed the post of Vice-Chancellor to Seyss-Inquart. The latter rejected it and told Rainer that he was not able to negotiate by himself because he was personally involved, and therefore a weak and unpleasant political situation might result. Rainer negotiated with Zernette. Director of the cabinet Huber, Guido Schmid, Glaise-Horstenau, Legation Councillor Stein, Military Attache General Muffe, and the ‘Gruppenfuehrer’ Keppler, who had arrived in the meantime, were also negotiating. At 7:00 Seyss-Inquart entered the negotiations again. Situation at 7:30 p. m.: Stubborn refusal of Miklas to appoint Seyss-Inquart as Chancellor; appeal to the world in case of a German invasion.

“Gruppenfuehrer Keppler explained that the Fuehrer did not yet have an urgent reason for the invasion. This reason must first be created. The situation in Vienna and in the country is most dangerous. It is feared that street fighting will break out any moment because Rainer ordered the entire party to demonstrate at 3 o’clock. Rainer proposed storming and seizing the government palace in order to force the reconstruction of the government. The proposal was rejected by Keppler but was carried out by Rainer after he discussed it with Globocnik. After 8:00 p. m. the SA and SS marched in and occupied the government buildings and all important positions in the city of Vienna. At 8:30 p. m. Rainer, with the approval of Klausner, ordered all Gauleiters of Austria to take over power in all eight ‘gaus’ of Austria, with the help of the SS and SA and with instructions that all government representatives who try to resist should be told that this action was taken on order of Chancellor Seyss-Inquart.

“With this, the revolution broke out, and this resulted in the complete occupation of Austria within three hours and the taking over of all important posts by the party * * *.

“The seizure of power was the work of the party supported by the Fuehrer’s threat of invasion and the legal standing of Seyss-Inquart in the government. The national result in the form of the taking over of the government by Seyss-Inquart was due to the actual seizure of power by the party on one hand, and the political efficiency of Dr. Seyss-Inquart in his territory on the other; but both factors may be considered only in the relation to the Fuehrer’s decision on 9 March 1938 to solve the Austrian problem under any circumstances and the orders consequently issued by the Fuehrer.” (812-PS)

Seyss-Inquart’s own story of the events on 11 March 1938 is not fundamentally different, although he does show a marked tendency to minimize his role in the planning, precipitating, and accomplishment of the annexation of Austria by Germany, in a statement signed by him after his arrest and indictment:

“At 10 o’clock in the morning Glaise-Horstenau and I went to the Bundes Chancellery and conferred for about two hours with Dr. Schuschnigg. We told him of all that we knew, particularly about the possibility of disturbances and preparations by the Reich. The Chancellor said that he would give his decision by 1400 hours. While I was with Glaise-Horstenau and Dr. Schuschnigg, I was repeatedly called to the telephone to speak to Goering. He informed me, (the demands of the Reich steadily increasing) that the agreement of 12-2 had been cancelled, and demanded Dr. Schuschnigg’s resignation and my appointment as Chancellor. I delivered this information verbally to Dr. Schuschnigg and withdrew from the conference.

“In the meantime Keppler arrived from Berlin and had a conference in the Bundes Chancellery, I believe also with President Miklas. The latter refused to concede to the demands and sought to find various other solutions. When Keppler arrived from Berlin he showed me the contents of a telegram which I, as leader of the provisional Austrian Government, was to send to Hitler and in which I was to request sending of German troops to Austria to put down disorders. I refused as I did not want to establish myself as head of a provisional government, and there were no disorders in Austria. Keppler repeatedly urged me about the telegram. Around 6 p. m. I told him that he knew my standpoint and should do what he wished with Berlin. Keppler, as I have been able to confirm from records available, understood my answer and did not send off the telegram at that time. Around 7:30 p. m. a frontier police post announced that German troops were crossing the frontier. Thereupon Dr. Schuschnigg gave his well known farewell speech over the radio. Upon requests from various sides I followed with a speech over the radio, stating that I was still functioning as Minister of Interior and Security, requesting preservation of peace and order, and gave directions that no resistance should be offered the German troops.

“As I am able to gather from the records available, I was again requested about 10 p. m. to give my sanction to another somewhat altered telegram, about which I informed President Miklas and Dr. Schuschnigg. Finally President Miklas appointed me Chancellor and a little while later he approved of my proposed ministers.” (3425-PS)

However, Seyss-Inquart displayed undue modesty in this statement. His letter to Himmler indicates how active he was on 11 March 1938, and reveals that he was not satisfied with making demands upon Chancellor Schuschnigg, but also handed an ultimatum to President Miklas:

“It is only possible that Buerckel made a statement that in the critical hours it was hard to find me. After I had handed an ultimatum to Miklas which was respited until 5:45 p. m. I took a recess of about a half hour to catch some fresh air. I conceded that I was, in a way, exhausted from the things which happened just a few hours before that and I tried to find recreation in the fresh air. Besides that I planned to take a look at the situation on the streets. Furthermore, I wanted to make a phone call to Berlin, not from the Chancellery, but from some other place. Phone calls from the Chancellery were always tapped whereas they were only sometimes tapped from other places. I was sure they didn’t need me until 5:30 p. m., because the men of the old system would not make a decision a second earlier than they had to.” (3271-PS)

A stenographic transcript of Goering’s telephone conversation with Seyss-Inquart confirms the fact that Seyss-Inquart was ordered to demand Chancellor Schuschnigg’s resignation and the appointment of himself as Chancellor. (2949-PS)

This stenographic record of Goering’s conversations also reveals that Seyss-Inquart had an agent keep in contact with Goering during the negotiations with Chancellor Schuschnigg. Seyss-Inquart was given an order by Goering through this agent to report by 7:30 p. m., 11 March 1938, that he had formed a new government. He was informed that the foreign political aspect would be handled exclusively by Germany and that Hitler would talk with him about this matter at a future date. (2949-PS)

In addition the stenographic transcript of these telephone conversations show that the selection of individual members of the cabinet of the new government to be established by Seyss-Inquart was to be made by the Nazi conspirators in Berlin. (2949-PS)

At 1726 hours on the night of 11 March 1938, Seyss-Inquart reported to Goering by telephone as ordered. He reported that President Miklas had accepted the resignation of Chancellor Schuschnigg but wanted to appoint a man like Ender to the Chancellorship. He further reported his suggestion to the President that the Chancellorship be entrusted to him—Seyss-Inquart—and also reported that “We have ordered the SA and the SS to take over police duties.” Thereupon Goering ordered Seyss-Inquart to go with Lt. Gen. Muff to President Miklas and inform him that if the demands were not met immediately German troops, already advancing to the frontier, would invade Austria that night and Austria would cease to exist. An audience with the President was to be demanded. The invasion would be stopped only if President Miklas entrusted Seyss-Inquart with the Chancellorship. Seyss-Inquart was also instructed to call out the National Socialists of Austria all over the country, because Austrian Nazis should even then be in the streets. Seyss-Inquart was to report again at 7:30 p. m. (2949-PS)

The telegram, already prepared, asking Hitler to send German troops into Austria, over the defendant Seyss-Inquart’s signature, was transmitted as ordered and agreed upon. (2463-PS)

Even before Seyss-Inquart received his appointment as Chancellor of Austria he dispatched a telegram using that title. An affidavit of August Eigruber states as follows:

“On the evening of 11 March 1938 at between 8 and 9 o’clock p. m. he received two telegrams; one of which came from Dr. Seyss-Inquart, as Bundes Chancellor of Austria, and the other from one Dr. Rainer; that the telegram from Dr. Seyss-Inquart appointed the affiant as temporary Landeshauptmann in Upper Austria; and that the telegram from Dr. Rainer appointed the affiant temporary leader of the National Socialist Party in Upper Austria.” (2909-PS)

Schuschnigg presented his resignation, which was accepted by President Miklas. The appointment of Seyss-Inquart as Chancellor came late on the evening of 11 March 1938. (2465-PS)

(9) Having infiltrated into the Austrian Government of Chancellor Schuschnigg according to plan, Seyss-Inquart exploited his opportunities to carry out the plan to its ultimate conclusion, i.e. German annexation of Austria. The first act of Seyss-Inquart as the new Chancellor of Austria was to hold a telephone conversation with Hitler early in the morning of 12 March 1938. He has described the substance of this telephone conversation as follows:

“During the morning of 12 March I held a telephone conversation with Hitler in which I suggested that while German troops were entering Austria, Austrian troops as a symbol should march into the Reich. Hitler agreed to this suggestion and we agreed to meet in Linz, Upper Austria, later on that same day.” (3425-PS)

Thereafter, on 12 March 1938, Seyss-Inquart greeted Hitler on the balcony of the City Hall of Linz, Upper Austria. In his ensuing speech, Seyss-Inquart announced that Article 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain, which provided that “the independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations,” was no longer operative.

“I then flew to Linz with Himmler, who had arrived in Vienna from Berlin. I greeted Hitler on the balcony of the City Hall, and said that Article 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain was now inoperative.” (3425-PS; L-231)

In his memorandum entitled “The Austrian Question” Seyss-Inquart describes his meeting with Hitler as follows:

“In the afternoon, I flew with Himmler to Linz and drove then to meet Hitler. Hitler entered Linz in the evening. I never saw such an enthusiasm. The welcome was spontaneous and of no precedence. In my (welcome) speech I declared that Article 88 of the St. Germain Treaty was no longer binding.” (3254-PS; 2485-PS)

Seyss-Inquart then drove back to Vienna on the morning of 13 March 1938. His Secretary of State for Security begged that he be allowed to resign, a decision he reached as a result of a conversation with Himmler, which had caused him to fear for his own personal welfare. Seyss-Inquart then nominated Kaltenbrunner for State Secretary for Security, and the nomination was accepted by President Miklas. About noon State Under Secretary Stuckart of the German Reich Ministry of the Interior brought a proposal for a reannexation act uniting Austria to Germany, and announced Hitler’s wish for prompt execution of it. Seyss-Inquart then called a meeting of his Council of Ministers, and on his proposal the council adopted the act. (3254-PS)

Seyss-Inquart, realizing that if the President of Austria resigned his office, then he, Seyss-Inquart, would be the successor, went to President Miklas with the information about the action of the Council of Ministers. Seyss-Inquart describes this meeting with President Miklas as follows:

“In the case where the Bund President would, for any reason, either have resigned his functions or be, for some time, impeded in fulfilling them, his prerogatives were to go over to the Bund Chancellor, I went to the Bund President with Dr. Wolff. The President told me that he did not know whether this development would be of welfare to the Austrian Nation, but that he did not wish to interfere and preferred to resign his functions, so that all rights would come into my hands, according to the Constitution. The possibility of my dismissal or resignation were only slightly mentioned and recognized as inopportune in the prevailing situation.” (3254-PS)

President Miklas then resigned and Seyss-Inquart succeeded to his office. (2466-PS)

Thereafter Seyss-Inquart signed the Act uniting Austria with Germany and hurried back to Linz to report this news to Hitler:

“Then there were some letters exchanged between the Bund President and myself, confirming our conversation and his retirement. Thereafter I drove to Linz, where I arrived around mid-night and reported to the Fuehrer the accomplishment of the Anschluss Law. Hitler was very much impressed by it; for a while he remained quiet, then tears dropped from his eyes down his cheeks. He said then that he was especially happy because his Motherland had achieved her annexation to the Reich without any shedding of blood.” (3254-PS)

On 14 March 1938 Hitler entered Vienna. On 15 March 1938 there was a public demonstration in Vienna and Hitler introduced Seyss-Inquart as “Reich Statthalter for Austria.” Hitler then put him in charge of the Civil Administration of Austria, while political matters were assigned to Gauleiter Josef Buerckel, who shortly thereafter was made Reich Commissar for the Anschluss. (3425-PS)

(10) Despite Seyss-Inquart’s modesty since arrest and indictment, his fellow Nazi conspirators recognized the importance of his part in the Austrian Anschluss.

Goering made a speech in Vienna on 26 March 1938 in which he said:

“At this moment [announcement of the plebiscite in Austria] it has been established that now the decision really came. A complete unanimity between the Fuehrer and the N. S. confidants inside of Austria existed. According to their opinion also the hour of action had come, but they thought they could not use any more democratic methods in negotiations and they took the law of action in their own strong hands and forced the others to retreat. If the N. S. rising succeeded so quickly and thoroughly without bloodshed, it is first of all due to the intelligent and decisive firmness of the present Reichsstatthalter Seyss-Inquart and his confidants. But this too proved the correctness of the previous continued politics because if our confidants had not been in the government, this whole course of events would not have been possible.” (3270-PS)

According to Dr. Rainer, Hitler and the general public gave Seyss-Inquart credit for playing the leading role in the annexation of Austria by Germany. This is evidenced by the covering letter written by Dr. Rainer, dated 6 July 1939, to Reich Commissar Gauleiter Josef Buerckel:

“We had the impression that the general opinion, perhaps also Hitler’s own, was that the liberation depended more upon Austrian matters of state rather than the Party. To be more exact, Hitler especially mentioned Seyss-Inquart alone; and public opinion gave him alone credit for the change and thus believed him to have played the sole leading role.” (812-PS)

In his report to Reich Commissar Buerckel, Dr. Rainer said:

“But as a result of the agreement at Berchtesgaden and the statement of the Fuehrer made to him during his state visit to Berlin, Seyss-Inquart was the personal trustee of the Fuehrer and directly responsible to him for the illegal NSDAP in Austria within the confines of his political sphere. * * * The seizure of power was the work of the party supported by the Fuehrer’s threat of invasion and the legal standing of Seyss-Inquart in the government.

