Trial of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, volume 18 (part 2 of 3)
(c) Numerous articles published in the weekly paper, Der Stürmer, among them especially those dealing with ritual murder and with quotations from the Talmud. He is said to have knowingly and intentionally described therein the Jews as a criminal and inferior race and created and wished to create hatred of these people and the wish to exterminate them. The defendant’s reply to these points is as follows:
He states that he worked merely as a private writer. His aim was to enlighten the German people on the Jewish question as he saw it. His description of the Jews was merely intended to show them as a different and a foreign race and to make it clear that they live according to laws which are alien to the German conception. It was far from his intention to incite or inflame his circle of listeners and readers. Moreover, he always only propagated the idea that the Jews, because of their alien character, should be removed from German national and economic life and withdrawn from the close association with the body of the German people.
Further, he always had in mind an international solution of the Jewish question; he did not favor a German or even European partial solution and rejected it. That was why he suggested, in an editorial in Der Stürmer in the year 1941, that the French island of Madagascar should be considered as a place of settlement for the Jews. Consequently, he did not see the final solution of the Jewish question in the physical extermination of the Jews but in their resettlement.
It cannot be the aim of the Defense to go into further details of the defendant’s actions as a writer and speaker, particularly with regard to Der Stürmer and his reply to the accusations raised against him. His ideology and convictions shall not be explained, excused, or defended, nor his manner of writing and speaking either. Examination and judgment in this respect rest with the Tribunal alone. This much only shall be said, that between the defendant’s actions and the expressions frequently employed by him there is an antithesis which cannot be bridged. It may be stated that the defendant never, when in charge of an anti-Jewish undertaking, had coercive measures used against the Jewish population, as might necessarily be expected of him if the accusations made by the Prosecution were true.
I consider it my duty as defense counsel to broach and examine the question as to whether the Defendant Streicher with his speeches, his actions and his publications, not only strove towards the result alleged by the Prosecution but actually attained it. The question therefore should be examined as to whether Streicher actually educated the German people to a degree of anti-Semitism which made it possible for the leadership of the German nation to commit such criminal acts as actually occurred. Furthermore, it must be examined whether the defendant filled German youth with hatred against the Jews to the extent that is charged by the Prosecution. Finally, the question must be examined whether Streicher actually was the man who spiritually and morally prepared the executive organs for their active persecution of the Jews.
At the beginning of this exposition it appears important to point out that a great many of Der Stürmer articles, from which the Prosecution endeavors to deduce an incitement to stamp out and annihilate the Jews, were not written by Streicher himself, but by his collaborators, especially by the Deputy Gauleiter, Karl Holz, who was well known for extremely radical tendencies. Even though the Defendant Streicher bears formal responsibility for these articles, which responsibility he expressly assumed before the Tribunal, this aspect nevertheless appears very important for the extent of his criminal responsibility.
Further it may be said in this connection that, according to the unrefuted statement of the defendant, the most caustic articles were written in reply to articles and writings in the foreign press, which contained very radical suggestions for the destruction of the German nation—also, no doubt, due to the existing war psychosis.
The Defendant Streicher—and this cannot be denied and shall not be defended—continually wrote articles in Der Stürmer and also made speeches in public which were strongly anti-Jewish and at least aimed at the elimination of Jewish influence in Germany. During the first years Streicher found a comparatively favorable soil for his anti-Jewish tendencies. The first World War ended with Germany’s defeat, but wide circles did not wish to admit the fact of a military victory of Germany’s opponents of that time. They attributed this defeat exclusively to a breakdown of national defense and resistance from within and depicted Jewry as being the main culprit for this inner undermining. In doing this they intentionally overlooked the mistakes which had been committed by the Government of that time before and during the war with respect to domestic and foreign policy, as well as the errors of strategy. A scapegoat was sought on which to lay the blame for the loss of the war, and it was thought to have been found in the Jews. Jealousy, envy, and also disregard of personal shortcomings accomplished the rest in influencing feelings unfavorably toward the Jewish population. In addition to that came the inflation and in the following years the economic depression with its steadily increasing misery which, as experience shows, makes any nation ripe for any form of radicalism.
On this ground and in this setting Der Stürmer developed. For these reasons it first met with a certain amount of interest and attracted a considerable number of readers. But even in the last years before the seizure of power it did not have great influence; its distribution hardly went beyond Nuremberg and its close vicinity. By means of attacks on persons known locally in Nuremberg and in other places, it managed to arouse in these localities, from time to time, a certain amount of interest and thereby to extend its circle of readers. Certain parts of the population were interested in the propagation of such scandal and for that reason subscribed to Der Stürmer.
But criminal action can only be seen here—and this is presumably the opinion of the Prosecution also—if this type of literary and oral activity led to criminal results. Now, was the German nation really filled with hatred for the Jews by Der Stürmer and by Streicher’s speeches in the sense and to the extent asserted by the Prosecution?
The Prosecution submitted the evidence on this point in a very brief manner. It draws conclusions, but it has not produced actual proof. It alleges the existence of results, but cannot produce evidence for that assumption. The prosecutor has maintained that without Streicher’s incitements over a number of years the German people would not have sanctioned the persecution of the Jews and that Himmler would not have found among the German people anyone to carry out the measures for the extermination of the Jews. If, however, the Defendant Streicher is to be made legally responsible for this, then not only must it be proved that the incitement as such was actually carried through and results achieved in this direction; but—and this is the decisive point—conclusive proof must be produced that the deeds which were done can be traced back to that incitement. It is not the question of the result obtained which must primarily and irrefutably be proved but the causative connection between incitement and result. Now, how is the influence of Der Stürmer upon the German people to be estimated, and what picture unfolds in the handling of the Jewish problem during the years between 1920 and 1944?
It is easy to recognize here three stages of development. The first period comprises the time of the defendant’s activity between 1922 and 1933; the second that between 1933 and 1 September 1939, or February 1940; the third, the time from 1940 to the collapse.
With regard to the first period, it would show a considerable lack of appreciation of the tendencies which had already existed in Germany for a long time and thereby a completely groundless exaggeration of Streicher’s influence, if no mention were made of the fact that long before Streicher there was already a certain amount of anti-Semitism in Germany. For instance a certain Theodor Fritsch had touched on the Jewish question in his journal Der Hammer long before Streicher’s time, referring especially to the alleged menace offered by the immigration of Jewish elements from the East, which might overflow the country and acquire too much control in it.
Immediately after the end of the first World War the so-called “German National Protective and Defensive League” (Deutsch-Völkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund) appeared on the scene, which in contrast to Der Stürmer and the Movement brought into being by Streicher, extended over the whole of Germany, setting as its aim the repression of Jewish influence. Anti-Semitic groups existed in the South as well as in the North long before Streicher. In comparison with these large-scale efforts, Der Stürmer could only have a regional importance. This alone explains why its influence was never at any time or in any place of great importance.
It is a decisive fact, however, that the German nation in its totality did not let itself be influenced by all these groups either in its business relations or in its attitude towards Jewry and that even during the last years before the NSDAP came to power no violent actions against the Jews were committed anywhere by the people. However, when towards the end of the second decade after the first World War a considerable increase of the NSDAP became noticeable, this was not due to anti-Semitic reasons but to the fact that the prevailing confusion in the various parties had been unable to point to a way out of the ever-increasing economic misery. The call for a strong man became ever more urgent. The conviction became more and more firmly rooted among the broad masses that only a personality who was not dependent on the change of majorities would be able to master the situation.
The NSDAP knew how to exploit this general trend for its own ends and to win over the nation, sunk in despair, by making promises in all directions. But never did the masses think, when electing the NSDAP at that time, that its program would produce developments as we have witnessed.
With the seizure of power by the NSDAP in 1933, the second epoch was introduced. The power of the State was exclusively in the hands of the Party and nobody could have prevented the use of violence against the Jewish population. Now would have been just the right moment for the Defendant Streicher to put into effect the baiting the Prosecution has alleged. If by that time wide circles of the population, or at least the veteran members of the NSDAP, had been trained to be radical Jew haters, as stated by the Prosecution, acts of violence against the Jewish population would necessarily have taken place on a greater scale due to that feeling of hatred. Pogroms on the largest scale would have been the natural result of a truly anti-Semitic attitude of the people. But nothing like that happened. Apart from some minor incidents, evidently caused by local or personal conditions, no attacks on Jews or their property took place anywhere. It is quite clear that a feeling of hatred for the Jewish people did not prevail anywhere at least up to 1933, and the charge brought by the Prosecution against the defendant that ever since the very outset of his fight he successfully educated the German people to hate the Jews can thus be dropped.
The year of the seizure of power by the NSDAP also put Der Stürmer to a decisive test. Had Der Stürmer been considered by the broad masses of the German people as the authoritative champion against the Jews and therefore indispensable for that fight, an unusually large increase in the circulation would have followed. No such interest was, however, shown. On the contrary, even in Party circles demands were made that Der Stürmer should be discontinued entirely; or at least that its illustrations, style, and tone should be altered. It became more and more clear that the already small interest in Streicher’s Jewish policy was steadily declining. It must be added that with the seizure of power by the Party the total press apparatus came under the control of the Party, which immediately undertook to co-ordinate the press, that is, to direct it from a central office in the spirit of the National Socialist policy and ideology. This was done through the Minister of Propaganda and the Reich Press Chief via the official “National Socialist Correspondence.” Particularly Dr. Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, described by various witnesses such as Göring, Schirach, Neurath, and others as the most bitter advocate of the anti-Semitic trend in the Government, is said to have given each week to the entire German press several anti-Jewish leaders, which were printed by more than 3,000 dailies and illustrated papers. If in addition we take into account that Dr. Goebbels was making broadcasts of an anti-Semitic nature, we need no further explanations for the fact that the interest in a one-sided anti-Semitic journal should diminish and that is what actually happened.
It is particularly significant that at that time it had been repeatedly suggested that Der Stürmer should be suppressed altogether. This is brought out clearly in the testimony given by Fritzsche, on 27 June 1946, who stated in addition that neither Streicher nor Der Stürmer had any influence in the Ministry of Propaganda and that he was considered so to speak as nonexistent. It may have been for the same reason that Der Stürmer was not even declared a press organ of the NSDAP and was not even entitled to show the Party symbol. It was looked upon by the Party and State administration, in contrast to all papers which were considered to be of any importance, as a private paper belonging to a private writer.
The firm which published Der Stürmer, and which belonged at that time to a certain Härdel, was not inclined, however, to accept so quietly the dwindling of its circle of readers, for it was now aided by the fact that Streicher had become the highest leader in Franconia; and it knew how to make the most of this circumstance. Already at that time pressure was exerted on many sections of the population to prove their loyal political attitude and trustworthiness by subscribing to Der Stürmer. The witness Fritzsche also has alluded to this circumstance, stating that many Germans only decided to subscribe to Der Stürmer because they thought it would be a means of paving the way for their intended membership in the Party.
So as not to give a false impression of the circulation figures of Der Stürmer during the years between 1923 and 1933, the following analysis will show the different stages of its development.
In the years 1923 to 1933 Der Stürmer was able to increase its circulation from some 3,000 to some 10,000 copies, and this in turn went up to some 20,000 shortly before the seizure of power. On the average, however, between 1923 and 1931 the circulation was only some 6,000 copies. Following the seizure of power, by the end of 1934 it had reached an average of some 28,000 copies. It was not until 1935 that Der Stürmer became the property of the Defendant Streicher who, according to his statement, bought it from the widow of the previous owner for 40,000 RM—a not very considerable sum. From 1935 on the management of the business was taken over by an expert, who succeeded by clever canvassing in increasing the circulation to well over 200,000 copies; and this figure was later increased still further until it more than doubled. The relatively low circulation figures for Der Stürmer up to the beginning of 1935 show that, despite the Party’s rise to power, popular interest in Der Stürmer existed only to a small extent. The extraordinary increase in the circulation which began in 1935 is to be traced to the adroit canvassing methods already mentioned which were carried out by the new director Fink. The use of the Labor Front, as explained by the proclamation of Dr. Ley in Number 36 of Der Stürmer, 1935—which copy, Mr. President, I have taken the liberty of submitting as an exhibit—and the acquisition thereby of many thousands of forced subscribers must be ascribed to the personal relations of the manager Fink with Dr. Ley.
In that connection I further refer to a quotation from the Pariser Tageblatt of 29 March 1935 reproduced in Der Stürmer of May 1935. Here, too, it is stated that the increase of Der Stürmer’s circulation cannot be ascribed to the desire of the German people for such kind of spiritual food. It is neither presumable nor probable in any way that the compulsory subscription to Der Stürmer, forced on the members of the Labor Front in such a manner, could have actually turned subscribers into readers of Der Stürmer and followers of its line of thought. On the contrary, it is known that bundles of Der Stürmer in their original wrappings were stored in cellars and attics and that they were brought to light again only when the paper shortage became more acute.
When, therefore, the Defendant Streicher wrote in his paper in 1935—Document Number GB-169—that the 15 years’ work of enlightenment of Der Stürmer had already attracted to National Socialism an army of a million of “enlightened” members, he claimed a success for which there was no foundation whatsoever. The men and women who joined the Party after 1933 did not apply for membership as a result of the so-called enlightenment work of Der Stürmer but either because they believed the Party’s promises and hoped to derive advantages from it or because by belonging to the Party they wanted, as the witness Severing expressed it, to insure for themselves immunity from political persecution. The sympathy for the Party and its leadership very soon decreased in the most marked manner. Thus the Defendant Streicher, too, lost authority and influence to an ever-increasing extent even in his own district of Franconia, at least from 1937 on. The reasons for this are sufficiently known.
Toward the end of 1938 he saw himself deprived of practically all political influence, even in his own district. The controversy between him and Göring ended with the victory of the latter. Hitler, when pressed to do so by the Defendant Göring, had dropped Streicher completely, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe at that time was naturally more important and far more influential than the Gauleiter, Streicher. The defendant even had to submit to Aryanization as carried out in the district of Franconia with its correctness being checked by a special commission sent by Göring. In the course of the year 1939 Streicher was completely pushed aside and was even forbidden to speak in public. At the outbreak of the war, in contrast to all other Gauleiter, he was not even appointed to the position of Wehrkreiskommissar of his own district.
During the last phase, in the war years, the Defendant Streicher had no political influence whatsoever. As from February 1940 he was relieved of his position as a Gauleiter and lived on his estate in Pleikershof, cut off from all connections. Even Party members were forbidden to visit him. Since the end of 1938 he had no connections whatsoever with Hitler, by whom he had been completely cast off from that time on.
In what way now did Der Stürmer exert any influence during the war period? It can be said that during the war Der Stürmer no longer attracted any attention worth mentioning. The gravity of the times, the anxiety for relatives on the battlefield, the battles at the front, and finally the heavy air attacks completely diverted the German people’s interest from questions dealt with in Der Stürmer. The people were weary of the continuous repetition of the same assertions. The best proof of how little Der Stürmer was desired as reading matter can be seen in the fact that in restaurants and cafés Der Stürmer was always available for perusal, whereas other papers and magazines were permanently being read. The circulation figures decreased steadily and unceasingly in those years. Certainly the influence of Der Stürmer in the political sphere no longer amounted to anything.
During the periods mentioned Der Stürmer was rejected by large circles of the population from the very outset. Its crude style, its often objectionable illustrations, and its one-sidedness aroused widespread displeasure. There can be no question of any influence being exercised by Der Stürmer upon the German people or even the Party. Although the German people for years had been deluged with Nazi propaganda, or rather because of that very fact, a journal such as Der Stürmer could exert no influence upon its inner attitude. Had the German people—as maintained by the Prosecution—actually been saturated with the spirit of fanatical racial hatred, other factors certainly would have been far more responsible for it than Der Stürmer and would have contributed far more essentially to a hostile attitude towards the Jews.
But nothing of such nature can be established. The general attitude of the German people was not anti-Semitic, at any rate, not in such a way or to such a degree that they would have desired, or approved of, the physical extermination of the Jews. Even official Party propaganda with regard to the Jewish problem had exerted no influence upon the broad masses of the German people, neither had it educated them in the direction desired by the State leadership.
This is shown by the fact that it was necessary to issue a number of legal decrees in order to segregate the German population from the Jewish. The first example of this is the so-called Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of September 1935, by the provisions of which any racial intermingling of German people with the Jewish population was subject to the death penalty. The passing of such laws would not have been necessary if the German people had been predisposed to an anti-Semitic attitude, for they would then of their own accord have segregated themselves from the Jews.
The law for the elimination of the Jews from German economic life, promulgated in November 1938, was along the same lines. In a people hostile towards the Jews, any trade with Jewish circles would have necessarily ceased and their business would have automatically come to a standstill. Yet in fact the intervention of the State was needed to eliminate Jewry from economic life.
The same conclusion can be drawn from the reaction of the greater part of the German populace to the demonstrations carried out against the Jews during the night of 9-10 November 1938. It is proved that these acts of violence were not committed spontaneously by the German people but that they were organized and executed with the aid of the State and Party apparatus upon instructions of Dr. Goebbels in Berlin. The result and the effect of these State-directed demonstrations—which in a cynical way were depicted for their effect abroad as an expression of the indignation of the German people at the assassination of the Secretary of the Embassy in Paris, Vom Rath—were different from that visualized by the instigators of this demonstration.
These acts of violence and excesses based upon the lowest instincts found unanimous condemnation, even in the circles of the Party and its leadership. Instead of creating hostility towards the Jewish population they roused pity and compassion for their fate. Hardly any other measure taken by the NSDAP was ever rejected so generally. The effect upon the public was so marked that the Defendant Streicher in his capacity as Gauleiter found it necessary in an address in Nuremberg to give a warning against exaggerated sympathy for the Jews. According to his statement he did not do this because he approved of these measures but only in order to strengthen by his influence the impaired prestige of the Party.
Previously, as appears from the testimony of the witness Fritz Herrwerth examined here, he refused SA Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz’s request to take part personally in the demonstration planned and called it useless and prejudicial. He publicly expressed this point of view later also, during a meeting of the League of Jurists at Nuremberg. In doing so he risked placing himself in open opposition to the official policy of the State.
All these facts show that despite the anti-Jewish propaganda carried on by the Government, actual hostility against the Jewish population did not exist among the people themselves. Thus it is as good as proved that neither Streicher’s publications in Der Stürmer nor his speeches incited the German people in the sense maintained by the Prosecution. Therefore the general attitude of the German nation provides no proof of incitement to hatred of the Jews having been successfully carried out by the Defendant Streicher and leading to criminal results. The Prosecution, however, has further supported its accusation by the specific assertion that only a nation educated to absolute hatred of Jews by men like the defendant could approve of such measures as the mass extermination of Jews. Thereby the charge is made against the whole of the German people that they knew about the extermination of the Jews and approved of it; the severity and consequences of such a charge on the whole future of the German nation is impossible to estimate.
But did the German nation really approve of these measures? A fact can only be approved of if it is known. Therefore should this assertion of the Prosecution be considered as proved, then logically it must also be considered as proved that the German nation actually had knowledge of these occurrences. However, evidence in this respect has shown that Reichsführer SS Himmler, who was entrusted by Hitler with the mass assassinations, and his close collaborators shrouded all these events in a veil of deepest secrecy. By threatening with the most severe punishments any violations of the rule of absolute silence which was imposed, they managed to lower before the events in the East and in the extermination camps an iron curtain which hermetically sealed off those facts from the public.
Hitler and Himmler prevented even the corps of the highest leaders of the Party and State from gaining any insight and information. Hitler did not hesitate to give false information to even his closest collaborators, like Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, who was heard here as a witness, and to make him believe that the removal of the European Jews to the East meant their settlement in the Eastern Territories but by no means their extermination. However much the statements of the defendants may diverge on many points, in this connection they all agree so completely with one another and with the statements of other witnesses that the veracity of their testimonies simply cannot be questioned. If it was not possible for even the Defendant Frank in his capacity as Governor General of Poland to get through to Auschwitz, because without Hitler’s special consent even he was denied entrance, then this fact speaks for itself.
If even the leading personalities of the Third Reich, with the exception of a very small circle, were not informed and if even they had at best very vague information, then how could the general public have known about it? Under these circumstances the possibilities for finding out what was going on in the camps were extremely slight.
For the majority of the people, foreign news did not exist as a source of information. Listening to foreign radio stations was punishable with the heaviest penalties and therefore did not take place. And if it did, the news broadcast by foreign radio stations concerning events in the East, although, or rather because, it corresponded to facts, was so crass, so horrible beyond any human understanding, that it was bound to appear to any normal individual, as in fact it did, as intentional propaganda. Germany could only gain factual knowledge of the extermination measures against the Jews from people who either were working in the camps themselves or came in contact with the camps or their inmates or from former concentration camp inmates.
There is no need to explain that members of the camp personnel who were concerned with these happenings kept silent, not only because they were under stringent orders to do so, but also in their own interest. Furthermore, it is known that Himmler had threatened the death penalty for information from the camps and for spreading news about the camps and that not only the actual culprit but also his relatives were threatened with this punishment. Finally, it is known that the extermination camps themselves were so hermetically sealed off from any contact with the world that nothing concerning the events which took place in them could penetrate to the public.
The prisoners in the camps who came into contact with fellow-workers in their work kept silent because they had to. People who came to the camps were also under the threat of this punishment insofar as they could obtain any insight into things at all, which was all but impossible in the extermination camps. From these sources, therefore, no knowledge could come for the German people.
But the order for absolute silence was compulsory to a still greater measure for every concentration camp inmate who had been released. Hardly anybody ever came back to life from the actual murder camps; but if, once in a while, a man or woman was released, in addition to the other threatened punishments the threat of being sent back to the camp hung over them if they violated the order for silence. And this renewed detention would have meant gruesome death.
It was therefore nearly impossible to learn from released concentration camp prisoners positive facts concerning the occurrences in the camps. If this was the case with regard to normal concentration camps in Germany, it applied in a still greater measure to the extermination camps. Every lawyer who, as I did, defended people before detention in a concentration camp and who was visited by them again after their release, will be able to confirm that it was not possible, even in such a position of trust and under the protection of professional legal secrecy, to get former concentration camp inmates to talk.
If men such as Severing, who testified here—a Social Democrat of long standing, who was highly trusted by his party comrades and who was, because of this, in touch with many former concentration camp inmates—came to know of the real facts connected with the extermination of the Jews only very late and even then to a very restricted extent, then such considerations must apply even more to any normal German.
It can be derived with absolute certainty from these facts that the leaders of the State, that Hitler and Himmler, wanted under all circumstances to keep secret the extermination of the Jews; and this forms the base for another argument—in my opinion, a cogent one—against the anti-Semitism of the German people asserted by the Prosecution. If the German people had indeed been filled with such hatred of Jewry as the Prosecution affirms, then such rigorous methods for secrecy would have been superfluous.
If Hitler had been convinced that the German nation saw in the Jews its principal enemy, that it approved of and desired the extermination of Jewry, then he would obviously have published the planned and also the effected extermination of this very enemy. As a sign of the “total war” constantly propagandized by Hitler and Goebbels, there would indeed have been no better means to strengthen the faith in victory and the will of the people to fight than the information that Germany’s principal enemy, these very Jews, had already been annihilated.
So unscrupulous a propagandist as Goebbels certainly would not have failed to use such a striking argument if he could have based it on the necessary presupposition, that is, the German people’s absolute determination to exterminate the Jews. However, the “final solution” of the Jewish question had by all possible means to be kept secret even from the German people who had for years been subjected to the heaviest pressure by the Gestapo. Even leading men in the State and the Party were not allowed to be told of it.
Hitler and Himmler were evidently themselves convinced that even in the midst of a total war, and after decades of education and gagging by National Socialism, the German nation—and above all its Armed Forces—would have reacted most violently on the publication of such a policy against the Jews. The policy of secrecy followed here cannot be explained by any considerations of the enemy nations. In the years 1942 and 1943 the whole world was already engaged in a bitter war against National Socialist Germany.
An intensification of this struggle seemed hardly possible, at any rate not by the mere publishing of facts which had long since become known abroad. Apart from this, considerations of making a still worse impression on the enemy countries could hardly influence men such as Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler.
If they had expected to achieve even the slightest tangible results by proclaiming to the German people the extermination of the Jews, they would certainly not have omitted to proclaim it. On the contrary, they would have tried in every way to strengthen by this means the German people’s faith in victory. The fact that they did not do this is the best proof that even they did not consider the German people radically anti-Semitic, and it is also the best proof that there can be no question of such anti-Semitism on the part of the German people.
I may therefore sum up by saying that all this stands in contradiction to the Prosecution’s assertion that the Defendant Streicher brought up the German people to hate the Jews to an extent which made them approve of the extermination of Jewry. Therefore, even if the defendant by means of his proclamations had aimed at achieving such an end he was not successful.
In this connection, light must also be thrown upon the part attributed by the Prosecution to the Defendant Streicher, namely that he had educated German youth in the spirit of anti-Semitism and had inculcated the poison of anti-Semitism so deeply into their hearts that these pernicious effects would be felt long after his death.
The main reproach made against the defendant in this connection is based on the fact that young people, as a result of Streicher’s education in hatred toward the Jews, are supposed to have been ready to commit crimes against Jews which otherwise they would not have committed, and that youth thus educated might be expected to perpetrate such crimes in the future too. Here the Prosecution relies mainly on the juvenile literature published by Der Stürmer and some announcements addressed to youth which appeared in this paper.
Far be it from me to gloss over these products or to defend them. Evaluation of them can and must be left to the Tribunal. In accordance with the basic principle of the Defense, the only question to be taken up here will be whether or not the defendant in any way influenced the education of youth in a manner to promote criminal hatred of Jews.
As for the books which have been mentioned here, it must be said that German youth scarcely knew of their existence—much less did they read them. No evidence has been produced in support of the Prosecution’s assumption to the contrary. The healthy common sense of German youth refused such stuff. German boys and girls preferred other reading material. It may be emphasized in this connection that neither the text nor the illustrations in these books could attract youth in any way. They were, on the contrary, bound to be shunned.
Of special importance in regard to this point is the fact that, Defendant Baldur von Schirach, the man responsible for educating the whole body of German youth, testified under oath that the afore-mentioned juvenile books published by this company were not circulated by the Hitler Youth Leadership and did not find a circle of readers among the Hitler Youth. The witness made the same assertions in regard to Der Stürmer. One of his closest co-workers, the witness Lauterbacher, stated in this connection that Der Stürmer was actually banned for the Hitler Youth by the Defendant Von Schirach. It is clear that the very style and illustrations of Der Stürmer were ill-adapted to attract the interest of young persons or to offer them ethical support. The step taken by the Reich Youth Leadership is therefore quite understandable.
Although some of Der Stürmer articles submitted by the Prosecution seem to indicate that Der Stürmer was read in youth circles and produced a certain effect there, it must be borne in mind that these were typical commissioned articles, that is, commissioned for propaganda purposes. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the Prosecution’s assertion that German youth harbored criminal hate toward Jews. Therefore, neither the German people nor its youth ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, perhaps this would be a convenient time to break off.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. MARX: One might now be tempted to assume that Der Stürmer exercised a particularly strong influence upon the Party organizations, the SA and SS; but this was not the case either. The SA, the largest mass organization of the Party, rejected Der Stürmer just as did the mass of the people. Its publications were Der SA-Führer and Die SA. The mass of the SA took these as the foundation of their ideology. These publications do not contain even one article from the pen of the Defendant Streicher. If the latter had really been the man the Prosecution believes him to be, the most authoritative and influential propagandist of anti-Semitism, he would of necessity have been called upon to collaborate in these publications, which were issued to instruct the SA on the Jewish question. A publication intended to provide ideological instruction could never have dispensed with the collaboration of such a man.
The fact that not one word by Julius Streicher himself ever appeared in these papers demonstrates afresh that the picture drawn of him by the Prosecution does not correspond in any way with the actual facts. The Defendant Streicher could gain no influence over the SA through his paper and the columns of Der SA-Führer and Die SA were closed to him. Even the highest SA leaders refused to advocate his ideas. The SA Deputy Chief of Staff, SA Obergruppenführer Jüttner, testifying before the commission on 21 May 1946, made the following statement in this connection:
“At a leader conference, the former SA Chief of Staff, Lutze, stated that he did not want propaganda for Der Stürmer in the SA. In certain groups Der Stürmer was even prohibited. The contents of Der Stürmer disgusted and repelled most of the SA men. The policy of the SA with regard to the Jewish question was in no way directed at the extermination of the Jews; it aimed only at preventing a large-scale immigration of Jews from the East.”
The ideology of Der Stürmer was thus rejected on principle by the individual SA man as well as by the SA leaders, and there is therefore no question of Streicher’s having influenced the SA.
Not only was the Defendant Streicher not asked to collaborate in SA publications, but his articles did not appear in any other newspapers and publications. He was given no chance of contributing either to the Völkischer Beobachter or to other leading organs of the German press, although the Propaganda Ministry intended enlightenment on the Jewish question to form one of the noblest tasks of the German press.
The Defendant Streicher was given no opportunity, either by the State leadership or by the Propaganda Ministry, of impressing his ideas upon a wider circle. The Defendant Fritzsche, the man who shared the decisive authority in the Propaganda Ministry, testified that Streicher never exerted any influence upon propaganda and that he was completely disregarded. In particular, he was not entrusted with radio talks, although talks given over the radio would have had much greater effect on the masses than an article in Der Stürmer, which necessarily reached only a limited circle. The fact that even the official propaganda of the Third Reich made no use of the Defendant Streicher makes it clear that no results could be expected from his activities, and that, in fact, he had no influence at all. The official leaders of the German State recognized Streicher for what he actually was, the insignificant publisher of an entirely insignificant weekly. It must be stressed once more as clearly as possible that the fundamental attitude of the German people was no more radically anti-Semitic than that of German youth or the Party organizations. Success in instigating and inciting to criminal anti-Semitism is, therefore, not proven.
I now come to the last and decisive part of the accusation, that is, to the examination of the question: Who were the chief persons responsible for the orders given for the mass-extermination of Jewry; how was it possible that men could be found who were ready to execute these orders; and whether without the influence of the Defendant Streicher, such orders would not have been given or executed.
The main person responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question—the extermination of Jewry in Europe—is without doubt Hitler himself. Though this greatest of all trials in world history suffers from the fact that the chief offenders are not sitting in the dock, because they are either dead or not to be found, the facts ascertained have nevertheless resulted in cogent conclusions concerning the actual responsibility.
It can be considered as proved beyond any doubt that Hitler was a man of unique and even demoniacal brutality and ruthlessness who, in addition, later lost all sense of proportion and all self-control. The fact that his chief characteristic was ruthless brutality became apparent for the first time in its force when the so-called Röhm Putsch was suppressed in June 1934. On this occasion Hitler did not hesitate to have his oldest fellow combatants shot without any kind of trial. His unrestrained radicalism was further revealed in the way in which the war with Poland was conducted. He ordered the ruthless extermination of leading Polish circles merely because he feared an antagonistic attitude toward Germany on their part. The orders which he gave at the beginning of the Russian campaign were still more drastic. At that time he already ordered partial operations for the extermination of Jewry:
These examples show beyond doubt that respect for any principle of humanity was alien to this man. Furthermore the proceedings, by the depositions of all the defendants, have clearly established the fact that in basic decisions Hitler was not open to any outside influence.
Hitler’s basic attitude toward the Jewish question is well known. He had already become an anti-Semite during the time he spent in Vienna in the years before the first World War. There is, however, no actual proof that Hitler from the very beginning had in mind such a radical solution of the Jewish question as was finally effected in the annihilation of European Jewry. When the Prosecution declares that from the book Mein Kampf a direct road leads to the crematories of Mauthausen and Auschwitz, this is only an assumption; and no evidence for it has been given. The evidence rather suggests the fact that Hitler also wanted to see the Jewish problem in Germany solved by way of emigration. This thought, as well as the position of the Jewish part of the population under the laws governing aliens, formed the official State policy of the Third Reich. Many of the leading anti-Semites considered the Jewish question as settled after the laws of 1935 had been promulgated. The Defendant Streicher shared this opinion. The stiffening of Hitler’s attitude to the Jewish question cannot be traced back beyond the end of 1938 or the beginning of 1939. Only then did it become apparent that in case of war—which he believed was propagated by the Jews—he was planning a different solution. In his Reichstag speech on 30 January 1939 he predicted the extermination of Jewry should a second World War be let loose against Germany. He expressed the same ideas in a speech made in February 1942, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the day on which the Party was founded. And, finally, his testament, too, confirms his exclusive responsibility for the murdering of European Jewry as a whole.