“The national result in the form of the taking over of the government by Seyss-Inquart was due to the actual seizure of power by the Party on one hand and the political efficiency of Dr. Seyss-Inquart in his territory on the other.” (812-PS)

Hans Frank recognized the importance of the services rendered by Seyss-Inquart to the Nazi cause in Austria. When Seyss-Inquart was about to leave Poland to become Reich commissar of the Occupied Netherlands Territories, Frank extolled him as follows:

“But your name without that is shining like a light through the history of the Third Reich, since you are the creator of the National Socialist Austria.” (3465-PS)

(11) The Nazi conspirators within the German Reich evidenced their intentions of annexing Austria in many ways. Hitler, on the first page of Chapter 1 of Mein Kampf, said:

“Today it seems to me providential that Fate should have chosen Braunau on the Inn as my birthplace. For this little town lies on the boundary between two German states which we of the younger generation at least have made it our life work to reunite by every means at our disposal.

“German-Austria must return to the great German Mother Country, and not because of any economic considerations. No, and again no: even if such a union were unimportant from an economic point of view; yes, even if it were harmful, it must nevertheless take place. One blood demands one Reich. Never will the German Nation possess the moral right to engage in Colonial politics until, at least, it embraces its own sons within a single state. Only when the Reich borders include the very last German, but can no longer guarantee his daily bread, will the moral right to acquire foreign soil arise from the distress of our own people. Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow.”

Seyss-Inquart devoted his efforts to legalize the sale and circulation of Mein Kampf in Austria. His letter to Keppler, German Secretary of State for Austrian Affairs, contained the following passage.

“The Teinfaltstrasse is very well informed even if not in detail about my efforts regarding the re-permission of the book ‘Mein Kampf’.” (3392-PS)

Goering and Schacht both told an American diplomat that it was Germany’s determination to annex Austria and Sudetenland to the Reich. (L-151)

One of the missions of von Papen, as German Ambassador to Austria, was to effect a change in the personnel of the Austrian Cabinet headed by Chancellor von Schuschnigg and to eliminate anti-Nazi opposition, particularly in the Ministry of Interior and Security. (2246-PS)

The German Reich applied economic pressure upon Austria. One of the means adopted was the law of 24 March 1933, which required payment of 1,000 Reichs Marks by every German crossing the border into Austria (3467-PS). Kurt von Schuschnigg, former Chancellor of Austria, in his affidavit of 19 November 1945, described this economic pressure upon Austria by Germany in the following words:

“* * * During my tenure of office as Federal Chancellor of Austria, more particularly on the 11th day of July, 1936, I negotiated with the then existing government of the German Reich, and with Adolf Hitler, an Agreement more particularly known as the Agreement of 11 July 1936.

“I further depose and say that prior to the consummation of the aforesaid Agreement, the German Government had placed certain economic barriers against trade between Germany and Austria such as—to-wit—the 1,000 mark barrier which said barrier provided that any German citizen who crosses the border of Germany into Austria is obliged to pay to the German Government the sum of 1,000 German Reichs Marks for the privilege thereof—Austria had been accustomed before this edict of the German Government to receive into Austria some one hundred thousand visitors from Germany annually.

“I further state that the aforesaid barrier placed against Austria was extremely injurious to Austrian agriculture and industrial interests.” (2994-PS)

Jodl stated in his diary that in 1938 the aim of German policy was the elimination of Austria and Czechoslovakia. The will of resistance in both countries was undermined by pressure on the government as well as by propaganda and the fifth column. At the same time German military preparations for attack were worked out (1780-PS). (“Case Otto” was the code name for the Austrian campaign, and “Case Green” was the code name for the battle plans against Czechoslovakia.)

Jodl also stated in his diary that when Chancellor von Schuschnigg announced the proposed plebiscite for 13 March 1938, Hitler was determined to intervene. Goering, General Reichenau, and Minister Glaise-Horstenau were called before Hitler. “Case Otto” was to be prepared, and the mobilization of army units and air forces was ordered on 10 March 1938. The march into Austria took place on 11 March 1938. (1780-PS).

(12) Hitler and the Nazi conspirators completed the annexation of Austria by decree. On 11 March 1938 Hitler issued a directive regarding “Case Otto” addressed to the German armed forces, classified Top Secret, in which he stated that, if other measures proved useless, his intentions were to invade Austria with armed force. The directive prescribed operational duties and assigned objectives. It further provided that resistance was to be broken up ruthlessly with armed force. (C-102)

Later on that same day, at 8:45 p. m., Hitler issued a second directive, which stated in substance, that the demands of the German ultimatum to Austria had not been fulfilled, and for that reason the entry of German armed forces into Austria would commence at daybreak on 12 March 1938. He directed that all objectives were to be reached by exerting all forces to the full as quickly as possible. (C-182)

On 13 March 1938 Germany in violation of Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles, formally incorporated Austria into the Reich by decree and declared it to be a province of the German Reich. (2307-PS)

Officials of the Province of Austria were then required by decree to take an oath of personal obedience to Hitler. Jews were barred from taking this oath, and thus could not retain offices and positions previously held. (2311-PS)

Members of the Austrian Army were required to take an oath of personal allegiance to Hitler as their Supreme Commander. (2936-PS)

Compulsory military service was instituted in Austria by law, which provided the Greater German Reich with additional manpower for its armed forces. (1660-PS)

(13) Seyss-Inquart participated in the execution of the plans for aggression against Czechoslovakia. In an official report to Viscount Halifax, Basil Newton, an official of the British Government, related some of the “gangster methods employed by the Reich to obtain its ends in Czecho-Slovakia.” The part played by Seyss-Inquart was described in this report in the following words:

“On M. Sidor’s return to Bratislava, after he had been entrusted with the Government in place of Mgr. Tiso, Herr Buerckel, Herr Seyss-Inquart and five German generals came at about 10 pm on the evening of Saturday, the 11th March, into a Cabinet meeting in progress at Bratislava, and told the Slovak Government that they should proclaim the independence of Slovakia. When M. Sidor showed hesitation, Herr Buerckel took him on one side and explained that Herr Hitler had decided to settle the question of Czecho-Slovakia definitely. Slovakia ought, therefore, to proclaim her independence because Herr Hitler would otherwise disinterest himself in her fate. M. Sidor thanked Herr Buerckel for this information, but said that he must discuss the situation with the Government at Prague.” (D-571)

Hitler expressed his intention to crush Czechoslovakia in the following language:

“‘At Munich I did not take Bohemia and Moravia into the German territorial sphere [“Lebensraum”]. I left the Czechs only another five months, but for the Slovaks I have some sympathy. I approved the Award of Vienna in the conviction that the Slovaks would separate themselves from the Czechs and declare their independence, which would be under German protection. That is why I have refused Hungarian demands in respect of Slovakia. As the Slovaks appear to be agreeing with the Czechs it looks as though they have not respected the spirit of the Vienna Award. This I cannot tolerate. To-morrow at mid-day I shall begin military action against the Czechs, which will be carried out by General Brauchitsch’ (who was present and to whom he pointed). ‘Germany,’ he said, ‘does not intend to take Slovakia into her “Lebensraum,” and that is why you must either immediately proclaim the independence of Slovakia or I will disinterest myself in her fate. To make your choice I give you until to-morrow mid-day, when the Czechs will be crushed by the German steam-roller.’” (D-571)

Ribbentrop and von Neurath also participated in the execution of the Nazi plot to obliterate Czechoslovakia as a nation. (D-571)

The use of pressure, fifth columnists, and propaganda to undermine resistance in Czechoslovakia, and the preparation of military plans for the attack upon that country were all noted by Jodl in his diary. (1780-PS)

Before the annexation of Austria by Germany Seyss-Inquart was in communication and contact with Konrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten German Nazis in Czechoslovakia. On 29 December 1937 Seyss-Inquart wrote a letter to Henlein in encouraging terms and extended his warmest sympathy and hope for the success of the Sudeten Germans (3523-PS). Henlein thereafter replied in a letter to Seyss-Inquart dated a few days after the German annexation of Austria had been accomplished. In this letter Henlein expressed his pride in the fact that Seyss-Inquart, born a Sudeten German, had fulfilled the task determined by the Fuehrer in the most decisive hour of German history. He also thanked Seyss-Inquart for the effect and influence the developments in Austria would have in the Sudetenland. (3522-PS)

C. SEYSS-INQUART PARTICIPATED IN THE POLITICAL PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS FOR WARS OF AGGRESSION AND WARS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND ASSURANCES SET FORTH IN COUNTS ONE AND TWO OF THE INDICTMENT.

The German Reichstag came under the control of the Nazi conspirators with the advent of Hitler into the German Government and became a willing tool in the hands of Hitler and the conspirators. (See Sections 2, 3, and 4 of chapter VII on the acquisition and consolidation of totalitarian political control, and terrorization of political opponents.)

The members of the Reich Cabinet were the accomplices, aiders and abettors of Hitler and his closest Nazi lieutenants in the political planning and preparation for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements and Assurances. (See section 3 of chapter XV on the Reich Cabinet.)

Seyss-Inquart was a member of the Reichstag and of the Reich Cabinet before the invasion of Poland, and occupied those positions until the unconditional surrender of Germany. Thus he is equally responsible for the acts and decisions of the members of those governmental bodies concerning the political planning and preparation of the Nazi Conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. (2910-PS)

D. SEYSS-INQUART AUTHORIZED, DIRECTED, AND PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES AS SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT.

(1) Austria.

(a) Position and authority of Seyss-Inquart. Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Governor of Austria by Hitler on 15 March 1938, and was put in charge of the Civil Administration. Austria had then ceased to exist as an independent nation and was a province of the German Reich. (2910-PS; 3425-PS)

Goering, as Delegate for the Four-Year Plan, commissioned Seyss-Inquart, who was then Reichsstatthalter in Austria, jointly with the Plenipotentiary of the Reich, to consider and take any steps necessary for the “Aryanization of business and economic life, and to execute this process in accordance with our laws” (Laws of the Reich). (3460-PS)

Seyss-Inquart participated in the drafting of laws for the sequestration and confiscation of property of the so-called “enemies of the people and State.” Evidence of this fact is found in the correspondence between Seyss-Inquart and Dr. Lammers, Chief of the Reichs Chancellery. On 24 October 1938 Seyss-Inquart wrote a letter to Dr. Lammers stating in substance that the law providing for the sequestration and confiscation of the property of enemies of the State was almost completed and ready for the signature of the Fuehrer, and expressing hope that the signature would be obtained soon. Dr. Lammers replied to Seyss-Inquart that the decree would be issued by the Reichsministerof the Interior, a copy of which had been submitted to Hitler, who had expressed no objections. (3448-PS; 3447-PS)

The power and authority of Seyss-Inquart with respect to the sequestration and confiscation of the property of “enemies of the State” stemmed from a decree empowering the Reichsstatthalter in Vienna, or the office designated by him, to confiscate property of persons or societies which had promoted efforts inimical to the people of the State. This decree also attempted to legalize the confiscation of property ordered by the Secret State Police prior to the issuance of the decree. (3450-PS) This decree appeared to be a secret law, because it was not published. Yet its existence as law is evidenced by a letter written to the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, Himmler, in January 1939, which shows that the decree was in fact issued on 18 November 1938. (3449-PS)

(b) Murder and illtreatment of civilians. Seyss-Inquart was aware that so-called enemies of the State were imprisoned in concentration camps. His knowledge of this matter is evidenced by his claim of credit for the transfer of his predecessor—Chancellor of Austria, von Schuschnigg—from one concentration camp to another in south Germany which was in the path of the armed forces of the United States. (3254-PS)

One of the most notorious concentration camps was Mauthausen, located in Austria and in existence while Seyss-Inquart was the Reich Governor of the Province of Austria. As has already been shown, this camp became noted as an extermination center. (2176-PS)

(c) Plunder of public and private property. Even before the issuance of the above decree for the sequestration and confiscation of the property of the so-called enemies of the State, Seyss-Inquart wrote a letter to Hitler indicating that he had come into possession of from 700 to 900 valuable tapestries. Seyss-Inquart offered to display the most beautiful pieces so that the Fuehrer might make a selection. In this same letter Seyss-Inquart expressed his pride and wonder over the manner in which Hitler had “solved the Sudeten problem.” (3391-PS)

While Seyss-Inquart was Reich Governor of the Province of Austria a large quantity of valuable property, including works of art, belonging to the so-called enemies of the State, was seized, sequestered, and confiscated. A partial list of such property is found in a memorandum which referred to a report of the Reich Fuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police submitted with a letter dated 10 August 1938 and received in Berlin 26 September 1938. This inventory listed a total of 162 cases of confiscation, of which 113 cases had a value of some 93,366,358.24 marks. It is significant that the former owners of this property were Jews and political opponents of the Nazis. (3446-PS)

(2) Poland.