Though Hitler had adopted an increasingly implacable attitude on the Jewish question ever since the beginning of the war, there is nothing to show that he visualized the extermination of the Jews in the early stages of the war. His final resolution to this effect was undoubtedly formed when Hitler, probably as early as 1942, saw that it was impossible to secure a victory for Germany.
It can be assumed almost with certainty that the decision to exterminate the Jews originated—as did almost all of Hitler’s plans—exclusively with himself. It cannot be ascertained with certainty how far others who were closely attached to Hitler brought their influence to bear on him. If such influence did exist, it can only have come from Himmler, Bormann, and Goebbels. It can at least be stated beyond any doubt that during the decisive period from September 1939 to October 1942 Streicher did not influence him, nor, under the circumstances, could he have done so. At that time Streicher was living—deprived of all his offices and completely left in the cold—at his farm at Pleikershof. He had no connection with Hitler either personally or by correspondence. This has been proved beyond all doubt by the statements made by the witnesses Fritz Herrwerth and Adele Streicher, and by the statement under oath of the defendant himself. It cannot, however, be maintained in earnest that his reading of Der Stürmer moved Hitler to give orders for wholesale murder. This should make it clear that the Defendant Streicher had no influence whatever on either the man who made the decision to exterminate Jewry, or on the orders issued by him.
In October 1942 Bormann’s decree ordering the extermination of Jewry was issued (Document 3244-PS). It has been established beyond all question that this order came from Hitler and went to Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler, who was charged with the actual extermination of the Jews. He for his part charged the Chief of the Gestapo, Müller, and his commissioner for Jewish affairs, Eichmann, with the final execution of the order. These three men are the three who are chiefly responsible, next to Hitler. It has not been proved that Streicher had any possibility of influencing them, or that he did actually influence them. He states—and there is no proof to the contrary—that he never knew either Eichmann or Müller, and that his relations with Himmler were slight and far from friendly.
Casually it might be mentioned that Himmler was one of the most radical anti-Semites of the Party. From the beginning he had advocated a merciless fight against the Jews; and in any case, judging by what we know of him, he was not the man to allow himself to be influenced by others in matters of principle. Apart from that, however, a comparison of the two personalities shows that Himmler was in every way the stronger and superior man of the two, so that for this reason alone the exertion of any influence by the Defendant Streicher on Himmler may be ruled out. I believe I may refrain from further illustration of this point.
I now come to the question of whether the activity of the Defendant Streicher had a decisive influence on the men who actually carried out the orders; that is, on members of the Einsatzgruppen on the one hand, and on the execution Kommandos in the concentration camps on the other; and whether any spiritual and intellectual preparation was necessary to make these men willing to execute such measures.
In his speeches in Nikolaev, Posen, and Kharkov—which have often been mentioned here—the Reichsführer SS stated unequivocally not only that he besides Hitler was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question, but also that the execution of the orders was only made possible by the employment of forces which he himself had selected from among the SS. We know from Ohlendorf’s testimony that the so-called Einsatzgruppen consisted of members of the Gestapo and the SD, companies of the Waffen-SS, members of the police force with long service records, and indigenous units.
It must be stated as a matter of principle that the Defendant Streicher never had the slightest influence on the ideological attitude of the SS. The extensive evidence material of this Trial contains no shadow of proof that Streicher had any connections with the SS. The alleged Enemy Number One of the Jews, the great propagandist of the persecution of the Jews—as he has been pictured by the Prosecution—the Defendant Streicher never had the opportunity of writing for the periodical Das Schwarze Korps or even for the SS Leithefte. These periodicals alone, however, as the official mouthpieces of the Reichsführer SS, determined the ideological attitude of the SS. These SS periodicals also determined their attitude toward the Jewish question. In these circles Der Stürmer had just as small a public; it was rejected, just as it was in other circles. Himmler himself rejected Streicher ironically as an ideologist. Therefore the Defendant Streicher could not have had any influence on the ideology of the SS members of the Einsatzgruppen, much less on the old members of the Police, and least of all on the foreign units. Nor could he dictate the ideology of the execution squad’s in the concentration camps. Those men originated for the most part from the Death’s Head Units, that is the old guard units, of whom the above statement is true to a greater degree. Added to this is the fact that the experienced members of the Police, as well as the SS men with long service records, were trained in absolute obedience to their leaders. Absolute obedience to a Führer command was a matter of course for both.
Even those experienced police force members, however, accustomed as they were to absolute obedience, even the veteran SS men, could not simply be charged by Himmler with carrying out the executions of the Jews. Rather did he have to select men whom he trusted to lead these execution squads and to make them personally responsible for their assignments, pointing out explicitly that he would take all responsibility and that he himself was only passing on a definite order from Hitler.
Even these men, whom the Prosecution alleges to have been the elite of Nazism, were so far from being enemies of the Jews in the meaning of the Indictment, that the entire authority of the head of State and Führer, and of his most brutal henchman, Himmler, was required to force upon the men responsible for carrying out the execution orders the conviction that their order was based on the will of the authoritarian head of the State; an order which, according to their conviction, had the power of a fundamental State law and therefore was above all criticism.
The men charged to carry out the annihilation, therefore, obeyed their orders not for ideological reasons and not because they were incited to do so by Streicher, as the Prosecution contends, but solely in obedience to an order from Hitler transmitted to them through Himmler, and knowing that disobedience to a Führer order meant death. In this respect, too, therefore, Streicher’s influence has not been proved.
The accusations brought against the defendant by the Prosecution are herewith exhausted. But, in order to reach a conclusion and to form a judgment of the defendant which will take the actual findings fully into account, it seems advisable to give once more a short account of his personality and his activities under the Hitler regime.
The Prosecution considers him to be the leading anti-Semite and the leading advocate of a ruthless determination to annihilate Jewry. This conception, however, does justice neither to the part played by the defendant and the influence actually exercised by him, nor to his personality. The manner of the defendant’s employment in the Third Reich and the way in which he was called upon to co-operate in the propagation and final solution of the Jewish question shows the Prosecution’s conception to be false. The only occasion on which the defendant was called upon to take an active part in the fight against Jewry was in his capacity as chairman of the Action Committee for the Anti-Jewish Boycott Day on 1 April 1933. His attitude on that day is in direct opposition to his violent utterances in Der Stürmer and makes it evident that the passages in his paper which have been attacked were pure propaganda. Although on that day he could have drawn upon the whole power of State and Party against Jewry, he was content to order that Jewish places of business be marked as such and put under guard. In addition, he gave explicit instructions that any molestation of the Jews or acts of violence, or any damage to Jewish property, was forbidden and would be punished. In the later stages no further use at all was made of the defendant. He was not even consulted on the ideological basis for the settlement of the Jewish question. He was unable to voice his ideas in the press or over the air. He was not asked to write on the clarification of the Jewish question either in the Schulungsbriefe of the Party or the periodicals belonging to the organizations.
Not he but the Defendant Rosenberg was charged by Hitler with the ideological training of the German people. The latter was responsible for the Institute for Research into the Jewish Question, set up in Frankfurt, and not the Defendant Streicher; in fact, the latter was not even considered as a collaborator in this institute. The Defendant Rosenberg was commissioned with the arrangement of an Anti-Jewish World Congress in 1944. It is true that this assembly did not take place, but it is significant that the plans made for it did not include the participation of the Defendant Streicher.
The whole of the anti-Jewish laws and decrees of the Third Reich were drafted without his participation. He was not even called in to draft the racial laws proclaimed at the Party rally in Nuremberg in 1935. The Defendant Streicher did not take part in a single conference on even moderately important questions in either peace or wartime. His name does not appear on any list of participants or on any minutes. Not even in the course of the discussions themselves is one single reference made to his name.
The fight against Jewry in the Third Reich grew more and more embittered from year to year, especially after the outbreak of war and during its course. In contrast to this, however, the influence of the Defendant Streicher yearly grew weaker. Already by 1939 he was almost entirely pushed aside and had no relations with Hitler or other leading men of State and Party. In 1940 he was relieved of his office as Gauleiter and after that he played no further part in political life.
If the Defendant Streicher had really been the man the Prosecution believes him to be, his influence and his activity would have increased automatically with the intensification of the fight against the Jews. His career would not have ended, as it actually did, in political powerlessness and banishment from the scene of action, but with the commission to carry out the destruction of Jewry.
It cannot be denied that by writing ad nauseam on the same subject for years in a clumsy, crude, and violent manner, the Defendant Streicher has brought upon himself the hatred of the world. By so doing, he has created a strong feeling against himself which led to his importance and influence being rated far higher than they actually were, for which he now runs the risk of having the extent of his responsibility similarly misjudged.
The defense counsel, who in this case had a difficult and thankless task, had to limit himself to presenting those aspects and facts which allow the true significance of this man and the role he played in the tragedy of National Socialism to be recognized. But it cannot be the task of the Defense to deny indisputable facts and to defend acts for which absolutely no excuse exists.
The fact remains, therefore, that this defendant took part in the demolition of the main synagogue of Nuremberg, and thus allowed a place of religious worship to be destroyed. The defendant states as an excuse that his aim in so doing was not the demolition of a building meant for religious worship, but the removal of an edifice which appeared out of place in the Old Town of Nuremberg, and that his opinion had been shared by art experts. The truth of this was proved by the fact that he left the second Jewish house of worship untouched until it finally, and without his connivance, went up in flames during the night of 9 to 10 November. However that may be, the defendant shows the same lack of scruple here as he does in his other actions. He must account here for his actions in this connection alone; the Defense cannot shield him. But here, too, the fact that the population of Nuremberg disapproved of these actions clearly and unmistakably must be stressed. It was clear to any impartial observer that the people viewed such actions with icy detachment and that only brute force could compel them to tolerate such measures and to look on at such senseless proceedings.
It is just as impossible for the Defense to express any opinion on the revival of the ritual murder myth. No interest whatsoever was taken in these articles; but their tendency is obvious. The only point in the defendant’s favor, apart from the good faith with which we must credit him, is the fact that the author of these articles was not himself, but Holz; he must, however, put up with the charge that he allowed it to happen.
It must appear incomprehensible that the defendant continued to play a part in the publication of Der Stürmer long after he had been politically crippled and vanished from the scene of action. This very fact reveals his one-track mind better than anything else.
When the Prosecution accuses the defendant of having aimed at the physical annihilation of the Jews and prepared the way for this later result by means of his publications, I would like to refer to the statements given by the defendant under oath at his interrogation, to which I am here referring in their entirety.
The defendant claims that in the long series of articles published by Der Stürmer since its foundation there were none demanding actual deeds of violence against the Jews. He also claims that among the issues, of which there were over one thousand, only about 15 were found to contain expressions which could form the basis for a charge against him in the meaning of the Indictment.
On the contrary, the defendant argued that his articles and speeches had always shown an unmistakable tendency to achieve a solution of the Jewish problem in its entirety throughout the world, since any kind of partial solution would serve no useful purpose and failed to reach the heart of the problem. Basing himself on this very point of view he had always expressed himself unequivocally as opposed to any kind of violence, and he would never have approved of an action such as that finally carried out by Hitler in such a gruesome manner.
This must raise serious doubts as to whether the defendant can be proved to have agreed with the mass murders practiced on Jewry, and I leave this decision to the Tribunal. In any case, he himself refers to the fact that he had no reasonably certain knowledge of these wholesale murders until 1944, a fact corroborated by the statements of the witnesses Adele Streicher and Hiemer.
He considered the articles published in the Israelitisches Wochenblatt as propaganda and consequently did not believe them. In this connection, the fact that up to the autumn of 1943 he did not in any article express satisfaction concerning the fate of Jewry in the East is in his favor. Although he did write then on the disappearance of the Jewish reservoir in the East, there is nothing to show that he had any reliable source of information at his command. He might, therefore, very well have believed that this process of disappearance was not identical with physical annihilation but might represent the evacuation of the Jewish population assembled there to neutral countries or the territory of the Soviet Union. As no evidence has been presented to show that the defendant had received hints from any quarter in regard to the intended extermination of Jewry, he could not have conceived of such a diabolical occurrence which appears to be utterly inconceivable to the human mind. And it certainly cannot be assumed that the mental capacity of the defendant should have enabled him to foresee a solution of the Jewish question such as could only have originated in the brain of a person who was no longer in his right senses.
The defendant describes himself as a fanatic and seeker of truth. He professes to have written nothing and to have expressed nothing in his speeches which he had not taken from some authentic source and properly confirmed.
There is no doubt that he was a fanatic. The fanatic, however, is a man who is so possessed or convinced of an idea or illusion that he is not open to any other consideration, and is convinced of the correctness of his own idea and no other. A psychiatrist might regard it as a sort of mental cramp. Fanaticism of any kind is not far removed from maniacal obsession. As a rule it goes along with considerable overestimation of oneself and overevaluation of one’s own personality and its influence on the world around it.
Not one of the defendants here on trial shows such a wide discrepancy between fact and fancy as does the Defendant Streicher.
The Prosecution showed him as he appeared to the outside world. What he really was—and is—has been shown by the Trial. But only actual facts can form the basis for the judgment. Base your judgment also, Gentlemen, on the fact that the defendant in his position as Gauleiter of Franconia also showed many humane characteristics—that he had a large number of political prisoners released from concentration camps, which even caused criminal proceedings to be started against him. It should also be borne in mind that he treated the prisoners of war and the foreign laborers working on his estate very well in every respect.
Whatever the judgment against the Defendant Streicher may be, it will concern the fate of a single individual. It seems to be established, however, that the German people and this defendant were never in agreement on this essential question. The German people always disapproved of the aims of this defendant as expressed in his publications, and retained its own opinion of and attitude toward the Jews.
The Prosecution’s assumption that the tendentious articles in Der Stürmer found an echo or a ready acceptance among the German population, or even produced an attitude which would readily accept criminal measures, is herewith fully refuted.
The overwhelming majority of the German nation preserved their sound common sense and showed themselves disinclined toward all acts of violence. The nation may therefore claim to be declared free of all moral complicity in, and co-responsibility for, those crimes before the public tribunal of the world, so as to be able again to take its place in the ranks of the nations.
I leave the decision on the guilt or innocence of this defendant in the hands of the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Sauter for the Defendant Funk.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have the task of examining the case of the Defendant Dr. Walter Funk. That is to say, I am to deal with a topic which unfortunately is especially dry and prosaic. May I first make a short statement.
I shall on principle refrain from making any statements on legal, political, historical, or psychological matters which may be too general, although the temptation to make such general statements, particularly within the framework of these proceedings, may be considerable. General statements of the kind have already been made in abundance by my colleagues and will probably be still further supplemented. Therefore, I shall limit myself to examining and presenting to you from the point of view of the Defense the picture which the evidence in this Trial shows of the personality of the Defendant Funk, his actions, and their underlying motives.
Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the entire course of this Trial and the particular evidence offered in his own case have shown that the Defendant Funk did not play a decisive part in the National Socialist regime at any time and in any of the cases indicted here.
Funk’s authority of decision was always limited by the superior powers of others. The defendant’s statement, made during his personal examination, that he was allowed to come up to the door, but was never permitted to enter, has been shown by the evidence to be quite correct.
Funk was entrusted with tasks by the Party—as distinct from the State—only during the last year prior to the seizure of power, that is, in 1932. These, however, were of no practical significance, as they were of very short duration. Funk was never appointed to any Party office after the seizure of power. He was never a member of any Party organization—SS, SA, or Corps of Political Leaders. Funk was a member of the Reichstag for only a little more than 6 months shortly before the seizure of power. Consequently he was not a member of the Reichstag when the fundamental laws for the consolidation of National Socialist power were passed. The Reich Cabinet passed the laws for which Funk is held responsible, in particular the Enabling Act, at a time when Funk had not yet been made a member of the Cabinet. At this, it will be remembered, he did not become a member until the close of 1937 by virtue of his appointment as Minister of Economics, that is, at a time when no further Cabinet sessions were held. As Press Chief of the Reich Cabinet Funk had neither a seat nor a vote in the Cabinet and could exert no influence whatsoever upon the contents of the bills drafted. I refer to Lammers’ statement in this connection. The same applies to the racial laws, the so-called Nuremberg Laws.
Funk’s relations with the Führer only became closer for a period of 18 months during which he had to give regular press reports to Hitler in his capacity as Press Chief of the Reich Cabinet, that is, from February 1933 to August 1934, up to the death of Reich President Von Hindenburg. Later, Funk reported to Hitler only on very rare occasions. In this connection the witness Dr. Lammers makes the following statement:
“Later he (Funk) only visited Hitler in his capacity of Reich Minister of Economics on very rare occasions. He was frequently not invited to attend conferences—even those to which he should have been invited. He complained to me about this frequently. The Führer often raised objections, saying that there were various reasons against Funk and that he himself viewed Funk skeptically and did not want him.”
That is the testimony given by Dr. Lammers on 8 April 1946. When asked whether Funk had often complained to him about his unsatisfactory position as Reich Minister for Economics and about the anxiety caused him by conditions generally, Dr. Lammers replied:
“I know that Funk was very much worried and that he wanted an opportunity to discuss his anxieties with the Führer. He was extremely anxious for an opportunity of reporting to the Führer in order to obtain information, at least, about the war situation.” (That was in 1943 and 1944). And Lammers continues: “With the best intentions in the world, Funk could not obtain an audience from the Führer, and I was unable to get him to the Führer.”
Funk explains the striking fact that he was invited to attend only four or five Führer conferences during the whole of his ministerial activity by saying that Hitler did not need him. Up to 1942 Hitler issued his instructions in economic affairs to Göring, who in his capacity of Delegate for the Four Year Plan was responsible for the entire economy. From the beginning of 1942 Hitler also issued instructions to Speer, who as Armament Minister had special authority to issue directives to all branches of production and from 1943 personally directed the entire production. Funk therefore never played the principal part in the economy of the National Socialist Reich, but always only a subordinate role. This was specifically confirmed by his Codefendant Göring in his statement on 16 March:
“Naturally, in view of the special powers delegated to me (Göring) he had to follow my directives in the field of economy and the Reichsbank. The responsibility for the directives and policy of the Minister for Economics and President of the Reichsbank Funk is entirely mine.”
In the session of 20 June the Defendant Speer also testified that in his capacity as Armament Minister he reserved to himself from the very beginning any authority of decision in the most important economic spheres such as coal, iron and steel, metal, aluminum, and the production of machinery. Prior to Speer’s commission at the beginning of 1942, electric power and building were entirely under the jurisdiction of Armament Minister Todt.
For the greater part, the evidence submitted by the Prosecution in the case of the Defendant Funk does not relate to acts personally committed by Funk or instructions issued by him, but rather to the various and widely differing positions which he occupied. On Page 29 of the trial brief the Prosecutor himself declares that the argument offered against Funk may be described as inferential. The Prosecution starts from the assumption that judging by the positions which he had held Funk must have had knowledge of the various events which form the subject of the accusation. Generally speaking, the Prosecution refers to instructions and directives issued by Funk personally only in the case of the application instructions which he issued in November 1938 in connection with the Four Year Plan decrees for the elimination of Jews from economic life. I shall deal with this chapter separately at a later stage.
Finally, Funk was not invited to attend political and military conferences. His position was that of a technical minister with very limited power of decision.
As Reich Minister for Economics Funk was subordinated to the Four Year Plan, that is, to Göring. Later on, the Armament Minister became Funk’s superior. And finally, as was shown by the testimony of Göring, Lammers, and Hayler, the Ministry of Economics became a regular trade ministry, which dealt mainly with the distribution of consumers’ goods and with the technicalities of foreign trade. Similarly in the case of the Reichsbank the Four Year Plan determined the use of gold and foreign currency. The Reichsbank was deprived of its right to decide on the credits to be granted to the Reich for the internal financing of the war when Funk took over office as its President. Funk is thereby exonerated of any responsibility for the financing of the war. The responsible agency so far had always been the Reich Minister of Finance: In other words, not Funk. Finally, as Plenipotentiary for Economics, Funk’s sole task in August 1938 was to co-ordinate the civil economic resources for such measures as would guarantee a smooth conversion from peace to wartime economy. These consultations resulted in the proposals presented by Funk to Hitler on 25 August 1939 in the letter which has been several times quoted under Document Number 699-PS. At his examination Funk stated that this letter did not portray matters with complete accuracy, since it was a purely private letter, a letter of thanks for birthday congratulations received from Hitler. This point will have to be taken up again later, as the Prosecution particularly emphasized Funk’s position as Plenipotentiary for Economics. The evidence shows that his position as Plenipotentiary General was Funk’s most disputed position, but also his weakest.
With regard to the occupied territories Funk had no decisive authority whatsoever. All the witnesses interrogated on the point testified to this. But all witnesses also confirmed that Funk always opposed the spoliation of the occupied territories. He fought against German purchases in the black markets; he opposed the abolition of the foreign exchange relations with Holland, a measure intended to facilitate German purchases in Holland; and, as we have heard from the witness Neubacher, he organized exports to Greece from Germany and the eastern European states, and even sent gold there. He also repeatedly opposed the financial overburdening of the occupied territories especially in 1942 and 1944, and the raising of the occupation costs in France. He defended the currency of the occupied countries against reported attempts at devaluation. In the case of Denmark he even succeeded in raising the value of the currency, in spite of all opposition. Furthermore, Funk fought against the arbitrary stabilization of exchange when currency arrangements were made with occupied countries. Germany’s clearing debt was always recognized by Funk as a true commercial debt even with regard to the occupied countries. This is shown especially by his proposal, mentioned here, to commercialize this clearing debt by a loan to be issued by Germany for subscription in all European countries. Funk was also opposed to the overworking and especially to the compulsory employment of foreign labor in Germany.
The Defendant Sauckel has already testified to this at his interrogation here. The witnesses Hayler, Landfried, Puhl, and Neubacher, and the Codefendant Seyss-Inquart, have all confirmed that these measures taken by Funk had favorable results for the occupied countries. According to these statements Funk always strove to keep order in the economic and social life of the occupied territories and to preserve it as far as possible from disintegration. He always disapproved and opposed radical and arbitrary measures and favored agreements and compromises. Even during the war Funk was always thinking of peace. This statement was made by the witnesses Landfried and Hayler, who added that Funk was repeatedly reproached for his attitude by the leading State and Party offices. The Defendant Speer also testified at his interrogation that during the war Funk had employed too many workers in the manufacture of consumers’ goods and that it was for this reason that Funk had to hand over the management of the consumers’ goods production in 1943.
That Funk revolted against the horrible “scorched earth” policy just as Speer did has been proved to the Court by Speer himself, as well as by the witness Hayler on 7 May 1946. This witness declared that he had seldom seen Funk so much upset as he was when informed of this order for destruction. Hayler testified that Funk, in his capacity of Reich Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, gave orders that existing stocks should be protected from destruction as decreed, in order to insure a supply of consumers’ goods necessary for the population and to safeguard currency transactions in the German territory which had been abandoned.
The aim of Funk’s economic policy—one might call it the mainspring of his life work—was the formation of a European economic community based on a just and natural balance of interest of the sovereign states. Even during the war he relentlessly pursued this goal, although the exigencies of war and the restraints imposed on development by the war naturally impeded these efforts at every turn. Funk has given a graphic description of the economic Europe which he envisaged and strove to attain in some major speeches on economic policy. Extracts from some of these speeches, many of which received a hearing even in neutral and enemy countries, are included in the document book.
In judging the acts of the Defendant Funk, his whole personality must naturally be taken into consideration to some extent in investigating the motives from which he acted. Funk was never looked upon by the German people—as far as he was known at all—as a Party man capable of participating in brutal outrages, using methods of violence and terror or amassing fortunes at the expense of others. He inclined rather toward art and literature, which preference he shared with—for instance—his friend Baldur von Schirach. Originally, as you have been told, he wanted to study music, and in later years he preferred to have poets and artists in his house rather than, men of the Party and the State. In professional circles he was known and respected as an economist and a man with a wide theoretical and historical knowledge, who had risen from journalism and had been a brilliant stylist. His position as chief editor of the distinguished Berliner Börsenzeitung was on a sound economic basis; by accepting the office of Press Chief in the Reich Cabinet at the beginning of 1933, after Hitler’s assumption of power, he even incurred a financial loss. Therefore, he was not one of those desperados who were glad to get into a well-paid position through Hitler. On the contrary, he made a financial sacrifice when he took over the State office offered him, and it therefore seems perfectly credible that he did this out of patriotism, out of a sense of duty toward his people, and in order to put himself at the service of his country during the hard times of distress.
In judging the personality and character of the Defendant Funk, it is also significant that he never held or tried to obtain any rank in the Party. Other people who took over high State offices in the Third Reich were given the title of an SS Gruppenführer, or were given, for instance, the rank of SA Obergruppenführer. Funk, on the contrary, was only a plain Party member, from 1931 until the end of the Third Reich, who carried out his State functions conscientiously, but made no effort to obtain any honors within the Party.
The only incident with which the Defendant Funk was reproached in this connection was the fact that he accepted an endowment in 1940, on his fiftieth birthday. In itself, of course, that is not a punishable act; but the Tribunal evidently evaluated it as a moral charge against the defendant. Therefore, we shall briefly define our position with regard to this. We remember how this endowment came about: The President and Board of the Reich Chamber of Economics (Reichswirtschaftskammer), as the highest representatives of German economic life, presented him on his fiftieth birthday with a farmhouse in Upper Bavaria and about 110 acres of ground. This farmhouse, of course, existed for the time being only on the paper of the presentation document and had still to be built. This presentation was expressly approved by the head of the State, Adolf Hitler; therefore it was not made secretly to the Reich Minister of Economics, but quite officially, without any suppression or secrecy in the matter.
The gift subsequently turned out to be an unfortunate one for Funk, as the building proved much more expensive than had been expected and Funk was required to pay a very high donation tax. Funk, who, up to that time, had never incurred debts and whose finances had always been well regulated, now found himself plunged into debt through this “gift” of a farmhouse. Göring heard of it and came to Funk’s assistance with a generous sum. When Hitler heard of Funk’s financial difficulties through Minister Lammers, he had the cash necessary to settle Funk’s financial troubles transferred to him in the form of a gift. With this Funk was able to pay his taxes and his debts. He used the remainder to create two public endowments, one for dependents of officials of the Reichsbank killed in action, the other to the same end for the staff of the Ministry of Economics. The farm was also to become an endowment at some later date. Funk’s treatment of the matter shows his delicacy in this respect too. Even though such an endowment could not be legally disputed, he felt that it was better to avoid such endowments and to make them over to the public, since he could not refuse to accept a gift from the head of the State.
Mr. President, I now turn to a new subject. I would propose to have a recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal proposes to go until 4 o’clock without a break, if that is convenient.
DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have so far defined the position of the Defendant Funk in general statements; I am now going to deal with the criminal responsibility of the Defendant Funk on the separate charges made against him.
The first point of the Indictment deals with the support of the seizure of power by the Party, that is, the Defendant Funk’s Party activities from 1931 up to the end of 1932. The Defendant Funk is alleged to have helped the conspirators to seize power. This charge deals with the activities of the Defendant Funk from the date of his joining the Party in June 1931 up to the seizure of power on 30 January 1933. The Prosecution maintains that Funk’s activities on behalf of the Party during that period furthered the seizure of power by the National Socialists. That is correct. The Defendant Funk himself, when interrogated on 4 May, gave a detailed explanation of his reasons for considering the National Socialist seizure of power the only possible way of delivering the German people from the grave intellectual, economic, and social distress of that time. The economic program of the Party was, in his opinion, vague and mainly intended for propaganda. He himself wanted to gain recognition for his own economic principles in the Party, in order to work through the Party for the benefit of the German people. Funk gave a detailed description of these principles during his examination. They are based on the idea of private property, which is inseparable from the conception of the varying capability of a human being.
Funk demanded the recognition of private initiative and of the independence of the creative businessman, added to free competition and the leveling of social extremes. He aimed at the elimination of Party and class warfare, at a strong Government with full authority and responsibility, and at the creation of a uniform political will among the people. His conversations with Adolf Hitler and other Party leaders convinced him that the Party entirely accepted his principles and ideas. In Funk’s opinion he cannot be blamed for his support of the Party in its struggle for power. Funk believes that the discussions in this Trial furnish absolute proof that the Party came to power quite legally. But even the methods used by Funk to assist the Party cannot, in his opinion, be condemned. In any case the role attributed to him by the Prosecution does not fit the facts. The importance of Funk’s activities is at times greatly overestimated by them; in many other instances their judgment of these activities is completely false.
The evidence offered by the Prosecution consists mainly of references and extracts from reference books, and especially from a book by Dr. Oestreich, Walter Funk—A Life for Economy, which was submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number 3505-PS, USA-653. The core of this evidence is a “Program for Economic Reconstruction” by the Defendant Funk, which is printed on Page 81 of this book and which the Prosecution calls “the official Party declaration in the economic field” and “the economic bible for the Party organization.” This so-called “Program for Economic Reconstruction” forms the basis for the incorrect accusation made by the Prosecution on Page 3 of the trial brief, to the effect that the Defendant Funk assisted “in the formulation of the program which was publicly proclaimed by the Nazi Party and by Hitler.”
This “Program for Economic Reconstruction,” which was read word for word during the hearing of the Defendant Funk, actually did not contain anything unusual, let alone revolutionary, or anything which was in any way characteristic of the National Socialist ideology. The program indicates the need for providing work, creating productive credits without inflationary consequences, balancing public finances, as well as the need for protective measures for agriculture and urban real estate, and a redirection of economic relations with foreign countries. It is a program which, as Funk said in his testimony, might be advocated by any liberal or democratic party and government. The Defendant Funk only regrets that the Party did not fully subscribe to these principles. Later on his economic viewpoint involved him in constant difficulties and disputes with various Party offices, especially with the German Labor Front and the Party Chancellery, and with Himmler and most of the Gauleiter. This is also confirmed by the witness Landfried, who described these differences between Funk and the Party in detail in his interrogatory. Funk had the reputation in the Party of being mainly a liberal and an outsider. During that time, that is mainly in 1932, he established relations between Hitler and some of the leading personalities of German economic life. He also worked to promote understanding for National Socialist ideas and to gain support for the Party by trade and industry. By virtue of these activities he was frequently described as Hitler’s economic adviser. But that was not a Party office or a Party title.
In Document EC-440, USA-874, Funk states that Keppler, who was later appointed State Secretary, was considered the Führer’s economic adviser for many years before himself. By this reference Funk intended to show that the designation “Economic Adviser to the Führer” was given by the public to other persons also.
The period during which Funk was given Party assignments was a very short one. That these activities were never of decisive importance may be deduced from the fact that after the assumption of power Funk’s Party activities ceased completely. In other fields, such as food and agriculture, finance, and so forth, the Party incumbents who entered the civil service as ministers or state secretaries, et cetera, retained their Party office, which usually acquired greater importance. The elimination of the sole Defendant Funk from every Party office as soon as the assumption of power was complete shows clearly that the Party leaders did not attach much value to Funk’s work in the Party.
In cross-examining the Defendant Funk the Soviet Russian Prosecution showed him an article which had appeared on 18 August 1940 in the magazine Das Reich on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday (USSR-450). In this article the author, an economist by the name of Dr. Herle, emphasizes that Funk “as intermediary between the Party and economic circles had become a pioneer working toward a new spiritual attitude in German economic life.”
In this connection we may say that Funk never denied that he regarded it as his task to construct an economic system with an obligation toward state and community on the one hand, yet based on private ownership and private initiative and responsibility on the other. Funk always acknowledged and adopted the political aims and ideals of National Socialism. The majority of the German people embraced these goals and ideologies, as was proved by several plebiscites. Funk himself did not suspect that all the good intentions and idealistic aims, so often emphasized by Hitler when he came into power, would later crumble in the blood and smoke of war and sink to such an inconceivable inhuman level. Funk testified explicitly that he considered the authoritative form of government—by which he meant the strong state, a responsible cabinet, the social community, and an economic system with social obligations—a prerequisite in order to overcome the grave intellectual and economic crisis through which the German people were then passing. He always expressly acknowledged that politics must have precedence over economics.
On 30 January 1933, as Press Chief of the Reich Government, Funk took up the State office of a Ministerial Director in the Reich Chancellery. Six weeks later, however, the direction of press policy passed into the hands of Dr. Goebbels, when the latter became Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda; and the press department of the Reich Government, which Funk was to have directed, was merged in the newly established Ministry for Propaganda. For the time being he retained only the right to make his press report personally to Reich President Von Hindenburg and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler—until Hindenburg’s death. Then this activity also came to a complete standstill, so that the Office of Press Chief of the Reich Government existed only on paper. This was also expressly confirmed by the Defendant Fritzsche during his examination as a witness on 28 June.
The guilt of the defendant is inferred mainly from the fact that he was a State Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda. The hearing of evidence has shown, however, that as State Secretary, Funk had nothing whatsoever to do with actual propaganda work. He made no radio speeches, nor did he speak at public meetings. Press policy, on the other hand, was dictated by Dr. Goebbels in person even at that time.
Even at that time, however, Funk gave particular attention to the wishes and complaints of the journalists. He protected the press against misuse by official departments and made every effort to safeguard the individuality of the press and to enable it to work in a responsible manner.
All this has been established by a number of witnesses to whom I refer on Pages 17 to 24; in particular by the witnesses Amann, Kallus, Fritzsche, Oeser, and Roesen. The two latter witnesses have indeed confirmed the fact that Funk as State Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda also worked energetically on behalf of Jews and such persons as were oppressed and hindered in their spiritual and artistic work by the legislation and cultural policy of the National Socialists. Funk did so much on behalf of such people that he jeopardized his own official position to such an extent that the Ministry actually considered him politically unreliable.
[sm type begins]As to defendant’s activity in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, the Prosecution charges him as follows:[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]“By means of such an activity in the Ministry of Propaganda the Defendant Funk participated in establishing the power of the conspirators over Germany, and is particularly responsible for the persecution of ‘political dissenters’ and Jews, for the psychological preparation of the people for war, and for the weakening of the strength of and will for resistance of the victims selected by the conspirators.”[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Also in this point of the accusation, the guilt of the Defendant Funk has been derived almost exclusively from the fact that he occupied the position of a state secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda. The hearing of evidence, however, has shown that Funk had nothing to do with actual propaganda activity in his position as State Secretary. Funk did not deliver any speeches, either through the radio or in public meetings. The press policy was directed by Dr. Goebbels in person ever since the Ministry had been established. However, Funk took care, to a large extent, of the wishes and complaints of the journalists. He protected the press against trespassing by Government offices and tried to secure for the press an individual look and an activity conscious of its responsibilities. This is expressed by the digest from the book written by Dr. Paul Oestreich: Walter Funk—A Life for Economy, Document 3505-PS, Exhibit USA-653, Document Book Funk Number 4b.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Some of Funk’s wordings from that period of his activity in the Ministry of Propaganda, as for example, the sentence “the press is no barrel organ” and the saying “the press should not be the scapegoat of the government” later have become all but household words.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]As State Secretary Funk had, on the whole, only organizational and economic tasks, he managed the financial side of the activity of the numerous organizations and institutes which were controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda, such as, particularly, the Reich Broadcasting Company, further the German Trade Publicity Council (Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft), the State-owned film combines, the State-owned theaters and orchestras and the State-owned press agencies and newspapers. As to art, and according to his artistic tastes, he occupied himself with music and theater. In the direction of the Ministry of Propaganda, a complete separation between political tasks on the one hand and organizational and economic tasks on the other hand took place. This has been stated in unison by all witnesses examined on this point. Minister Dr. Goebbels in person directed the propaganda policy, exercising complete, absolute and exclusive control. His assistants herein were, not his State Secretary Funk, but his old collaborators from the propaganda organization of the Party, who, for the most part, were taken over by him in a personal union into the newly created Ministry of Propaganda. Funk, however, did not belong to the propaganda department of the Party, neither before nor after the Ministry was established. The assertion of Mr. Messersmith in his affidavit, submitted under Document 1760-PS, according to which Goebbels had incorporated Funk into the Party organization, is erroneous, and can obviously be attributed to the fact that Messersmith had, as an outsider, no insight into the division of work within the Ministry of Propaganda, and moreover, apparently identified readily the propaganda activity of the Party with the propaganda of the State Ministry. This has been confirmed by the questionnaire submitted by Messersmith, as asked for by the Defendant Funk, on May 7th, 1946, (Document Book Funk, Supplement Number 5). This questionnaire shows that Messersmith cannot even state whether he had a conversation with the Defendant Funk a few times or only once; furthermore, that he does not remember any more what topic was discussed at that time, nor in what capacity Funk was present at this meeting. With such vague and unreliable statements of a witness nothing, of course, can be proven.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]As a proof of the fact that Funk had nothing to do with the actual propaganda activity and—as the Defendant Göring has asserted here as a witness—did not play any important part at all in comparison to Goebbels, I refer to the affidavit of the former Reichsleiter for the press, Max Amann, of April 17th, 1946 (Document Book Funk, Exhibit 14). At first, the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit sworn by this witness, of December 19th, 1945 (Document 3501-PS); the statements contained therein have been, in the new affidavit of April 17th, 1946, supplemented and corrected in essential points. In this new statement, submitted to the Prosecution and to the Defense, the witness Amann gives evidence that also, according to his knowledge, Funk, as State Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda, had nothing to do with the actual propaganda activity. For the rest, the witness confirms the statements of the Defendant Funk, namely, that he (Amann) did not know in person the distribution of activities and the interior management of the Ministry, and that his statements are exclusively based op information by other persons. The witness Heinz Kallus, on the other hand, worked for some years as an official of the Ministry of Propaganda. Kallus, too, confirms under oath in the answers, in the questionary addressed to him (Exhibit Number Funk-18), that on the whole Funk was engaged in administration and financial questions, and the same was testified by the Defendant Hans Fritzsche during his examination as a witness before this Tribunal on June 27th and 28th.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]In the trial brief of the Defendant Funk, Page 9—Document 3566-PS—the Prosecution submitted the notes of an SS-Scharführer Sigismund as evidence for the importance of the position which Funk is supposed to have held in the Ministry of Propaganda. An official of this Ministry, by the name of Weinbrenner, is supposed to have declared to that SS-Scharführer that it was impossible to know whom Minister Goebbels would entrust with the office of radio superintendent, as Goebbels took most of the important decisions only in agreement with Under Secretary Funk. Now, Dr. Goebbels did not as a matter of course undertake the appointment to the leading post in broadcasting without getting in touch with Funk, the chairman of the administrative board of the Reich Broadcasting Corporation (Reichsrundfunkgesellschaft); this, however, does not prove anything concerning the nature and the significance of the activity of the Defendant Funk nor of the aims he pursued thereby. After all, the Prosecution has been able to submit but one single document bearing the signature of Funk as Under Secretary, namely, the fixing of a date for the coming into force of a decree for the execution of a law concerning the Reichskulturkammer, of November 9th, 1933 (Document 3505-PS); hereof the Prosecution deduces a responsibility or, at any rate, a co-responsibility of the Defendant Funk for the entire legislation for the control and co-ordination of the cultural professions (Kulturberufe).[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]This conclusion appears to be wrong; quite apart from the fact that the point in question is the fixing of a date for a decree concerning execution, therefore a purely formal act, it must be emphasized that this law was decided by the Reich Cabinet of which the Defendant Funk at that time was not a member.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Funk stated in his examination that, during the entire duration of his activity in the Ministry of Propaganda, he hardly gave his signature more than three times representing Dr. Goebbels. For the rest, the Defendant Fritzsche testified here as a witness, on June 28th, 1946, that the position of Dr. Goebbels’ long-time collaborator and personal advisor Hanke, who later on became Under Secretary and Gauleiter, corresponded far more to the usual position of an under secretary in the Ministry, than the one of the Defendant Funk. It was Hanke, too, who maintained the liaison of Minister Goebbels with the section heads and advisers of the Ministry, a task adhering otherwise to the under secretary in a ministry, but which was never entrusted to the Defendant Funk, although he was an under secretary.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]It is proven by the affidavit of the former editor-in-chief of the Frankfurter Zeitung, Albert Oeser (Exhibit Number Funk-1), and of the attorney-at-law Dr. Karl Roesen (Exhibit Number Funk-2), as well as by the affidavits of the witness Heinz Kallus (Document Funk-18), that the Defendant Funk, in his position as an under secretary of the Ministry of Propaganda, energetically undertook to help Jews and other persons who were oppressed and thwarted in their intellectual or artistic activities by the National Socialist legislation and cultural policy, and that he did this under heavy risks to his own position.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Among the persons for whom Funk interceded were not only Jewish editors, but also many prominent German artists, and the witness Kallus (cf. his questionnaire in the Document Funk-18) mentions in this connection the Jewish proprietors of a big Berlin directory publishing firm, whom Funk had given permission to carry on with their business, against considerable resistance of the competent section of the Ministry and of the German trade publicity council (Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft). The witness Kallus stated further, that, owing to this attitude toward the Jewish cultural workers, Funk was “suspect” to Dr. Goebbels and to the chief of the press section, Berndt, who was known to be particularly radical. Editor-in-chief Oeser explicitly states, as a witness, in his affidavit (Document Book Funk Number 1) that he has made his statements voluntarily to prove the “human attitude” of the Defendant Funk, and gives the names of eight Jewish editors of the Frankfurter Zeitung, whom Funk had given permission to carry on with their profession. In this connection, Oeser further remarks: “He (Funk) herewith proved his human understanding. Indeed, I have never heard from him (Funk), in the course of our conversations, any inhuman utterances. Owing to his (Funk’s) concessions, the endangered people obtained, in part repeatedly, the possibility to hope and to work anew with us and to prepare, without loss of income, their change of profession and their emigration.” Oeser, a well-known economic journalist, who always kept completely aloof from the Party, explicitly states that Funk, without any doubt, exposed himself by his attitude toward the Jews.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]In the cross-examination of the Defendant Funk the Prosecution referred to an affidavit, produced by the Prosecution, of an editor called Franz Wolf; this witness expressed—Document 3954-PS, Exhibit USA-377—the opinion that Funk may well have given those exceptional permissions not out of human sentiments, but rather in order to maintain the high standard of the Frankfurter Zeitung. By the way, the author of the affidavit was actually one of the Jewish editors who were given permission to further exercise their profession by Funk. The assumption of the witness Wolf is in direct contradiction to the positive statements of the witness Oeser. The Defendant Funk, too, opposed this interpretation and has pointed out that at that time such considerations were of no importance to him. In later years, when the Frankfurter Zeitung was to disappear, he had, so he said, used his influence in order to insure the further publishing, out of material considerations too, as this newspaper was, as an economic paper, highly esteemed abroad and was the best commercial newspaper of the country. However, this does not alter the fact that Funk had, at that time, used his influence repeatedly and with success in favor of Oeser and his collaborators, for purely humanitarian reasons.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]The witness Kallus finally declared in his questionnaire (Page 3 of Document Funk-18) that he remembers several occasions where Funk made possible the emigration of Jewish people under tolerable conditions. Kallus confirms hereby the statements of the witness Luise Funk (Document Book Funk, Exhibit Number 3), according to which the Defendant Funk often received, in the years when he was Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Propaganda, letters of thanks from Jews who had emigrated at that time from Germany and who thanked Funk for having given them facilities for liquidating their businesses and for having procured them permission to take along abroad considerable parts of their fortunes.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Evidence concerning this second part of the Indictment has accordingly shown that Funk is guilty in the sense of this part of the Indictment neither in his official capacity nor by his actions. He has helped, as far as it was within his power, many Jews and many individuals who were endangered and hindered in their cultural work, out of their material and spiritual distress, although by doing so he jeopardized his own position.[sm type ends]
Now, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I turn to another subject—the charge appearing under Point 4 of my brief, Page 24 onward, namely, that he participated in the preparation of wars of aggression; a point which is dealt with by Figure 4 of the Indictment. The accusation against the Defendant Funk is: “that with full knowledge of the aggressive plans of the conspirators he participated in the planning and preparation for such wars.”
As evidence of this, the Indictment first of all points out that Göring’s Ministry of Economics was brought under the Four Year Plan as the “high command of the German war economy,” and was placed under Funk’s command. The Indictment also states that according to the Law for the Defense of the Reich of 4 September 1938 Funk, in his capacity as Plenipotentiary for Economics, was explicitly charged with the mobilization of German economy in case of war.
The Prosecution’s assertion that the Reich Ministry of Economics was brought under the Four Year Plan before it was handed over by Göring to Funk is quite correct, but the so-called “high command of the German economy” was not in the hands of the Reich Minister of Economics, Funk, but entirely in those of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan—that is, the Codefendant Göring. Göring has confirmed the fact that Funk was obliged to follow his instructions. In addition, the most important branches of production were managed—as we have already shown—by special plenipotentiaries of the Four Year Plan, who were under the control of Göring and received their instructions from Göring—not from Funk. The Reich Ministry of Economics itself was merely the office which carried out the directives of the Four Year Plan. The Defendant Funk has testified that some offices were only formally under his supervision and functioned in reality as autonomous institutions of the Four Year Plan.
Funk’s position as Plenipotentiary for Economics was vigorously disputed from the beginning. When the Defendant Funk was cross-examined, Document EC-255 was submitted, a letter from the Reich War Minister, Von Blomberg, to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Göring, dated 29 November 1937, wherein Blomberg proposes that the Defendant Funk, who had just then, on 27 November 1937, been appointed Reich Minister of Economics, should also be appointed Plenipotentiary for War Economy. This was not, however, done.
Göring himself took over the Reich Ministry of Economics to begin with, and only handed it over to the Defendant Funk in February 1938, 3 months afterward. Then the High Command of the Armed Forces—more especially the Army Economic Staff under General Thomas, whose name has been mentioned repeatedly—requested that the Plenipotentiary for War Economy should be bound in the future to follow the directives of the High Command in all questions concerning supplies for the Armed Forces. In this Document, EC-270, USA-840, the Economic Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces claims a right to direct the Plenipotentiary for War Economy in nearly all his fields of activity.
The Defendant Funk tried by means of a conversation with Reich Marshal Göring and a letter to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to clarify his position as Plenipotentiary for War Economy, and as such claimed to be placed under the direct command of Hitler and not bound to abide by the directives of the High Command of the Armed Forces. Göring and Lammers concurred with Funk’s opinion. It must, however, be emphasized most strongly that this did not affect Funk’s subordination to Göring, for all the other supreme Reich offices and ministers directly subordinate to Hitler’s command were also bound by the directives of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, that is, by Göring’s directives.
It is a remarkable fact that according to the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938—the Second Reich Defense Law—the Defendant Funk did not become Plenipotentiary for War Economy, but Plenipotentiary for Economics, without the word “War,” and that this act explicitly stated that Funk was bound to comply with the demands of the OKW. The OKW, therefore, won its battle against Funk in the end.
But the individual economic departments, which according to the Reich Defense Law were under the direction of the Plenipotentiary for Economics for his special assignments, were equally unwilling to recognize him. In an interrogatory by the former State Secretary Dr. Hans Posse, Funk’s deputy as Plenipotentiary for Economics (Document 3819-PS, USA-843) which was produced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Funk, Posse states that the Plenipotentiary for Economics “never really exercised any function.” The ministers and state secretaries of the individual economic departments of finance, agriculture, transport, et cetera, did not, according to Posse, wish to be placed under Funk’s control, and even protested against it. Posse also mentions the disputes which Funk had with the Four Year Plan. He calls these conflicts “the struggle for power,” which in this connection simply means the authority to make decisions concerning the other economic departments. This was not a dispute between Göring and Funk; that is untrue because obviously Funk as Plenipotentiary for the Economics was still subordinate to Göring. Actually, this was a quarrel among state secretaries. The individual economic departments declared that they were subordinate to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan and refused to recognize the right of the Plenipotentiary for Economics to give them directives, since Funk himself was under the direction of the Four Year Plan. The state secretaries of the Four Year Plan supported the departments in their interpretation, and this lack of clarity and the overlapping of competencies caused the authority to issue directives to pass formally from the hands of the Delegate of the Four Year Plan a few months after the outbreak of the war.
Questioned by the Prosecution as to whether he had been in the habit of discussing important matters with Funk, the above-mentioned State Secretary Posse replied: “Yes; but these discussions did not produce results.” Posse confirms that the authority given to Göring was much more extensive and that Göring finally dissolved the office of the Plenipotentiary for Economics. According to Funk this happened as early as December 1939, a few months after the outbreak of the war. Funk retained only the formal right to issue decrees. This has also been confirmed by Lammers. Therefore, the Codefendant Göring’s statement that he was also of the opinion that Funk’s position as Plenipotentiary for Economics could be described as having existed only on paper is quite correct.
[sm type begins]Naturally the office of the Plenipotentiary for Economics worked in continuous business relations with the other economic departments, with the Four Year Plan, with the staff of the department for defense economics of the German Supreme Command, and with the Plenipotentiary for Administration, that is to say, the Reich Minister of the Interior. As proof the Prosecution presented various documents showing that at the meetings of the Deputy Plenipotentiary for Economics and his staff, questions of finance, war production, labor, and others were discussed. In this connection the office of the Plenipotentiary once also treated the question of employing prisoners of war in the industry, but this was an entirely theoretical discussion (Document Number EC-488, USA Exhibit Number 842).[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Why this General Staff economy work, which had to be done in times of peace for the eventuality of war, should be incriminating for the Defendant Funk is not clear. Besides, until August 1939 he personally did not take any interest in the details of these questions. All this work of the Plenipotentiary for Economics consisted of general preparations in case of war and did not apply to any special war. However, when Funk’s proposition for changing over from peacetime to wartime economy was worked out in co-operation with the other economic departments in August 1939, the danger of war with Poland was already pressing.[sm type ends]
Nowhere in the material presented by the Prosecution is there a single indication of the fact that the Defendant Funk knew anything about military and political conversations and preparations which had as their object the planning of war—in particular, a war of aggression to be waged by Germany. Funk was never invited to take part in any conversations of this kind. He was, in particular, not present at the well-known discussion with Göring on 14 October 1938, which was treated exhaustively by the Prosecution on Page 24 of the trial brief. According to the Prosecution, Göring during that meeting referred to an order issued by Hitler for an unusual increase in armaments, especially weapons of attack. The Prosecutor declared during the session of 11 January 1946 that at that meeting Göring addressed words to Funk which were described as “the words of a man already at war.” Several documents included in the Funk document book and submitted to the Tribunal prove, however, beyond doubt that the Defendant Funk did not attend that meeting at all, as he was in Sofia at the time in order to conduct economic negotiations with Bulgaria. This exhibit, which the Prosecution obviously intended to use as a main exhibit, is thereby invalidated. On 25 August 1939, the date of Funk’s letter to Hitler to which I referred this morning, the German and Polish armies were already completely mobilized and stood face to face with each other. He was, therefore, compelled to act in that particular manner, and by that time he was no longer able to cancel any of the preparations. All this is corroborated by the diary kept by the witness Kallus and submitted in the Funk document book under Number 18. The Defendant Funk stated here on the witness stand:
“It was naturally my duty as Plenipotentiary for Economics to do all I could to prevent the civilian section of the economy from being shattered in the event of war, and it was also my duty as president of the Reichsbank to increase as much as possible the Reichsbank’s reserves of gold and foreign currency.”
He goes on to say:
“That was necessary on account of the general political tension at the time, and it was also necessary in case no war would come about but only economic sanctions which, in view of the political situation at the time, one could and must expect.”
Funk likewise says:
“It was also my duty as Reich Minister of Economics to increase production.”
That is an exact quotation from the Defendant Funk’s testimony. On this subject the witness Puhl, who was vice president of the Reichsbank, states in his interrogatory of 1 May, which is in the hands of the Tribunal, that the position of the Reichsbank in the last 7 months of Funk’s presidency before the outbreak of the war had not been materially strengthened, and that very little business had been done in the exchange of foreign assets for gold since January 1939. The Reichsbank’s cautious policy in regard to gold and foreign currency, according to this witness, was in line with its customary practice.
Puhl’s statement is important for the correct understanding of the reference made by Funk, in his letter to Hitler of 25 August 1939, to the conversion of foreign assets into gold. During the period of Funk’s presidency of the Reichsbank the transactions to which he alludes were no longer of any importance. The exaggerated phrases used by Funk in his letter to Hitler make the contents appear much more important than they actually were.
Funk explained this fact during his examination by saying that this letter was a private letter of thanks, that in those days every German was under a very great strain owing to the tense political events throughout Europe, and that he wanted to inform his Chancellor at this moment when the country was in danger of war, that he, Funk, had also done his duty. This was the first and only occasion on which Funk actively exercised his functions as Plenipotentiary for Economics.
Here I must insert something which is based upon some minutes which the Prosecution did not submit until the hearing of evidence had been concluded; Document 3787-PS. These are the minutes of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council held on 23 June 1939. Funk, as Plenipotentiary for Economics, attended that meeting of the Reich Defense Council, which took place about 2 months before the beginning of the war. The text of the minutes, however, leaves no doubt whatever that they concern general, and therefore mainly theoretical, preparations for any war. Furthermore, to appreciate this document it must be remembered that during the war which broke out 3 months later the whole of the Defendant Funk’s assignments in connection with the distribution of labor was transferred to the Four Year Plan, since the main functions of the Plenipotentiary for Economics were formally and completely abolished, as I have previously shown, shortly after the outbreak of war.
To continue with my brief—the Defendant Funk has explained in detail during his examination that up to the very end he did not believe that war would come, but that on the contrary he thought that the Polish conflict would be settled by diplomatic means. The accuracy of this statement is also confirmed by the witnesses Landfried, Posse, and Puhl, the defendant’s three closest co-workers, in interrogatories submitted to the Court (Exhibit Numbers Funk-16 and 17 and Document 3849-PS). The danger of war with Russia came to Funk’s knowledge for the first time when he heard of Rosenberg’s appointment as plenipotentiary for the unified treatment of eastern European problems in April 1941. We remember that at that time Lammers and Rosenberg gave the Defendant Funk the same explanations, generally speaking, as those stated to the Tribunal here by all the witnesses heard on this question. He was told that the reason for the preparations for war against Soviet Russia was that the Soviet Russians were massing considerable forces along the entire border, that they had invaded Bessarabia, and that Molotov, in his discussions on the subject of the Baltic Sea and the Balkans, had made demands which Germany could not fulfill. As Rosenberg stated that the assignment given him by Hitler also included economic measures, Funk placed a ministerial director, Dr. Schlotterer, at Rosenberg’s disposal as liaison official. Schlotterer later took over the direction of the economic section of the Rosenberg Ministry and joined the Economic Operations Staff East of the Four Year Plan. The Ministry for Economics itself and Funk had practically nothing to do with economic questions in the occupied East and concerned themselves merely with questions bearing on German internal economy. The Ministry for Economics had no authority whatever to make decisions in the Occupied Eastern Territories. During his cross-examination the Defendant Funk was shown an extract from an interrogation of 19 October 1945, dealing with the subject “Preparations for War against Russia” (Document Number 3952-PS, USA-875). In this interrogation Funk stated that the Defendant Hess asked him at the end of April 1941 whether he, Funk, had heard anything about an impending war against Russia. Funk replied: “I have not heard anything definite, but there seems to be some discussion along that line.”
The explanation of this conversation at the end of April 1941 between two men who were not informed of the facts may well be that at that time Funk did not yet definitely know the reason for Rosenberg’s assignment, but knew only of suspicions and rumors.
On 28 May 1941 Rosenberg had a meeting with Funk (Document 1031-PS). In this meeting, as you may recall, they discussed the question of how the monetary problem in the East might be regulated in the event of war against Russia and the occupation of those territories by German forces. Gentlemen, in my opinion it is quite natural that in view of an impending war, even a war of defense, the authorities responsible for money matters should discuss the question of the handling of these matters in case enemy territory should be occupied. Funk was opposed to any solution likely to give rise to speculation; and he described the suggested rate of exchange for marks and rubles as entirely arbitrary. He agreed with Rosenberg that the Russian territory should have its own national currency as soon as conditions permitted. For the rest he demanded further investigation of these problems, especially since the matter could not be decided in advance.
Here too, therefore, Funk approached matters with his characteristic caution and endeavored to find a solution which would create stable conditions from the very start. If the necessity for printing ruble bills to meet the most urgent demands for currency was mentioned in the discussion with Rosenberg—though not by Funk—Funk did not see anything either unusual or criminal therein. If the currency of a country has been depleted, it is absolutely necessary for fresh money to be provided by the power responsible for maintaining a stable monetary system. Who made the banknotes was of no importance to Funk; the essential point for him was by whom the banknotes were issued and in what quantity. Moreover, the production of a new banknote requires months of preparation, so that the execution of such a plan—which, as I said, was in any case not Funk’s—could not have taken place until much later.
A few weeks after this discussion the war actually broke out. Funk knew that there was danger of war with Russia. That Germany had long been preparing for such a war was however as little known to him as the fact that Germany would attack and thus wage a preventive war. Funk was informed neither of the march into Austria nor of the negotiations in regard to the Sudetenland—in September and October 1938 he was not even in Germany—nor was he informed of the seizure of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. In the case of Poland, he knew that the conflict was acute, but nothing more; of Russia the same thing was true. But in both cases he was informed even of this only a short time before the actual outbreak of war. As far as wars with other countries were concerned, Funk received no information whatsoever before the opening of hostilities; he was only informed afterward.
All the facts I have mentioned form a clear indication that Funk knew nothing of Hitler’s intentions with regard to foreign policy, and that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the fact that Hitler was planning wars of aggression. In the summer of 1939 Funk certainly devoted particular attention to the conversion of German economy from a peacetime to a wartime basis. But as an official of the Reich, Funk considered it to be not only his right but also his duty to prepare the German people for a defensive war and to take the necessary economic measures.
However, the Prosecution believes that it can eliminate all these doubts by describing the Reichsregierung or the National Socialist Party as a criminal organization which conspired against other nations, and whose sole task was to plan and wage wars of aggression, to subjugate and enslave foreign nations, and to plunder and Germanize other countries. This deduction is erroneous, since those plans were devised and executed only by Hitler himself and a few of the men closest to him, of the type of Goebbels, Himmler, and Bormann. According to the evidence we have heard, there can be no doubt that even the highest officials of the State and the Armed Forces—and in particular Funk—were not informed of these plans, but that these plans were concealed from them by a cunning system of secrecy.
Any comparison with the secret societies mentioned by the Prosecution, which in other countries banded together in criminal organizations, as for example the Ku Klux Klan in America, is impossible for a further reason. The Ku Klux Klan was organized from the start as a secret society for the purpose of terrorizing and committing crimes. In 1871, after scarcely 6 years of existence, it was expressly forbidden by the North American Government through a special law, known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. At that time the Government even imposed martial law on it and fought it with every possible means. It was an organization with which the Government and Congress of the United States never had any dealings. A man like Funk would, of course, never have joined a secret society, a criminal organization against which the Government was fighting. However, the National Socialist Party in Germany was never a secret organization, but was a party recognized by the Government and considered lawful. The unity between this Party and the State was even declared in a special Reich law. Since 1934 the leader of this Party was at the same time the elected head of the Reich, and this head of the State and his Government have been constantly and officially recognized as a government by the entire world from 1933 on. It was due precisely to this international recognition of Hitler by every foreign country—a recognition which continued to be extended in part even during the second World War—that Funk and millions of other Germans never doubted the legality of the Government and that such doubts, if they ever entered their minds, were immediately dispelled. Millions of German officials and German soldiers assumed, just as Funk did, that they were only doing their duty in not withholding from the head of the State the recognition accorded to him by every country in the world.
[sm type begins]The foreign countries, their statesmen as well as their general staffs, the press as well as the intelligence service of other countries, were certainly better informed about the German situation and also about the true aims of German politics than the German citizen who had no access to foreign newspapers, who was not permitted to listen to foreign radio stations if he did not want to land in jail or on the scaffold, who for years lived as isolated as in jail and could not even trust his neighbors and friends—not even his relatives—and dared not talk things over with anybody. Even ministers knew no more about Hitler’s true plans than any other fellow citizen and even of major State affairs they mostly learned only afterward through the newspapers or the radio. Who could have ever conceived the thought that foreign states would maintain diplomatic relations with a criminal organization and that official persons of foreign countries should recognize and call upon a man in whom they saw the head of a band of conspirators?[sm type ends]
As already mentioned, Funk has never denied that in his plans and directives he naturally took into account the possibility of wars which might some day have to be waged by Germany, just as it is part of the duty of every general staff in the world to take such possibilities into consideration. At that time Funk had every reason to do so in his capacity as Minister of Economics and Reichsbank president; for the world situation since the first World War had been so tense, and the conflicting interests of individual nations had frequently appeared insurmountable to such a degree that, unless he wanted to be accused of neglecting or betraying the interests of his own people, every statesman had to make the preparations necessary for waging war. A preliminary activity of this kind is, therefore, not in itself of criminal significance; and Funk has no doubt that during those years the ministers of economics and bank presidents of other countries also made—and had to make—similar preparations for the event of war. In the case of Funk it is of no importance whether or not he for his part ordered such preparations, but only whether or not he knew that Hitler was planning aggressive wars and intended to wage such aggressive wars in violation of existing treaties and in disregard of international law.
But Funk, as he declared under oath, did not know this, nor did he act on this premise. Hitler’s constant affirmations of peace prevented such a possibility from entering his mind. Today, of course, we know on the basis of the actual events that followed and on the basis of the facts established by these proceedings, that those peace assertions of Hitler’s, which were still on his lips when he committed suicide, were in reality only lies and deception. But at that time Funk regarded Hitler’s protestations in favor of peace as perfectly genuine. It never occurred to him at that time that he himself and the whole German nation could be deceived by Hitler; he believed Hitler’s words just as did the entire world, and thus he was the victim of that deception just as was the entire world. If no blame attaches to foreign statesmen and generals who believed Hitler’s protestations, although they certainly were better informed on Germany’s rearmament than was Funk, the faith which he himself had in the head of the State cannot be called a crime.
Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have now examined the Prosecution’s accusation that Funk had planned wars of aggression; and I turn to another point of the Indictment, which concerns Funk’s activities in the occupied territories and the charge of forced labor.
The Prosecution offered very little evidence against Funk on the subject of forced labor or the slave-labor program. In the main he is held responsible for the compulsory employment of foreign workers on the grounds that he was a member of the Central Planning Board from autumn 1943 on. The first session of the Central Planning Board at which he was present took place on 22 November 1943, that is to say, at an advanced stage of the war, and after that he very rarely attended meetings. The Defendant Speer testified to this, and it is also evident from the minutes of the Board, which were very carefully kept. And I should like to emphasize the fact that Funk never had anything to do with the employment of labor either in his capacity as Minister of Economics or as president of the Reichsbank. He was on principle opposed to taking in too many workers from the occupied territories, especially by force, because this interfered with the economic and the social life of these territories. The Codefendant Sauckel and the witnesses Landfried and Hayler have confirmed this, and it is also shown by the remarks made by Funk himself at the meeting held in Lammers’ office on 11 July 1944 (Document 3819-PS), which was frequently quoted in Court. Here, for instance, Funk expressed disapproval of ruthless raids to recruit foreign workers.
If Funk sent representatives to the Central Planning Board, he did so only to insure that the necessary raw materials were allocated to the industries engaged in manufacturing consumer’s goods and goods for export, but never to deal with questions of foreign labor, in which he was not at all interested. Although the Prosecution, in cross-examining the witness Hayler, on 7 May 1946, confronted him with a statement by Funk during the preliminary interrogation of 22 October 1945, Document Number 3544-PS, to the effect that he had “not racked his brain” over these labor problems, it must also be stated on the part of the Defense that in the next sentence of these minutes—in the same breath, so to speak—Funk declared that he had always done his utmost to prevent workers being taken away from their homeland, in this case France. This second sentence, although not quoted by the Prosecution, seems to be of special importance because it clearly reveals Funk’s disapproval of the compulsory measures used in connection with the utilization of foreign labor. The Defendant Speer, however, testified before the Tribunal on 20 June that the Central Planning Board made no plans at all for the utilization of labor. Only occasional discussions on questions concerning the utilization of labor took place here. The records containing the actual results of the negotiations and decisions of the Central Planning Board have not been introduced by the Prosecution. It has been shown that Funk, who attended only a few of the meetings of the Central Planning Board, never received the full notes but only the minutes, which revealed nothing. Before Speer was responsible for decisions on war production, and before Sauckel became Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor—that is, before 1942—the question of recruiting labor for production was dealt with by the Four Year Plan, that is, by Göring and not by Funk. Later on applications for workers required, as Speer has testified, were usually made by the industries directly to the offices controlling the allocation of labor. While Funk was still in charge of production in the Reich Ministry for Economics and working in accordance with the directives of the Four Year Plan, questions concerning the allocation of labor were not dealt with by the Reich Ministry for Economics at all, but by the Plenipotentiary General appointed under the Four Year Plan for the various branches of industry—that is, by Göring—by means of direct negotiation with the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. Speer clarified this in connection with Document Sauckel Number 12. He also clarified the fact that several branches of industry, such as overground and underground construction not falling within the competency of the Reich Minister of Economics, were cited in this document as belonging to it.