(a) Position and authority. Seyss-Inquart was appointed Deputy Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory by Hitler’s decree of 12 October 1939, which also appointed Hans Frank Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory. The official title of the government of Poland under the Nazi conspirators was the “General Government” (3147-PS). Prior to his appointment as Deputy Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory from the early part of September 1939 to 12 October 1939, Seyss-Inquart was Chief of the Civil Administration of South Poland (2910-PS). Seyss-Inquart as Deputy Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory was second only to the Governor General, Frank. (2233-CC-PS)

The Chief of the Office of the Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory and the Higher SS and Police Leaders were directly subordinate to the Governor General and his representative. In turn the leaders of the General and Security Police were subordinated to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. (3468-PS)

According to Hans Frank, Seyss-Inquart organized the General Government of Poland. When Seyss-Inquart was about to depart to assume his new duties as Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands, Frank eulogized Seyss-Inquart as follows:

“In the construction of the General-Government, your name will forever take a place of honor as originator of this organization and State system. I express our thanks, Mr. Reichsminister, for your collaboration and for your creative energy in the name of all officers, employees, and laborers, of all SS organizations and the whole police force of the General-Government, and in the name of the District Chiefs, the Gau and city leaders, in the name of all otherwise on the order of the Reich and the Fuehrer her active persons. * * *” (3465-PS)

During November 1939 Seyss-Inquart made a tour of inspection in Poland. While on this tour he gave lectures to the German officials of the General Government of Poland concerning their duties and German administrative policy in that country. He told these officials that the only principal aim of that policy was to satisfy the interests of the Reich and that they should promote everything of use to the Reich and hamper all that might damage the Reich. He instructed the officials that the German Government must utilize the General Government of Poland for German economic purposes. (2278-PS)

(b) Murder and illtreatment of the civilian population of occupied territories. While Seyss-Inquart was on the aforesaid tour of inspection, a Dr. Lasch, who was a District Governor, reported to Seyss-Inquart that all criminals found in the penitentiaries were shot. The executions, however, were conducted in closed-off wooded areas and not in public. (2278-PS)

In his report concerning his tour of inspection Seyss-Inquart stated that the intellectuals of Poland were to a greater part locked up. He also passed on the suggestion made by District Governor Schmidt to use the “moorish” country around Cychov, Poland, as a reservoir for Jews because this measure might have a decimating effect upon the Jewish population of Poland. (2278-PS)

Hans Frank, in his capacity as Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory, made an official report to Hitler in which he stated that, in the course of time, the German rule had led to a substantial deterioration in the “attitude” of the entire Polish people due to malnutrition, mass arrests, mass shootings, and rigorous methods used to obtain forced labor. In this report it was admitted that before 1939 the food supply of the Polish people was quite adequate to sustain them. (437-PS)

(c) Plunder of public and private property. During the aforesaid tour of inspection Seyss-Inquart ordered the seizure of all soap stocks, and informed the German officials that the seizure of soap and tea was to be regarded as most important. In addition he ordered a marshalling of goods such as oil, salt, manures, etc., in monopolies such as cooperative societies. He also directed that the Polish unemployment fund in a considerable amount be diverted to the repair of damaged buildings. (2278-PS)

Frank in his report to Hitler stated that there had been a confiscation of a great part of Polish estates, together with encroachments upon and confiscation of the assets of industries, trades, professions, and other private property. (437-PS)

(d) Conscription of civilian labor. Seyss-Inquart, as Deputy Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory, attended most staff meetings held by Frank, the Governor General. Among the subjects discussed and decided upon at those meetings was the conscription and deportation of vast numbers of Polish nationals to the Reich for forced labor. Some of these deportees were employed in instruments of war production in violation of Articles 6, 23h, 46, and 52 of the Hague Regulations 1907, as well as the Prisoner of War Convention (Geneva 1929). On 11 January 1940 one Frauendorfer reported in the presence of Seyss-Inquart that daily transports, each carrying 1,000 workers, were going to the Reich. Thus Seyss-Inquart aided and abetted in these violations. (2233-B-PS)

According to Frank approximately 160,000 agricultural workers and 50,000 industrial workers were conscripted and deported from Poland to the Reich up to and including 21 April 1940. Because the total quota had been fixed at 500,000 and because there were not enough “voluntary enlistments”, solution to the problem was sought in the use of coercive measures. Seyss-Inquart participated actively in the discussions on this matter, and thus aided materially in the solution of the problem. (2233-N-PS)

(e) Germanization of occupied territories. The Nazi government of the Polish Occupied Territory was determined to make Poland entirely German. (Evidence of this intention is discussed in Chapter XIII.) In addition, Frank in his report to Hitler reported that there had been an expropriation of property and expulsion of Polish nationals therefrom for German settlements in Poland. (437-PS)

(3) The Netherlands.

(a) Position and authority of Seyss-Inquart. Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands territories by decree of Hitler dated 18 May 1940. This decree made Seyss-Inquart “guardian of the interests of the Reich” and invested him with “supreme civil authority.” Seyss-Inquart was made responsible only to Hitler, and empowered to promulgate laws by decree for the occupied Netherlands territories. (1376-PS; 2910-PS)

(b) Abrogation and modification of Netherlands legislation not justified by military necessity. In his capacity as Reich Commissar of the occupied Netherlands territories Seyss-Inquart authorized and directed the abrogation or modification of Netherlands legislation not demanded or justified by military exigency. This action was in violation of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, 1907.

The acts abolished included Provincial and Municipal Laws. (3340-PS; 3342-PS)

Ordinary criminal laws not in conflict with the permissible objectives of the occupying power were abrogated, suspended, or radically changed. Administrative courts martial were established by decree of Seyss-Inquart as Reich Commissar which empowered the Leader of the Superior SS and the Police and Special Agents appointed by the Reich Commissar to deviate from existing law. This decree also prescribed harsh penalties for misdemeanors, extending from 10 years to life imprisonment, and include the death penalty (i) for participation in “activities likely to disturb or endanger public order and security” and (ii) for intentional violation of the orders of the Reich Commissar. (2111-PS)

Existing marriage laws were amended by Seyss-Inquart so as to require approval of the Reich Commissar instead of the consent of parent or guardian in the case of Dutch girls. The statutory waiting period was also abolished. Thus, intermarriage of Germans with female persons of Netherlands nationality were facilitated and promoted. (3339-PS)

Existing legislation concerning Netherlands nationality was modified by Seyss-Inquart so as to favor Germany. (3341-PS)

Additional decrees not justified or demanded by the military interests of the occupant were issued by Seyss-Inquart as Reich Commissar. These decrees amended or superseded and distorted existing laws concerning press, education, social services, corporate life, trade unionism, medical care, art, science, and divers phases of the political, social, economic, and industrial life of the Netherlands. Some of these enactments, including the discriminatory decrees against the Jews, are considered in greater detail hereafter. (1726-PS)

(c) Germanization of Netherlands Territory. Seyss-Inquart in his capacity as Reich Commissar for the occupied Dutch Territory, took affirmative steps to assimilate the territory under his jurisdiction politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. This action violated Articles 43, 46, 55, and 56 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

The more offensive crimes in the above category, such as economic exploitation and enforced conscription are considered in detail elsewhere in this section. Other “Germanization” measures, such as the decrees promoting marriage between German males and female Netherlanders, and altering citizenship laws in favor of Germany, have been previously adverted to.

When he assumed office on 29 May 1940, Seyss-Inquart said in a speech at The Hague:

“We neither will oppress this land and its people imperialistically nor will we impose on them our political convictions. We will bring this about in no other way—only through our deportment and our example.” (3430-PS)

The bona fides of the above statement is belied by a public statement made by Seyss-Inquart two years later. In a speech at Hengelo on 19 May 1943 he revealed his true purpose:

“Several times it has been held against me that I have let national socialism come to the fore in all phases in public life. As far as I am concerned that is no reproach, it is a historical mission, which I have to fulfill here.” (3430-PS)

Full disclosure of Seyss-Inquart’s intentions and actions with respect to nazification and exploitation of Holland was made in a Top Secret report prepared by him and sent to Berlin covering the situation in the Netherlands during the period 29 May to 19 July 1940. This report was forwarded by Lammers of the Reich Chancellery to Rosenberg. Seyss-Inquart prefaces the report by describing his mission as not merely the guarding of Reich interests and maintaining order, but also the building of close economic ties between the Netherlands and the Reich. The report catalogues in considerable detail the measures initiated by Seyss-Inquart, discusses the building up of the NSDAP in the Netherlands, and adverts to the proposed creation of Nazi para-military and corresponding organizations. It also mentions the efforts made to bring about an assimilation of interests between Holland and Germany in the fields of economics and agriculture, culture, art, and science. The report points out that the allocation of supplies made, and financial and currency arrangements prescribed, were favorable to the Reich; that such transactions were signed by Dutch officials so that the “appearance of being voluntary” was preserved. (997-PS)

(d) Spoliation of property. In his capacity as Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands territory Seyss-Inquart authorized, directed, and participated in the exploitation of the material resources of the Occupied Netherlands territory for purposes unrelated to the needs of the Army of Occupation. These acts were all in violation of Article 6 (b) of the Charter and Articles 43, 46-49, 52 of the Hague Regulations, 1907.

These crimes, for which Seyss-Inquart is responsible not only by virtue of his position as the dominant civil representative of the Reich Government in the Occupied Netherlands territory but also because of his direct participation in the initiation and execution of such criminal policies, took the following form:

Control and exploitation of the Netherlands economy in the interest of the German total war effort.

Levy of excessive occupation charges on the Netherlands.

Exaction of large sums of money and gold as “external occupation costs,” or “contributions to the war against Bolshevism.”

Requisitioning of gold and foreign exchange of Dutch nationals for purposes unrelated to the needs of the occupation army.

Use of German reichsmarks as currency in the Netherlands for purposes unrelated to the needs of the occupation army, with compulsory free exchange of such Reichsmarks for gulden by the Netherlands Bank.

(Evidence of the foregoing methods of exploitation of the occupied Netherlands and correlative enrichment of the Reich is discussed in Chapter XIII.)

The Nazi conspirators were measurably aided in executing the foregoing policies in Holland by the cooperation of a local Nazi, Rost van Tonnigen, who was appointed President of the Netherlands Bank and Treasurer in the Netherlands Ministry of Finance by Seyss-Inquart in the spring of 1941. The cooperative spirit with which van Tonnigen discharged his responsibilities in these posts was disclosed in the following excerpt from a report of the German Commissar of the Netherlands Bank:

“The new President of the Netherlands Bank, Mr. Rost van Tonnigen, is, in contrast to a large part of the leadership, penetrated in his movements and his official acts by the greater German thought, and convinced of the necessity of the creation of a greater European economic space. This ideological attitude in itself gives him the correct position on financial and monetary policy questions for his country in relation to the greater German economic space. Furthermore it makes easier cooperation with my office, a fact which deserves special mention in consideration of the frequently observed impossible conduct of the Netherlands agencies before the entrance into office of the new President. I consider as a fortunate solution the fact that the Reichskommissar for the Occupied Dutch Areas has also entrusted Mr. Rost van Tonnigen with the Treasury of the Ministry of Finance [Schatzamt des Finanzministeriums]. Mr. Rost van Tonnigen took over this office at the end of the month of April. Thus there is a guarantee that the financial and monetary policy of the country will be conducted according to unified points of view.” (ECR-174; see also Verordnungsblatt, No. 22, 24 August 1940 (Fourth Order of the Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands concerning certain Administrative Measures); Lemkin, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,” pp. 455-456.)

In addition to the responsibility which attaches to Seyss-Inquart as a result of his dominant position in the Netherlands, his appointment of Nazi-minded individuals to key positions, and his complete knowledge of and acquiescence in illegal Nazi policies, there is conclusive evidence of his initiation of such policies. In April 1942 “at the instigation of the Reich Commissar Seyss-Inquart” the Netherlands began to pay a “voluntary contribution to the war against Bolshevism” of 50,000,000 gulders per month, retroactive to 1 July 1941, of which ten million per month was paid in gold. (ECR-195)

By 31 March 1944, this contribution amounted to 2,150,000,000 RM. (EC-86)

The alleged “voluntary” character of the contribution is to be taken with considerable reserve in view of the admission contained in Seyss-Inquart’s Top Secret report of 29 May to 19 July 1940, that the voluntary nature of previous financial and economic measures was in reality fictional. (997-PS)

However, the question whether or not the contribution is to be deemed at the direction of Seyss-Inquart or was in fact “voluntary” is immaterial. It is manifest that the then President of the Netherlands Bank and Treasurer in the Ministry of Finance, van Tonnigen, acted in the German interest and to the detriment of the Netherlands. His acts are attributable to the responsible head of the German Civil Administration in the Netherlands and the individual to whom he owed his appointment, Seyss-Inquart.

(e) Participation in activities of Einsatzstab Rosenberg. Seyss-Inquart, in his capacity as Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands territory, also cooperated with and acquiesced in the activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg in the territory under his jurisdiction. He is therefore responsible for his actions in this regard, which constituted crimes under Article 6 (b) of the Charter and violations of Articles 46, 47, and 56 of the Hague Regulations, 1907.

(The Einsatzstab Rosenberg, which commenced as a research library project, developed into a systematic program for the wholesale looting of art treasures and cultural objects in the conquered territories. Its activities are discussed in Chapter XIV.)