[sm type begins]Some other items had been rectified previously already by Sauckel’s defense counsel. The various economic offices (Wirtschaftsämter) likewise did not request manpower from the Reich Ministry of Economics. They were, however, not offices of the Reich Ministry of Economics, but were incorporated in the so-called intermediate instance, that is, in the provincial authorities, or in the Gauleitungen.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]An important point in this connection is the establishment of the fact that up to 1943, that is, up to the time in which Funk was at all competent in questions of production, foreign workers came to Germany through recruitment solely upon the basis of a voluntary decision. With respect to this, I refer to the decree of the Reich Minister for Labor promulgated on 30 July 1940, presented in Funk’s book of documents under Number 12, in which the conformity with obligations internationally agreed upon is specifically pointed out.[sm type ends]
Finally it must be stated that Funk, at the time when he joined the Central Planning Board, no longer had any production assignments and could therefore no longer claim workers, so that in consequence he had no further interest in this aspect of the Central Planning Board’s activities.
[sm type begins]Regarding Funk’s attitude toward the economy of occupied territory, and measures taken by him to insure the maintenance of orderly economic conditions and especially of stable conditions of currency, I refer to the questionnaires Landfried (Exhibit Number Funk-16) and Puhl (Exhibit Number Funk-17), as well as to testimony of the witnesses Hayler, Neubacher, and Seyss-Inquart. I will refer only to Document 2263-PS, introduced by the Prosecution during cross-examination of the Defendant Funk, a letter from the Under Secretary of the Ministry of Economics to the Armed Forces High Command of 6 June 1942, in which the transfer of 100 million Reichsmark from occupation money is requested for purchases by Roges Raw Material Incorporated (Rohstoffhandelsgesellschaft) on the black market in France.[sm type ends]
[sm type begins]Here we deal with the purchases in occupied territories mentioned before, resulting from instructions by the Four Year Plan. These, however, represent exactly those purchases against which Funk protested. His protests finally culminated in the decision of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan (Göring) to prohibit any such further purchases. As is known, Funk personally had no authority to issue instructions for the occupied territories. Moreover such controlled purchases by authorities must be looked upon in a different light from the uncontrolled purchases of the various State, Party, and Armed Forces agencies, against which Funk fought time and again (Questionnaire Landfried, Document Book Number Funk-16).[sm type ends]
Summarily it must be said that the evidence submitted has proved beyond doubt that the Defendant Funk took a great many measures to prevent the exploitation of occupied territories and that the fact that he succeeded in preventing the devaluation of currency in occupied countries was in itself enough to protect them from suffering damage to an extent which cannot be evaluated in detail.
With that, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I leave this point of the Indictment against Funk and turn to a further charge against him, namely, his participation in the elimination of Jews from economic life in November and December 1938, which forms Point 3 of the Indictment against him.
Gentlemen, the charges which the Prosecution has made against Funk contain many details with which, in view of the time at my disposal, I am unable to deal fully. With regard to such details I shall refer to statements made by Funk himself in this connection. First of all, however, I must deal more fully with what seems to me the most important of all the charges made against Funk, namely, that of playing a part in the persecution of the Jews. The Defendant Funk considers this to be the most important factor in his trial.
Gentlemen, no one in Germany has ever asserted that Funk was one of those fanatical anti-Semites who took part in the pogroms against the Jews or who approved of these proceedings and profited by them; Funk always condemned such actions. This can be explained not only by his natural disposition and the environment in which he grew up, but also by his years of work as a journalist, mainly in connection with that section of the press which dealt with economic policy and consequently kept him in continuous touch with the Jewish circles of importance to economic life. Experts in that field know, and still have respect for, Funk who even at that time showed an attitude that was free of all anti-Semitism, and friendly toward the Jews rather than hostile.
It is tragic to a certain extent that in spite of this the name Funk, of all names, has been repeatedly connected in this Trial with the decree of November 1933, as a result of which the Jews were eliminated from economic life. Whether he liked it or not, all questions concerning the treatment of Jews in the economic life of Germany were under the jurisdiction of his department as Minister for Economics. As an official it was his duty to issue the necessary executive instructions.
This was certainly particularly difficult for Funk, in view of his tolerant attitude. At that time he had already been a civil servant of the Reich Propaganda Ministry and the Ministry for Economics for 8 years, and yet, during all that time, the Prosecution could not cite a single instance of any display of anti-Semitism on Funk’s part or any evidence of his having urged or approved of the use of force, terrorism, or injustice against the Jews. On the contrary, we know from the statements of various witnesses that Funk repeatedly interceded for his Jewish fellow citizens in the course of these years; that he looked after them and tried in their interests to alleviate hardships, to prevent encroachments on their rights, and to spare the lives and careers of human beings, even if they were Jews or political opponents of his own.
It is, therefore, not surprising that this man, with his wide experience in the economic field, this man of far-reaching knowledge, with his frankly tolerant views, was most painfully affected when on 10 November 1938 he had to witness the destruction of Jewish homes and shops in Berlin, and when he received one report after another confirming the fact that Goebbels and his clique, exploiting the indignation of the populace over the assassination of a German by a Jew, were organizing such pogroms throughout Germany, and that these outrages were leading not only to the destruction of Jewish property, but also to the murder of many Jews and to the persecution of many thousands of innocent citizens.
The affidavit of this assistant, Ministerialrat Kallus (Document Book Number Funk-15) of 9 December 1945, and that of Frau Luise Funk of 5 November 1945 (Funk Document Book Number 3), prove clearly that Funk condemned such excesses most severely, that he was incensed to the extent of calling them filthy outrages even when addressing Dr. Goebbels himself, and that he threatened to resign in the event of a repetition. Even at that time he told the mighty Goebbels to his face that one should be ashamed of being a German.
All this, Gentlemen, expressed the justified indignation of a man who for years had made every effort to insure moderation toward Jews and political opponents and had received many a letter of gratitude for so doing—a man who had fought for years to prevent terrorism, to secure for all his fellow citizens the rights to which they were entitled, and to raise the standard of German economic life—and who now saw all his efforts frustrated in a single night by the brutal fanaticism of a Dr. Goebbels.
Funk himself, during his interrogation, gave us a vivid description of how, ever since he entered office as Minister of Economics in February 1938, he had been subjected to continuous pressure by Goebbels and Dr. Ley to eliminate the Jews from the economic life of the country in the same way as they had been eliminated in 1933 from its cultural life.
The witness Dr. Hayler stated here that Himmler also found fault with Funk for this. Funk himself testified to the difficulties which again and again occurred during those years with workers stirred up by propaganda, who were sometimes no longer willing to work under Jewish managers, or did not dare to do so; and how, in these oppressive conditions, numerous Jewish owners sold their businesses—frequently at cut prices—to people who seemed to Funk as the Minister of Economics entirely unfit to acquire or manage such businesses. Funk tried again and again to stem this overwhelming development. He made continual efforts to put a brake on this process of Aryanization; to provide for a reasonable and just settlement for Jewish owners of businesses; and to allow them to emigrate from Germany with their property. But Funk realized more and more clearly every day that he was too weak to stop this movement and that the radical elements around Dr. Goebbels and Dr. Ley were gaining the upper hand, in which they were unfortunately able to rely on Hitler’s authority. Hitler had allowed himself in the course of time to be won over more and more to the policy of radical treatment of the Jewish question by a few irresponsible advisers who are not sitting in the dock today.
The events of 9 November 1938 burst like a bombshell into this fight between Funk and other considerate people on the one side, and Goebbels and Ley on the other. As Dr. Goebbels himself admitted later to Fritzsche, they were aimed directly at the person of the Defendant Funk, who was thus to be confronted with a fait accompli. As the witness Landfried testified, Dr. Goebbels did in fact attain his ends through this operation of November 1938. Goebbels was able to refer later to Hitler’s own order for the Jews to be completely excluded from the economic life of Germany, although Funk, as the minister concerned, repeatedly made allusion to the relations with foreign countries upon which the German Reich and its economy depended.
The orders necessary to carry out this program were given by Göring in his capacity of Delegate for the Four Year Plan, on the direct orders of Hitler. Funk never had any doubt that in this particular affair Göring also was to a certain degree only a puppet, because he had always known Göring to be a man who condemned extreme radicalism in this particular question of the Jews. Funk’s views on this point were shared by wide circles of the German people, and the fateful Göring meeting of 12 November 1938 (Document 1816-PS) proved this to be correct. This document has been mentioned here repeatedly. At a meeting which preceded that of 12 November 1938, Göring sharply condemned the acts of terrorism which had occurred and declared to the Gauleiter present that he would make every Gauleiter personally responsible for acts of violence committed in his district. But what was the good of that?
In the course of the second meeting, the minutes of which were submitted to the Tribunal under Number 1816-PS, Goebbels ultimately succeeded in imposing his radical demands; and the course taken by this meeting forced Funk to admit that the complete elimination of the Jews from German economic life could no longer be delayed for the simple reason that the circles in power had become far too fanatical. It became evident to Funk that legislative measures were necessary if the Jews were to be protected from further acts of terrorism, looting, and violence and if they were to get any reasonable compensation. During the Göring meeting of 12 November 1938, Funk repeatedly expressed his views again, as is shown by the records. It was due to the efforts made by the Defendant Funk, with the support of Göring, that Jewish businesses were reopened for the time being, that the whole procedure was taken out of the hands of the arbitrary local agencies and put on a legal basis throughout Germany, and finally that in order to gain time in which to carry out this action a definite date was set for its completion. Anyone who reads carefully the minutes of the Göring meeting of 12 November 1938 will, in spite of their incorrect and incomplete formulation, be able to find definite and repeated indications of Funk’s moderating influence; namely, his insistence—repeatedly mentioned in the minutes—on the reopening of Jewish stores, his proposal that the Jews be allowed to retain at least their securities, and finally his attitude to Heydrich’s demand that the Jews be placed in ghettos. The minutes of 12 November 1938 prove beyond doubt that it was Funk who opposed Heydrich’s proposal by saying: “We don’t need ghettos. Surely the Jews could move closer together among themselves. The existence of 3 million Jewish people among no less than 70 million Germans can be regulated without ghettos.” This is a literal quotation.
Funk therefore wanted to save the Jews at least from being interned in ghettos. It must be admitted that at that time Funk did not entirely succeed in securing recognition for his point of view, so that the proposal that the Jews should be allowed to retain their securities, for instance, was turned down, although Funk pointed out, as the minutes show, that to realize the Jewish securities would suddenly flood the German stock market with securities to the value of 500 million Reichsmark and would, therefore, have serious consequences for the German stock market. The decisive question in judging the Defendant Funk is not so much his success as the fact that he made an obvious effort to save for the Jews all that could be saved in the circumstances; and we must not lose sight of the fact that in all those measures Funk acted only in his capacity as Minister of Economics, that is, as an official who merely gave the order to execute a command which Göring as Delegate of the Four Year Plan had issued on the orders of Hitler. Funk found himself in exactly the same position of constraint, as, for example, the Reich Minister of Finance, Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, who at that time had to order the punitive levy of 1,000 million Reichsmark to be paid by the Jews, or the Reich Minister of Justice and the Reich Minister of the Interior, both of whom issued similar executive instructions in their respective spheres. The Tribunal must decide the difficult legal question of whether a state official whose government has been legally recognized by all the governments of the world is liable to legal punishment for putting into effect a law—and I emphasize the word “law”—passed in accordance with the legislative system of this state. This legal problem is entirely different from the other question, dealt with in the Charter and by the Prosecution, as to whether or not the fact that an official order was given by a superior can serve as an excuse. I might add here that I shall not discuss this legal question because I shall leave it to the other members of the Defense. I shall discuss only whether an official who puts into effect a law passed by the internationally recognized government of his country thereby becomes liable to punishment. That is an entirely different problem from the one dealt with by the Charter.
Gentlemen, since this has not been dealt with before, I have to state the following; I read at the bottom of Page 50: Our natural sense of justice fully approves that a citizen, an official, or even a soldier, cannot defend himself by reference to the official order given him by his superior if this order obviously implies an illegal act, and especially a crime; and if in the existing circumstances and in due consideration of all the accompanying facts, the subordinate realizes, or should realize, that the official order is contrary to the law.
If the latter condition exists, in other words, if the official order obviously constitutes a breach of the law, it may in general be fully approved that the subordinate is not accorded the right to refer to his superior’s official order as an excuse and to maintain that he was only carrying out that order. In that respect this stipulation of the Charter contains nothing essentially new, but only the confirmation and further development of legal principles which are recognized to a varying extent in the penal codes of most civilized nations today. A certain amount of precaution, however, seems to be indicated in this matter, for it should not be forgotten, on the other hand, that obedience to the orders of a superior—not obedience to the law, but to a superior—is, and must in future remain the foundation of every government in all nations if the orderly functioning of the state administrative apparatus is to be secured; and that it would be dangerous for the civil servant to decide for himself whether to keep his oath of allegiance.
But, Gentlemen, in our case something different is involved: We are dealing here with the obedience of the citizen and especially of the civil servant, such as Funk was at that time, to a national law, which was legally promulgated in accordance with the constitutional rules of this State. If we wish to find a just and correct answer to this complicated juridical question, which so far has not been treated in literature, it will be pertinent to disregard entirely conditions in Germany and the present Trial, and to ask ourselves what decision would be given in a case where a civil servant of a different country—not Germany—carried out a law. Let us assume for instance, that some foreign country embracing a minority promulgated, in accordance with its constitution, a law exiling from its territory all members of this minority, or confiscating for the benefit of the state the property of such inhabitants, or turning over to the state or partitioning among other citizens the large agricultural estates of such inhabitants. Let us assume that such a case exists and let us ask ourselves: Does the civil servant in this nation really commit a crime if he carries out this lawful order? Is it really the duty of the official charged with the execution of this law to refuse to obey the law and to declare that in his personal opinion the law concerned is a crime against humanity, or has he even the right to do so? In such a case, Gentlemen, would any state today grant its civil servants permission to examine whether the law proclaimed is contrary to the principles of humanity or to the fluctuating norms of international law? What state would tolerate the refusal of its civil servants for such a reason to execute a law already proclaimed?
[sm type begins]Or another example: Let us assume that the laws of a nation decree that certain new weapons are to be introduced into the armed forces, or that more warships are to be built, or that some preparations have to be made for war. Should an individual civil servant really have the right to refuse the execution of the law, even perhaps to sabotage its execution, and then to say, by way of explanation, that in his personal opinion concerning international law it involved the preparation of an aggressive war, consequently an international crime?[sm type ends]
The Tribunal will have to decide these legal problems. But Funk may point out in his own defense the fact that by reason of his entire ideology and background it was especially painful to him to issue these executive instructions, although he believed he was only doing his duty as a civil servant.
In this connection I wish to remind you of Funk’s circular of 6 February 1939 (Document 3498-PS, Trial Brief Funk, Page, 19), where he emphasizes to his officials that it was their duty to “insure that it was carried out in a correct manner in every respect” and where he already feels impelled to disclaim personal responsibility for these measures by expressly emphasizing: “How far and how rapidly the powers conferred by the Four Year Plan are to be exercised will depend on the instructions to be given by me in accordance with the directives of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.” This special reference made by the Defendant Funk to the legal decrees of the Four Year Plan, which was authorized to promulgate laws, originated in the defendant’s desire to express formally and solemnly, and to establish for the future, the fact that in issuing the executive instructions in 1938 he was a victim of his obedience to the State, a victim of his loyalty to the laws of the State to which he had sworn allegiance.
Funk’s circular of 6 February 1939, already mentioned on Page 19 of the trial brief, clearly expresses the qualms of conscience which had gripped Funk in those days, although he had not incriminated himself—qualms which, during his interrogation by an American officer on 22 October 1945, led to his complete nervous collapse, so that Funk was unable to restrain his tears and told the interrogating officer: “Yes, I am guilty; I should have resigned at that time.”
These same qualms of conscience gripped the defendant throughout the entire Trial and are still haunting him; and we remember that in the session of 6 May 1946, when this point was discussed, Funk was so deeply shaken that he could hardly continue talking and finally declared here before you, Gentlemen, that at that moment he fully realized that this, meaning the atrocities of November 1938, was the starting point of the chain of events leading to those horrible and frightful things of which we have learned here, some of which he too had already heard of during his imprisonment, and which culminated in Auschwitz. He felt, as he said during his interrogation on 22 October 1945, “deep shame and heavy guilt,” and he still feels it today; but he had put the will of the State and the laws of the State above his own feelings and above the voice of conscience since he, as a civil servant, was tied by duty to the State. He felt these ties all the more strongly as these legal measures were particularly necessary for the protection of the Jews in order to save them from losing their rights completely, and from suffering further despotism and violence. These are the very words of the Defendant Funk; and they represent his actual feelings. Today Funk still feels that it was a terrible tragedy that he of all people was charged with these things—he who never during his entire life said a spiteful word against a Jew, but had wherever he could always worked for tolerance and equality for the Jews.
If during his interrogation on 22 October 1945 Funk said: “I am guilty,” it need not be investigated here whether the defendant intended these words to apply to his criminal guilt, or only to a moral guilt which he saw in the fact that he had remained in an office which compelled him to carry out laws incompatible with his own philosophy of life. Funk was not in a position to decide for himself the complicated legal question of whether an official of an internationally acknowledged state can be punished at all if he only carries out laws passed in accordance with the legal constitution of this state. For the Defendant Funk his “guilt” did not lie in the fact that he had signed the executive instructions in November 1938, since this had been his duty as an official, rather did he consider himself guilty because he had remained a member of the Government although he found the acts of terror which had occurred intolerable, and abhorred them; he was not involved in the “conflict of conscience,” of which he spoke when he was interrogated, because he acted according to the laws which he considered necessary under the conditions prevailing at the time. This conflict was a result of the fact that he had not, in this difficult situation, listened to the voice of his conscience and had not resigned his ministerial office. But the decisive reasons for his attitude and his final decision to remain in office in spite of his feelings about the matter were certainly not material considerations. His reputation as a journalist and his abilities as such would easily have enabled him to find another suitable position. Much is to be said for the opinion that the Defendant was held in office above all by the thought that his resignation would in no way improve matters, but that on the contrary the administration would become still more radical under an unsuitable and fanatical successor, while by staying in office he might hope to alleviate much distress.
These considerations, which may have guided the Defendant Funk in the first place, were certainly correct up to a point. His State Secretary, Dr. Landfried, at least has testified that later on too Funk often expressed serious misgivings concerning the action taken against the Jews in November 1938 and showed very strong disapproval of all excesses and infringements of the law committed by various Government agencies in carrying out the action. Funk could talk openly to his confidant Landfried, and he often complained to him that he had no power to prevent such excesses. But, as he said to Landfried: “We of the Ministry of Economics should take particular care to see that no one makes illicit profits out of the Aryanization—that is, the transfer to non-Jewish ownership—of business firms.” And Ministerialrat Kallus described in his deposition of 19 April 1946 the various measures taken at that time by Funk to protect the interests of Jewish owners. Kallus also told us that Funk even made personal efforts to insure that his orders were carried out by his subordinates in a proper manner.
Gentlemen, thus a sense of duty on the one hand, and humane feeling on the other, were the motives which kept the defendant in office and thus brought him into a situation where he is today charged with criminal action.
Mr. President, I am now coming to a new subject and I have altogether about 15 more pages. Does the Court wish to adjourn now? It is 6 minutes to 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you finish it by that time, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: There are 15 more pages; I should say about 8 or 9 minutes. On further thought, Mr. President, it will take about half an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 15 July 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHTH DAY Monday, 15 July 1946
Morning Session
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Ribbentrop is absent today.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to Counsel for the Prosecution and the Defense if at 2 o’clock today we were to deal with those interrogatories and affidavits which have come in since the last applications were made?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, it would be perfectly convenient for the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you think it would be convenient for the Defense Counsel to deal with those matters at 2 o’clock?
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Mr. President; I will inform the other defense counsel that these applications will be discussed at 2 o’clock.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): I agree with my colleague, Dr. Sauter, that this should be done. But if this is done at 2 o’clock it will interrupt my final speech. I should be very grateful if it could be done immediately after Dr. Sauter finishes his speech, so that I could present my plea coherently. It would be very awkward if I were interrupted.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Dix. Very well; we will do it immediately after Dr. Sauter’s plea.
DR. SAUTER: May I speak now, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal; before the adjournment on Friday, I explained in conclusion the position and the attitude of the Defendant Funk with respect to the Jewish question. On this occasion I pointed out that in connection with the executive instructions issued late in 1938 on the legal exclusion of the Jews from economic life, the Defendant Funk acted only in his capacity as a Reich official and in the performance of the duties of that office.
On Friday, I finished my statements in that respect with the words:
It was a sense of duty on the one hand, and humane feeling on the other, which kept the Defendant Funk in office and thus brought him into a situation where he is today charged with criminal action.
Now, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I turn to the last chapter of my appraisal of the Defendant Funk, of his motives and actions, and will now deal with the gold deliveries by the SS to the Reichsbank, and with the relation of the Defendant Funk to the concentration camp question. That is to say, I am going to refer to Page 58 of the written speech which has been submitted to you.
It is a peculiar tragedy in the life of the Defendant Funk that he was not only forced by fate in the year 1938 to issue executive instructions for laws which he always inwardly condemned and repudiated more than anybody else, but that once again, in the year 1942, he became involved in a particularly horrible manner with Jewish persecutions. I am thinking now of the deposits made by the SS in the Reichsbank, that is to say, the matter on which a film was shown here of the steel vault of the Frankfurt Branch of the Reichsbank and about which two witnesses have testified, namely, Vice President Emil Puhl and Reichsbank Councillor Albert Thoms.
The Defendant Funk was already examined about this matter of the gold deposits at the preliminary proceedings on 4 June 1945, (see 2828-PS); at that time, however, no details were disclosed to him, and Funk made the same statement then as he did before this Tribunal, namely, that he was only briefly told about the matter in question on a few occasions, and that he had not attached any importance to it at all. That is also the reason why the Defendant Funk could not at first recall those happenings very well during the proceedings here. He did not know anything more about them than he had already said.
Nevertheless, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, Funk had to expect that this matter would be brought up in the Trial, at any rate in the cross-examination. And this was actually done by the American Prosecution on 7 May 1946, who submitted an affidavit by the witness Emil Puhl, Vice President of the Reichsbank, in which at first sight Puhl appeared to make serious accusations against the Defendant Funk. Now it is remarkable that since the beginning of this Trial the Defendant Funk has repeatedly referred to this very witness Puhl for various points, and that since December 1945 he has repeatedly requested that the latter be interrogated. Measured by ordinary human standards, Funk would certainly not have done this if he had had a bad conscience and had reason to expect to be compromised in the most damaging way by his own witness regarding the concentration camp matter. But the oral examination of the witness Emil Puhl here before this Tribunal showed beyond a doubt that Puhl could no longer in any way maintain the incriminating statements in his affidavit, as far as the character of the Defendant Funk and his knowledge of the particulars of the SS deposits were concerned.
It is true that Funk, as he recalled after Puhl’s testimony (and concerning this I submitted on 17 June 1946 a corrected copy of his sworn testimony), was once asked by Reichsführer SS Himmler whether articles of value which had been seized by the SS in the Eastern Territories could be deposited in the vaults of the Reichsbank. Funk answered this question in the affirmative and told Himmler that he should delegate somebody to discuss the matter with Vice President Puhl, and settle the details. Himmler at that time told Funk that his Gruppenführer Pohl could do this and that the latter would get in touch with Vice President Puhl. That was all that Funk at that time, I believe in 1942, had discussed with Reichsführer SS Himmler and which he on that occasion also repeated to his Vice President Puhl who was actually directing the business of the Reichsbank and therefore responsible for this affair.
There was nothing extraordinary in this question of Reichsführer SS Himmler, at least nothing which Funk could recognize. For, as far as Funk knew, the SS was at that time in charge of the entire police service in the Occupied Eastern Territories. For that reason it often had to confiscate valuables just as the ordinary police did in the interior, that is, within Germany. Moreover, all gold coins, foreign currency, et cetera, in the Occupied Eastern Territories had to be turned in according to law, and these deliveries in the Eastern Territories were naturally made to the SS, because there were no other state offices equipped for that purpose. Funk also knew that the concentration camps were under the direction of the SS and thought that the valuables which were to be given to the Reichsbank by the SS for safekeeping belonged very probably to that category of valuables which the entire population was obliged to deliver.
Finally, as has been ascertained in the course of this Trial, the SS was constantly just as much engaged in the fighting in the East as the Armed Forces, and like the latter the SS had also collected so-called booty in the abandoned and destroyed towns of the East and delivered it to the Reich. Therefore, there was nothing at all extraordinary for Funk in the fact that the SS possessed gold and foreign currency and brought it in for delivery in the regular way.
Now, the essential point in this whole business is the question whether the Defendant Funk knew or saw that among the objects delivered by the SS there were unusual quantities of gold spectacle frames, gold teeth, and similar objects which had come into the hands of the SS not through legal but criminal confiscations. If—and I emphasize, Gentlemen, if—it could be proven that the Defendant Funk had seen such objects in the deposits of the SS, this would naturally have caused him some surprise. But we heard the witness Puhl say in the most positive way that the Defendant Funk had no knowledge of this and, indeed, that Vice President Puhl himself knew no further details about it. In any case Funk never saw what particular gold objects and what quantities the SS delivered.
Now, it has been said against Funk that he himself entered the vaults of the Berlin Reichsbank several times, and from this one felt entitled to draw the conclusion that he must have seen what objects had been delivered to the Reichsbank by the SS. This conclusion is obviously wrong because the evidence shows that during the entire period of the war Funk went to the vaults of the Reichsbank only a very few times for the purpose of showing these vaults and the bullion of the Reichsbank stored there to special visitors, especially foreign guests. But on those few visits to the vaults he never saw the deposits of the SS. He never observed what in particular the SS had deposited in his bank. This is established beyond doubt, not only by the sworn statement of the Defendant Funk himself, but also by the oral testimony of Vice President Puhl and Reichsbank Councillor Thoms here in this courtroom. This Prosecution witness, who is certainly free from suspicion and who by his own admission volunteered to testify, has declared here under oath that the valuables were delivered by the SS in locked trunks, boxes, and bags and were also stored away in these containers, and that Funk was never present in the vaults when the bank employees made an inventory of the contents of an individual box or trunk. The witness Thoms, who was in charge of these vaults, never saw the Defendant Funk there at all. Therefore, Funk neither knew of the proportions which the deliveries of the SS gradually assumed in the course of time, nor did he know that the deposits contained jewelry, pearls, and precious stones, and also spectacle frames and gold teeth. He never saw any of those things and none of his officials ever reported to him about them either.
Now it is the opinion of the Prosecution that Funk, as President of the Reichsbank, surely must have known what was kept in the vaults of his bank; but this conclusion is also evidently mistaken and does not take into consideration actual conditions in a large central issuing bank. Funk, who was also Reich Minister of Economics, had in his capacity as President of the Reichsbank no occasion whatever to bother about the deposit of an individual customer, even if this happened to belong to the SS. As President of the Reichsbank he did not bother about any deposits of other clients of his bank either, since this was not his job. On only one occasion, following a suggestion of his Vice President Puhl, he asked Reichsführer SS Himmler—this was during his second conversation with him—whether the valuables deposited by the SS in the Reichsbank could be converted into cash in the legal course of business at the Reichsbank. Himmler gave his permission and Funk passed this information on to his Vice President Puhl. But in this matter he was only thinking of gold coins and foreign currency, that is to say, of those particular valuables which had to be turned in to the Reichsbank as a matter of course in the German Reich and which could be and had to be converted into cash by the Reichsbank. The idea never occurred to Funk that the deposits might contain gold teeth or other such remarkable objects which had their origin in criminal acts in concentration camps. He heard about these things to his horror for the first time here in the courtroom during the Trial.
The only remaining point in the statement of the witness Puhl which might excite a certain amount of suspicion, Your Honors, was the question of preserving secrecy, which in fact played a very important part indeed in the examination of the witness. Vice President Puhl stated here at the beginning of his testimony that the Defendant Funk had told him that the matter of the SS deposits must be kept especially secret. Funk, on the other hand, has always denied this in the most insistent manner and declared under oath that he never talked to Puhl at all about any such secrecy. Thus at the very beginning, here in the courtroom, we had one statement pitted against another, oath against oath. Vice President Puhl’s statements regarding this point, however, seemed somewhat contradictory from the beginning. For on one occasion Vice President Puhl said that this secrecy had not struck him as anything extraordinary, since after all secrecy is preserved about everything that occurs in a bank. In answer to a special question, Puhl then stated repeatedly that he did not notice at all that the Defendant Funk had supposedly spoken about preserving secrecy.
When, however, the affidavit of the witness Thoms of 8 May 1945 was read and pointed out to the witness Puhl, the latter finally stated here under oath on 15 May 1946 that it was plainly visible from this affidavit that the desire for secrecy emanated from the SS. The SS considered it important that this business should be transacted secretly. The SS, as Puhl said, had been the ones originally responsible for the imposition of secrecy. This was the literal conclusion of the witness Puhl’s sworn statement and at the end of it he again confirmed that the obligation for secrecy was desired and imposed by the SS.
The initial contradiction regarding this point between the statements of the Defendant Funk and those of the witness Puhl was hereby completely eliminated, Your Honors, in favor of the defendant. Puhl himself could no longer maintain his original assertion that it was Funk who had ordered the SS deposits to be kept secret. Therefore, in arriving at your verdict, you must proceed from the premise that the statement of the Defendant Funk is correct in this point also and deserves preference, for he has declared under oath from the very beginning and with the utmost certainty that he himself knew nothing about keeping anything secret and that he had never spoken of any such secrecy to Puhl, either. Moreover, there was absolutely no reason for Funk to say anything to Puhl about any special secrecy, since Funk was obviously of the opinion that the valuables involved were only of the kind which had to be turned in and confiscated, and which came within the regular lawful business of the Reichsbank and need not be kept secret, regardless of whether these things which had to be turned in were the property of a prisoner in a concentration camp or the property of a free individual.
It was never made clear by the evidence submitted why the SS on their part stressed the importance of preserving secrecy to Vice President Puhl and why, furthermore, the SS opened the deposit in the name of Melmer instead of in the name of the SS, and the Prosecution for their part did not attach any importance to clearing up this point. However, in any case, the demand of the SS for secrecy evidently did not strike Vice President Puhl as unusual any more than it did the witness Thoms who had nothing at all to do with the matter but who confirmed the fact that this secrecy was nothing unusual. But nevertheless, Your Honors, one thing is still a fact, namely, that nothing was kept secret from the numerous employees of the Reichsbank about exactly what kinds of objects were involved. On the contrary, the Reichsbank personnel was even entrusted by Vice President Puhl with the task of sorting the valuables delivered and converting them into cash at the pawn shop. Dozens of Reichsbank officials who regularly entered the vaults could see the various articles every day, and the Reichshauptkasse, an institution entirely separate from the Reichsbank, from time to time settled accounts for the conversion of valuables into cash with the Reich Ministry of Finance in a quite open and thoroughly routine way. Naturally, the Defendant Funk did not know, and still does not know today, whether and to what extent agreements had been reached between the Finance Minister and Reichsführer SS Himmler for accounting for the gold articles to the Reich. He was never interested in it, and indeed it did not concern him.
From all these facts, as shown by the evidence, one can readily conclude that Funk himself knew nothing about the things which were turned over to the Reichsbank at the time, and that even Vice President Puhl and Reichsbank Councillor Thoms did not think there was anything bad connected with the things, although Thoms, at least, had seen of what the deposits actually consisted.