Implication of Seyss-Inquart in the criminal activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg is revealed in a detailed progress report of its chief Netherlands representative, Schimmer. The first paragraph of this report states as follows:

“The Working Group Netherland of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg began its work in agreement with the competent representative of the Reichkommissar during the first days of September 1940. The execution of the post, conforming with the Fuehrer’s orders, coordinated itself with the liquidation, that is confiscation, according to civil law, of the various subversive institutions—as set forth in the circulars of the OKW, dated 5 July 1940, and of the Chief of the OKW to the Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht in France, dated 17 September 1940, as well as to the Commander in Chief of the OKW in the Netherlands, dated 30 October 1940. The screening of the material of the various Masonic lodges was taken care of primarily, and the library and the archives of the following lodges were sifted and all useful material was packed.” (176-PS)

There follows the specification of some 92 Masonic IOOF Lodges and Rotary Clubs which were screened and yielded 470 cases of valuable objects. Also, a large number of libraries and scientific and cultural institutions were listed with the statement that all books and archives contained therein were being catalogued preparatory to shipment to Germany. (176-PS)

The report concludes with the following statement indicating close integration in the Netherlands between Rosenberg’s program of grand larceny and Seyss-Inquart’s anti-Jewish program, viz:

“The Working Group, in executing the afore-mentioned tasks, is bound strictly to the pace set by the Reichskommissar for the handling of the Jewish questions and that of the international organizations. This pace again is determined by the political evolution which is taking shape according to decisions made on a higher level, and which must not be hampered by individual acts.” (176-PS)

Other documents captured from Rosenberg’s files remove any doubt whatever as to Seyss-Inquart’s full knowledge of the criminal activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg in Holland and his participation therein. On 11 September 1944 Rosenberg informed Seyss-Inquart by letter that orders had been issued for the seizure and transportation to Germany of the library of the Social Institute in Amsterdam. (091-PS; see also 1621-PS, a secret letter from Reichsfuehrer SS (Himmler) ordering SS Gen. Rauter in the Hague to seize medical apparatus at the Universities of Leyden and Utrecht with the aid of Seyss-Inquart.)

(f) Conscription of civilian labor. In his capacity as Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands territories Seyss-Inquart authorized and directed the deportation of vast numbers of Netherlands nationals to the Reich for forced labor in the instruments of German war production. These acts were all in violation of Articles 6 (b) and (c) of the Charter; Articles 6, 23h, 46, and 52 of the Hague Regulations, 1907 (3737-PS); and the Prisoner of War Convention, Geneva, 1929. (3738-PS)

The deportation program in the Netherlands was initiated on 20 June 1940, five weeks after the occupation of that country. The Germans at first deported only the unemployed, threatening them with curtailment of their dole for refusal. Thereafter in 1942 measures were taken to draft employed workmen. Dutch business concerns were combed in “Sauckel-actions” for available workers, who were forced to register at the labor offices. Workmen who refused were prosecuted by the SD, committed to one of the prisoners’ camps in the Netherlands, and eventually put to work in Germany. By the end of April 1942 the program was in full operation, and not less than 22,000 workers were deported that month. Many Belgian concerns not considered essential were closed down to release manpower for deportation to Germany or for work in Dutch industries deemed essential to the German war effort. New measures of a drastic nature were inaugurated in the spring of 1943. All males between 18 and 35 were forced to register for “arbeitseinsatz” (war effort), which was synonymous with deportation. As time elapsed and the German military situation deteriorated, the measures taken became increasingly more ruthless. Whole sections of a town were lined off and people were seized in the streets or in their homes and transported to Germany. A total of approximately 431,500 Netherlands workers were deported to Germany and other foreign countries. (1726-PS)

Illustrative of the participation of Seyss-Inquart in the slave labor program are four proclamations which he caused to be issued, calling up Dutch civilians between certain ages for forced labor and threatening them with shooting in the case of noncompliance. (1162-PS)

Sauckel, General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labor, on 5 October 1945 disclosed, under oath, the part played by Seyss-Inquart in the forced recruitment of Dutch workers for German war production. The following is an excerpt from an interrogation of Sauckel:

“Q. For a moment I want to turn our attention to Holland. It is my understanding that the quotas for the workers for Holland were agreed upon, and then the numbers given to the Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart to fulfill. Isn’t that correct?

“A. Yes, that is correct.

“Q. After the quota was given to Seyss-Inquart, it was his mission to fulfill it with the aid of your representatives, was it not?

“A. Yes. This was the only possible thing for me to do and the same applied to the other countries.” (3722-PS)

Seyss-Inquart has himself acknowledged under oath his active participation in deporting 250,000 Netherlands workmen between the ages of 17 and 42 toward the end of 1944, although he attempted to shift responsibility by stating that the order was issued by the Wehrmacht and that “I can’t intervene against the Wehrmacht.” However, he admitted:

“I didn’t oppose it. I helped to carry it out in my province.” (Transcript of Interrogation of Seyss-Inquart, afternoon session, 18 September 1945, pp. 19-20.)

(g) Murder and ill-treatment of civilian population, including killing of hostages. Seyss-Inquart, in his capacity as Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Territory, authorized and directed the exaction of collective penalties, murder, and ill-treatment of the civilian population of the Netherlands, and the killing of hostages. All these actions constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity within the meaning of Article 6 (b) and (c) of the Charter, and violated (i) the Hague Regulations, 1907, Articles 46 and 50, (ii) the laws and customs of war, (iii) the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations and (iv) the internal penal laws of Netherlands.

Public utterances of Seyss-Inquart reveal his determination to resort to ruthless measures for the purpose of intimidating and repressing the civilian population. In a speech commemorating the 10th Anniversary of Germany’s coming into power, at Weert on 29 January 1943, before workers and trades of the NSDAP, he spoke in part as follows:

“I will give my instructions. They must be executed by all. In the present situation a refusal to execute such instructions could be regarded only as sabotage. It is also clear, now more than ever, that every resistance which is directed against this fight for existence must be suppressed. Some time ago the representatives of the churches had written to the Wehrmacht commander and to me, and they presented their conception against the execution of death sentences which the Wehrmacht commanders announced in the meantime. To this I can only say the following: The moment in which our men, fathers and sons with iron determination look towards their fate in the east and unflinchingly and steadfastly perform their highest pledge, it is unbearable to tolerate conspiracies whose goal is to weaken the rear of this eastern front. Whoever dares this must be annihilated. We must be severe and become even more severe against our opponents, this is the command of a relentless sequence of events, and for us perhaps humanly hard, but our holy duty. We remain human because we do not torture our opponents, we must remain firm by annihilating them.” (3430-PS)

Endorsement of the policy of holding innocent persons responsible for the misconduct of others beyond their control is implicit in the following public statement of Seyss-Inquart made at Weert on 8 January 1945:

“I have given orders to suppress all appearances with a severeness corresponding to the brutality of the crime. If in connection with these measures Dutch citizens are affected and have to undergo difficulties and limitations of special nature, then they have to seek the cause therefor solely in these eruptions of the anarchistic mental attitude of a few culprits and the just-as-criminal-tolerance or apathy within their own circles.” (3430-PS)

Evidence of Seyss-Inquart’s application of this doctrine of vicarious responsibility is contained in a poster signed by him and warning the Dutch population to expect reprisals in the event of sabotage. The poster reads as follows:

“NOTICE

“I consider all inhabitants responsible for the destruction or damage to railroad installations, waterways with their installations, telephone cables and Post Offices occurring within the boundaries of their locality.

“The population of such localities may therefore expect reprisals in the form of seizure of property and destruction of houses or groups of houses.

“I therefore advise the population to protect the means of transportation and communications by means of patrols or other appropriate measures.

“The Hague 24 Sept 1944 “/s/ Seyss-Inquart “The Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Territories.” (1163-PS)

Another poster issued by the Superior SS and Police Chief publicized with remarkable candor the fact that 12 Netherlanders were executed “independent of further investigation” as reprisals for the killing of two Germans. That poster reads as follows:

“NOTICE

“The Superior SS and Police Chief gives notice that on 20 November 1944 Schutzgruppenmann Janssen and on 13 December 1944 the Senior Officer Candidate Guse were shot in the back by criminal Netherlands elements. Both were robbed of their pistols.

“Independent of further investigation of the perpetrators, two houses were blasted and 12 Netherlanders were executed at the place of one of the crimes as reprisals.

“The Hague, 16 Dec 1944.” (1163-PS)

In an interrogation under oath Seyss-Inquart has acknowledged that Netherlanders were shot as hostages without trial. While he sought to shift responsibility to the SS he admitted that upon one occasion the SS called on him to furnish 50 hostages and that he gave five instead, all of whom were shot. (Transcript of Interrogation of Seyss-Inquart, 18 September 1945, p. 20)

Other crimes against humanity are documented in the statement of the Dutch Government. The vastness of the scale of the commission of such crimes and the necessary notoriety thereof clearly implicate Seyss-Inquart as the responsible civil head of the German Government in the Netherlands territory. (1726-PS)

E. SEYSS-INQUART PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AS SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT.

(1) Austria.

(a) Persecution of the Jews. While Seyss-Inquart was the Reich Governor of the Province of Austria, laws were issued against Jews and against those who opposed the Nazi Regime politically. As has been shown, this usually took the form of decrees providing for the sequestration and confiscation of the property of these so-called “enemies of the State.”

In the early days of November 1938, pogroms against the Jews took place all over the German Reich, including Austria. These pogroms resulted from the killing of von Rath, a diplomatic official at the German Embassy in Paris, by a young Jew named Grynszpan. Jewish synagogues, homes and shops were smashed and destroyed by fire. Large numbers of Jews were arrested, jailed, or placed in concentration camps. A partial report as to what occurred during the 9th and 10th of November 1938 is found in a letter written by the Reich Commissar for the Reunion of Austria with the German Reich, Josef Buerckel, to Goering, dated 18 November 1938. This report reveals that the fire department was not utilized to control the flames consuming Jewish homes, stores, shops, and synagogues. The school children in Vienna were given an opportunity to participate in the demonstration “according to the order.” Buerckel’s report also discloses that enormous quantities of valuables, jewelry, and merchandise were stolen from the Jews during these pogroms. (2237-PS)

A more detailed description of what happened in Vienna during the 9th and 10th of November 1938 is found in the stenographic report of a meeting on “The Jewish Question” under the Chairmanship of Goering (1816-PS). This meeting was held on 12 November 1938. It appears from this report that altogether 101 synagogues were destroyed by fire, 76 synagogues demolished, and 7,500 stores ruined in the Reich, including Austria. In this same meeting, a member of the official family of Seyss-Inquart (Reich Governor of the Province of Austria) related the efficiency with which the Civil Administration in Austria dealt with the so-called “Jewish Question.” This official was Fischboeck, and in his verbal report to Goering he said:

“Your Excellency,

“In this matter we have already a very complete plan for Austria. There are 12,000 Jewish artisans and 5,000 Jewish retail shops in Vienna. Before the National Revolution, we had already a definite plan for tradesmen, regarding this total of 17,000 stores. Of the shops of the 12,000 artisans about 10,000 were to be closed indefinitely and 2,000 were to be kept open. 4,000 of the 5,000 retail stores should be closed and 1,000 should be kept open, that is, were to be Aryanized. According to this plan, between 3,000 and 3,500 of the total of 17,000 stores would be kept open, all others closed. This was decided following investigations in every single branch and according to local needs, in agreement with all competent authorities, and is ready for publication as soon as we receive the law which we requested in September; this law shall empower us to withdraw licenses from artisans quite independently from the Jewish Question.” (1816-PS)

To this Goering replied:

“I shall have this decree issued today.” (1816-PS)

The stenographic report of this meeting further reveals that the solution of the so-called “Jewish Problem” adopted in Austria by Seyss-Inquart and his official family was most efficient from the viewpoint of Nazi objectives. The plan adopted in Austria became a model for the entire Reich. (1816-PS)

A report of the Bureau of Statistics for the Provinces of Austria on the Jewish population in Vienna and in Austria, dated 15 December 1939, shows that after the Nazi conspirators assumed power in Austria, the Jewish population in that country decreased approximately 100,000. (1949-PS)

While the reasons for the decreases in the Jewish population of Austria would seem to be obvious, yet tangible evidence of at least one reason is provided by Seyss-Inquart himself in a letter written by him to Himmler, dated 4 November 1939. In substance Seyss-Inquart, while Deputy Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory, stated that an official in Cracow had informed him that there was a plan to send Jews from Vienna to Poland, whereupon he gave instructions that such action should be carried out only in cooperation with the SD and by the SD, since he would not permit wild-cat actions. (3398-PS)

(b) Persecution on political grounds. Seyss-Inquart has supplied evidence that the SS in Austria was responsible for the murder of Chancellor Dolfuss on 25 July 1934. (3425-PS)

Seyss-Inquart has also supplied evidence that his predecessor as Chancellor of Austria, von Schuschnigg, had been confined in a concentration camp after his forced resignation from office. (3254-PS)

(2) Poland. The manner is which Polish Jews were treated and given “special handling” by the Nazi conspirators, although a matter of common knowledge, was described in detail in the “Black Book of Poland.” This document tells of the establishment of special reservations for the Jews as well as ghettos in various parts of Poland. The report also relates how the Jews were starved and exterminated in large numbers. A great portion of these crimes were committed in Poland by the Nazis while Seyss-Inquart occupied the position of Deputy Governor General of the Polish Occupied Territory. (2613-PS)

During the time that Seyss-Inquart held this high office in the Nazi government of Poland, a special decree was issued by Frank, dated 26 October 1939, which required compulsory labor for Jews domiciled in the General Government of Poland. The decree was to take effect immediately and the Jews were to be formed in forced labor groups. The execution of the decree was placed in the hands of the Higher SS and Police Leaders. (2613-PS)

(3) The Netherlands. Seyss-Inquart, in his capacity as Reich Commissar of the occupied Dutch territory, bears full individual responsibility for the execution in the Netherlands of the Nazi program of persecution of Jews. Acts against the Jews authorized, directed, or condoned by Seyss-Inquart, which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Article 6 (b) and (c) of the Charter, included: stigmatization; disfranchisement; denial of civil rights, personal liberty, and economic freedom; religious and cultural persecution; use of organized “spontaneous violence” against persons and property of Jews; ghettoization; starvation; enforced labor; enslavement; mass deportation, and annihilation.