For this reason there is no longer any need to examine the obvious question as to whether the initial statements of Puhl with regard to the deposits of the SS should not have been received with a certain skepticism from the very beginning. Puhl apparently had the understandable desire at least by his written affidavit to shift responsibility from himself to the shoulders of his President Funk in order to free himself of his own responsibility for the unpleasant facts of the case when he was told during his imprisonment that the gold articles of the SS consisted mostly of spectacle frames and gold teeth and had been taken from victims of concentration camps. At the beginning, even Puhl apparently did not see anything wrong in the whole business. For him the matter was an ordinary business transaction of the Reichsbank for the account of the Reich, which he dealt with in the same manner as he dealt with gold articles and foreign currency that had been confiscated by the Customs Investigation Office or the Office of Control for Foreign Currency or any other State authority. Gentlemen, whatever one may judge the responsibility of Vice President Puhl to be, at all events these things lie outside the responsibility of the Defendant Funk who is the only one with whom you are concerned in connection with this point here. In the period after this time Funk had only two or three very brief and unimportant conversations with Puhl regarding these gold deposits with a view to converting into cash gold coins and foreign currency delivered in the regular way. Outside of this, Funk did not concern himself at all with this whole matter any more. He knew even less about the matter than Puhl, and it is not without significance that Puhl declared here under oath that he would never have permitted these gold objects to be deposited in the Reichsbank at all if he had had the slightest notion that the things had been taken from concentration camp victims under criminal circumstances by the SS. If Vice President Puhl did not know that and could not have guessed it, then Funk could have known even less about it, and Puhl’s initial statement which was to the effect that—as he said at the time—“the gold articles had been accepted by the Reichsbank with Funk’s knowledge and agreement and had been converted into cash with the assistance of the Reichsbank personnel,” was a grossly misleading statement to the Prosecution. Subsequently during his imprisonment when Puhl first learned of the true circumstances, he surely must have felt the same compunctions as Funk, however innocent the latter was in the case. In conclusion, Puhl declared here under oath that he would not have tolerated such transactions either, and that he would have brought the matter to the attention of the Directorate of the Reichsbank as well as to that of President Funk if he had known that the valuables were taken from victims of concentration camps and had been informed about the nature of these valuables.
In connection with this topic, therefore, I come to the following conclusion: The Reichsbank certainly transacted business for the account of the Reich, the subject matter of which was derived from criminal acts of the SS; but the Defendant Funk knew nothing of this. He would not have tolerated such transactions had he known the true circumstances. Therefore, he cannot be made criminally responsible for this.
The same is true, Your Honors, with regard to Reichsbank credits for the business agencies of the SS, concerning which I shall limit myself to a few sentences. In his written affidavit of 3 May 1946 the witness Puhl has given a completely misleading account of this matter also. For he stated originally that credits of 10 to 12 million Reichsmark furnished by the Gold Discount Bank upon the instruction of the Defendant Funk were used—and I am now quoting literally: “for financing production in SS factories by workers from concentration camps.”
In his oral examination as a witness, Puhl then was asked whether Funk had any knowledge that persons from concentration camps were employed in these factories at all. In reply to this, Puhl declared literally: “I am inclined to assume this, but I am not in a position to know it.” Therefore, he was not able to give any definite evidence concerning Funk’s knowledge, but only to express a conjecture. In contrast to this, Funk’s own statement in regard to this matter is quite clear and convincing. It was to the effect that he knew, indeed, about the request for credit by the SS, and that he even granted it, but that he knew nothing about the nature of the SS enterprises concerned and about the people who were employed in them. Funk stated this under oath. Accordingly, this credit transaction, which moreover occurred about 2 years before the affair of the SS gold deposits, that is, prior to 1940, incriminates neither the Defendant Funk nor the witness Vice President Puhl. At that time, in 1940, neither of them was acquainted with the conditions in the concentration camps. They only learned about them much later, that is, in the course of this Trial. Nor did the Defendant Funk know that persons from the concentration camps were working in the afore-mentioned SS factories for which the credit was intended.
Gentlemen, in this connection it appears necessary to devote a few more sentences to a discussion of the question whether Funk ever visited a concentration camp. The witness Dr. Blaha, who was examined here, stated that Dr. Funk was once in Dachau in the first half of 1944. This visit was supposed to have occurred as a sequel to a conference of the Finance Ministers at Berchtesgaden, or in some other place in this region, in which Funk is said to have participated. Yet, Gentlemen, when he was examined here, the witness Dr. Blaha was unable to say that he had personally seen the Defendant Funk in Dachau, but had only heard from camp inmates at Dachau—that is, from other persons—that the Reich Minister of Economics, Funk, was with many other visitors allegedly present. He did not see him; nor would he have known him if he had. From the very beginning Funk himself has flatly denied this visit to Dachau. He also stated this under oath, and the affidavit made by his constant companion Dr. Schwedler (contained in the Funk document book under Number 13 submitted to you) proves beyond a doubt that Funk never was in a concentration camp. Dr. Schwedler is in a position to know this, as at that time he was the constant companion of the defendant and knew where Funk was from day to day. Moreover, Funk was never a Finance Minister, as the witness Dr. Blaha assumed, and never took part in a conference of Finance Ministers. Therefore, it appears beyond any doubt that what the witness Dr. Blaha stated here purely from hearsay is based on false information, or he has confused Funk with another visitor, which was very easily possible since the Defendant Funk was comparatively unknown to the public. The conclusion, therefore, is that Funk never visited a concentration camp and never personally became aware of the conditions prevailing in such camps.
Now, by this assertion Funk by no means wishes to allege that he knew nothing at all about the existence of concentration camps. Funk was naturally cognizant of the fact, just as almost any other German, that there were concentration camps in Germany after 1933; just as he knew that there were and still are penitentiaries, prisons, and other penal institutions in Germany.
But what he did not know, and what I want to stress here, was the very large number of such concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of their inmates. Equally unknown to him were the countless atrocities committed in these camps, which first became known only in this Trial. In particular it was only during this Trial that Funk learned that there were extermination camps which murdered millions of Jews. Funk had no knowledge of this; he has stated this under oath and it also appears absolutely credible, for one of the most important results of this Trial, in the opinion of the Defense, consists in providing proof of the fact that the German people in general knew nothing about the large number of concentration camps or the conditions within them, but that on the contrary those conditions were kept secret in such a cunning and cruel way that even the highest officials of the Reich including the very ministers knew nothing about them.
Your Honors, the Defense have now presented their views on that part of the Indictment which, had it been true, would have tragically incriminated the man Funk. One may think as one pleases about acts of violence during a political and economic struggle, especially in stormy revolutionary periods, but in the opinion of the Defendant Funk himself there can be no disagreement on one point, namely, with regard to the concentration camp atrocities committed for years, especially against the Jewish population. Anyone who participated in such unheard-of atrocities should be made to atone for them in the severest way, according to the opinion of the entire German people.
That is also the point of view of the Defendant Funk, which he expressed here on 6 May 1946 when he replied to the American prosecutor from the witness stand that as a man and as a German he felt deeply guilty and shamed for the crimes which Germans committed against millions of poor people.
Gentlemen, I have now reached the end of my consideration of the Funk case as far as criminal law is concerned, and that is the duty of the Defense in this Trial.
The examination of the evidence with regard to the Funk case has, in the opinion of the defendant, produced proof that a legal guilt, a criminal guilt, on his part does not exist, and that he can ask you for his acquittal with a clear conscience because he has never committed any criminal acts in his life.
Your task as judges will now be to find a just verdict for the Defendant Funk, a verdict which will not make him atone for the crimes of others, crimes he could not prevent and which he may not even have known about, but a verdict which only establishes the degree of his own guilt and not the degree of his political guilt, but of his criminal guilt which is the sole object of these proceedings. This verdict should be valid not only for today but also recognized as just in the future when we shall view these terrible events in the proper perspective and dispassionately as we would ancient history; a verdict, Your Honors, which will not only satisfy the nations which you represent, but which will also be recognized as just and wise by the German people as a whole; a verdict, finally, which is not only destructive, retaliatory, and which will sow hatred for the future, but one which will make it possible for the German people to move forward toward a happier future of human dignity and charity, of equality and peace.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you or Sir David deal with this. Sir David, I have got a document drawn up by the General Secretary which shows in the first place, in the case of the Defendant Göring, that there are four interrogatories which have been submitted, and to which the Prosecution has not objected. Is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord, so there is no further comment with regard to that first application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, with reference to the Defendant Ribbentrop, there are two affidavits to which there is no objection, and there are three further affidavits which have not been received, I understand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And one document to which the defendants’ counsel wants to refer in its entirety, namely, TC-75, is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is so. There is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better go on to the end of the documents and then call upon Dr. Horn for what he has got to say about those three, because as far as I can see, there are only these three documents and an affidavit for Seyss-Inquart from a man called Erwin Schotter, and another from a man called Adalbert Joppich, which have not yet been received.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And three letters from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler which have not yet been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Also, in the case of Fritzsche there are two interrogatories of Delmar and Feldscher which have not yet been received.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the three letters of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, they have been received, but they have not yet been translated into French, and I think, My Lord, the simplest way would be if the Tribunal took it that provisionally there is no objection but that the French Delegation reserve their right to make any objection if, upon receiving the translation, they find there is any objection to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the French Delegation will let the Tribunal know if they find there is any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, with reference to the rest, so far as the Prosecution are concerned, what are the objections, if any?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the only objection there is concerns the application of Dr. Servatius for the Defendant Sauckel. Your Lordship sees that after the interrogatories granted by the Tribunal there are certain documents which were introduced on 3 July by the Defendant Sauckel to be considered by the Tribunal, and then there is a number which is lettered “A” to “I.” The Prosecution suggests that these documents are cumulative of the large number of documents already introduced on behalf of this defendant, and, My Lord ...
THE PRESIDENT [Interposing]: Just one minute, Sir David. These documents “A” to “I,” were they applied for after the case had been closed?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They were submitted on 3 July, Sir. That would be after the case had been closed.
THE PRESIDENT: But that was at the time, was it not, when we were asking for supplementaries?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, at the very end.
THE PRESIDENT: That very day?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. My Lord, I am sorry, but the case was not technically closed, for that day was open for any defendant to put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these documents which you have just been referring to—“A” to “I”—are they already all in the document book?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Servatius tells me they are.
My Lord, I have just been having a word with Dr. Servatius and he says that the one to which he attaches the greatest importance is “A,” the decree by the Defendant Sauckel as to return transportation of sick foreign workers. My Lord, I am quite prepared on that assurance by Dr. Servatius not to make any objection to number “A,” and Dr. Servatius, on the other hand, says that he does not press for the others.
My Lord, there is another application which has just come in on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel for a document. It is an affidavit by the defendant himself, dated 29 June 1946. The Prosecution have no objection to the application.
My Lord, I think the only other matter with regard to the Defendant Sauckel is with regard to an affidavit from a witness called Falkenhorst. My Lord, that again, the Prosecution submits, is cumulative.
THE PRESIDENT: You say Falkenhorst?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Falkenhorst, Sir. My Lord, it is the very last application on my list.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning the witness Falkenhorst? This witness was called for Bormann; I waived his examination and submitted this affidavit with the approval of the Tribunal, and since, in my opinion, it was approved, I waived the witness. I assume that this is quite clear and is confirmed by the Prosecution also.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Servatius, that the affidavit from Falkenhorst had already been granted before?
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume it was granted at that time. The witness was waiting outside and I was asked whether I would like to question him, and I said in reply that I had an affidavit which was limited to one particular incident and it would be sufficient if I could submit the affidavit. He was the last witness who was supposed to be examined here, after the end of the actual hearing of evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not insist in the opposition in these circumstances. My Lord, that is all the comment the Prosecution have to make.
THE PRESIDENT: What about these two affidavits asked for by Dr. Steinbauer from Erwin Schotter and Adalbert Joppich?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have not got these yet. As I understand it, they have been admitted by the Tribunal subject to any objection, and I am afraid we cannot tell until we have seen them.
THE PRESIDENT: I see; well, then for the rest you have no other objections?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No other objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we have just had another document placed before us which contains an application on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel to call as a witness his son Friedrich Sauckel. The Prosecution has objected to that on the ground of irrelevance and cumulativeness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the position.
It did not seem, on consideration of the outline of the evidence, that the evidence of the defendant’s son would contribute anything fresh.
THE PRESIDENT: And that application was made after the 3 July? No, I see that is wrong. It was submitted before, but it was not mentioned on 3 July.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, it was an application to bring the witness here from England, since presumably he can give information regarding a number of things. I have not yet made a formal application. It was just a request to have him brought from England to Nuremberg for the purpose of finding out whether he knows anything of importance, as he claims.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I would not make objection to the defendant’s son being brought here for the purpose of Dr. Servatius’ having a talk with him and seeing whether he can contribute anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty that these sorts of applications put the Tribunal in is that the case never closes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I quite agree.
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know that the witness was in England. He was a prisoner and there had been no news about him previously.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, do we have an affidavit from the Defendant Sauckel himself which you have already dealt with?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is an affidavit by the Defendant Jodl on behalf of Kaltenbrunner; the application has been received at the General Secretary’s office on 5 July.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That was after the last date when the defendants’ counsel were asked for their applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am afraid I have not been able to collect the views of the Prosecution on that point.
My Lord, the substance of that affidavit was contained in Dr. Kauffmann’s speech. I do not think it really has any materiality, I mean that there is any real—that there can be any objection to the affidavit, because I am almost positive I remember this passage occurring, or an equivalent passage, giving the Defendant Jodl’s views on Kaltenbrunner in Dr. Kauffmann’s speech. My Lord, therefore, I do not think we should occupy time discussing it and therefore I think we should let the affidavit go in.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then there is an application from the Defendant Rosenberg for a document entitled “Tradition in Present Times.” That has been objected to as cumulative.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, are you wanting to say anything in support of that application or is it sufficiently covered by your speech?
DR. THOMA: I am of the opinion that it has been sufficiently dealt with in my speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Dr. Horn, there are two affidavits, one from Ribbentrop and one from Schulze, not yet put in. Do you want them?
DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Mr. President, there must be some mistake about the Schulze affidavit. I have not submitted any Schulze affidavit or made any application for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a mistake. Then, as to Ribbentrop’s affidavit, are you asking as to that or have we already dealt with that?
DR. HORN: No, I am asking that official cognizance be taken of the affidavit of Ribbentrop, and of Document TC-75. The other two affidavits of Thadden and Best have already been approved.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Why do you desire the Defendant Ribbentrop to make an affidavit? He has given his evidence in full. Is it something that has arisen since?
DR. HORN: The Defendant Ribbentrop only commented on a few documents which were submitted to him during his cross-examination when he had an opportunity to speak only very briefly about them. I did not want to make my final speech any longer with a detailed discussion of the other documents and, therefore, I have submitted this affidavit and beg the Tribunal to approve it.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, with regard to TC-75 ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is one of our original British documents. I have no objection to Dr. Horn using it.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the translation, though? I suppose it is a German document, is it not?
DR. HORN: Yes, it is a German document which was only translated in part and I have referred to the entire contents in my final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a very long document or not?
DR. HORN: No, it has only nine pages, Mr. President. The Prosecution submitted one page of the document to the Court in evidence. Then later I ascertained that there were two copies of the document. I then took the second copy, which represents the complete document, and submitted it to the Tribunal, and have had it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been translated?
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, that is all right then.
Now, Dr. Steinbauer, what about these two affidavits that you are asking for, one from Erwin Schotter and another from Adalbert Joppich?
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): I have submitted the two documents for translation and since the Translation Division is very busy I have not received the translation yet. But I should like to submit the two originals to the Tribunal under the numbers already given, Seyss-Inquart-112 and 113.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution seen the substance of the affidavits or not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, we have not. My Lord, they are very short affidavits. I will ask someone to read them in German through the day and let the Tribunal know before the Tribunal rises tonight.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the application made before 3 July, or when was it made?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, on 3 July exactly. I received both of these two documents on 3 July through the General Secretary and presented them on the same day.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter then and they will be glad to hear from the Prosecution if they have any objection.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I present one more document on this occasion? The Tribunal had approved the interrogation of Dr. Reuter and the day before yesterday I received the answer with the questions of the Prosecution ...
THE PRESIDENT: What was it you were saying, Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. STEINBAUER: That I received the approved document containing the interrogation of the witness, Dr. Reuter, on Saturday in a German and English translation. I should like to submit the original to the Tribunal under Number 114.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of the person who was interrogated?
DR. STEINBAUER: The physician, Dr. Gero Reuter. He was questioned about health conditions in the Netherlands. The Tribunal expressly granted me that interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be considered, then.
DR. STEINBAUER: Then I shall submit it to the Court under Number 114.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps you can look at that later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I understood that the Tribunal had already approved and that this was just putting in the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, My Lord, there can be no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I ought to say that in order to save time, all these documents which we are now dealing with must be taken to be offered in evidence now because some of these defendants’ cases have been finally dealt with.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And they must, therefore, be given the appropriate numbers as exhibits, and defendants’ counsel must see to that. They must give numbers to them and give them in with those numbers to the General Secretary so that the documents will be identified as exhibits on the record.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I appreciate that. I gather that Dr. Steinbauer has just given that the Number 114.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and the same applies to all the other defendants’ counsel, the counsel for Göring and Ribbentrop and the counsel for Raeder and the other defendants, because these are dealing with a considerable number of interrogatories and affidavits, all of which ought to have exhibit numbers.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
My Lord, Dr. Siemers just wanted to know that his applications were covered. I think he is quite safe.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, then, the only thing that remains is Dr. Fritz’s on behalf of the Defendant Fritzsche. There are two interrogatories which have not been received, as I understand, from Delmar and Feldscher. Those have been granted, and the interrogatories and the answers will be put in when you get them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is the way I understand it, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the Tribunal will consider all these matters and make the appropriate order upon it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. Wait a minute, wait a minute!
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): In the case of the Defendant Von Papen there are still a number of interrogatories which have not been received. In the meantime, I have received four interrogatories with answers, but they are still with the Translation Division. Three interrogatories have not yet come back. I request an opportunity to present them later on.
THE PRESIDENT: They have been granted before, I suppose? Have they been granted?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, they had already been granted, with the exception of one affidavit which I have also dealt with here but which has not yet been translated and has been in the Translation Division for some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the application for that interrogatory had been allowed, I suppose?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I presented this application recently. I was told to have this affidavit translated, but I have not yet received the translation. I shall submit this document together with the others as soon as I receive them from the Translation Division.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal. A mere glance at the dock reveals the singularity of Schacht’s case and the story of his imprisonment and defense. There in the dock sit Kaltenbrunner and Schacht. Whatever the powers of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner may have been, he was in any case Chief of the Reich Security Main Office. Until those May days of 1945, Schacht was a prisoner of the Reich Security Main Office in various concentration camps. It is surely a rare and grotesque picture to see jailor and prisoner sharing a bench in the dock. At the very start of the Trial this remarkable picture alone must have given cause for reflection to all those participating in the Trial: judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel alike.
Schacht was banished to a concentration camp on the order of Hitler, as has been established here. The charge against him was high treason against the Hitler regime. The judicial authority, the Peoples’ Court, headed by that bloodthirsty judge, Freisler, would have convicted him, had not his imprisonment turned into detention by the victorious Allied Powers. Since the summer of 1944 I was assigned to defend Schacht before Adolf Hitler’s Peoples’ Court; in the summer of 1945 I was asked to conduct his defense before the International Military Tribunal. This, too, is in itself a self-contradictory state of affairs. This, too, compels all those participating in the Trial to reflect on the personality of Schacht. One involuntarily recalls the fate of Seneca; Nero, as a counterpart to Hitler, put Seneca on trial for revolutionary activities. After the death of Nero, Seneca was charged with complicity in Nero’s misgovernment and cruelties, in short, with conspiring with Nero. A certain wry humor is not lacking in the fact that Seneca was then declared a pagan saint by early Christianity as early as the fourth century. Although Schacht does not indulge in such expectations, this historical precedent nevertheless forces us to remain always conscious of the fact that the sentence to be pronounced by this High Court will also have to be justified before the judgment seat of history.
The picture of the Third Reich has been revealed to the Tribunal in a thorough and careful presentation of evidence. It is a picture with a great deal of background. An opportunity was given to depict this background also, as far as it was possible within the limits of such a thorough-going investigation entailing a judicial presentation of evidence which, to be sure, though thorough enough, was nevertheless concluded as soon as possible according to the requirements of the Charter.
In order to learn what it was like under Hitler in German countries, there is still enough which has been left to the intuition of the Court. It is not possible, and never will be possible, to understand Hitler Germany from a constitutional point of view, according to the scholarly conceptions and views of people with a legal mind. As a scholarly topic, “The Constitution under Adolf Hitler” is a lucus a non lucendo. Mark my words, “The Constitution”—that is, the reduction of the Hitler State to a legal system, and not the attempt as made in the final plea by Jahrreiss, to explain the tyranny of a despot under the aspect of legal research. A scientific sociology of the Third Reich would, although feasible, be very difficult and therefore has not yet appeared.
Only very few Germans living in Germany knew the conditions and the distribution of power within those circles of people who were seemingly or actually called upon to contribute their share toward the formation of a political will. Most Germans will be surprised when this picture is unveiled. How much less possible was it for a foreigner to form a correct judgment of the constitutional, sociological, and inner political conditions of Hitler Germany at the time when the Indictment was presented. But a correct judgment of these things was the prerequisite for an Indictment correctly founded in both fact and law.
I am of the opinion that the members of the Prosecution were thereby confronted with a task which defied solution. I am furthermore of the opinion that the Prosecution would never have presented their criminal charges against the defendants under the count of a conspiracy if they had been able to see the distribution of political power in Hitler Germany in the same way as this may perhaps be today possible, although with great difficulty, for an intelligent, politically gifted observer and listener at this Trial.
A conspiracy within the meaning of the Indictment was, as a practical matter, not possible in Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, as my colleagues have already pointed out. The only thing possible in the Third Reich was a conspiracy by the opposition against Adolf Hitler and the regime. Several such conspiracies were formed, as was here proven. The relationship between conspirators is somewhat different than that between an accomplice and the chief perpetrator. The part to be played by the individual conspirator in the execution of the common plan may vary. Some, or a single one, of the conspirators may hold a leading position within the conspiracy. At all times, however, co-operation is necessary. Common usage of the term in itself precludes speaking of a conspiracy when only one commands and all the others are merely executive agents.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that that which was defined as a crime here in this hall can never constitute the elements of a conspiracy according to criminal law. Other legal factors which might enter into the question are of no interest to me as defense counsel for the Defendant Schacht, because no criminal charge whatsoever can be brought against Schacht personally, as an individual, and without connecting him with deeds of others—in other words merely on the basis of his own actions. Schacht himself desired only the permissible and the beneficial, and his actions served these intentions. To the extent that he erred politically, he is in all candor prepared for the verdict of history. Yet even the greatest dynamics of international law cannot penalize political error. If it did this the profession of the statesman and politician would become impossible. World history is more affected by mistakes and errors than by correct perceptions. According to Lessing’s wise words, the perception of absolute truth is God’s privilege. There remains for man as his greatest blessing only the quest for truth. Nescis, mi fili, quanta stultitia mundus regitur, as old Axel Oxenstierna once said, and he was probably right.
Schacht declared here that he felt that he had been most grossly deceived by Adolf Hitler. He thereby admitted that certain of his decisions and actions had been wrong. The Prosecution disputes Schacht’s good faith and imputes to him the dolus of having deliberately worked for a war of aggression as Adolf Hitler’s financial agent, thereby becoming by implication criminally responsible, from the point of view of the conspiracy, for all the cruelties and atrocities which were committed by others during this war. The Prosecution itself was not able to produce any direct proof of these allegations. They attempted to do so first by means of alleged documentary evidence in the form of misinterpreted statements by Schacht, torn from their context. For this the Prosecution referred to witnesses who could not be made available for examination before this Court because some of them were absent and some had died. I recall, for example, the affidavits of Messersmith and Fuller, and Dodd’s diary notes. Their lack of value as evidence was clearly set forth to the Tribunal by Schacht during his examination. In the interest of saving time I do not wish to repeat things which have already been said, and which surely must still be within the recollection of the Court.
The Prosecution further attempted to base its charges on actions of Schacht which had been established beyond reasonable doubt. All these arguments of the Prosecution are mistaken conclusions from allegedly incriminating circumstances. I shall confine myself to an enumeration of the most essential wrong conclusions. The others either result from these directly or by analogy.
Schacht was opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, says the Prosecution. That he was indeed. The Prosecution does not hold this opposition in itself against him. However, it concludes from this that Schacht wanted to do away with the treaty by force. Schacht favored colonial activity, says the Prosecution. He did so indeed. They do not reproach him for this, either, but conclude from this fact that he wanted to conquer the colonies by force, and so it goes on.
Schacht as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics co-operated with Hitler, consequently he endorsed Nazi ideology. Schacht was a member of the Reich Defense Council, consequently he was in favor of a war of aggression. Schacht helped to finance rearmament during its first phase until early in 1938, consequently he wanted war. Schacht welcomed the union with Austria, consequently he approved of a policy of violence against that country. Schacht devised the “New Plan” in commercial policy, consequently he wanted to procure raw materials for armament. Schacht was concerned about the possibilities of livelihood for the excess population in central Europe, consequently he wanted to attack and conquer foreign countries and to annihilate foreign peoples. Over and over again Schacht warned the world against an anti-German policy of oppression and the moral defamation of Germany, consequently Schacht threatened war. Because no written evidence has been found that Schacht resigned from his official positions as a result of his antagonism to war, the conclusion is that he resigned from these official positions merely because of his rivalry with Göring.
The list of these false conclusions could be continued ad infinitum. It finds its culmination in the fallacy that Hitler would never have come to power if it had not been for Schacht, that Hitler would never have been able to rearm if Schacht had not helped. But, Gentlemen, this kind of evaluation of evidence would convict an automobile manufacturer because a taxi driver, while drunk, ran over a pedestrian. In his speeches or writings Schacht never advocated violence or even war. It is true that after Versailles he pointed out again and again the dangers which would result from the moral outlawing and economic exclusion of Germany. In this opinion he is in the best international company. It is not necessary for me to cite before this Tribunal the numerous voices, not of Germans, but of members of the victor states, heard soon after the Versailles Treaty and all in the same tone as the warnings of Schacht. Moreover, the correctness of these objections to that treaty will be absolutely valid for all time. At no time did Schacht however recommend, or even declare possible, other ways than those of a peaceful understanding and collaboration. As an avowed economic politician, it was clearer to him than to anybody else that war can never solve anything, not even if it is won. In all of Schacht’s utterances his pacifist attitude was expressed again and again; perhaps the shortest and most striking of them was that statement at the Berlin Congress of the International Chamber of Commerce, when Schacht in the presence of Hitler, Göring, and other exponents of the Government called out to the assembly: “Believe me, my friends, all nations desire to live, not to die!” This pronounced pacifist attitude of Schacht is indeed confirmed by all witnesses and affidavits.
For the few in the world—and I purposely say in the world, not only in Germany—who from the very beginning recognized Hitler and his Government for what they were, it certainly was a cause for anxiety and sorrow, or at the very least puzzling, to see a man like Schacht placing his services and his great professional ability at the disposal of Adolf Hitler after he had come to power. The witness Gisevius also shared this anxiety, as he has testified here. Later on he convinced himself of Schacht’s honorable intentions through the latter’s upright and courageous behavior in 1938 and 1939. In his interrogation Schacht outlined for us the reasons which caused him to act in this manner. I need not and do not wish to repeat them in the interest of saving time. The evidence has not shown anything which would refute the veracity of this presentation by Schacht. On the contrary, I only refer for example to the affidavit of State Secretary Schmid, Exhibit Number 41 of my document book, containing detailed statements on this subject on Page 2, which are in complete agreement with Schacht’s description. A consideration of the remaining testimony and affidavits as a whole leads to the same result. In order to understand the manner in which Schacht acted at that time both directly after the seizure of power as well as after he had recognized Hitler and his disastrous activity, it is absolutely necessary to form a clear picture of Adolf Hitler’s pernicious spell and his system of government. For both are the soil in which Schacht’s actions grew, and by which alone they can be explained. I realize that one could speak about this for days and write volumes about it if one wished to treat the subject exhaustively. However, I also realize that before this Tribunal short references and spotlights will be sufficient in order to gain the Tribunal’s understanding.
The disintegrating collapse of imperial Germany in 1918 presented the German people, who were heterogeneously composed and had never become an organic unit, with a parliamentary democratic form of constitution. I venture to assert that all political thinking which is not directed by selfish motives must strive for democracy, if this is also understood to include the protection of justice, tolerance toward those of different convictions, freedom of thought, and the political development of humanity. These are the highest timeless ideals which, however, in their very constitutional forms actually harbor dangers in themselves. When democracy appeared for the first time on the European continent, reactionary political thinkers like Prince Metternich and the like opposed every democratic impulse, because they saw only the dangers of democracy and not its educative qualities and historical necessity. In pointing to these dangers they were unfortunately right. Perhaps the cleverest nation which ever lived, the Greeks of antiquity, had already pointed out the danger of democracy developing through demagogy to tyranny; and probably all philosophizing political thinkers from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas, and down to the present time, have pointed out the danger of this development. This danger becomes all the greater if democratic freedom in the theoretical constitutional sense does not arise and grow organically, but becomes more or less a chance gift to a nation.
En fait d’histoire il vaut mieux continuer que recommencer, a great French thinker once said. Unfortunately, this has made Germany the latest and, it is to be hoped, the last example of a tyranny of a single despot established by means of a diabolical demagogy. For there is no doubt that the Hitler regime was the despotism of an individual, whose parallel is to be found only in ancient Asia. In order to understand the attitude of any individual toward this Government—not only that of Schacht and of the Germans, but that of any person and any government in the world which has collaborated with Hitler, and on the part of the foreign countries such collaboration based on confidence was much greater toward Hitler than toward any government of the intermediate Reich or of the State of the Weimar Constitution—it is necessary to analyze the personality of this despot, this political Pied Piper, this brilliant demagogue who, as Schacht testified here in his interrogation with understandable agitation, not only deceived him, but also the German people and the whole world. In order to accomplish this deceit, Hitler was forced to bring under the spell of his personality innumerable clever and politically trained individuals besides Schacht, even those outside the German frontiers. He succeeded in doing this even with prominent foreigners, including those in leading political positions. I shall refrain from citing names and quotations to prove this point. The fact is generally known to the Tribunal.
I shall now skip the next lines and continue on Line 10 of the same page. How was this influence of Hitler possible, both in Germany and abroad? Of course, Faust also succumbed to Mephistopheles. In Germany, all the circumstances of the conditions prevailing at that time, which have been described here in the evidence given by Schacht and others, favored this influence. The complete collapse of the parliamentary party system and the resulting necessity, felt already at the time by the existing Government, of having to rule by emergency decrees enacted without parliamentary participation, thus establishing a dictatorship of ministerial bureaucracy as a forerunner of the Hitler dictatorship, produced in nearly every quarter a cry for stronger leadership. The economic crisis and unemployment opened the ears of the masses, as misery always does, to demagogic insinuations. The complete lethargy and inactivity of the center and leftist parties of the time also created among critical and intelligent observers, of whom Schacht assuredly was one, the inward readiness and longing to welcome spirited political “dynamics” and activity. If someone, like the sharp-witted and perspicacious Schacht, already at that time discovered faults and dark sides, he could hope, as Schacht did, by his very active penetration into the Movement or by co-operation with leading State departments quickly and easily to combat these shady aspects, which in any case beset every revolutionary movement. “When the eagle soars, vermin settle on his wings,” replied the late Minister of Justice Gürtner, quoting from Conrad Ferdinand Meyer’s novel Pescara, when I pointed out these shady sides to him after the seizure of power. These considerations are in themselves reasonable and plausible. The fact that they contained a political error even in Schacht’s case does not deprive them of their good faith and honest convictions. However, we ought not to forget that here, during the proceedings, we heard of a message from the American Consul General Messersmith, dating from 1933, in which he joyfully hails the report that decent and sensible people are now joining the Party too, as this gave reason to hope that radicalism would thereby cease. I refer to the relevant document submitted here by the Prosecution, Document Number L-198, report Number 1184 by the American Consul General Messersmith to the Secretary of State in Washington.
“Since the election on March 5th, some of the more important thinking people in various parts of Germany have allied themselves with the National Socialist movement, in the hope of tempering its radicalism by their action within rather than from without the Party.”