The intentions of Seyss-Inquart with respect to treatment of the Jews is a matter of record. In a speech before a gathering of all workers and trades of the NSDAP at Amsterdam on 13 March 1941 he left no doubt as to where he stood on the Jewish question. He said:

“The Jews are the enemy of national socialism and the national socialistic Reich. From the moment of their emancipation, their methods were directed to the annihilation of the common and moral worth of the German people and to replace national and responsible ideology with international nihilism. The fatal meaning of Judaism became completely clear to the German people during the years of the world war. It was really they, who stuck the knife in the back of the German army which broke the resistance of the Germans, and in the year 1918, it was they who wanted to dissolve and decompose all national tradition and also moral and religious beliefs of the German people. The Jews for us are not Dutchmen. They are those enemies with whom we can neither come to an armistice nor to peace. This applies here, if you wish, for the duration of the occupation. Do not expect an order from me which stipulates this, except regulations concerning police matters. We will beat the Jews wherever we meet them, and those who join them must bear the consequences. The Fuehrer declared that the Jews have played their final act in Europe, and therefore they played their final act.” (3430-PS)

Following his assumption of office in the Netherlands on 29 May 1940, Seyss-Inquart, pursuant to the authority vested in him as Reich Commissar Of the Netherlands by the Fuehrer decree of 18 May 1940, systematically promulgated decrees designed to implement the Nazi program of persecution and elimination of Jews. He promulgated a law which prohibited the Jewish ritual slaughter of animals in the Netherlands Occupied Territories, thus making it impossible for devout orthodox Jews to live in accordance with their religious dietary laws. (2705-PS)

Other anti-Semitic decrees of a like nature, all of which were signed by Seyss-Inquart and published in the Verordnungsblatt fuer die besetzen niederlandischen Gebiete (VOBL), may be summarized as follows:

_Publication Date and No. Summary of Subject Matter of VOBL_ 3333-PS, Order to register all businesses belonging to Verordnungsblatt, No. Jews, joint stock corporations including 33, p. 546, 26 Oct 1940. either one Jewish partner or one Jewish member in their Board of Directors, or those of which more than 25% of the capital stock belong to Jews or those in which half of all votes are to be exercised by Jews, or in general, businesses which in fact are placed under predominatingly Jewish influence. Section 4 defines the quality of a Jew. Property situated abroad is to be embodied in the declaration of registration. Failure wilfully of declaration is punished by imprisonment not exceeding 5 years and by a fine not exceeding 100,000 gulders or either of these penalties, while the same due to negligence entails an imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding 10,000 florins; in addition confiscation of the property concerned may be ordered.

3334-PS, Prohibition to employ German citizens or Verordnungsblatt, No. persons of cognate blood in Jewish households 42, p. 701, 27 Dec 1940. under a penalty not exceeding one year imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 guilders or either of these penalties.

3323-PS, Registration of all persons of part or full Verordnungsblatt, No. Jewish blood. 6, p. 19, 13 Jan 1941.

Sec. 2 defines as a Jew any person one of whose grandparents was a full-blooded Jew. Any grandparent who belonged or belongs to the Jewish religious community is considered as such. Failure to register entails an imprisonment not exceeding 5 years and the confiscation of property (Sec. 10).

3325-PS, Limitation of registration of Jewish students Verordnungsblatt, No. in Dutch universities and colleges. 6, p. 99, 14 Feb 1941.

2112-PS, Obligation to register real estate, mortgages Verordnungsblatt, No. and real property belonging to Jews, other 34, p. 655, 16 Aug 1941. than farming estates and lands regulated by a previous ordinance. Power granted to the Dutch administration of real property to take over directly or through persons appointed for the purpose, the management of Jewish real property, with the right to alienate it in part or in whole.

3326-PS, Freezing of property belonging to Jews who Verordnungsblatt, No. have emigrated from Holland which is located 39, p. 785, 20 Sept 1941. in Holland.

3334-PS, Prohibitions to employ a non-Jew in Verordnungsblatt, No. households headed by a Jew or where a Jew is 44, p. 846, 23 Oct 1941. a member of the family, whether permanently or temporarily but for an unbroken term of more than four weeks. Any contract contrary to this provision is inoperative. Penalties for the employer: imprisonment up to one year and a fine up to 10,000 florins.

3328-PS, No Jew can exercise any profession and trade Verordnungsblatt, No. without authorization from the administrative 44, p. 841, 23 Oct 1941. authorities which may refuse it or set up special conditions for its exercise. Administrative authorities may order the determination or the liquidation of any employment contract concerning a Jew. Any employer may terminate a contract with a Jew by giving notice on the first day of any calendar month if the general legal provisions of the contract provide for a longer term of notice, or if the contract is to expire normally at a date after 31 Jan 1942. An indemnity ranging from one to six times the monthly salary of the dismissed Jew may be, under certain circumstances, allocated as a settlement of all claims against the employer.

3329-PS, Exclusion of Jews from Dutch Chamber of Arts Verordnungsblatt, No. in which membership is compulsory for all 47, p. 901, 25 Nov 1941. those active in the field of sculpture, architecture, artisan arts, music, literature, theater, film industry and the press. Prohibition for a Jew or a person related to a Jew to be a member of an association affiliated with the Chamber of Arts, to found or to take part in the foundation of such an association or to establish a foundation or to take part in its establishment or to benefit directly or indirectly from its property where such associations or foundations are affiliated with the Chamber of Arts. Penalty: not exceeding 5,000 florins.

3325-PS, Exclusion of Jews from the Dutch Verordnungsblatt, No. Arbeitsfront (N.A.F.). 11, p. 211, 1 May 1942.

3336-PS, Compulsory written declaration by Jews of Verordnungsblatt, No. claims of any kind of which they are 13, p. 289, 23 May 1942. beneficiaries to be made at banking firm Lippman, Rosenthal & Co., Amsterdam. Titles and other documents proving the claims are to be delivered to the bank at the time of the declaration, all rights to such claims being vested in the above mentioned bank. The debtor can liberate himself only in the hands of the bank and by so doing is released. The declaration embodies also rights on property or chattels real, participations as in corporations and partnerships; reversions, expectancies.

Collections of all kinds of art objects, art articles, articles of gold, platinum, silver, as well as polished or rough diamonds, semi-precious stones and pearls, belonging in part or in whole, legally or “economically” to a Jew, must be delivered to said bank, with exception of wedding rings and those of a deceased husband, silver watches, used table silver, provided that each person belonging to the family of the owner may keep only a cover consisting of 4 pieces, a knife, a fork, a spoon and a dessert spoon; teeth-fillings of precious metals.

A full recapitulation of the crimes perpetrated against the Jews by the German civil occupation authorities through the instrumentality of orders, decrees, and laws is contained in the statement of the Netherlands Government Commissioner for Repatriation. (1726-PS)

The above statement is also evidence of the fact that in February 1941 the first mass deportation of Jews from the Netherlands took place. On that occasion 1000 Jews were arrested and within a few months sent to Buchenwald and/or Mauthausen. Subsequently their ashes were returned to their relatives in Holland, against a payment of 75 florins for each. Deportation continued until September 1943, when the last of the Jews composed of the Jewish Council were sent to Westerbork (Holland). Of 140,000 registered “full” Jewish Netherlanders, 117,000 were deported to the East. (1726-PS)