But what Messersmith very reasonably says of ordinary Party members of that time, naturally applies also, mutatis mutandis, to the man who offered his co-operation in a leading Government post. The reasons Schacht gave for his decision at the time to accept the post of President of the Reichsbank and later of Reich Minister of Economics are, therefore, thoroughly credible in themselves and have no immoral or criminal implication. Schacht, indeed, has acknowledged his activity. He only lacked the intuition to recognize at the outset the personalities of Hitler and some of his henchmen for what they were. But that is no punishable act; neither does it indicate any criminal intention. This intuition was lacking in most people both within and without the German frontiers. The possession of intuition is a matter of good fortune and a divine gift unfathomable by reason. Every man has his limitations, even the most intelligent. Schacht is certainly very intelligent, but in this case reason prevailed at the cost of intuition. In the last analysis this process can only be fully appreciated when those mysterious forces are taken into account which affect world events, and of which Wallenstein says: “The earth belongs to the evil spirit, not to the good” where he speaks of “the sinister powers of evil which lurk in the bowels of the earth.” Adolf Hitler was a prominent example of these powers of darkness and his influence was all the more nefarious since he lacked the grandeur which accompanies Satan. He remained a half-educated, completely earth-bound bourgeois who also lacked any sense of the law. The Defendant Frank said truly of him that he hated jurists, because the jurist appeared to him as a man of law, as a disturbing factor in the face of his power. Thus he could promise everything to everybody and not keep his promise, for a promise to him meant only a technical instrument of power, and signified no legal or moral obligation.
Neither was the pernicious influence of Himmler and Bormann detected by Schacht at this time, or probably by anybody else. Yet all those crimes that are now covered by the Indictment matured within this very trio, for to Himmler politics were identical with murder, and in his purely biological view he regarded human society as a breeding farm and never as a social and ethical community. A personality like Adolf Hitler, and his effect upon men, even including such intelligent men as Schacht, can only be correctly judged by following the prophetic vision of the poet, as I have already just tried to do, thereby achieving insight otherwise inaccessible to the mind of man. The demon undoubtedly became incarnate in Adolf Hitler to the detriment of Germany and the world, and perhaps I can summarize by quoting—and this is absolutely necessary for an understanding of Schacht’s conduct, as well as that of all those others who deliberately and in all purity of heart offered their services to Hitler—a passage from Goethe, which in a few words sums up and discloses the mystery. Here lies the key to the understanding of all those who flocked to follow Hitler. May I quote from “Poetry and Truth,” Part 4, Book 20, as follows:
“Although the demoniac can manifest itself in everything material and immaterial, and indeed be singularly apparent in beasts, it assumes its most extraordinary form when associated with man, and constitutes a power which if not contrary to is yet a disturbing element in the moral world order. There are innumerable names for the phenomena which are brought to light in this way. For all philosophies and religions have tried both in prose and in poetry to solve this riddle and to dispose of the matter once and for all, which they may well continue to do in the future. But the demoniac assumes its most dreadful form when it manifests itself preponderantly in any one human being. During my lifetime I have had occasion to observe several such persons, either closely or from afar. They are not always the most distinguished persons, either in intellect or in talent, and they rarely excel by their goodness of heart; yet a tremendous force emanates from them, and they exercise an incredible power over every creature and even over the elements, and none can tell how far such influence will extend. No coalition of moral forces can prevail against them; it is in vain that the better part of humanity attempts to put them in disrepute as victims of deception, or as impostors. The masses are attracted to them. They seldom or never find contemporary equals, and nothing short of the universe itself, against which they begin the fight, can overcome them; and these observations may perhaps have inspired that curious but monstrous saying: Nemo contra Deum, nisi Deus ipse.”
I think I have demonstrated that the fact that he served Hitler does not incriminate Schacht and that it can by no means be concluded from this act that at that time he embodied the criminal deeds of Hitler and his regime into his own intentions. He did not even think them possible. Therefore he followed no dolus eventualis either; on the contrary: Insofar as the violent character of the regime disturbed him he believed he would be able, through his appointment to an important post, to contribute to the abolition and prevention of those attendant phenomena of which he also disapproved, and to aid Germany’s recovery within his sphere of activity in a decent and peaceful manner.
That being the case, not the slightest reproach could be made against him for not only serving Hitler after the seizure of power, but also for helping him to gain control. This latter charge is, therefore, completely immaterial as evidence of criminal behavior or of criminal intent. However, there is no need for this argument at all, since as a matter of fact Schacht did not help Hitler to gain power. Hitler was in power when Schacht began to work for him. Hitler’s victory was already assured when the July elections of the Reichstag in 1932 brought him no less than 230 seats. These represented about 40 percent of the total votes. There had been no such election result for any party for decades. But the immediate political future was thereby established under a Government headed by Hitler, thanks to the very rules of the German democratic Constitution and every other democratic constitution. Any other path was beset with the danger of civil war.
It was only natural that Schacht, who at that time honestly believed in Hitler’s political mission, did not wish to take this path. It was likewise natural that he should take an active part whenever he believed that thereby he might be able to prevent harmful radicalism in the economic political domain. A wise French statesman says:
“Every epoch confronts us in some way with the task of creating benefits or preventing abuses. For this reason, in my opinion, a patriotic man can and must serve any government which his country appoints for itself.”
By serving Hitler, Schacht, in his opinion, was serving his country and not Hitler. This opinion may have been the greatest of mistakes, and it has subsequently revealed itself as completely erroneous as far as Hitler was concerned, yet Schacht can never be criminally charged for acting as he did at that time, neither directly nor circumstantially. And indeed we must not forget that the Hitler of 1933 not only seemed to be a different man from the Hitler of 1938 or even of 1941, but actually was different. Schacht has already referred during his interrogation to this transformation, which was caused by the poison of mass worship. Moreover, the transformation of such personalities is a psychological law. History proves this in Nero, Constantine the Great, and many others. In the case of Hitler there exist many irreproachable witnesses for the truth of this fact, irreproachable in the sense that a purpose or an intention to violate the law, to raise terrorism to a principle, and to attack mankind with a war of aggression, can never be imputed to them. I merely wish to quote a few of them. I could multiply the quotations a hundredfold. In 1934 Lord Rothermere wrote an article in the Daily Mail, entitled: “Adolf Hitler from Close By.” I quote only a few sentences:
“The most prominent figure in the world today is Adolf Hitler ... Hitler stands in direct line with those great leaders of mankind who seldom appear more than once in two or three centuries ... it is delightful to see that Hitler’s speech has considerably brightened his popularity in England.”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I thought the Tribunal had refused to allow the writings of Lord Rothermere to be put in evidence or used.
DR. DIX: I interpreted the decision of the High Tribunal barring quotations from Lord Rothermere from the document book to mean—and this is also the reason given in the Indictment—that this was a matter for argument which should not be submitted in evidence as a fact, and that it would be irrelevant in the hearing of the evidence that Rothermere and others were of this opinion; and from this I drew the conclusion—and I am still of the opinion today that this conclusion is correct—that in the course of my argument, that is, in the course of my appraisal of the evidence, I could cite passages from the literature of the entire world, insofar as it is known, in order to support a line of thought. That Rothermere said that is not a fact which I want to submit to the Tribunal as evidence, but only in support of the assertion forming part of my argument that not only Schacht but also other intelligent and prominent people, even outside of Germany, at first had the same opinion of Hitler’s personality ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal has already indicated its refusal to allow this to be used as evidence, because it does not pay any attention to the opinions expressed by this author. Therefore, we think it would be better if you went on to some other part of your argument.
DR. DIX: Then I ask—the Tribunal surely has a translation of my final speech before it—that I be allowed to quote a short passage from Sumner Welles, and then a passage, which seems very important to me, from the book written by the last British Ambassador. I should be very grateful if I could quote both of these two passages for, if one wants to prove that even an intelligent man can hold a certain opinion and is entitled to hold it, then I do not know but what the most obvious and convincing proof for that lies in the fact that other intelligent and completely objective people also held the same view. I shall lose an important point of my argument if I am not permitted to quote the two short passages, and I should like to ask that they be heard briefly; it is only the quotation from Sumner Welles and Henderson.
THE PRESIDENT: I have not said anything about Sumner Welles. It was only because we had expressly excluded the writings on this subject of Lord Rothermere that we thought it was inappropriate that you should quote him. I do not think we excluded these other books to which you here refer in your speech and therefore we thought you might go on to that.
DR. DIX: I quote from Sumner Welles’ book Time for Decision, published in New York in 1944:
“Economic circles in each of the western European democracies and the New World welcomed Hitlerism.”
And it is only right, when Great Britain’s last Ambassador in Berlin, even during the war, states on Page 25 of his book:
“It would be highly unjust not to recognize that a great number of those who joined Hitler and worked for him and his Nazi regime were honest idealists.”
Further on he makes this interesting remark:
“It is possible that Hitler was an idealist himself in the beginning.”
And the Government of the United Kingdom would surely never have concluded a naval treaty with Hitler Germany in April 1935, and therewith have contributed in the interests of justice to a modification of the Versailles Treaty, if they had not had entire confidence in Hitler and his Government. Finally, the same holds true for all the international treaties concluded by Hitler, including the treaty concluded with Russia in August 1939. And it is a striking fact, even today, that so intelligent a man of such high ethical standing as the late British Prime Minister Chamberlain declared in a speech as late as January 1939—at a time when Schacht had already long been treading the dark paths of conspiracy against Hitler, in the face of the events of 1938—that he had gained the definite impression from Hitler’s recent speech that these were not the words of a man who was making preparations to plunge Europe into another war. I do not doubt that these words were not spoken as a matter of tactics, but reflected the speaker’s true opinion. Such examples could be quoted in great number. Is it desired to deny to a German, in 1933 and the following years, the right to come to the same opinion about Hitler in good faith?
The fact that Schacht did not enter office as Minister of Economies until after 30 June 1934 is not inconsistent with this either. Only in retrospect does the full enormity of these events become clear. In June 1934 we were still in the midst of revolutionary turmoil, and history will be able to show similar occurrences in any revolution of this kind. I do not have to give detailed proof of this, nor do I wish to do so. The events of 30 June provided just as little, if not less, motive for Schacht to turn away from Hitler with disgust, as they did for the governments in the world who not only continued diplomatic relations with Hitler in full confidence, but also rendered him great honors and allowed him to score important successes in foreign policy, especially after 1934.
If Schacht, however, cannot be criminally charged with the fact that he placed himself at the disposal of Hitler’s Government, it is surely completely superfluous, indeed it would be beside the point, to attempt to make long statements in excuse of individual acts, such as his petition addressed to the Reich President in 1932, or his letter to Hitler in the same year. Anybody who knows life can find a thoroughly natural explanation for them in the fundamental attitude of Schacht. If this attitude is proved to be unobjectionable from the point of view of criminal law and the rules of evidence, then no such documents can be used in argument against Schacht. It is the principle that matters. The same holds true for Schacht’s participation in the so-called meeting of industrialists. On this subject I should only like to remark by way of correction that Schacht neither presided at this meeting nor administered these funds exclusively for the National Socialist Party.
Now one witness here has passed judgment on Schacht’s attitude toward the seizure and consolidation of power during this period:
“Schacht was an untrustworthy person,” he said. “Schacht betrayed the cause of democracy at that time. I therefore refused in 1943 to join a Government proposing to overthrow Hitler with Schacht’s participation.”
This was the former Minister Severing who, according to his own statement, relinquished his ministerial chair and premises on 20 July 1932, when the Berlin Chief of Police and two police officers called on him, demanding his withdrawal with the assertion that they had been authorized to do so by the Reich President. Severing withdrew, as he said himself, to avoid bloodshed. In spite of the great respect which I feel toward Severing’s clean political character, I am forced to my regret to deny him any right to pass competent judgment on statesmen who, unlike him and his Government coalition, did not remain lethargically passive. Severing and his political friends indeed bear a disproportionately greater responsibility than Hjalmar Schacht for Adolf Hitler’s seizure of power because of their indecision and, finally, their lack of political ideas; but they do not have to answer for this to any judge except history. And this responsibility will be all the greater since the witness indeed makes the claim that at that time he had already recognized that Hitler’s accession to power meant war. If one may really believe that he possessed this correct political intuition, then his responsibility, and that of his political friends, will be all the greater in view of their passivity on that and later occasions, and again this responsibility will be disproportionately greater than that of Hjalmar Schacht. Our German workers are certainly no greater cowards than the Dutch. Our hearts rejoiced to hear a witness here describe the manly courage of Dutch workers who dared to strike under the very bayonets of the invading army. The following which Severing and his political friends deservedly had in the German working class might perhaps have induced them not to watch the dissolution of the trade unions with such dull passivity as was the case in 1933, had only their natural leaders such as Severing and his colleagues been a little more daring and willing to expose themselves. In the last resort, the Kapp revolt in 1923 was also overcome by the general strike of the workmen. The Hitler regime was not so strong in 1933 that it did not have to fear the truth of the poet’s words addressed to the workers: “All wheels stand still at your strong arm’s will.” The National Socialist Government at that time was quite well informed about this and was consequently apprehensive. This is also apparent from Göring’s interrogation on 13 October 1945, the transcript of which was quoted and submitted by Professor Kempner on 16 January 1946. Göring said: “You must consider that at that time the activity of the Communists was extraordinarily strong and that our new Government as such was not very secure.” But even this strong arm which I have just mentioned required a guidance which was denied to the working class and for which men like Severing would have been indicated. In all justice they will have to account for their passivity, not before the judge in a criminal court, but before history. I do not presume to pass a final judgment. I confine myself to revealing this problem and to attributing a full and embarrassing measure of self-righteousness to the witness Severing, although I respect him as a man, if he feels himself called upon to accuse others, when studying the question as to who from the view point of history is guilty of the seizure and consolidation of power by Nazism—especially if, in contrast to Schacht, he intuitively foresaw the later evolution of Hitler—instead of submitting himself with humility to the judgment of history, relying on his undoubtedly unimpeachable views and his undoubtedly pure intentions.
Let us always bear in mind, in the interest of historical truth, that especially at the beginning of the Nazi rule there were only two power groups, with the exception of foreign intervention, which could perhaps have liberated Germany, namely, the Army and the working class, provided, of course, that both were under the proper leadership.
I had to go into more detail on this point because such a detrimental remark by such a blameless and distinguished man as Severing brings with it the danger of unjust deductions regarding my client. It would have been agreeable to me if I could have been spared this discussion of Severing’s incriminating testimony. Severing has further brought the charge of political opportunism against Schacht. In politics, to be sure, the boundary between opportunism and statesmanlike conduct dictated by expediency is very fluid. Before appraising Schacht’s conduct in 1932 and 1933 as opportunistic, his past should also have been considered. After 1923 this past lived in the public eye. It has partly been a subject of these proceedings, partly it is already known to the Court. This past speaks rather for the fact that Schacht does what he judges to be right, not only with a great disregard of consequences, but also with great courage. Indeed, he has also proved this courage as a conspirator against Hitler, as is bound to appear from an examination of this activity as conspirator, and as Gisevius expressly described here.
But let us go back with Schacht to the year 1923. At that time he stabilized the mark against all parties interested in inflation; in 1924 he blocked credits against all hoarders of foreign currency; in 1927 he deprived the exchange speculators of the credit basis for their exchange manipulations. From 1925 to 1929 he fought against the debt and expenditure policy of the municipalities and thereby incurred the enmity of all the mayors. In 1929 he signed the Young Plan and thus defied the opposition of the heavy industry circles and continuing this policy, he fought openly since 1934 against the perversions and abuses of the Nazi ideology and never personally carried out a plan or an order which was contrary to his conscience or his sense of justice.
Every statesman must make certain concessions during a time of fanaticism. Certain sticklers for morality—of whom there are many today—who demand a steely hardness for the protection of principles, should not forget that steel has two qualities, not only solidity but also flexibility.
My Lord, I have now finished one particular section; the next one would take longer. I certainly will not finish it until after 1 o’clock. I should be grateful if Your Lordship would call the noon recess now. I am now coming to Appendix Number 1 ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think you had better go on until 1 o’clock.
DR. DIX: Your Honors, in the translated copy which you have before you, there are two appendices at the end. I had to employ this device because the matters dealt with in this annex occurred after I had given my speech to be translated. Therefore, I had to work in my comments on this subject somehow, and could only do it by way of an appendix.
And so I now come to the reading of Appendix 1, which is at the back, and to the opinion of the testimony of Gisevius as expressed by my colleague, Dr. Nelte, since I am here concerned with evaluating the testimony of witnesses.
Insofar as my colleague Dr. Nelte criticized the objective reliability of the testimony of Gisevius regarding his statements incriminating the Defendants Keitel, Göring, and so on, I refrain from any statements. The Prosecution may take any standpoint it desires. This is not my task.
But now Dr. Nelte has also attacked the subjective credibility of Gisevius in the personal character of this witness and thus also indirectly the reliability of his testimony concerning Dr. Schacht. This demands a statement of my opinion, and a statement of a very fundamental nature.
Your Honors, it is here that minds part company. A gap that cannot be bridged opens up between Schacht’s standpoint and the standpoint of all those who adopt the train of thought with which Dr. Nelte attempts to discredit the character of Gisevius, the deceased Canaris, Oster, Nebe, and others. I most certainly owe it to my client, Dr. Schacht, to state the following fundamental point very clearly and unequivocally:
Patriotism means loyalty to one’s fatherland and people and fight without quarter against anyone who criminally leads one’s fatherland and people into misery and destruction. Such a leader is an enemy of the fatherland; his actions are infinitely more dangerous than those of any enemy in war. Every method is justified against such a criminal State leadership, and the motto must be: à corsaire, corsaire et demi.
High treason against such a State leadership is true and genuine patriotism and as such highly moral, even during war. Who could still entertain the slightest doubt after the findings of this Trial, and finally after the testimony of Speer about Hitler’s cynical remarks regarding the destruction of the German people, that Adolf Hitler was the greatest enemy of his people, in short, a criminal toward this people, and that to remove him any means were justified and any, literally any, deed was patriotic. All those on the defendant’s bench who do not recognize this are worlds apart from Schacht.
I had to make this point in order to clear the atmosphere. After this fundamental clarification I can refrain from refuting details in Dr. Nelte’s attacks against Dr. Gisevius. Insofar as Dr. Nelte fails to see any willingness for active service among these resistance groups to which Dr. Schacht belonged, I need only point to the many hundreds who were hanged on 20 July alone; Schacht numbers among the very few survivors, and he too was to be liquidated in Flossenbürg. I point to the dead victims of the political judiciary of the Hitlerian State whose numbers run into thousands. Truly, the waging of a war of conspiracy against Hitler and the necessity for cunning and dissimulation in connection therewith were no less dangerous to life and limb than exposing one’s self at the front.
During the very fair cross-examination conducted by my colleague, Dr. Kubuschok, Gisevius immediately admitted his mistake resulting from the ban on publication, in the affair of Papen’s resignation. I have nothing more to say about this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
DR. DIX: May it please the Tribunal, I had concluded with the consideration of the probative value of the statements made here by the witnesses Severing and Gisevius.
Now, on concluding the evaluation of Schacht’s conduct up to about 1935 and entering the period from 1935 to 1937, I would emphasize once more that in order to save time I will not repeat the arguments which were presented to the Tribunal in detail during the cross-examination, as for instance the nonparticipation of Schacht in the legislation which led to the total disregard for international law, because this took place before his entry into the Cabinet. The decisive event for the stabilization of Hitler’s power, the merging of the offices of the Reich President and of the Chancellor of the Reich in the person of Hitler, also lay outside his co-operation and responsibility. By this decree the Army took its oath to Hitler. The Chancellor of the Reich not only had police authority as heretofore but also authority over the Army. It is not my task to investigate who bears the political responsibility and thus the historic guilt for this law; in any case, it is not Schacht.
All the basic anti-Jewish laws were also enacted before he entered into office as a minister. He was completely surprised by the subsequent Nuremberg Laws. The decree dealing with the exclusion of the Jews from German economic life dated 12 November 1938 and the ordinance concerning the use of Jewish property and possessions of 3 December 1938 were issued after he had left his post as Minister of Economics and thus without his active collaboration. The same applies to the decree excluding Jews from the Reich Labor Service, which moreover probably hardly inconvenienced them. The law providing for the death penalty for secret reserves of foreign exchange, the so-called Law of Betrayal of the People, was not directed specifically against the Jews but solely against big industry and high finance; also it was not evolved by Schacht but by the Minister of Finance. Schacht did not want to effect a breach of relations on account of such laws because he believed it was his duty to perform a more important task. In any case, this can hardly be regarded as important, for in the Jewish question Schacht, by his public speeches and his reports to Hitler, showed such a favorable attitude toward the Jews that it would be unjust to disqualify him politically and morally for such a reason, much less from the angle of criminal law. As examples I would remind you of the Reichsbank speech after the anti-Jewish pogrom in November 1938, the speech at Königsberg, the memoranda of the year 1935, and so forth. In the Third Reich Schacht was considered the most courageous and active protector of the Jews. I only remind you of the letter of the Frankfurt businessman, Merton, which was submitted to the Court, and of the illuminating statement of the witness Hayler. According to the latter, when Hayler reproached Himmler for the events of November 1938, he replied that after all it had been the fault of the economic administration that matters had reached such a point. Of a man like Herr Schacht one could not expect anything better than that he should exercise a constant restraining influence in the Jewish question and be opposed to the will of the Party.
In response to my further inquiry Justice Jackson defined this specific charge of the Prosecution as follows: Schacht is not being charged with anti-Semitism, but for activities which have a causal connection with the atrocities committed against the Jews within the framework of the planned war of aggression. Thus it follows that a denial of guilt as to a war of aggression leads with compelling logic to the denial of any guilt as to the atrocities which were committed against the Jews during the war. Justice Jackson made some phases of the legislation in respect to the Jews during Schacht’s term as Minister the subject of his cross-examination. I shall refrain from this part of the cross-examination; going into the questions put to Schacht and answered by him is irrelevant according to the Charter and the previously mentioned authentic interpretation of this part of the Indictment by Justice Jackson. The anti-Semitic legislation of the Third Reich and the personal attitude of an individual defendant toward it are, according to the Charter, relevant in these proceedings only insofar as they are connected with other crimes which are subject to punishment according to the Charter, as for example the conspiracy to wage war, mass extermination, and so forth. According to the Charter they cannot constitute an offense in themselves, not even one against humanity. Only those defendants are punishable for their deeds who can be proved to have participated in the planning of a war of aggression with its resulting inhuman consequences for the Jews. A prerequisite for their conviction on this account, however, is that they recognized and desired this goal and its result. There exists no purely objective liability for the outcome in criminal law. According to the Charter, he who desired the war and thus also the inhuman actions connected with it is punishable; but the incriminating activity must always have occurred in the course of the execution of such a plan. This purely legal consideration in itself excludes the conviction of Schacht on the grounds of atrocities against the Jews.
Another discrepancy between the Prosecution, especially with regard to the statements of Justice Jackson, and myself must likewise be clarified at this point, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes. During the cross-examination Justice Jackson repeatedly pointed out that the defendant is not being charged with anti-Semitism as such, that he is not being charged with his opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, that he is not being charged with his ideas and statements on the so-called Lebensraum problem as representing the food problem of the central European nations, that he is not being charged with his colonial aspirations; but that he is being charged with all this only to the extent that it served, with his knowledge and desire, for the preparation of a war of aggression. By this objection Justice Jackson meant to preclude certain questions and discussions. This would have been justified and I too could now forego such arguments, were not the Prosecution taking away with one hand what it is giving with the other, because in the course of argumentation all this, namely, Schacht’s alleged anti-Semitism, et cetera, is used as indirect proof, that is, as circumstantial evidence that Schacht had prepared and desired this war of aggression. The Prosecution of course does not count all that as a criminal fact in itself, but as indirect proof, as circumstantial evidence. Therefore in evaluating the evidence, I must also treat these problems. I think I have finished dealing with the Jewish question. With regard to the problem of Lebensraum, in order to save time, I can probably refer to what Schacht has stated here during his interrogation in justification of his statements and activities in this respect. The colonial problem was the subject of cross-examination by Justice Jackson insofar as he tried to prove that colonial activity by Germany was impossible without world domination, or at least the military domination of the seas. Further development of this train of thought would result in the Defendant Schacht being charged with the fact that his striving for colonies logically depended on the planning of a war of aggression. That is a false conclusion. I think that Justice Jackson’s conception of colonial policy is too imperialistic. Anyone desiring colonies for his country without attendant domination of the world or the sea bases his colonial activity on a lasting state of peace with the stronger maritime powers. He must necessarily believe in peace with these powers. Germany also possessed colonies from 1884 until the first World War; her merchant marine carried on the necessary traffic with these colonies. Her merchant marine before this war would also have been sufficient. Aviation, in reply to Justice Jackson’s question, would not have been essential. Nothing supports the presumption that in his desire for colonies Schacht would have striven to eliminate foreign naval supremacy by means of war. In view of his general conduct one can hardly credit him with being as foolish as all that. France and Holland likewise possess colonies, the sea routes of which they certainly do not control.
This charge of the Prosecution is therefore inconclusive. Moreover, the Tribunal knows that during the years before the war nearly all the statesmen of the victorious powers were sympathetic to these colonial aspirations of Germany, as is shown in many of their public speeches.
I now come to the subject of rearmament, that is, to the activity of Schacht in his capacity as President of the Reichsbank and Reich Minister of Economics until 1937, in other words, up to the time when he changed from a loyal servant of Adolf Hitler to a traitor against him and took to the dark ways of artifice and dissimulation while making preparations for an attempt on his life.
The Prosecution considers the violation of the Versailles Treaty, the Locarno Pact, and other treaties as indirect proof, that is, as circumstantial evidence, of his criminal intention to wage a war of aggression. This involves first the question of whether any treaty violations took place and, if so, whether these treaty violations must be judged as indications of an intent to wage a war of aggression on the part of members of the Reich Government, Schacht included. It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to discuss exhaustively in this plea the problem of whether actual treaty violations were committed and to what extent. My colleague Dr. Horn has already touched upon this question. A short remark can serve to show at least the problematical nature of this question. This again is important for a proper evaluation. There are no lasting treaties, neither in the domain of civil jurisdiction nor, still less, in the domain of international law. The clausula rebus sic stantibus often plays a much more important role in the domain of international law affecting the political intercourse between nations than in private dealings between individuals. One must be very careful not to apply, offhand, the relatively narrow principles of civil law to the breadth and depth of international law. International law has its own dynamics. The highly political intercourse between nations is subject to other juridical aspects than the commercial and personal relations between individuals. The most striking proof of the correctness of this thesis is the juridical basis of the Indictment, particularly insofar as it deals with the sentence nulla poena sine lege poenale and demands, instead of sanctions, the individual punishment of the leading statesmen of an aggressor nation. Whoever upholds the conception of the Prosecution in this respect, acknowledges the dynamics of international law and the fact that international law develops according to a process of its own.
History has taught us that treaties based on international law do not usually come to an end by a formal repeal but succumb to the development of events. They inevitably sink into oblivion. In specific instances opinions may differ as to whether this is the case or not; but that does not affect the basic truth of this statement. The militarization of the Rhineland and the introduction of general conscription, the extent of rearmament which Schacht approved of and strived for, the voluntary “Anschluss” of Austria to Germany, which was also basically desired by Schacht, all of these certainly are offenses against the meaning and text of the above-mentioned pacts, particularly the Versailles Treaty. If, however, such violations are only answered by formal protestations, and otherwise very friendly relations continue to exist and honors are even conferred upon the offending nation, and if agreements are concluded which alter the basic stipulations of such a treaty, as for instance the Naval Pact with Great Britain, the view is fully justified that because of all this such a treaty is gradually reaching a state of obsolescence and extinction, or at least there is cause for such a subjective point of view.
I beg you to consider that the prerequisite for the conclusion of an armament pact, as for instance the Naval Pact with Great Britain, is the military sovereignty of both nations. The denial of such sovereignty to Germany was, however, one of the main aspects of the Versailles Treaty. I do not wish to speak here about the justice or injustice of this treaty. I know the Court’s wish, or rather prohibition, in regard to this matter, and of course I shall observe it. But I must speak about the legal possibility and therefore the innocence, criminally speaking, of Schacht’s personal opinions on the question of treaty violation. Even if, therefore, one still wished to defend the point of view that the said treaties have not become obsolete, one cannot, at least as far as its inherent honesty is concerned, doubt the justification of an opinion to the contrary. But if this is recognized, these treaty violations no longer provide any proof of the criminal intention of a war of aggression. And that is all that matters. For the violation of treaties in itself is not considered a punishable act by the Charter. Here, too, Schacht can justify his good faith by referring to the same or similar views on the part of leading foreign statesmen, in whom it is therefore logically impossible to assume the existence of a suspicion as to a desire for aggression on the part of Germany. Here again I must limit myself to a few instances, since a complete enumeration would exceed the time limit of this plea.
The first of the violations of the Versailles Treaty is supposedly the reintroduction of general conscription. With regard to this measure, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, with a statesman’s far-sighted objectivity, gave the following reply, which was universally made known in reports by the press and radio and which therefore is valid as legal evidence:
“There is no doubt that an agreed reduction of the armaments of other big nations was to follow upon the forced disarmament of Germany.”
This remark contains a confirmation of the juridical point of view I developed a while ago, in spite of the criticism of Hitler’s action that follows. The same applies to the fact that the visit of Sir John Simon and Mr. Anthony Eden to Berlin took place 8 days after this so-called treaty violation, namely, on 24 March 1935. It would not have taken place if this measure of Hitler’s had been considered abroad as militarily aggressive. I will just mention in passing the history of the treatment of this question by the Council of the League of Nations, which is well known. Should Schacht, as a German and a German Minister, judge it in a manner different from that of the foreign Governments?
A second treaty violation by Hitler was the occupation of the Rhineland, also in March 1935. This action did not only violate the Versailles Treaty ...
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing] The date of the occupation of the Rhineland was not March 1935, but March 1936.
DR. DIX: I cannot ascertain that at the moment.
The point in question is that this action took place, namely, the occupation of the Rhineland. This action was not only a breach of the Treaty of Versailles but also of the Locarno Pact, that is, of an undoubtedly voluntarily contracted treaty. Two days later Mr. Baldwin stated in the House of Commons, in a speech made public and therefore valid as legal evidence, that, while Germany’s conduct could not be excused, there was no reason to assume that this action contained a threat of hostilities. Was Schacht, a German and a German Minister, to take a different and more skeptical attitude in regard to the aggressive significance of the act than foreign statesmen? And particularly when he was forced to note the fact, which is now history and is universally known, that 10 days after this breach of treaty the Locarno Powers, except Germany, submitted to the Council of the League of Nations a memorandum which proposed the reduction of the number of German troops in the Rhineland to 36,500 men and only endeavored to avoid the strengthening of the SA and SS in the Rhineland and the erection of fortifications and airfields. Should not this memorandum be interpreted as a ratification of an alleged breach of the treaty?
A third breach of the treaty was the fortification of Helgoland, which was hardly observed by the contracting parties, and merely called forth from Mr. Eden, in the now famous public speech before the House of Commons on 29 July 1936, the remark that it was not considered favorable to increase the difficulties of the proceedings by individual questions like the one under discussion. Was the German Minister Schacht to take another and more rigorous attitude?
And what about the terroristic annexation of Austria in March 1938 when, moreover, Schacht was no longer Reich Minister for Economics? If foreign countries had gathered from this action the conviction that Hitler was preparing a war of aggression, they would not have abstained from threatening to use force. Was the German Minister Schacht to hold a different and stricter opinion? He did, in fact, have a different opinion at the time and was already eagerly at work with Witzleben and others to eliminate Adolf Hitler and his regime by means of a Putsch; an effort on the part of these patriotic conspirators which was frustrated, as the unequivocal testimony of the witness Gisevius has shown, because Hitler was able to record one success after another in foreign politics.
I merely remind you of the unequivocal evidence of Gisevius regarding the effects of the Munich Agreement on the influence of the opposition group of which Schacht was a leader; I remind you of the evidence of Gisevius regarding the warnings and hints in this connection sent across the German frontiers to responsible personalities of foreign countries. Is it fair to require from the German Minister Schacht a more critical attitude to those political developments than that adopted by foreign countries whose interests had been injured? As we know from Gisevius, from Vocke, and from all the affidavits submitted, he did have this critical attitude from 1937 on, in which year he took to the dark ways of a conspirator. I remind you of his first contact with the then General Von Kluge. I could give many examples such as those just mentioned. I do not criticize this attitude of foreign countries; that is not for me to do, quite apart from the fact that I have complete understanding for the pacifist attitude it reveals, which is fully aware of its responsibilities. It is, however, my duty to point out that no warlike intention can be imputed to Schacht on account of his opinions and attitude, when the same opinions and the same attitude can be identified as belonging to the foreign countries whose interests had been injured. If foreign countries could entertain the hope of maintaining further friendly relations with Hitler, the same right must be conceded to Schacht as far as he claims it. He does not, however, claim it for himself, at least not after the Fritsch crisis of 1938.