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ARTUR SEYSS-INQUART

│ │ │ Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page │ │ │ │Charter of the International Military │ │ │ Tribunal, Article 6. │ I │ 5 │International Military Tribunal, │ │ │ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │ │ Appendix A. │ I │ 29, 65 │ ———— │ │ │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │ │document indicates that the document │ │ │was received in evidence at the │ │ │Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │ │before a document number indicates │ │ │that the document was referred to │ │ │during the trial but was not formally │ │ │received in evidence, for the reason │ │ │given in parentheses following the │ │ │description of the document. The USA │ │ │series number, given in parentheses │ │ │following the description of the │ │ │document, is the official exhibit │ │ │number assigned by the court. │ │ │ ———— │ │ 091-PS │Letter from Rosenberg to │ │ │Seyss-Inquart, 11 September 1944, │ │ │concerning seizure of a library in │ │ │Amsterdam. │ III │ 152 │ │ │ *176-PS │Report on Einsatzstab Rosenberg, │ │ │Working Group Netherlands, signed │ │ │Schimmer. (USA 707) │ III │ 203 │ │ │ *437-PS │Extract from report, 19 June 1943, by │ │ │Frank to Hitler, concerning situation │ │ │in Poland. (USA 610) │ III │ 396 │ │ │ *812-PS │Letter from Rainer to Seyss-Inquart, │ │ │22 August 1939 and report from │ │ │Gauleiter Rainer to Reichskommissar │ │ │Gauleiter Buerckel, 6 July 1939 on │ │ │events in the NSDAP of Austria from │ │ │1933 to 11 March 1938. (USA 61) │ III │ 586 │ │ │ 997-PS │Top secret report by Seyss-Inquart │ │ │concerning the situation in the │ │ │Netherlands—Exploitation and │ │ │Nazification in period 29 May to 19 │ │ │July 1940. │ III │ 641 │ │ │ 1162-PS │Four Proclamations calling up Dutch │ │ │civilians for Temporary Forced Labor. │ III │ 817 │ │ │ 1163-PS │Posters warning Dutch population of │ │ │reprisals and announcing the shootings│ │ │of hostages. │ III │ 819 │ │ │ 1376-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer concerning the │ │ │exercise of Governmental authority in │ │ │the Lowlands, 20 May 1940. 1940 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 778. │ III │ 929 │ │ │ 1621-PS │Secret letter from Reichsfuehrer SS to│ │ │General Rauter, 12 November 1942, │ │ │concerning procurement of │ │ │medico-physiological appliances. │ IV │ 136 │ │ │ 1660-PS │Decree for registration for active │ │ │service in Austria in the year 1938 of│ │ │16 June 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │ │Part I, p. 631. │ IV │ 171 │ │ │ *1726-PS │Statement of Netherlands Government in│ │ │view of Prosecution and punishment of │ │ │the German Nazi War Criminals. (USA │ │ │195) │ IV │ 227 │ │ │ *1780-PS │Excerpts from diary kept by General │ │ │Jodl, January 1937 to August 1939. │ │ │(USA 72) │ IV │ 360 │ │ │ *1816-PS │Stenographic report of the meeting on │ │ │The Jewish Question, under the │ │ │Chairmanship of Fieldmarshal Goering, │ │ │12 November 1938. (USA 261) │ IV │ 425 │ │ │ 1949-PS │Report of Bureau of Statistics for │ │ │Provinces of the Ostmark, 15 December │ │ │1939, concerning Jews. │ IV │ 586 │ │ │ 2111-PS │Order of Reich Commissioner for │ │ │Occupied Netherlands Territories │ │ │concerning establishment of │ │ │administrative Courts Martial. 1941 │ │ │Verordnungsblatt, p. 190. │ IV │ 735 │ │ │ 2112-PS │Order of the Reich Commissioner for │ │ │Occupied Netherlands Territories │ │ │concerning Jewish Real Estate, 11 │ │ │August 1941. 1941 Verordnungsblatt, p.│ │ │655. │ IV │ 738 │ │ │ *2176-PS │Report on Mauthausen concentration │ │ │camp, by investigating officer, Office│ │ │of Judge Advocate, Third U. S. Army, │ │ │17 June 1945. (USA 249) │ IV │ 836 │ │ │ *2219-PS │Excerpt from letter from Seyss-Inquart│ │ │to Goering, 14 July 1939. (USA 62) │ IV │ 854 │ │ │ 2233-B-PS │Frank Diary. Tagebuch. 1940. Part I. │ │ │January-March. (USA 174) │ IV │ 885 │ │ │ *2233-N-PS │Frank Diary. Tagebuch. 1940. Part II. │ │ │April to June. (USA 614) │ IV │ 907 │ │ │ 2233-CC-PS │Frank Diary. 1939. Entry of 14 │ │ │December at p. 99. │ IV │ 918 │ │ │ 2237-PS │Letter from Reich Commissar for │ │ │Reunion of Austria with the German │ │ │Reich to Goering, 18 November 1938, │ │ │concerning actions against the Jews in│ │ │November 1938. │ IV │ 918 │ │ │ *2246-PS │Report of von Papen to Hitler, 1 │ │ │September 1936, concerning Danube │ │ │situation. (USA 67) │ IV │ 930 │ │ │ *2278-PS │Report of Reichsminister Seyss-Inquart│ │ │to the General Government of Poland, │ │ │concerning official tour from 17 to 22│ │ │November 1939. (USA 706) │ IV │ 953 │ │ │ *2307-PS │Law concerning reunion of Austria with│ │ │German Reich, 13 March 1938. 1938 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 237. (GB│ │ │133) │ IV │ 997 │ │ │ **2311-PS │Decree of Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor│ │ │concerning Administration of the Oath │ │ │to Officials of Province of Austria, │ │ │15 March 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │ │Part I, p. 245. (Referred to but not │ │ │offered in evidence.) │ IV │ 1005 │ │ │ *2463-PS │Telegram from Seyss-Inquart to Hitler,│ │ │11 March 1938, published in Documents │ │ │of German Politics,1939, Vol. VI, Part│ │ │1. (USA 703) │ V │ 207 │ │ │ **2464-PS │Official Austrian communique of the │ │ │reorganization of the Austrian Cabinet│ │ │and general political amnesty, 16 │ │ │February 1938, published in Documents │ │ │of German Politics, 1939, Vol. VI, │ │ │Part 1. (Referred to but not offered │ │ │in evidence.) │ V │ 208 │ │ │ 2465-PS │Announcement of appointment of │ │ │Seyss-Inquart as Federal Chancellor, │ │ │11 March 1938, published in Documents │ │ │of German Politics, 1938, Vol. VI, │ │ │Part 1. (Referred to but not offered │ │ │in evidence.) │ V │ 209 │ │ │ **2466-PS │Official communique of resignation of │ │ │Austrian President Miklas, 13 March │ │ │1938, published in Documents of German│ │ │Politics, 1939, Vol. VI, Part 1. │ │ │(Referred to but not offered in │ │ │evidence.) │ V │ 209 │ │ │ **2469-PS │Official German and Austrian │ │ │communique concerning equal rights of │ │ │Austrian National Socialists in │ │ │Austria, 18 February 1938, published │ │ │in Documents of German Politics, 1939,│ │ │Vol. VI, Part 1. (Referred to but not │ │ │offered in evidence.) │ V │ 210 │ │ │ **2484-PS │Official German communique of visit of│ │ │Austrian Minister Seyss-Inquart to │ │ │Hitler, Berlin, 17 February 1938, │ │ │published in Documents of German │ │ │Politics, 1939, Vol. VI, Part 1. │ │ │(Referred to but not offered in │ │ │evidence.) │ V │ 234 │ │ │ **2485-PS │Address by Federal Chancellor │ │ │Seyss-Inquart from Balcony of City │ │ │Hall at Linz, 12 March 1938, published│ │ │in Documents of German Politics, Vol. │ │ │VI, Part 1, p. 144-145. (Referred to │ │ │but not introduced in evidence.) │ V │ 234 │ │ │ 2613-PS │Extracts from “The Black Book of │ │ │Poland”. │ V │ 332 │ │ │ 2705-PS │Decree of Reich Commissioner for │ │ │Occupied Netherlands Territories for │ │ │avoidance of cruelty to animals in │ │ │slaughtering, from Official Gazette │ │ │for Occupied Netherlands Territories, │ │ │3 August 1940. │ V │ 374 │ │ │ 2909-PS │Affidavit of August Eigruber, 9 │ │ │November 1945. │ V │ 578 │ │ │ *2910-PS │Certificate of defendant │ │ │Seyss-Inquart, 10 November 1945. (USA │ │ │17) │ V │ 579 │ │ │ **2936-PS │Instruction of the Fuehrer and Reich │ │ │Chancellor concerning the Austrian │ │ │Federal Army, 13 March 1938, published│ │ │in Documents of German Politics, 1938,│ │ │Vol. VI, Part 1, p. 150. (Referred to │ │ │but not offered in evidence.) │ V │ 604 │ │ │ *2949-PS │Transcripts of telephone calls from │ │ │Air Ministry, 11-14 March 1938. (USA │ │ │76) │ V │ 628 │ │ │ **2994-PS │Affidavit of Kurt von Schuschnigg, │ │ │former Chancellor of Austria, │ │ │concerning Austrian-German Treaty of │ │ │11 July 1936. (USA 66) (Objection to │ │ │admission in evidence upheld.) │ V │ 703 │ │ │ 2995-PS │Affidavit of Kurt von Schuschnigg, │ │ │former Chancellor of Austria, │ │ │concerning his visit to Berchtesgaden │ │ │on 12 February 1938. │ V │ 709 │ │ │ 3147-PS │The Administration of the Occupied │ │ │Polish Territory, published in The │ │ │Archives, No. 67. │ V │ 910 │ │ │ *3254-PS │The Austrian Question, 1934-1938, by │ │ │Seyss-Inquart, 9 September 1945. (USA │ │ │704) │ V │ 961 │ │ │ 3270-PS │Goering’s speech on 27 March in │ │ │Vienna, published in Documents of │ │ │German Politics, Vol. VI, Part 1, p. │ │ │183. (USA 703) │ V │ 1047 │ │ │ *3271-PS │Letter from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler, │ │ │19 August 1939. (USA 700) │ V │ 1047 │ │ │ 3323-PS │Decree concerning obligation to │ │ │register persons who are entirely or │ │ │partly of Jewish race, from Official │ │ │Gazette for Occupied Dutch │ │ │Territories, 1941. │ VI │ 39 │ │ │ 3325-PS │Decree referring to Jewish students, │ │ │published in Official Gazette for │ │ │Occupied Dutch Territories, 1941. │ VI │ 43 │ │ │ 3326-PS │Decree concerning blocking of property│ │ │belonging to Jews who emigrated to │ │ │Netherlands, from Official Gazette for│ │ │Occupied Dutch Territories. │ VI │ 44 │ │ │ 3328-PS │Decree concerning regulation of │ │ │professional activities of Jews, from │ │ │Official Gazette for Occupied Dutch │ │ │Territories, year 1941. │ VI │ 45 │ │ │ 3329-PS │Decree concerning Netherlands Chamber │ │ │of Culture, from Official Gazette for │ │ │Occupied Dutch Territories, year 1941.│ VI │ 48 │ │ │ 3333-PS │Decree concerning registration of │ │ │business enterprises, from Official │ │ │Gazette for Occupied Dutch │ │ │Territories, year 1940. │ VI │ 58 │ │ │ 3334-PS │Decree concerning employment of │ │ │Germans in Jewish households, from │ │ │Official Gazette for Occupied Dutch │ │ │Territories, year 1940. │ VI │ 62 │ │ │ 3336-PS │Order concerning treatment of Jewish │ │ │property, from Official Gazette for │ │ │Occupied Dutch Territories, year 1942.│ VI │ 64 │ │ │ 3339-PS │Order concerning marriages of male │ │ │persons of German Nationality in │ │ │Occupied Netherlands Territories, from│ │ │Official Gazette for Occupied Dutch │ │ │Territories, year 1941. │ VI │ 71 │ │ │ 3340-PS │First Order concerning extraordinary │ │ │measures of a Constitutional and │ │ │Administrative nature, 1 March 1941, │ │ │from Official Gazette for Occupied │ │ │Dutch Territories, year 1941. │ VI │ 72 │ │ │ 3341-PS │Third Order concerning certain │ │ │provision in connection with │ │ │Netherlands Nationality, 8 August │ │ │1941, from Official Gazette for │ │ │Occupied Dutch Territories, year 1941.│ VI │ 73 │ │ │ 3342-PS │Eighth Order concerning Special │ │ │Measures affecting Administrative │ │ │Organization, 11 August 1941, from │ │ │Official Gazette of Occupied Dutch │ │ │Territories, year 1941. │ VI │ 74 │ │ │ 3391-PS │Letter from Seyss-Inquart to Hitler, │ │ │30 September 1938. │ VI │ 108 │ │ │ 3392-PS │Letter from Seyss-Inquart to Keppler, │ │ │3 September 1937. │ VI │ 109 │ │ │ *3397-PS │Letter from Keppler to Seyss-Inquart, │ │ │8 January 1938. (USA 702) │ VI │ 115 │ │ │ *3398-PS │Letter from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler, │ │ │4 November 1939. (USA 885) │ VI │ 116 │ │ │ 3400-PS │Minutes of meeting of German │ │ │Association, 28 December 1918, and │ │ │Constitution and By-Laws thereof found│ │ │in personal files of Seyss-Inquart for│ │ │period of 1918 to 1943. │ VI │ 118 │ │ │ 3425-PS │Voluntary statement made by │ │ │Seyss-Inquart with advice of counsel, │ │ │10 December 1945. (USA 701) │ VI │ 124 │ │ │ *3430-PS │Extract from Four Years in Holland, │ │ │1944. (USA 708) │ VI │ 135 │ │ │ 3446-PS │Memorandum relating to report and │ │ │letter of Reich Fuehrer SS and Chief │ │ │of the German Police, 13 October 1938.│ VI │ 153 │ │ │ *3447-PS │Letter from Dr. Lammers to │ │ │Seyss-Inquart. (USA 887) │ VI │ 156 │ │ │ *3448-PS │Letter from Seyss-Inquart to Dr. │ │ │Lammers, 23 October 1938. (USA 886) │ VI │ 156 │ │ │ 3449-PS │Letter to Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief │ │ │of German Police, January 1939. │ VI │ 157 │ │ │ *3450-PS │Decree of 18 November 1938 concerning │ │ │sequestration and confiscation of │ │ │property of enemies of the State of │ │ │Austria. (USA 888) │ VI │ 157 │ │ │ 3457-PS │Extract concerning Seyss-Inquart from │ │ │The Archive, 1943-44, p. 720. │ VI │ 158 │ │ │ *3460-PS │Speech by Goering, from Hermann │ │ │Goering Speeches and Papers. (USA 437)│ VI │ 160 │ │ │ *3465-PS │Speech by Hans Frank, from Frank │ │ │Diary, 1940, Vol. II, pp. 510-511. │ │ │(USA 614) │ VI │ 166 │ │ │ 3467-PS │Law on Limitation of travel to │ │ │Republic Austria, 29 May 1933. 1933 │ │ │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, No. 57, p. │ │ │311. │ VI │ 169 │ │ │ *3468-PS │Decree concerning establishment of │ │ │administration of occupied Polish │ │ │territories, from Documents of German │ │ │Politics, 1939, Part 2, pp. 674-682. │ │ │(USA 705) │ VI │ 169 │ │ │ 3473-PS │Letter from Keppler to Goering, 6 │ │ │January 1938, giving details of Nazi │ │ │intrigue in Austria. (USA 581) │ VI │ 197 │ │ │ 3522-PS │Letter from Konrad Henlein to │ │ │Seyss-Inquart, 17 March 1938. │ VI │ 212 │ │ │ 3523-PS │Letter from Seyss-Inquart to Henlein, │ │ │29 December 1937. │ VI │ 213 │ │ │ 3588-PS │Order concerning exercise of │ │ │Governmental authority in Netherlands,│ │ │29 May 1940, from Official Gazette for│ │ │Occupied Dutch Territories, 1940. │ VI │ 282 │ │ │ *3722-PS │Testimony of Fritz Sauckel, 5 October │ │ │1945. (USA 224) │ VI │ 459 │ │ │ 3732-PS │Testimony of Seyss-Inquart, 9 October │ │ │1945. │ VI │ 539 │ │ │ *C-102 │Document signed by Hitler relating to │ │ │operation “Otto”, 11 March 1938. (USA │ │ │74) │ VI │ 911 │ │ │ *C-182 │Directive No. 2 from Supreme Commander│ │ │Armed Forces, initialled Jodl, 11 │ │ │March 1938. (USA 77) │ VI │ 1017 │ │ │ *D-571 │Official report of British Minister in│ │ │Prague to Viscount Halifax, 21 March │ │ │1939. (USA 112) │ VII │ 88 │ │ │ EC-86 │Report on financial contributions of │ │ │the Occupied Areas. │ VII │ 264 │ │ │ ECR-174 │Report of the Commissar of the │ │ │Netherlands Bank for the month May │ │ │1941, dated 12 June 1941. │ VII │ 726 │ │ │ ECR-195 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │ │Administration of RKK Berlin, 21 April│ │ │1942, concerning Dutch East Help. │ VII │ 747 │ │ │ L-26 │United Nations Information │ │ │Organization Report No. 8, 14 June │ │ │1944 “Conditions in Occupied │ │ │Territories.” │ VII │ 771 │ │ │ L-151 │Report from Ambassador Bullitt to │ │ │State Department, 23 November 1937, │ │ │regarding his visit to Warsaw. (USA │ │ │70) │ VII │ 894 │ │ │ L-231 │Telegram from American Legation in │ │ │Vienna to U. S. Secretary of State, 13│ │ │March 1938. │ VII │ 1093 │ │ │ *Chart No. 1 │National Socialist German Workers’ │ │ │Party. (2903-PS; USA 2) │ VIII │ 770

20. CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH

A. POSITIONS AND HONORS HELD BY VON NEURATH.

He was a member of the Nazi Party from 30 January 1937 until 1945, and was awarded the Golden Party Badge on 30 January 1937.

He was General in the SS. He was personally appointed Gruppenfuehrer by Hitler in September 1937, and was promoted to Obergruppenfuehrer on 21 June 1943.

He was Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Chancellorship of von Papen from 2 June 1932, and under the Chancellorship of Hitler from 30 January 1933 until he was replaced by von Ribbentrop on 4 February 1938.

He was Reich Minister from 4 February 1938 until May 1945.

He was President of the Secret Cabinet Council, to which he was appointed on 4 February 1938.

He was a member of the Reich Defense Council.

He was Reichs Protector for Bohemia and Moravia from 18 March 1939 until he was replaced by Frick on 25 August 1943.

He was awarded the Adlerorden by Hitler at the time of his appointment as Reich Protector. Ribbentrop was the only other German to receive this decoration.

These facts are collected in a document signed by von Neurath and his counsel (2972-PS). Von Neurath comments on certain of these matters. He says that the award of the Golden Party Badge was made on 30 January 1937 against his will and without his being asked. Yet he not only refrained from repudiating the allegedly unwanted honor, but after receiving it attended meetings at which wars of aggression were planned, actively participated in the forcible annexation of Austria, and tyrannized over Bohemia and Moravia.

He also contends that his appointment as SS Gruppenfuehrer was also against his will and without his being asked. But in this connection, his wearing of the SS uniform, his receipt of the further promotion to Obergruppenfuehrer, and the actions against Bohemia and Moravia must be considered. In addition, von Neurath says that his appointment as Foreign Minister was by Reichspresident von Hindenburg. Yet President von Hindenburg died in 1934, and von Neurath continued as Foreign Minister until 1938, under the chancellorship first of von Papen and then of Hitler. He further claims that he was an inactive Minister from 4 February 1938 until May 1945. His activities in this connection will be mentioned below, particularly with regard to Bohemia and Moravia.

Von Neurath next alleges that the Secret Cabinet Council never sat or conferred. This Council, of which von Neurath was president, has been authoritatively described as a select committee of the Cabinet for the deliberation of foreign affairs, directly subordinated to the Fuehrer for counsel and assistance (1774-PS):

“A Privy Cabinet Council, to advise the Fuehrer in the basic problems of foreign policy, has been created by the decree of 4 February 1938 * * * This Privy Cabinet Council is under the direction of Reich-Minister v. Neurath, and includes the Foreign Minister, the Air Minister, the Deputy Commander for the Fuehrer, the Propaganda Minister, the Chief of the Reich-Chancellery, the Commanders-in-Chief of the Army and Navy and the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. The Privy Cabinet Council constitutes a select staff of collaborators of the Fuehrer which consists exclusively of members of the Government of the Reich; thus, it represents a select committee of the Reich Government for the deliberation on foreign affairs.” (1774-PS)

The formal composition of this body is shown in 2031-PS. Von Neurath held himself out as a member of this body by communicating with the British Ambassador on Secret Cabinet Council stationery. (3287-PS)

Von Neurath, finally, objects that he was not a member of the Reich Defense Council. This Council was set up soon after Hitler’s accession to power, on 4 April 1933 (2261-PS). In an affidavit by Frick (2986-PS), this Council is described as follows:

“* * * We were also members of the Reich Defense Council, which was supposed to plan preparations in case of war which later on were published by the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich.” (2986-PS)

The membership of this Council included the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was then von Neurath. This is shown by a document giving the composition of the Reich Defense Council, and including among permanent members the Minister for Foreign Affairs (EC-177). That document is dated “Berlin, 22 May 1933,” which was during von Neurath’s tenure of that office.

The functioning of the Reich Defense Council, with a representative of von Neurath’s ministry, von Buelow, present, is shown by the minutes of the 12th meeting on 14 May 1936 (EC-407). Under the secret law of 4 September 1938 von Neurath was a member of the Reich Defense Council by virtue of his presidency of the Secret Cabinet Council. This fact is shown by the enclosure of a copy of that law in a letter addressed to von Neurath as Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia on 6 September 1939 (2194-PS). It is curious that the Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia denies his membership in the Council when the letter enclosing the law is one addressed to him. This law describes the tasks of the Council as follows:

“The task of the Reich Defense Council consists, in peace-time, of the decision on all measures for the preparation of Reich defense, and the gathering together of all forces and means of the nation according to the directions of the Leaders and Reich Chancellor. The tasks of the Council in wartime will be especially determined by the Leader and Reich Chancellor.” (2194-PS)

The law also lists the permanent members of the Council, and the seventh one is the President of the Secret Cabinet Council, who was von Neurath.

B. VON NEURATH’S PART, AS FOREIGN MINISTER, IN THE CONSPIRACY FOR THE BREACH OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

In assuming the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs in Hitler’s Cabinet, von Neurath assumed charge of a foreign policy committed to breach of treaties.

The Nazi Party had repeatedly and for many years made known its intention to overthrow Germany’s international commitments, even at the risk of war. Sections 1 and 2 of the Party Program (1708-PS), which was published year after year, declared:

“1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

“2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.” (1708-PS)

An even clearer statement of these goals is contained in Hitler’s speech at Munich on 15 March 1939, in which he said:

“My foreign policy had identical aims. My program was to abolish the Treaty of Versailles. It is futile nonsense for the rest of the world to pretend today that I did not reveal this program until 1933 or 1935 or 1937. Instead of listening to this foolish chatter of emigres, these gentlemen would have been wiser to read what I have written thousands of times.” (2771-PS)

If it is “futile nonsense” for foreigners to raise that point, it would be still more futile for Hitler’s Foreign Minister to suggest that he was ignorant of the aggressive designs of Nazi policy. The acceptance of force as a means of solving international problems and achieving the objectives of Hitler’s foreign policy must have been known to anyone as closely in touch with Hitler as was von Neurath. This doctrine, for example, is constantly reiterated in Mein Kampf (D-660). (See Section 6 of Chapter IX on Aggression as a Basic Nazi Idea.)

Hence, by the acceptance and implementation of this foreign policy, von Neurath assisted and promoted the realization of the illegal aims of the Nazi Party.

C. VON NEURATH’S PART, AS FOREIGN MINISTER, IN THE CONSPIRACY TO CONSOLIDATE NAZI CONTROL OVER GERMANY IN PREPARATION FOR AGGRESSIVE WAR.

In his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs von Neurath directed the international aspects of the first phase of the Nazi conspiracy, the consolidation of control in preparation for war.

From his close connection with Hitler von Neurath must have known the cardinal points of Hitler’s policy leading up to the outbreak of World War II, as outlined in retrospect by Hitler in his speech to his military leaders on 23 November 1939 (789-PS). This policy had two facets: internally, the establishment of rigid control; externally, the program to release Germany from its international commitments. The external program had four points:

1. Secession from the disarmament conference;

2. The order to re-arm Germany;

3. The introduction of compulsory military service; and

4. The remilitarization of the Rhineland.

These points were set out in Hitler’s address of 23 November 1939, after the invasion of Poland:

“* * * I had to reorganize everything beginning with the mass of the people and extending it to the armed forces. First, reorganization of the interior, abolishment of appearance of decay and defeatist ideas, education to heroism. While reorganizing the interior, I undertook the second task, to release Germany from its international ties. Two particular characteristics are to be pointed out: secession from the League of Nations and denunciation of the disarmament conference. It was a hard decision. The number of prophets who predicted that it would lead to the occupation of the Rhineland was large, the number of believers was very small. I was supported by the nation, which stood firmly behind me, when I carried out my intentions. After that, the order for rearmament. Here again there were numerous prophets who predicted misfortunes, and only a few believers. In 1935 the introduction of compulsory armed service. After that, militarization of the Rhineland, again a process believed to be impossible at that time. The number of people who would trust in me were very small. Then the beginning of the fortification of the whole country, especially in the West.” (789-PS)

Hitler thus summarized his pre-war foreign policy in four points. Von Neurath participated directly and personally in accomplishing each of these four points, at the same time officially proclaiming that these measures did not constitute steps toward aggression. The first is a matter of history. When Germany left the disarmament conference von Neurath sent telegrams, dated 14th October 1933, to the President of the Conference announcing Germany’s withdrawal (Documents of German Politics, 1933, vol. I, p. 94). Similarly, von Neurath made the announcement of Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations on 21 October 1933. (Documents of German Politics, 1933, vol. I). At the same time, the German government was undertaking far-reaching military preparation (C-140; C-153).

The second point regarding German rearmament: When von Neurath was Foreign Minister, on 10 March 1935, the German Government officially announced the establishment of the German air force (TC-44). On 21 May 1935, Hitler announced a purported unilateral repudiation of the Naval, Military, and Air clauses of the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty for the Restoration of Friendly Relations with the United States (2288-PS). On the same day the Reich Cabinet, of which von Neurath was a member, enacted the secret Reich Defense Law creating the office of Plenipotentiary General for War Economy (2261-PS), afterwards described by the Wehrmacht armament expert as “the cornerstone of German rearmament” (2353-PS):

“The latter orders were decreed in the Reich defense law of 21 May 1935, which was supposed to be published only in case of war, and was already declared valid for carrying out war preparations. As this law fixed the duties of the armed forces and the other Reich authorities in case of war, it was also the fundamental ruling for the development and activity of the war economy organization.” (2353-PS)

The third point is the introduction of compulsory military service. On 16 March 1935 von Neurath signed the law for the organization of the armed forces, which provided for universal military service and anticipated a vastly expanded German army (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, I, p. 369) (1654-PS). This was described by Keitel as the real start of the large-scale rearmament program which followed.

The fourth point was the remilitarization of the Rhineland. The Rhineland was reoccupied on 7 March 1936. This action was announced by Hitler (2289-PS), who had also previously given the order for “Operation Schulung,” directing the military action which was to be taken if necessary (C-139). These were acts for which von Neurath shared responsibility from his position and from the steps which he took. Some time later he summed up his views on the actions detailed above in a speech to Germans abroad, on 29 August 1937:

“The unity of the racial and national will created through Nazism with unprecedented elan has made possible a foreign policy through which the bonds of the Versailles Treaty were slashed, freedom to arm regained, and the sovereignty of the whole nation reestablished. We have again become master in our own home, and we have produced the means of power to remain henceforth that way for all times. The world should notice from Hitler’s deeds and words that his aims are not aggressive war.” (D-449)

D. VON NEURATH’S PART, AS FOREIGN MINISTER AND ADVISOR TO THE FUEHRER, IN THE PLANNING OF WARS OF AGGRESSION.

Both as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as one of the inner circle of the Fuehrer’s advisors on foreign political matters, von Neurath participated in the political planning and preparation for acts of aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other nations.

(1) The von Neurath technique. If von Neurath’s policy may be described in a sentence it may be summarized as breaking one treaty only at a time. He himself put it slightly more pompously but to the same effect in a speech before the Academy of German Law on 30 October 1937:

“* * * Out of the acknowledgment of these elementary facts the Reich Cabinet has always interceded in favor of treating every concrete international problem within methods especially suited for it, not to complicate it unnecessarily by amalgamation with other problems, and as long as problems between only two powers are concerned to choose the way for an immediate understanding between these two powers. We are in a position to state that this method has fully proved itself good not only in the German interest, but also in the general interest.” (D-471)

The only countries whose interests von Neurath failed to mention in that speech are the other parties to the various treaties that were dealt with in that way. The working out of that policy can be seen from a brief summary of the actions of von Neurath when he was Foreign Minister, and those of his immediate successor when von Neurath still purported to have influence.

In 1935 action was directed against the Western Powers, in the form of the rearmament of Germany. When that was going on another country had to be reassured. At that time it was Austria, which still had—up to 1935—the support of Italy. Hence, the fraudulent and clearly false assurance, the essence of the technique in that case, given by Hitler, on 21 May 1935. (TC-26)

Then, in 1936, action was again taken against the Western Powers in the occupation of the Rhineland. Another fraudulent assurance was made to Austria in the Treaty of 11 July of that year, (TC-22) the deceitful nature of which is shown by letters from von Papen. (2246-PS; 2247-PS)

Then, in 1937 and 1938, the Nazis moved on a step and action was directed against Austria. That action was absorption, finally planned, at the latest, at the meeting on 5 November 1937 (386-PS). The action was taken on 11 March 1938. Reassurance had to be given to the Western Powers; hence the assurance to Belgium on 13 October 1937. (TC-34)

Less than a year later the object of the aggressive action was Czechoslovakia. The Sudetenland was obtained in September 1938, and the whole of Bohemia and Moravia was absorbed on 15 March 1939. At that time it was necessary to reassure Poland; so an assurance to Poland was given by Hitler oh 20 February 1938 (2357-PS), and repeated up to 26 September 1938 (2358-PS). The falsity of that assurance is shown in Section 8 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Poland.

Finally, when the Nazis decided to take action for the conquest of Poland in the next year, assurance had to be given to Russia. Hence, a non-aggression pact was entered into with the U.S.S.R. on 23 August 1939. (TC-25)

With regard to the foregoing summary, the Latin tag, res ipsa loquitur is apposite. But a frank statement from von Neurath with regard to the earlier part of it is found in the account of his conversation with the United States Ambassador, Mr. Bullitt, on 18 May 1936 (L-150):

“Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German Government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until ‘the Rhineland had been digested.’ He explained that he meant that, until the German fortifications had been constructed on the French and Belgian frontiers, the German Government would do everything possible to prevent rather than encourage an outbreak by the Nazis in Austria and would pursue a quiet line with regard to Czechoslovakia. ‘As soon as our fortifications are constructed and the countries of Central Europe realize that France cannot enter German territory at will, all those countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation will develop,’ he said.” (L-150)

The conversation between von Papen as Ambassador and Mr. Messersmith is much to the same effect. (1760-PS)

(2) Austria. At the time of the aggression against Austria von Neurath was Foreign Minister. This included the preliminary stages, during the early Nazi plottings against Austria in 1934. In this period occurred the Nazi murder of Chancellor Dolfuss and the ancillary acts which were afterwards so strongly approved by the German Government. (See Section 3 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Austria.) Von Neurath was also Foreign Minister when the false assurance was given to Austria on 21 May 1935 (TC-26) and the fraudulent treaty was made on 11 July 1936 (TC-22). And von Neurath was Foreign Minister when his ambassador to Austria, von Papen, was carrying on his subterranean intrigue in the period from 1935 to 1937. (2247-PS; 2246-PS)

Von Neurath was present when Hitler declared, in a highly confidential circle, on 5 November 1937, that the German question could only be solved by force, and that his plans were to conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia (386-PS). Hitler expressed his designs on Austria as follows:

“* * * For the improvement of our military political position, it must be our first aim in every case of entanglement by war to conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously, in order to remove any threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance westwards.” (386-PS)

It is impossible for von Neurath, after that meeting, to say that he was not acting except with his eyes completely open and with complete comprehension as to what was intended.