After that time he, in contrast to the foreign countries, had a very clear idea of the danger, which fact, according to the evidence of Gisevius, is undeniable, and he personally risked his life and liberty to maintain peace by attempting to overthrow Hitler. The fact that all these Putsch actions before the war and after the outbreak of war were unsuccessful cannot, according to the evidence submitted, be considered his fault. The responsibility for the failure of this German resistance movement does not lie with the latter but elsewhere, within and without the German frontiers. I shall return to this later.
There remains, therefore, the fact of rearmament as such. Here, too, I can refer essentially to the statements Schacht made in justifying himself during his cross-examination. This was exhaustive, and a repetition would be superfluous. It is therefore also completely superfluous to enter into an academic discussion as to whether Schacht’s views were right; that is to say, whether it is correct that a certain amount of military force sufficient for defensive purposes is necessary for any country and was particularly necessary for Germany, and whether he was correct in his opinion that the nonfulfillment by the parties to the Versailles Treaty of the obligation to disarm justified the rearmament of Germany. The sole point in question is whether these opinions and motives of Schacht’s were honest, or whether he pursued secret aggressive intentions under cover of this defensive armament. But these proceedings have established absolutely nothing to disprove the honesty of these opinions and motives. Of course, one can question the fact whether the quotation “si vis pacem, para bellum” has absolute validity; or whether objectively any pronounced rearmament does not carry an inherent danger of war, since good armies with competent officers naturally strive for a chance for real action. Of course, one can defend the thesis that moral strength is stronger than any armed strength. The cohesion of the British Empire and the world-wide influence of the Vatican’s foreign policy could perhaps be cited as proof of this. All these questions carry a certain relativity in themselves; at any rate, one thing is certain: Even today in all large countries of the world the warning is constantly repeated that one must be militarily strong in order to preserve peace. Nations whose individualism and love of liberty rejected general conscription and a strong standing army now act to the contrary and honestly believe that they thereby serve peace. Let us take as an example a nation whose love of peace absolutely no one in the world, even the most mistrustful, can question, namely, Switzerland. Yet this peace-loving nation has always taken pride in maintaining the defense capacity of its people with the very intention of protecting its freedom and independence in a peaceful manner. One may academically call this idea of discouraging foreign aggression by the maintenance of a sufficiently strong defensive army imperialistic. It is, at any rate, honestly entertained by peaceful and liberty-loving nations and perhaps serves the cause of peace more effectively than many so-called antimilitaristic and pacifist doctrines. This sound point of view has really nothing to do with militarism. Whoever today recognizes this viewpoint as justified for great and small nations cannot contest the honesty of this view on the part of Schacht in the years 1935 to 1938. I have no more to say about this.
I also need not give a wearisome enumeration of figures and make specialized technical statements to the effect that this part of rearmament which Schacht first financed with 9,000 million, and then reluctantly with a further 3,000 million Reichsmark, was by no means sufficient for a war of aggression, in fact, not even for an effective defense of the German frontiers. The answers that the witnesses Keitel, Bodenschatz, Milch, General Thomas, Kesselring, et cetera, have given to this in their depositions and affidavits are available and have been submitted to, or officially brought to the attention of, the Tribunal. In this respect they are unanimously agreed that even at the outbreak of war—that is, 18 months later—Germany was not sufficiently armed for an aggressive war; that therefore, when Hitler led this nation into a war of aggression in August 1939, it was not only a crime against humanity but also against his own people, the people with whose leadership he was entrusted.
Therefore I also consider it superfluous to go into long discussions as to whether Blomberg’s statement that Schacht was aware of the progress of rearmament is correct, or the statement of Schacht and Vocke that this was not so. I accept without further discussion the sincerity of Blomberg’s statement. But since he had more to do with the technical side of rearmament than the Reichsbank had, general experience would seem to indicate that the memory of Schacht and Vocke is more reliable on this point than Blomberg’s, to whom this report to the Reichsbank was a matter of secondary importance for his department. For the Reichsbank the desire to be informed about the technical progress of the armament as well as about the financial expenditure was a very important matter. One remembers such facts better than unimportant secondary matters. In any case it is established that until the budget year 1937-38 only 21,000 millions were spent on armament, of which 12,000 millions were financed by credits of the Reichsbank, and that, according to Generaloberst Jodl’s statement of 5 June, on 1 April 1938 only 27 or 28 divisions were ready, whereas in 1939 there were already 73 or 75 divisions.
It needs no expert to show that this volume of expenditure and armament on 1 April 1938 was entirely insufficient for a war of aggression. Indeed Hitler was of the same opinion when in his memorandum of August 1936, which has been submitted to the Court, and which was handed to Speer in 1944, he pointed out, along with many derogatory remarks about Schacht’s conduct of economic affairs, that 4 precious years had gone by, that we had had time enough in these 4 years to determine what we could not do, and that he hereby gave orders that the German Army must be ready for action in 4 years, that is, in the course of the year 1940.
I should like to remind the Court that after Schacht’s withdrawal as President of the Reichsbank, 31,500 millions were spent on armament during the two budget years 1938-39 and 1939-40. The issuing and expenditure of money on armament therefore continued without Schacht, and indeed to a considerably greater extent. Schacht had once written to Blomberg that he was not a money-making machine.
He exercised constant pressure on Blomberg along this line. I refer only to his letter to Blomberg on 21 December 1935, which has been submitted to the Tribunal. He exercised a restraining influence by means of explanatory lectures to officers of the War Ministry and of the Armed Forces Academy. He refused the railway loan of 1936 requested by the Minister of Communications, which was indirectly in the interest of armament; and he stopped the credits of the Reichsbank as early as the beginning of 1937, concluding them by compromising on a final grant of 3,000 millions. He refused the credit which the Reich Minister of Finance requested from him in December 1938.
He created an automatic brake for armament expenditure through the mefo bills, which from the technical and financial point of view was a somewhat bold measure, although legally tenable. These served at first to finance the armament expenditure but restricted further armament expenditure after their expiration on 1 April 1939 because the Reich was obligated to redeem them. Schacht’s foresight proved true. The increase in employment brought such a rise in the state revenues that it would not have been difficult to liquidate the mefo bills at their expiration 5 years later. Keitel’s statement has proved that during the budget year beginning 1 April 1938, 5,000 million marks more were spent for armament than during the preceding year, although as from 1 April 1938 the Reichsbank credits had completely ceased. Half of the 5,000 millions would have sufficed to redeem the mefo bills which matured during the budget year beginning 1 April 1939. The use of this money for further rearmament would have been avoided; but this was exactly what Schacht intended. From the beginning he had limited the validity of the mefo bills to 5 years; he stopped the credit assistance of the Reichsbank on 1 April 1939 in order to limit armament. It was impossible for Schacht to foresee that Hitler would simply break a strict credit obligation and not redeem the bills. These facts in themselves show that his attempts to resign could have had no other reason than opposition to any further armament, and the refusal to accept responsibility for it. In this sense the assertion of the Prosecution that he wanted to evade responsibility is completely correct.
Nothing indicates that any other motives than those which are obvious from the facts just mentioned caused him to make this attempt to relinquish his duties. If the Prosecution maintains that the reason was his antagonism to Göring, this is also correct insofar as Schacht was an opponent of the Four Year Plan, of which Göring was the chief. That the reason was rivalry of power is a pure supposition, an interpretation of actual events which justifies the quotation: “Interpret to your heart’s content; should you fail to explain, you will at least insinuate.”
The Reichsbank memorandum of November 1938, which led to the dismissal of Schacht and most of his collaborators including Vocke, is also unequivocally and forcibly opposed to armament. It naturally had to contain reasons for this which were derived from the departmental jurisdiction of the Reichsbank. Its aim was obvious. Hence Hitler’s remark, “This is mutiny.” The memorandum ends with the demand for control of the capital and loan market as well as the management of taxation by the Reichsbank. Compliance with this demand would have deprived Hitler of every possibility of raising money for further armament, and therefore this demand was unacceptable to him. Schacht and his colleagues knew this. Accordingly, they deliberately sought a break by this step. Schacht now bore no further responsibility. From now on he could devote himself exclusively to the plans for a coup d’état by the conspiracy group to which he belonged. He became a traitor to Hitler. By remaining Minister without Portfolio, he hoped to learn more about what went on than if he resigned altogether; this was vital for the aims of his conspiracy group. I shall return to this point later.
The fact of armament, as such, therefore, proves absolutely nothing for the assertion of the Prosecution that Schacht deliberately contributed to the preparation of a war of aggression. Simultaneous economic armament, however, belongs of necessity to armament in the modern sense. On the German side this was already recognized for the first time at the beginning of the first World War by two very important German Jews, the founder of the Hamburg-America Line, Albert Ballin, and the great German industrialist, Rathenau. This is the same Rathenau who made the wonderful speech on peace during the Genoa Conference, which was received with wild applause by the delegates of those very powers which had opposed his country but 4 years previously as enemies, and who, as German Foreign Minister, was the victim of an anti-Semitic outrage in the early twenties. I probably can assume that the personality of Albert Ballin is known to the Court. Both men recognized, at the very outbreak of the first World War, the error of omitting economic mobilization. Rathenau then organized the so-called War Raw Materials Department of the War Ministry. The first Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, for this is what he really was, was thus ideologically a pacifist; and certainly since that time there is probably no mobilization plan by any nation which does not provide for the purely military armament to be accompanied by a corresponding economic preparation for war. Therefore, the designation of a Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, even if he had taken up his duties, which as the evidence demonstrates most convincingly he never did but remained a dummy, does not show anything in the way of proof that the intention to wage a war of aggression existed. This post is equally necessary when arming for defense. The same applies to the institution of the Reich Defense Council, the Reich Defense Committee, et cetera. As such they are the same harmless, matter-of-course factors. They have no incriminating value. Only their misuse for the purpose of a war of aggression would be incriminating. However, Schacht’s criminal intention in this respect has not been established, nor has anything else been found. I therefore refrain from going into details on this subject.
In conclusion, the Prosecution sees something incriminating in the so-called maintenance of secrecy regarding certain mobilization measures and mobilization arrangements, as for example the second Reich Defense Law. Here, too, a natural and worldly-wise way of thinking deprives these findings of any incriminating character. All nations are accustomed to treat mobilization and armament measures as secret. Upon further consideration and after closer observation this practice can, of course, be recognized as a very superfluous routine matter. Only plans and technical details can be really kept secret. The fact of rearmament as such can never be kept secret. The same applies to the existence of a large body which is to serve the purpose of this rearmament. Either it becomes known because it starts to function, or, like the ominous Defense Council, it remains hidden and secret only because it does not function.
In the memoirs of a Czarist officer regarding his experiences in the Russo-Japanese war I found the following humorous observation:
“If I, as a member of the General Staff, wished an incident to become known, I had it classified as ‘secret’ and my wish was fulfilled. If I wished to keep something secret, which was almost an impossibility, I unobtrusively gave it free circulation and occasionally my wish was fulfilled.”
One should not quibble in a vacuum; but if one wishes to find the truth, one must take into account the teachings of experience based on hard facts.
Thus, the fact of the military activation of Germany after the seizure of power by Hitler and the subsequent rearmament was never a secret to the world. The main proceedings have produced a great deal of evidence to this effect. We know the report of Consul General Messersmith; we know his sworn testimony of 30 August 1945, submitted by the Prosecution under Number 2385-PS, according to which the armament program—he speaks of a giant armament program immediately following the seizure of power—and the rapid development of the air program had been apparent to everybody; it had been impossible to move in the streets of Berlin or in any other city of importance in Germany without seeing pilots or aviators in training. He expressly states, on Page 8 of his testimony, that this giant German rearmament program was never a secret and was quite publicly announced in the spring of 1935.
I would like to remind you, amongst a great deal of other evidence, of the remark of Ambassador Dodd, who contends that he pointed out to Schacht that the German Government had bought high-grade airplanes from American airplane manufacturers for 1 million dollars and had paid for them in gold. Even if Ambassador Dodd perhaps made a mistake in this detail, yet all this still proves that German rearmament—the extent of which was surely even overestimated abroad at that time—must have been, at the very best, an open secret.
Therefore it is not even necessary to refer to the mutual visits of the Chiefs of General Staffs, to which Milch and Bodenschatz testified, the visits of the Chief of the British Intelligence Service, Courtney, the permanent presence in Berlin of military attachés of nearly all countries, in order to recognize that the so-called secret rearmament was quite public and only safeguarded a few technical secrets, as did rearmament in every state. The outside world knew of the existence of this rearmament and, in any case, considered it to be compatible with world peace longer than Schacht himself did.
It is not for me to criticize the attitude of the outside world, nor is it my intention to do so. Each part on the stage of life has its own rules of tact, including the part played by the defendant and his defense counsel. Their task is to establish a defense, and not to bring charges and make an attack. In connection therewith I expressly wish to guard against a possible misunderstanding to the effect that I want to appear as an accuser, a critic, or a know-it-all in any way. I present all this only from the aspect of my submission that the indirect circumstantial evidence submitted by the Prosecution is not conclusive.
Furthermore, the Prosecution argues that Schacht was a member of the Reich Cabinet, at least as Minister without Portfolio from the time of his dismissal in January 1938, as Minister of Economics, until January 1943. The Prosecution makes the Reich Cabinet responsible—criminally responsible—for the belligerent invasions of Hitler. This argumentation has an attractively convincing power for somebody who starts with the normal concept of a Reich Cabinet. The effect disappears once it has been ascertained that the so-called Reich Cabinet was not a cabinet in the usual sense applying to a constitutional state.
Judgments should not, however, be based on outward appearances and form—not on fiction, but only on actually established conditions. This makes it necessary to penetrate sociologically the nature of the Hitler regime and to examine whether a member of the Reich Cabinet, hence of the Reich Government as such, must in this capacity bear the same criminal responsibility as if he were in any other normal state set-up, be it a democratic republic or a democratic monarchy or a constitutional monarchy or a monarchy which, although absolute, was nevertheless founded on law, or some other constitutionally based set-up which bears the character of a somehow lawful state based on a constitution. We are thus obliged to investigate the actual sociological structure of the Hitler regime. We have heard an account on the Führer Order (Führerbefehl) in this connection by Professor Jahrreiss. Here, too, I want to avoid repetition and would only state the following in abbreviated form:
I want to say first of all, in order to avoid once more the danger of a misunderstanding, that when I speak of the Hitler regime here I do so without referring in any way to the persons sitting in the dock; naturally with the exception of Schacht. For the latter, I do so in the negative sense, for he did not belong to the regime as such, in spite of the fact that he was a member of the Reich Government and President of the Reichsbank. I leave the question completely open as to whether any of the other defendants should be considered a member or supporter of the regime. That question is subject only to the judgment of the Tribunal and the evaluation of the defense counsel for each case.
At the very beginning of my argument I indicated that, even for a person who lived in Germany during the Hitler regime, it is difficult to differentiate between the ostensible distribution of power and the actual underlying influence, since this requires a great deal of political intuition; it is bound to be impossible to judge for people who lived outside Germany and can only be arrived at through the findings resulting from the presentation of evidence before this Tribunal. We have established here that the Reich Cabinet, whom Hitler termed a club of defeatists, was convened for the last time in 1938 and that it met then only to receive a communication from Hitler. For actual deliberation and the passing of a resolution it had last been convened in 1937. We have also established that Hitler deliberately kept all news of political importance from the Reich Cabinet, as is proved quite unequivocally by the so-called Hossbach minutes of 10 November. During this meeting the Führer called the attention of the chiefs of the branches of the Wehrmacht and the Reich Foreign Minister, who were present—Schacht, of course, was not present and did not learn about the Hossbach minutes until he came here—to the fact that the subject for deliberation was of such great importance that it would result in full Cabinet meetings in other countries but that, just because of its great significance, he had decided not to discuss the matter with the Reich Cabinet.
Thus, at least after 1937, the members of the Reich Cabinet can no longer be considered the architects and supporters of the political aspirations of the Reich. The same holds true for the members of the Reich Defense Council, which as such was nothing but a bureaucratic and routine affair. Accordingly Hitler, in the spring of 1939, explicitly excluded the Reich Defense Council also from further war preparations, saying: “Preparations will be made on the basis of peacetime legislation.”
Despotism and tyranny showed themselves in unadulterated form as from 1938. It is a characteristic quality of the Fascist as well as the National Socialist regime, to have the political will concentrated in the head of the Party, who with the help of this Party subjugates and becomes master of the State and the nation. Justice Jackson also recognized this when he stated, on 28 February 1946, that the apex of power rested with a power group outside the State and the Constitution.
To speak, in the case of such a regime, of a responsible Reich Government and of free citizens who, through some organizations or others, could exert influence on the formation of the political will, would be to proceed from entirely wrong hypotheses. Intangible elements devoid of all sense of responsibility usually gain influence on the head of the State and Party in such regimes. The formation of the political will can be recognized in its crystallized form only in the head of the State himself; all around him is shrouded in a haze. It is another characteristic of such a regime—and this again belongs to its inner untruthfulness—that beneath the surface of seemingly absolute harmony and union several power groups fight against each other. Hitler not only tolerated such opposing groups, he even encouraged them and made use of them as a basis for his power.
One of the defendants spoke here of the unity of the German people during this war in contrast with the first World War, but I must stress in reply that hardly at any time during its history was the German nation so torn internally as it was during the Third Reich. The apparent unity was merely the quiet of a churchyard, enforced through terror. The conflicts between the individual high functionaries of the German people, which we have ascertained here, reflect the inner strife-torn condition of the German nation, carefully concealed through the terror wielded by the Gestapo.
To give only a few examples: We were confronted here with the conflicts between Himmler and Frank, between Himmler and Keitel, between Sauckel and Seldte, between Schellenberg and Canaris, between Bormann and Lammers, between SA and SS, between Wehrmacht and SS, between SD and Justice, between Ribbentrop and Neurath, and so on and so forth. The list could be continued ad libitum.
Even ideologically the Party in itself was divided into pronounced oppositional groups, which was shown already at the very beginning of the presentation of evidence by Göring’s testimony. These oppositions were fundamental, and they were not bridged by Hitler but rather deepened. They were the instrument from which he elicited his power. The ministers were not responsible governing persons, as in any other state where law is the foundation; they were nothing but employees with specialized training who had to obey orders. And if a departmental minister, as in the case of Schacht, did not wish to submit to this, it resulted in conflict and resignation from his post.
For this very reason no minister could in the long run take full responsibility for his department, because he was not exclusively competent for it. A minister, in accordance with constitutional law, must first of all have access to the head of State; and he must have the right to report to him in person. He must be in a position to reject interference and influences coming from irresponsible sources. None of the characteristics applicable to a minister apply to the so-called ministers of Adolf Hitler. The Four Year Plan came as a surprise to Schacht. Similarly, the Minister of Justice was surprised by so extremely important a law as the Nuremberg Decrees. Ministers were not in a position to appoint their staffs independently. The appointment of every civil service employee required the consent of the Party Chancellery. The intervention and influence of all possible agencies and persons of the various Chancelleries—Chancellery of the Führer, Party Chancellery, et cetera—asserted themselves. They, however, were agencies placed above the ministries and they could not be controlled. Special delegates governed over the heads of the departmental chiefs. Ministers, even the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, as we have heard from Lammers, might wait for months for an audience, while Herr Bormann and Herr Himmler had free access to Hitler.
The anticamera and camarilla, indispensable accessories of all absolutism, have at all times been difficult to fathom as to the personal responsibility of the individual circles of which they are composed. The irresponsible influences exerted over and affecting Hitler were absolutely intangible.
Generaloberst Jodl described to us here how Hitler’s sudden actions, caused by some urge and attended by the most serious consequences, could be traced back to influences of an entirely obscure and unknown sort, such as pure chance, conversations at a tea party, or the like. For the objective facts this bears out what I already mentioned in the beginning. And so this state of affairs precludes even the possibility of the planning of a crime such as a war of aggression within a clearly defined circle of persons, much less within the so-called Reich Government. But where no planning is possible, there can be no plot, no conspiracy either, the most striking characteristic of which is this very common planning, even though the participants have different and varied roles. Let us assume the broadest conceivable interpretation of the ostensible exterior characteristics of the conspiracy. I am following Justice Jackson’s line of reasoning. He who takes part in a counterfeiters’ plot is guilty of conspiracy, even through he may have written only a letter or acted as bearer of the letter. He who participates in a plot for robbing a bank is guilty of murder if, in the course of the execution, not he but a third party in the group of planners commits murder. At all times, however, the prerequisite is a body of persons capable of evolving a common plan. Such a thing was not possible for Adolf Hitler’s ministers; it was not possible at all under Hitler. From this it follows that no conspirator could participate in Hitler’s crime of having forced upon his own people and the world a war of aggression, except those who served Hitler as assistants.
The forces at work in the Third Reich as depicted thus permit in thesis only the assumption that there existed a punishable complicity or punishable assistance, not, however, a punishable group offense such as a conspiracy. Whether such complicity or such punishable aid in the crime of a war of aggression committed by Hitler exists for individual defendants personally can only be investigated and decided in each individual case. It is my task to investigate this only in the case of Schacht.
A collective crime such as conspiracy is, however, excluded as inconceivable and impossible in the light of the actual conditions as already established. But even if this were not the case, the subjective aspect of the deed is completely lacking in the case of Schacht. Even if the objective facts of a conspiracy were to exist for a certain circle of the accused and even with the most liberal interpretation of the concept of conspiracy, it is still essential that the conspirator should include the plan of conspiracy and the aims of the conspiracy within his will, at least in the form of dolus eventualis.
The strict facts constituting a conspiracy can best be illustrated by comparison with a pirate ship. In reality every crew member of the pirate ship, even a subordinate, is guilty and an outlaw. But a person who did not even know that he was on a pirate ship but believed himself to be on a peaceful merchant vessel, is not guilty of piracy. He is equally innocent if, after realizing the pirate character of the ship, he has done everything he could to prevent any piracy, as well as to leave the pirate ship. Schacht did both.
As far as that is concerned, research on conspiracy also recognizes that a person is not guilty who has withdrawn from the conspiracy by a positive act before attainment of the goal of the conspiracy, even if he did co-operate previously in the preparation of the plan for conspiracy, which was not the case with Schacht. In this connection, I also consider as being in my favor Mr. Justice Jackson’s answer when I put up for discussion, during Schacht’s interrogation, the question whether the persecution of the Jews is also charged to Schacht. Mr. Justice Jackson said, yes, if Schacht had helped prepare the war of aggression before he withdrew from this plan for aggression and its group of conspirators and went over unreservedly to the opposition group, that is, to the conspiracy against Hitler. This desertion would then be the positive act which I have mentioned whereby a person at first participating in a conspiracy would separate himself from it.
This legal problem does not even enter into consideration as far as Schacht is concerned, because the evidence has shown that he never desired to participate in the preparation for a war of aggression.
As already stated, this accusation of the subjective fact of the conspiracy has not been proved either by direct or by indirect evidence. For the events up to the year 1938 I can point to the statements made previously. It has been proved that from 1938 on, at the latest, Schacht fought the bitterest struggle imaginable against any possibility of war in such a form that he attempted to overthrow the person responsible for this risk of war and this will for aggression and, thereby, the regime.
Your Lordship, I have now arrived at the end of a section, if Your Lordship would care to announce a recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. DIX: I beg your pardon for being late, but I was detained at the entrance.
Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have arrived at the discussion of the beginning of the opposition by means of the various Putsch actions.
It is quite irrelevant and of incidental importance to investigate whether the attempts at a Putsch, which occurred at shorter or longer intervals during the war, would have been instrumental in securing better peace terms for Germany. This is absolutely meaningless for the criminal evaluation of Schacht’s course of action. Doubtlessly, according to human reckoning, a successful prewar Putsch would have prevented the outbreak of war; and a successful Putsch after the outbreak of war would at least have shortened the duration of the war. Therefore such skeptical considerations about the political value of these Putsch attempts do not disprove the seriousness of the plans and intentions for a Putsch, and that is all that counts in a criminal legal evaluation. For it proves first of all that a person who has been pursuing them since 1938, and even since 1937, if one includes the attempt with Kluge, could not possibly previously have had warlike intentions. One does not try to overthrow a regime because it involves the danger of war, if previously one has oneself worked toward a war. One does so only if by all one’s actions, even that of financing armament, one wished to serve peace. For this reason these repeated Putsch attempts on the part of Schacht do not have any legal significance of a so-called active repentance for previous criminal behavior but constitute ex post proof that he cannot be accused even before 1938 of deliberately working for war, because it would be logically and psychologically incompatible with Schacht’s activity of conspiracy against Hitler.
These Putsche thus prove the credibility of Schacht in respect to his explanation of the reasons and intentions which caused him actively to enter the Hitler Government and to finance armament to the extent to which he did, namely, to the amount of 12,000 millions. They prove ex post the purely defensive character of this financing of armament; they prove the credibility of Schacht’s contention of having tactically achieved, in addition, a general limitation of armament. If one does believe this explanation of Schacht’s, and I think one must believe it, then one cannot speak of Schacht’s co-operation in instigating a war of aggression.
This credibility is also proved by another circumstance. Schacht originally contradicted the testimony of Gisevius and my questions following the same line, that he had admired Hitler at the beginning and had unreservedly considered him a brilliant statesman. He described this in his interrogation as an erroneous assumption. He said that he had recognized from the beginning many of Hitler’s weaknesses, especially the fact of his poor education, and had only hoped to be in a position to control the disadvantages and dangers resulting from them. By this contradiction Schacht made his defense more difficult; but he is wise enough to have recognized this. Thus what he deliberately forfeited from the point of view of evidence which would serve his defense, he gains with regard to his credibility upon objective evaluation of evidence based on psychological experience. For a person who serves the truth by contradiction deserves increased credibility, when the suggested untruth or the half-truth is more advantageous to him technically and tactically by way of evidence.
There should be no doubt about Schacht’s leading role in the activities of the various conspiracies about which Gisevius testified on the very basis of this credible testimony. During the cross-examination Mr. Justice Jackson confronted Schacht with photographs and films which superficially show a close connection with Hitler and his paladins. This can only have been done in order to throw doubt on the earnestness of his active opposition to Hitler. I must, therefore, deal briefly with this point of the photographs and films. Mr. Justice Jackson has coupled this accusation with another one by quoting speeches ostensibly expressing great devotion on the part of Schacht toward Adolf Hitler even during the Putsch period. This accusation is on the same level. I believe that this argument cannot stand up either before the experiences of life nor before what we can observe of history. History teaches us that conspirators, especially if they belong to the closer circle of dignitaries of the threatened head of state, show special devotion for purposes of camouflage. Nor has it ever been observed that such people impart their intentions to the prospective victim in a spirit of contradictory loyalty. One could cite many examples of this from history.
There exists an effective German drama by a certain Neumann which concerns itself with the murder of Czar Paul by his first Minister, Count Pahlen. The Czar believes to the very end in the ostentatious devotion of Count Pahlen, even while the latter is already sharpening his knife. And the historical documents in existence include a note by Count Pahlen to the Russian Ambassador in Berlin, immediately before the assassination, in which Count Pahlen persists in speaking about “Notre auguste Empereur,” and so forth. Significantly, this drama bears the title The Patriot.
Thus, there is a higher patriotism than the merely formal loyalty of a servant of the nation. It would be closer to the psychological truth if this presumptive devotion, assumed for the sake of appearances, and the assurances of loyalty during this period were judged more in favor of the objective credibility of Schacht’s explanations than vice versa. As a conspirator, he had to camouflage himself especially well. To a certain degree this had to be done by practically everyone who lived under this regime in Germany. As far as the photographs are concerned, it is probably an inevitable consequence of every social and representative participation in a body that one becomes a victim of the camera along with the members of the body whether one likes it or not. A member of a Government cannot always avoid being photographed with these people on the occasion of their meetings. As a result we have pictures that show Schacht between Ley and Streicher and the scene in the film showing the reception of Hitler at the railroad station. Viewed ex post, these pictures give no pleasure to the observer, and certainly not to Schacht either. But they do not prove anything. In a natural evaluation belonging to a normal average experience of life, I consider these pictures without any value as evidence, either pro or contra.
Foreign countries, too, through their prominent representatives, had social intercourse with Adolf Hitler’s Government, and this not only through their diplomatic corps. I wish to assure you that the Defense is in a position to produce pictures of a much more grotesque sort which do not seem nearly as natural as Schacht being photographed together with men who, after all, were his fellow dignitaries in the Third Reich. To produce such pictures, however, might not be very tactful on the part of the Defense; yet should it be necessary to investigate the truth in all seriousness, a defense counsel might have to take upon himself the odium of indiscretion. I do not believe that there is any need for me to do so in this case, because the irrelevance and insignificance of such a presentation of evidence through pictures taken on state occasions of the Third Reich seems to me to be obvious.
The only incriminating point pressed by the Prosecution which is left for me to argue now appears to be that Schacht, after his retirement as Minister of Economics and even after his retirement as President of the Reichsbank in January 1939, remained Minister without Portfolio until 1943. Schacht declared that this had been stipulated by Hitler as a condition for his release from the Ministry of Economics. Hitler’s signature, as that of the head of the State, was necessary for his dismissal. Had Schacht refused to remain as Minister without Portfolio, he would surely have been arrested sooner or later as a political suspect and thus been deprived of all possibility of action against Hitler. The witness Gisevius has testified as to the discussions at that time between him and Schacht concerning the continuation of Schacht’s function as Minister without Portfolio. In these deliberations the idea was quite justly considered important that Schacht could be of more use to the group of conspirators as a scout or an outpost if he remained in this position, to outward appearances at least, within the Reich Government. Even as Minister without Portfolio, Schacht remained exposed to great danger, as is shown by his and Gisevius’ declarations and as becomes obvious from Ohlendorf’s statement that Schacht already in 1937 was on the black list of the State Police.
How much Hitler feared Schacht is proved by his subsequent remarks to Speer, which have been discussed here, particularly his remarks about Schacht after the attempted assassination on 20 July. I would also remind you once more of Hitler’s memorandum of 1936, which he gave to Speer in 1944 and which shows that he saw in Schacht a saboteur of his rearmament plans. It has been declared and proved by Lammers that Schacht tried later on to get rid even of this nominal position. Lammers and Schacht have proved furthermore that this position of Minister without Portfolio was without any special importance. Hence my reference to him as an officer with assimilated rank, that is, an officer without command authority, a sham officer. Schacht could not give up the position unless there was a row, and the same held true of his position as Reichsbank President. Schacht, therefore, had to maneuver in such a way that he would be thrown out. He succeeded in this, as I explained, as Reichsbank President through the well-known memorandum of the Directorate of the Reichsbank and the refusal of credits by the Reichsbank in November 1938 contained therein. As far as his position of Minister without Portfolio was concerned, he succeeded through his defeatist letter of November 1942. In the meantime he made use of the time for the attempted coup d’état in autumn 1938 and for the various other attempted coups d’état leading up to that of 20 July 1944, which finally caused him to be put in a concentration camp.
A criminal reproach can on no account be made against him in his position as Minister without Portfolio. For his proved conspiratorial activity against Hitler during all this time eliminates by force of logic the supposition that he had furthered Hitler’s war plans and war strategy during this time. In any event, we can only raise—and even that only in the vacuum of abstraction—a political reproach against the Schacht of the years 1933-37. But this, too, is fully compensated by the extraordinarily courageous attitude of Schacht after this period. To obtain its just evaluation, may I remind you of the interesting statement of Gisevius to the effect that he, who had at first looked with a certain skepticism upon Schacht’s original attitude, not in a criminal but in a political sense, had later become completely reconciled with Schacht by the extraordinary courage which Schacht displayed as opponent and conspirator against Hitler since 1938. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the fact that Schacht remained as Minister without Portfolio does not incriminate him either directly or indirectly, neither according to penal law, which is out of the question, nor morally, if one takes into consideration his behavior as a whole, his motives, and the accompanying circumstances and conditions.