During the Anschluss von Neurath received a note from the British Ambassador dated 11 March 1938 (3045-PS). In reply von Neurath uttered two obvious untruths. The first:

“* * * It is untrue that the Reich used forceful pressure to bring about this development, especially the assertion, which was spread later by the former Chancellor Schuschnigg, that the German Government had presented the Federal President with a conditional ultimatum. It is a pure invention.” (3287-PS)

According to the German ultimatum, Schuschnigg had to appoint a proposed candidate as Chancellor and form a Cabinet conforming to the proposals of the German Government. Otherwise the invasion of Austria by German troops was held in prospect. (See Section 3 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Austria.) The second untruth:

“The truth of the matter is that the question of sending military or police forces from the Reich was only brought up when the newly formed Austrian Cabinet addressed a telegram, already published by the press, to the German Government, urgently asking for the dispatch of German troops as soon as possible, in order to restore peace and order and to avoid bloodshed. Faced with the immediately threatening danger of a bloody civil war in Austria the German Government then decided to comply with the appeal addressed to it.” (3287-PS)

(As to the inspired nature of the Austrian telegram, see Section 3 of Chapter IX on Aggression Against Austria.)

All that can be said is that it must have given von Neurath a certain macabre sort of humor to write that note (3287-PS) when the truth was the opposite, as shown by the report of Gauleiter Rainer to Buerckel (812-PS), the transcripts of Goering’s telephone conversations with Austria (2949-PS), and the entries in Jodl’s diary for 11, 13, and 14 February. (1780-PS)

According to Jodl’s diary—the entry for 10 March:

“At 13.00 hours General Keitel informs Chief of Operational Staff and Admiral Canaris. Ribbentrop is being detained in London. Neurath takes over the Foreign Office.” (1780-PS)

It is inconceivable when von Neurath had taken over the Foreign Office, was dealing with the matter and was co-operating with Goering to suit the susceptibilities of the Czechs, that he should have been so ignorant of the truth of events as to write that letter (3287-PS) in good faith.

Von Neurath’s position is shown equally clearly by the account which is given of him in the affidavit of Messersmith (2385-PS). Von Neurath’s style of activity at this crisis is described as follows:

“I should emphasize here in this statement that the men who made these promises were not only the dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, but more conservative Germans who already had begun to willingly lend themselves to the Nazi program.

“In an official dispatch to the Department of State from Vienna, dated October 10, 1935, I wrote as follows:

“‘Europe will not get away from the myth that Neurath, Papen, and Mackensen are not dangerous people and that they are diplomats of the old school. They are in fact servile instruments of the regime, and just because the outside world looks upon them as harmless they are able to work more effectively. They are able to sow discord just because they propagate the myth that they are not in sympathy with the regime’.” (2385-PS)

(3) Czechoslovakia. At the time of the occupation of Austria, von Neurath gave the assurance to M. Mastny, the Ambassador of Czechoslovakia to Berlin, regarding the continued independence of Czechoslovakia (TC-27). M. Jan Masaryk, Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister, describes the circumstances as follows:

“I have in consequence been instructed by my Government to bring to the official knowledge of His Majesty’s Government the following facts: Yesterday evening (the 11th March) Field-Marshal Goering made two separate statements to M. Mastny, the Czechoslovak Minister in Berlin, assuring him that the developments in Austria will in no way have any detrimental influence on the relations between the German Reich and Czechoslovakia, and emphasizing the continued earnest endeavor on the part of Germany to improve those mutual relations.”

* * * * * *

“M. Mastny was in a position to give him [Goering] definite and binding assurances on this subject [Czech mobilization] and today spoke with Baron von Neurath, who, among other things, assured him on behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still considers herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention concluded at Locarno in October 1925.” (TC-27)

In view of von Neurath’s presence at the meeting on 5 November 1937, four months previously, where he had heard Hitler’s views on Czechoslovakia (386-PS), and that it was only six months before the treaty was disregarded, von Neurath’s assurance is an excellent example of the technique of diplomacy developed by von Neurath.

On 28 May 1938 Hitler held a conference of important leaders, including Beck, von Brauchitsch, Raeder, Keitel, Goering, and Ribbentrop, at which Hitler affirmed that preparations should be made for military action against Czechoslovakia by October (388-PS; 2360-PS). It is believed, although not confirmed, that von Neurath attended.

On 4 September 1938 the Government of which von Neurath was a member enacted a new Secret Reich Defense Law which defined various official responsibilities, in clear anticipation of war. This law provided, as did the previous Secret Reich Defense Law, for a Reich Defense Council as a supreme policy board for war preparations (2194-PS). Then came the Munich agreement of 29 September 1938, in spite of which, on 14 March 1939, German troops marched into Czechoslovakia. (TC-50)

On 16 March 1939 the German Government, of which von Neurath was still a member, promulgated the Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor on the Establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. (TC-51) During the following week, von Ribbentrop signed a treaty with Slovakia (1439-PS), Article 2 of which reads as follows:

“For the purpose of making effective the protection undertaken by the German Reich, the German armed forces shall have the right at all times to construct military installations and to keep them garrisoned in the strength they deem necessary, in an area delimited on its western side by the frontiers of the State of Slovakia, and on its eastern side by a line formed by the eastern rims of the Lower Carpathians, the White Carpathians, and the Javornik Mountains.

“The Government of Slovakia will take the necessary steps to assure that the land required for these installations shall be conveyed to the German armed forces. Furthermore, the Government of Slovakia will agree to grant exemption from custom duties for imports from the Reich for the maintenance of the German troops and the supply of military installations.” (1439-PS)

The ultimate objective of Hitler’s policies, disclosed at the meeting at which von Neurath was present on 5 November 1937 (386-PS), is obvious from the terms of this treaty. It was the resumption of the drang for lebensraum in the East.

E. VON NEURATH’S PART, AS PROTECTOR FOR BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA, IN THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

By accepting and occupying the position of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, von Neurath personally adhered to the aggression against Czechoslovakia. As Protector he further actively participated in the conspiracy for world aggression, and assumed a position of leadership in the execution of policies involving violations of the laws of war and the commission of crimes against humanity.

Von Neurath’s responsibility for these crimes derives from the legal position which he assumed. Von Neurath assumed the position of Protector under a sweeping grant of powers. Article V of the act creating the Protectorate provided:

“1. As trustee of Reich interests, the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich shall nominate a Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia. His seat of office will be Prague.

“2. The Reich Protector, as representative of the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich and as Commissioner of the Reich Government, is charged with the duty of seeing to the observance of the political principles laid down by the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich.

“3. The members of the Government of the Protectorate shall be confirmed by the Reich Protector. The confirmation may be withdrawn.

“4. The Reich Protector is entitled to inform himself of all measures taken by the Government of the protectorate and to give advice. He can object to measures calculated to harm the Reich and, in case of danger, issue ordinances required for the common interest.

“5. The promulgation of laws, ordinances and other legal announcements and the execution of administrative measures and legal judgments shall be annulled if the Reich Protector enters an objection.” (2119-PS)

At the very outset of the Protectorate, von Neurath’s supreme authority was implemented by a series of basic decrees. These established the alleged legal foundation for the policy and program which resulted, all aimed toward the systematic destruction of the national integrity of the Czechs. Among these decrees were:

(1) The decree granting “Racial Germans” in Czechoslovakia a supreme order of citizenship (2119-PS);

(2) An act concerning the representation in the Reichstag of Greater Germany of German Nationals Resident in the Protectorate (13 April 1939);

(3) An order concerning the acquisition of German citizenship by former Czechoslovakian citizens of German origin (20 April 1939).

Another series of decrees granted “Racial Germans” in Czechoslovakia a preferred status at law and in the courts:

(1) An order concerning the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (14 April 1939);

(2) An order concerning the Exercise of Jurisdiction in Civil Proceedings (14 April 1939);

(3) An order concerning the Exercise of Military Jurisdiction (8 May 1939).

The Ordinance on Legislation in the Protectorate (7 June 1939) also granted to the Protector broad powers to change by decree the autonomous law of the Protectorate.

Finally, the Protector was authorized, with the Reich Leader SS and the Chief of the German Police (Himmler) “to take, if necessary, such (police) measures which go beyond the limits usually valid for police measures.” It is difficult to imagine what can be police measures “beyond the limits usually valid for police measures” in view of the police measures in Germany between 1933 and 1939. (See Section 4 of Chapter VII on Purge of Political Opponents and Section 6 of Chapter XV on the Gestapo and SD.) But presumably such increase was believed to be possible, and was given to von Neurath to use for coercion of the Czechs.

The declared basic policy of the Protectorate was to destroy the identity of the Czechs as a nation and to absorb their territory into the Reich. This is borne out by a memorandum signed by Lt. Gen. of Infantry Frederici (862-PS), which is headed “The Deputy General of the Armed Forces with the Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia”. It is marked Top Secret and dated 15 October 1940. That was practically a year before von Neurath went on leave, as he puts it, on 27 September 1941. The memorandum discusses “Basic Political Principles in the Protectorate,” and copies went to Keitel and Jodl. The memorandum states:

“On 9 October of this year [1940] the office of the Reich protector held an official conference in which State Secretary SS Lt. General K. H. Frank spoke about the following:

“Since creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, party agencies, industrial circles, as well as agencies of the central authorities of Berlin, have had difficulties about the solution of the Czech problem.

“After ample deliberation, the Reich Protector expressed his view about the various plans in a memorandum. In this, three ways of solution were indicated:

“A. German infiltration of Moravia and reduction of the Czech nationality to a residual Bohemia.

“This solution is considered as unsatisfactory, because the Czech problem, even if in a diminished form, will continue to exist.

“B. Many arguments can be brought up against the most radical solution, namely, the deportation of all Czechs. Therefore the memorandum comes to the conclusion that it can not be carried out within a reasonable space of time.

“C. Assimilation of the Czechs, i.e. absorption of about half of the Czech nationality by the Germans, insofar as this is of importance by being valuable from a racial or other standpoint. This will take place among other things, also by increasing the Arbeitseinsatz of the Czechs in the Reich territory, with the exception of the Sudeten German border district; in other words, by dispersing the closed Czech nationality. The other half of the Czech nationality must be deprived of its power, eliminated and shipped out of the country by all sorts of methods. This applies particularly to the racially mongoloid part, and to the major part of the intellectual class. The latter can scarcely be converted ideologically, and would represent a burden by constantly making claims for leadership over the other Czech classes, and thus interfering with a rapid assimilation.

“Elements which counteract the planned Germanization are to be handled roughly and should be eliminated.

“The above development naturally presupposes an increased influx of Germans from the Reich territory into the Protectorate.

“After a discussion, the Fuehrer has chosen Solution C (assimilation) as a directive for the solution of the Czech problem, and decided that, while keeping up the autonomy of the Protectorate on the surface, the Germanization will have to be carried out in a centralized way by the office of the Reich Protector for years to come. From the above no particular conclusions are drawn by the Armed Forces. This is the direction which has always been represented from here.

“In this connection, I refer to my memorandum which was sent to the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, dated 12 July 1939, entitled ‘The Czech Problem’.” (862-PS)

That view of the Reich Protector was accepted and formed a basis of his policy. The result was a program of consolidating German control over Bohemia and Moravia by the systematic oppression of the Czechs through the abolishment of civil liberties, and the systematic undermining of the native political, economic, and cultural structure by a regime of terror. The only protection given by von Neurath was a protection to the perpetrators of innumerable crimes against the Czechs. (Proof of this aspect of von Neurath’s responsibility was left for development by the Soviet prosecuting staff.)

F. CONCLUSION.

Von Neurath received many honors and rewards as his worth. It even appears that Hitler showered more honors on von Neurath than on some of the leading Nazis who had been with the Party since the very beginning. His appointments as President of the newly created Secret Cabinet Council in 1938 was in itself a new and singular distinction. On 22 September 1940 Hitler awarded him the War Merit Cross, First Class, as Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. He was also awarded the Golden Badge of the Party, and was promoted by Hitler personally from the rank of Gruppenfuehrer to Obergruppenfuehrer in the SS, on 21 June 1943. Von Neurath and Ribbentrop were the only two Germans to be awarded the Adlerorden, a distinction normally reserved for foreigners. Von Neurath’s seventieth birthday, 2 February 1943, was made the occasion for most of the German newspapers to praise his many years of service to the Nazi regime. This service, in the view of the prosecution, may be summed up in two ways:

(1) He was an internal fifth columnist among Conservative political circles in Germany. They had been anti-Nazi but were converted in part by seeing one of themselves, in the person of von Neurath, wholeheartedly with the Nazis.

(2) His previous reputation as a diplomat made public opinion abroad slow to believe that he would be a member of a cabinet which did not stand by its words and assurances. It was most important for Hitler that his own readiness to break every treaty or commitment should be concealed as long as possible, and for this purpose he found in von Neurath his handiest tool.

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us