If the Prosecution now finally argues, on the basis of the text of the afore-mentioned memorandum by the Directorate of the Reichsbank, that an opposition to war is not evident from the memorandum, but only technical reflections on finance and currency, then I have only to refer in this respect to my earlier statements and the testimony of Vocke. The presentation of facts by Schacht himself would not even be necessary to refute this argumentation. Vocke in his capacity as closest collaborator declared quite unequivocally that Schacht wished to limit and sabotage rearmament from the moment when he recognized that it was becoming a potential war danger. The sworn affidavit of Hülse and the sworn affidavits of all the collaborators of Schacht in the Reich Ministry of Economics tally with the testimony of Vocke in this respect. I need not quote them individually. They are known to the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not need the commentary of a defense counsel on them; they speak for themselves. If the Prosecution now finally bases its argument on the text of the memorandum which, it is true, actually only deals with financial problems, then again I cannot suppress the remark that such an argumentation moves in a vacuum insofar as one does not take the experiences of history and the general experiences of life into consideration. Naturally, as I have already said, the Directorate of the Reichsbank could only bring up arguments from their department, particularly so in dealing with a Hitler. One says one thing while meaning another.
If the Directorate of the Reichsbank, along with their President, Schacht, had revealed their true purpose in this memorandum, namely, to avert the danger of war and to combat Hitler’s will of aggression, then they would have deprived themselves of the effect of technical departmental influence. Hitler very well understood the purpose of this memorandum when he shouted, after reading it: “That is mutiny!” With this, Hitler recognized the only thing that can be said of Schacht as conspirator: He was never a mutineer and conspirator against world peace; but, insofar as he was a conspirator and mutineer, he was so only against Adolf Hitler and his regime.
Again in this case I must ask the High Tribunal to turn their attention to Appendix Number II, which I must insert at this moment, because the matter that is dealt with here did not reach me for translation until after I had submitted my final speech.
I said that Schacht, insofar as he was a conspirator, was so only against Hitler. As such, he was the subject of ironical belittling by Generaloberst Jodl and my colleague Nelte through the epithet, “frock-coat and drawing-room revolutionary.” Now history teaches that the quality of the tailor does not play any role in the case of the revolutionary. And as far as the drawing room is concerned, shacks have no revolutionary precedence over palaces. I would just recall the political drawing rooms of the great French Revolution or, for example, the elegant officers’ club of the select Preobrashensk regiment under many a Czar. Should the Gentlemen of the Tribunal be of the opinion that Schacht and his accomplices themselves should have done the shooting, then all I can say is that things were not as easy as all that. Schacht would have loved to do the shooting himself; he proclaimed that here emphatically. But it was not possible for him to do so without possessing the power to master the attendant confusion, thereby making the attempt a revolutionary success. Thus generals with troops were necessary. I do not wish to repay Generaloberst Jodl with the same coin and shall therefore refrain from saying “a necessary evil.”
The further reproach of the basic lack of working-class elements to strengthen the Putsche is contradicted by the social composition of the revolutionaries of 20 July. As I stated before, all this is irrelevant for the decision of the Tribunal. But my client is morally entitled to expect his defense counsel not to let this ironical thrust pass, especially since it was delivered in the limelight of public opinion.
In summing up I may say: After the elections in July 1932 it was certain that Hitler was able and bound to seize power. Previous to this Schacht had particularly warned the foreign countries of this development, and thus he had not contributed to it. After the seizure of power only two roads were open to him, as to every German: He either had to estrange himself or to enter the Movement actively. The decision at these crossroads was a purely political one without any criminal aspect. Just as we respect the reasons which caused the foreign countries to collaborate with Hitler much more intensively and in a more pro-German way than with the previous democratic Governments of Germany, we must recognize the good faith of all those Germans who believed themselves able to serve the country and humanity better by remaining in the Movement, that is, within the Party or the apparatus of officialdom, because of the greater possibilities of exerting their influence, than by grumbling and keeping aloof. To serve Hitler as minister and President of the Reichsbank was a political decision, about the political correctness of which one can argue ex post facto but one which certainly lacked any criminal character. Schacht has always remained loyal to the motivating reason for his decision, namely, to combat any radicalism from an influential position. Nowhere in the world, which knew his oppositional attitude, could he see any signs of warning or support. He saw only that the world trusted Hitler much longer than he himself did and permitted Adolf Hitler to gain honors and foreign political successes, which hampered Schacht’s work which had already for a long time been directed toward removing Adolf Hitler and his Government. He led this struggle against Adolf Hitler and his Government with a courage and determination which must make it appear a pure miracle that not until after 20 July 1944 did fate overtake him, when he was sent to a concentration camp and was in danger of losing his life either through the Peoples’ Court or through a spectacular act of the SS. He is sufficiently wise and self-critical to realize that from a purely political angle the picture of his character will be adjudged diversely in history, or at least in the immediate future, according to favor or hatred of the parties. He humbly resigns himself to the judgment of history, even if one historian or another will label his political line as incorrect. But with the pride of a good conscience he faces the judgment of this High Tribunal. He stands before his judges with clean hands. He also stands before this Tribunal with confidence, as he has already manifested in a letter which he addressed to this Tribunal before the beginning of the proceedings, in which he states that he is grateful to be able to expose before this Tribunal and before the whole world his actions and doings and their underlying reasons. He stands before this Tribunal with confidence because he knows that favor or hatred of the parties will have no effect on this Tribunal. While recognizing the relativity of all political actions in such difficult times, he remains sure of himself and full of confidence with regard to the criminal charges which have been raised against him. Whoever would be found guilty of being criminally responsible for this war and the atrocities and inhuman acts committed in it, Schacht, according to the evidence which has been given here with minute exactness, can confront that culprit with the words which Wilhelm Tell flings in the face of the emperor’s assassin, Parricida: “I raise my clean hands to Heaven, and curse you and your deed!”
I therefore request the findings to be established to the effect that Schacht is not guilty of the accusation which has been raised against him and that he be acquitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Kranzbühler for the Defendant Dönitz.
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for the Defendant Dönitz): Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: “War is a cruel thing, and it brings in its train a multitude of injustices and misdeeds.”[2] With these words of Plutarch’s, Hugo Grotius begins his examination of responsibility for war crimes; and they are as true today as they were 2,000 years ago. Acts constituting war crimes, or considered as such by the opponent, have at all times been committed by belligerents. But this fact was always held against the vanquished parties and never against the victors. The law which was applied here was necessarily always the law of the stronger.
While more or less stable rules have been governing land warfare for centuries, in naval warfare the conceptions of the belligerents with regard to international law have always clashed. No one knows better than the British statesmen to what extent these conceptions are dictated by national or economic interests. I refer in this respect to noted witnesses such as Lord Fisher and Lord Edward Grey.[3] Therefore, if ever in history a naval power would have had the idea of prosecuting a defeated enemy admiral, based on its own conception of the rules of naval warfare, the sentence would have been a foregone conclusion from the very indictment.
At this trial two admirals are under indictment for a naval war which has been termed criminal. Thus the Tribunal is confronted with a decision regarding conceptions of law which are necessarily as divergent as the interests of a naval power and a land power. It is not only the fate of the two admirals which depends upon this decision. It is also a question of personal honor to hundreds of thousands of German seamen who believed they were serving a good cause, and who do not deserve to be branded by history as pirates and murderers. It is for these men, the living as well as the dead, that I feel bound by a moral obligation to reject the accusations raised against German naval warfare.
What are these accusations? They are divided into two main groups: Unlawful sinking of ships and deliberate killing of shipwrecked personnel. I shall deal first with the accusation of the illegal sinking of ships.
Two reports by Mr. Roger Allen, of the British Foreign Office, made in the autumn of 1940 and spring of 1941, form the nucleus of that accusation. I do not know to whom and for what purpose these reports were made. According to their form and content they appear to serve propaganda purposes, and for that reason alone I consider them to have little value as evidence. Even the Prosecution submitted only part of the accusations made therein. The reports trace only one-fifth of the total number of supposedly unlawful attacks back to submarines, whereas four-fifths are ascribed to mines, airplanes, or surface craft. The Prosecution omits these four-fifths, and this reticence may be explained by the fact that the use of these combat means on the British side differed in no way from that on the German side.
With regard to the use of submarines, however, there does seem to exist a difference between the principles followed in Germany’s conduct of the naval war and that of our enemies. At any rate, the public in enemy countries and in many neutral countries believed so during the war, and partly still believes it today. Propaganda dominated the field. At the same time the vast majority of all critics neither knew exactly what principles applied to German U-boat warfare, nor on what factual and legal foundations they were based. It shall be my task to attempt to clarify this.
The reports by Mr. Roger Allen culminate in the assertion that the German U-boats, beginning with the summer of 1940, torpedoed everything within range. Undoubtedly, the methods of submarine warfare gradually intensified under the pressure of the measures directed against Germany. This war, however, never degenerated into an orgy of shooting governed only by the law of expediency. Most of what might have been expedient for a U-boat was left undone to the last day of the war because it could only be regarded as legally inadmissible, and all measures of which Germany in her conduct of naval warfare is being accused today by the Prosecution were the result of a development in which both sides took part through measures and countermeasures, as occurs in the course of every war.
The London Protocol of 1936 formed the legal basis for German submarine warfare at the beginning of this war. These regulations were incorporated verbatim into Article 74 of the German Prize Ordinance, which even Mr. Roger Allen calls a reasonable and not inhuman instrument. This Prize Ordinance was sent in 1938 in draft form to the two U-boat flotillas and to the U-boat training school and served as a basis for the training of commanders. Stopping and examining merchant vessels was performed as a tactical task. In order to facilitate for the commander in economic warfare the quick and correct evaluation of his legal position towards ships and cargoes of the enemy and of neutral countries, the prize disc was constructed, which through simple manipulations indicated the articles of the Prize Ordinance to be applied. Thus, insofar as preparations had been made at all for economic warfare by submarines they were based exclusively on the German Prize Ordinance, and thus on the London Protocol.
The German High Command actually did adhere to this legal foundation in the initial stages of the war. The combat instructions for U-boats of 3 September 1939 contained clear orders to the effect that submarine warfare was to be carried on in accordance with the Prize Ordinance. Accordingly, sinkings were permissible only after stopping and examining the ship, unless it attempted to escape or offered resistance. Some examples were submitted to the Tribunal, from the abundance of available instances, showing the chivalrous spirit in which the German submarine commanders complied with instructions given. In particular, assistance afforded to the crews of ships lawfully sunk, after having been stopped and examined, occasionally reached a point where it could scarcely be justified on military grounds. Lifeboats were towed over long distances, whereby the few available U-boats were diverted from their combat mission. Enemy ships which might have been sunk lawfully were permitted to go free in order to send the crews of ships previously sunk to port aboard them. It is therefore only correct that Mr. Roger Allen stated that the German U-boats, during the first weeks of the war, adhered strictly to the London regulations.
Why was this practice not kept up? Because the conduct of the enemy made such a procedure militarily impossible, and at the same time created the legal prerequisites for its modification.
I shall consider the military side first. From the very first day of the war, U-boat reports reached the Flag Officer of U-boats and the Naval Operations Staff stating that hardly an enemy ship submitted voluntarily to being stopped and examined. The merchant vessels were not content with attempting to escape through flight or by changing their course and bearing directly down upon the U-boat in order to force it to dive. Every U-boat sighted was at once reported by radio; and subsequently, in the shortest space of time, attacked by enemy airplanes or naval forces. However, it was the arming of all enemy merchant vessels that settled the matter. As early as 6 September 1939 a German U-boat was shelled by the British steamship Manaar, and that was the starting signal for the great struggle which took place between the U-boats, on the one hand, and the armed merchant vessels equipped with guns and depth charges, on the other hand, as equal military opponents.
In order to show the effect of all the measures taken by the adversary, I have presented to the Tribunal some examples which I do not wish to repeat. They show unequivocally that further action against enemy merchant ships in accordance with the Prize Ordinance was no longer feasible from the military standpoint and meant suicide for the submarine. Nevertheless, the German command for weeks on end continued to act according to the regulations governing the Prize Ordinance. Only after it was established that action on the part of enemy merchant ships—especially armed action—no longer took the form of individual measures but of general instructions, was the order given on 4 October 1939 to attack all armed enemy merchant ships without warning.
The Prosecution will perhaps take the standpoint that, in lieu of this, submarine warfare against armed merchant vessels should have been discontinued. In the last war the most terrible weapons of warfare were ruthlessly employed by both sides on land and in the air. In view of this experience the thesis can hardly be upheld today that in naval warfare one of the parties waging war should be expected to give up using an effective weapon after the adversary has taken measures making the use of it impossible in its previous form. In any case such a renunciation could only be considered if the novel utilization of the weapon were undeniably illegal. But this is not the case for the utilization of German submarines against enemy merchant shipping, because the measures taken by the enemy changed not only the military but also the legal situation.
According to German legal opinion a ship which is equipped and utilized for battle does not come under the provisions granting protection against sinking without warning as laid down by the London Protocol for merchant ships. I wish to stress the fact that the right of the merchant ship to carry weapons and to fight is not thereby contested. The conclusion drawn from this fact is reflected in the well-known formula: “He who resorts to weapons must expect to be answered by weapons.”
During cross-examination the Prosecution referred to this interpretation of the London Protocol as fraudulent. It admits only the closest literal interpretation and considers the sinking of a merchant ship as admissible only if the latter has offered active resistance. It is not the first time that fundamental differences of opinion exist between contracting parties with respect to the interpretation of a treaty, and the extremely divergent interpretations of the meaning of the Potsdam Agreement of 2 August 1945 provide a recent example. Diversity of conception, therefore, does not permit the conclusion that the one or the other party acted fraudulently during the signing or the subsequent interpretation of a treaty. I will endeavor to show how unjustified this charge is particularly in regard to the German interpretation of the London Submarine Protocol.
There are two terms on which the German interpretation hinges, namely, that of “merchant vessel” and “active resistance.” If I now consider some legal questions, this will in no way represent a comprehensive exposition. I can only touch on the problems and due to lack of time must limit myself also when dealing with research on the subject. I shall primarily refer to American sources, because the interests of naval strategy of that nation were not as firmly established as those of the European nations and its research literature can thus claim greater objectivity.
The text of the London Protocol of 1936 is based, of course, on a declaration which was signed at the London Naval Conference of 1930. The committee of jurists appointed at that time expressed its opinion concerning the greatly disputed definition of a merchant vessel in the report of 3 April 1930:
“The committee wishes to place on record that the expression ‘merchant vessel’ where it is employed in the declaration is not to be understood as including a merchant vessel which is at the moment participating in hostilities in such a manner as to cause her to lose her right to the immunities of a merchant vessel.”
This definition clarifies at least one thing, namely, that by no means every vessel flying a merchant flag may lay claim to being treated as a merchant vessel in the sense of the London Agreement. Beyond this, the explanation has few positive aspects because the question through what kind of participation in hostilities a vessel loses her right to the immunity of a merchant vessel is again subject to the interpretation of the contracting parties. The London Conference, as far as I can see, did not consider this ticklish question any further, and one is probably entitled to assume that this remarkable reserve is based on experiences which the same powers had accumulated in Washington 8 years before.
The Washington Conference of 1922 was held under the impression of the first World War; and therefore it is no wonder that Great Britain, the naval power which during the World War had suffered most from German submarine warfare, now tried to outlaw and abolish altogether by international law submarine warfare against merchant shipping. The resolution, named after the American chief delegate, Root, which in its first part substantially corresponded to the London text of 1930, served that aim. But in the second part the Root Resolution goes further and stipulates that any commander who, no matter whether he acted with or without higher orders, violated the rules established for the sinking of merchant vessels should be punished as a war criminal like a pirate. Finally it was recognized that under the conditions stipulated in the resolution submarine warfare against merchant shipping was impossible, and such warfare was therefore renounced altogether by the contracting powers. The Root Resolution designates these principles as an established part of international law. While it was accepted as such by the delegates, none of the five participating naval powers, U.S.A., Britain, France, Japan, and Italy ratified it.
In connection with the Root Resolution, however, another question was discussed which is of the greatest importance for the interpretation of the London Protocol, namely, the definition of the term “merchantman.” Here the two conflicting views in the entire U-boat question became clearly evident. On the one side there stood Britain, on the other France[4], Italy, and Japan, while the United States took the position of a mediator. According to the minutes of the Washington Conference, the Italian delegate, Senator Schanzer, opened the offensive of the weaker naval powers by expressly emphasizing that a merchantman, when regularly armed, might be attacked by a submarine without preliminaries. In a later session Schanzer repeated his statement that the Italian delegation applied the term of “merchantman” in the resolution only to unarmed merchant vessels. He declared this to be in explicit accordance with the existing rules of international law.[5]
The French delegate, M. Sarraut, at that time received instructions from his Foreign Minister, M. Briand, to second the reservations of the Italian delegate.[6] He thereupon moved to have the Italian reservations included in the minutes of the session.
The Japanese delegate, Hanihara, supported this trend with the statement that he thought it was clear that merchant vessels engaged in giving military assistance to the enemy ceased in fact to be merchant vessels.[7] It can therefore be seen that in 1922, three of the five powers represented expressed the opinion that armed merchant vessels were not to be regarded as merchant vessels in the sense of the Agreement.
Since the whole resolution threatened to collapse because of this difference of opinion, a way out was found which is typical of conferences of this kind. Root closed the debate with the statement that in his opinion the resolution held good for all merchant ships as long as the ship remained a merchant vessel.[8] With this compromise a formula was created which, while representing a momentary political success, would not however carry any weight in the case of war, for it was left to every participating power to decide whether or not it would grant the armed merchant vessels the protection of the resolution in case of war.
I have described these events of the year 1922 a little more in detail because the powers which took part in them were the same as those which participated in the London Naval Conference of 1930. The London Conference was the continuation of the Washington Conference, and the subjects that had been discussed and included in the minutes of the first conference were of great importance for the second conference. Experts too—and by no means only German but above all American and French experts—based their examinations on the close connection of both conferences, and it was precisely for that reason that they declared the result achieved in the question of submarines to be ambiguous and unsatisfactory. Here I merely wish to point to Wilson’s summarizing report on the London Naval Treaty.[9]
This report, besides the ambiguity of the concept “merchant vessel,” also stresses the uncertainty connected with the words “active resistance”; and it is with these very words that an exception from the protection of the merchantman is connected, an exception which likewise is not contained in the actual text of the London Agreement but which nevertheless is generally recognized. I am referring to merchantmen in an enemy convoy. If the London Agreement were interpreted literally, it would be understood that even merchantmen in an enemy convoy must not be attacked without warning but that an attacking warship would have to put the escort vessels out of action first and then stop and search the merchantmen. However, this suggestion, which is impossible from a military point of view, evidently is not made even by the Prosecution. In the report of the British Foreign Office, which has been mentioned several times, it says:
“Ships sailing in enemy convoys are usually deemed to be guilty of forcible resistance and therefore liable to be sunk forthwith.”
Here even the Prosecution accepts an interpretation of the words “active resistance,” an interpretation which results in no way from the treaty itself but is simply a consequence of military necessity and thus dictated by common sense.
And this very same common sense demands also that the armed merchantman be held just as guilty of forcible resistance as the convoyed ship. Let us take an extreme instance in order to make the matter quite clear. An unarmed merchant ship of 20,000 tons and a speed of 20 knots, which is convoyed by a trawler with, let us say, 2 guns and a speed of 15 knots, may be sunk without warning, because it has placed itself under the protection of the trawler and thereby made itself guilty of active resistance. If, however, this same merchant ship does not have the protection of the trawler and instead the 2 guns, or even 4 or 6 of them, are placed on its decks, thus enabling it to use its full speed, should it in this case not be deemed just as guilty of offering active resistance as before? Such a deduction really seems to me against all common sense. In the opinion of the Prosecution the submarine would first have to give the merchant ship, which is far superior to it in fighting power, the order to stop and then wait until the merchant ship fires its first broadside at the submarine. Only then would it have the right to use its own weapons. Since, however, a single artillery hit is nearly always fatal to a submarine but as a rule does very little harm to a merchant ship, the result would be the almost certain destruction of the submarine.
“When you see a rattlesnake rearing its head, you do not wait until it jumps at you but you destroy it before it gets the chance.”
These are Roosevelt’s words, in which he justified his order to the United States naval forces to attack German submarines. This reason seemed sufficient to him to order the immediate use of arms even without the existence of a state of war. It is a unique instance in the history of warfare, however, to grant one of two armed opponents the right to fire the first shot and to make the other wait to be hit first. Such an interpretation is contradictory to all military reason. It is no wonder, therefore, if in view of such divergent opinions, the experts on international law, even after the London Treaty and the signing of the London Protocol of 1936, consider the treatment of armed merchant vessels in naval warfare to be an unsolved question. Here too I should like to refer to only one source of research, which enjoys especially high authority. It is the draft of an agreement on the rights and duties of neutrals in naval warfare, an agreement which leading American professors of international law, such as Jessup, Borchard, and Charles Warren, published in the American Journal of International Law of July 1939 and which includes arguments which furnish an excellent idea of the latest trend of opinion. Article 54 of this draft corresponds word for word to the text of the London Agreement of 1936, with one notable exception: The term “merchant vessel” is replaced by “unarmed vessel.” The next article then continues:
“In their action with regard to enemy armed merchant vessels, belligerent warships, whether surface or submarine, and belligerent military aircraft are governed by the rules applicable to their action with regard to enemy warships.”
This opinion is first of all explained by historical development. During the time when it was customary to arm merchant vessels, that is, until the end of the last century, there was no question of any protection for the merchant vessel against immediate attack by an enemy warship. With the introduction of armor plating the warship became so superior to the armed merchant vessel that any resistance on the part of the latter was rendered futile, and the arming of merchant ships therefore gradually ceased. Only this defenselessness against warships, and this alone, granted merchant vessels the privilege of not being attacked without warning by the enemy: “As merchantmen lost effective fighting power they acquired a legal immunity from attack without warning.”
This immunity was never conceded to the merchant vessel as such but only to the defenseless and harmless merchant vessel. In regard to this the American expert on international law, Hyde,[10] stated in 1922, that is, after the Washington Conference and the afore-mentioned Root Resolution on U-boat warfare:
“Maritime states have never acquiesced in a principle that a merchant vessel so armed as to be capable of destroying a vessel of war of any kind should enjoy immunity from attack at sight, at least when encountering an enemy cruiser of inferior defensive strength.”
Legal as well as practical considerations, therefore, led the above-mentioned American authorities, after the signing of the London Agreement and shortly before the outbreak of this war, to form the opinion that armed merchant ships do not enjoy protection from attacks without warning.
Here the old discrimination between defensive and offensive armaments is also rejected as inapplicable. It is a well-known fact that the American Secretary of State, Lansing, in his note to the Allies on 18 January 1916, took the point of view that any kind of armament aboard a merchant vessel will make its fighting power superior to that of a submarine and that such armament is therefore of an offensive nature.[11]
In the later course of the first World War, the United States changed its opinion and declared that mounting guns on the stern could be taken as proof of the defensive character of the armaments. This standpoint was adopted in some international agreements and drafts, as well as by British jurists in particular. It does not do justice to the practice of naval warfare.
First of all, in this war the guns on many vessels were mounted from the very start in the bows, for instance, regularly on fishing trawlers. Furthermore, the antiaircraft weapons of the merchant vessel, which were especially dangerous for the submarine, were frequently placed on the bridge, and could therefore be used in all directions. Besides, there can be no differentiation between defensive and offensive armaments as to the way the weapons are placed.
In this respect orders alone and the way in which these weapons are meant to be employed are the decisive factors. Soon after the war had started the orders of the British Admiralty had already fallen into German hands. A decision of the Tribunal has made it possible for me to submit them. They are contained partly in the Confidential Fleet Orders, chiefly, however, in the Defense of Merchant Shipping Handbook. They were issued in 1938. They do not therefore deal with countermeasures against illicit German actions but, on the contrary, were already issued at a time when warfare in accordance with the London Agreement was the only form of submarine warfare taken into consideration in Germany.
The instructions further show that all British merchant vessels acted, from the first day of the war, according to orders received from the British Admiralty. These involved the following points with respect to submarine warfare:
(1) Reporting of submarines by radio telegraphy.
(2) The use of naval artillery.
(3) The use of depth charges.
These instructions were supplemented on 1 October 1939, when a call was transmitted over the radio to ram all German submarines.
It might seem unnecessary after this survey to make any mention at all of the defensive and offensive character of such orders. The orders on the use of artillery by merchant vessels, however, do make such differentiation; that is, guns are to be used for defense only, as long as the enemy on his part adheres to the regulations of international law, and for the offensive only when he no longer does. The orders covering the practical execution of these directives reveal, however, that there is no difference at all between defensive and offensive use. Admiral Dönitz explained this in detail when he was heard in Court, and I do not want to repeat it. Actually, from the very beginning of the war merchant vessels were under orders to fire on every occasion on every submarine which came within range of their guns. And that is what the captains of British merchant vessels did. The reason for this offensive action can certainly not be found in the conduct of German submarines during the first weeks of the war, for even the Foreign Office report admits that this conduct was correct. On the other hand, British propaganda may have had great influence, since in connection with the unintentional sinking of the Athenia on 3 September 1939, it disseminated through Reuters on 9 September the assertion that unrestricted submarine warfare was in progress and upheld this assertion notwithstanding the fact that the conduct of German submarines during the first weeks of the war refuted this accusation. Together with the announcement of the British Admiralty’s ramming orders of 1 October 1939, the merchant navy was again officially informed that the German U-boats had ceased to respect the rules of naval warfare and that merchant vessels were to adjust their conduct accordingly. It seems to me of no importance that a corresponding written supplement to Admiralty orders was not issued until the spring of 1940, because nowadays a naval war is not directed by letters but by wireless. But according to the latter, the British captains, as from 9 September or 1 October 1939 at the latest, were directed to use their guns offensively against the German U-boats in accordance with the Admiralty’s instructions as contained in its handbook. The German order to attack armed enemy merchant vessels without warning was issued only on 4 October. Thus it was justified in any case, even if one did acknowledge a difference in treatment for vessels with defensive and offensive armament.
The guns on the merchant vessels and the orders concerning their use were, however, only a part of a comprehensive system of the use of merchant vessels for military purposes. Since the end of September 1939 the fastest vessels, that is, those ships that were the least endangered by submarines but, on the other hand, were especially suited for chasing U-boats, received depth charge chutes, that is, armaments which call for location of a submerged submarine and thus may be judged as typical weapons for the offensive.
However, another factor of greater general importance, and also of greater danger to the submarines, was the order to report every enemy ship on sight, giving its type and location. This report was destined, so said the order, to facilitate taking advantage of an opportunity, which might never recur, to destroy the enemy by naval or air forces. This is an unequivocal utilization of all merchant vessels for military intelligence service with intent directly to injure the enemy. If one considers the fact that according to the hospital ship agreement even the immunity of hospital ships ceases, if they relay military information of this type, then one need have no doubts about the consequences of such behavior on the part of a commercial vessel. Any craft putting out to sea with the order and intention of using every opportunity that occurs to send military reports about the enemy to its own naval and air forces is taking part in hostilities during the entire course of its voyage and, according to the afore-mentioned report of 1930 of the committee of jurists, has no right to be considered a merchant vessel. Any different conception would not do justice to the immediate danger which a wireless report involves for the vessel reported and which subjects it, often within a few minutes, to attack by enemy aircraft.
All of the Admiralty’s directives, taken together, show that British merchant vessels, from the very first day of the war, closely co-operated with the British Navy in combating the enemy’s naval forces. They were part of the military communications network of the British naval and air forces and their armament of guns and depth charges, the practical training in manipulation of the weapons, and the orders relative to their use, were actions taken by the British Navy.
We consider it out of the question that a merchant fleet in this manner destined and utilized for combat should count among the vessels entitled to the protection of the London Protocol against sinking without warning. On the basis of this conception and in connection with the arming of all enemy merchant vessels, which was rapidly being completed, an order was issued on 17 October 1939 to attack all enemy merchant ships without warning.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, we may as well break off now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am sorry to detain the Tribunal, but I promised to tell the Tribunal about the two affidavits put forward for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. We have no objection to them. I promised to tell Your Lordship today. I am sorry to have to detain you.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 16 July 1946 at 1000 hours.]
NOTES
-----
[2] De jure pacis ac belli, Book II, Chapter XXIV, Paragraph 10.
[3] Lord Edward Grey: “Twenty-five Years of Politics 1892-1916.” (Retranslated into English from the German edition published by Bruckmann, Munich 1926). “International Law has always been very flexible.... A belligerent possessing an over-powerful navy has at all times been in search of an interpretation of International Law which would justify a maximum of intervention in respect of merchandise liable to reach the enemy. This attitude was naturally adopted by Great Britain and the Allies owing to their supremacy at sea. The British position on this subject had not always been the same. When we figured among the neutrals, we naturally contested the right to maximum intervention claimed by the belligerents.”
[4] Yamato Ichihalie, The Washington Conference and After, Stanford University Press, Cal., 1928, Page 80, “The chief reason for the British plea was the apprehension of the craft in the hands of the French navy.”
[5] Conference on the Limitation of Armaments, Washington, November 12, 1921-February 6, 1922, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1922, Pages 606, 688, 692.
[6] French Yellow Book, La Conférence de Washington, Page 93.
[7] Protocol Pages 693, 702.
[8] Protocol Page 704.
[9] American Journal of International Law, 1931, Page 307.
[10] Hyde, International Law, 1922, Vol. II, Page 469.
[11] U.S. Foreign Relations, 1916, Supplement Page 147.
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINTH DAY Tuesday, 16 July 1946
Morning Session
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I would like to sum up my statements of yesterday and make the following remarks regarding the conduct of German U-boats against enemy merchant vessels.
I believe that the German construction of the London Agreement of 1936, in the light of the position taken by some of the powers involved, as generally known to all experts, as well as according to the opinion of numerous and competent jurists of all countries, was in no way fraudulent. If I were to express myself with all caution, I would say that it is, legally, at least, perfectly tenable, and thus not the slightest charge can be raised against the German Naval Command for issuing its orders on a sensible and perfectly fair basis. We have shown that these orders were given only in consequence of the conditions created by publication of the British measures, which, according to the German concept of law, justified the orders issued.
Before I leave this subject I should like to recall to the mind of the Tribunal the special protection which the German orders provided for passenger vessels. These passenger vessels were excluded for a long time from all measures involving sinking of ships, even when they sailed in an enemy convoy and therefore could have been sunk immediately, according to the British conception. These measures indicate very clearly that the accusation of disregard and brutality is unjustified. The passenger vessels were only included in the orders concerning other vessels when in the spring of 1940 there was no longer any harmless passenger traffic at all, and when these ships, because of their great speed and heavy armament, proved to be particularly dangerous enemies of the submarines. If therefore Mr. Roger Allen’s report cites as an especially striking example of German submarine cruelty the sinking of the City of Benares in the autumn of 1940, then this example is not very well chosen because the City of Benares was armed and went under convoy.
I shall turn now to the treatment of neutrals in the conduct of German submarine warfare, and I can at once point again in this connection to the example which Mr. Roger Allen cites especially for the sinking of a neutral vessel contrary to international law. It concerns the torpedoing of the Danish steamer Vendia, which occurred at the end of September 1939. The Tribunal will recall that this ship was stopped in a regular way and was torpedoed and sunk only when it prepared to ram the German submarine. This occurrence led the German Government to protest to the Danish Government on account of the hostile conduct shown by a neutral boat.
This one example is just to show how different things look if not only the result in the form of the sinking of a neutral ship is known, but also the causes which led to this result. Until the last day of the war the fundamental order to the German submarines was not to attack merchantmen recognized as neutral. There were some accurately defined exceptions to this order, about which the neutral powers had been notified. They affected in the first place ships which conducted themselves in a suspicious or hostile manner, and secondly ships in announced operational areas.
To the first group belonged, above all, those vessels which sailed blacked-out in the war area. On 26 September 1939 the Commander of U-boats asked the High Command of the Navy for permission to attack without warning vessels proceeding in the Channel without lights. The reason was clear. At night the enemy’s troop and matériel shipments were taking place, by which the second wave of the British expeditionary army was ferried across to France. At that time the order was still in effect that French ships were not to be attacked at all. But since French ships could not be distinguished from English vessels at night, submarine warfare in the Channel would have had to be discontinued completely after dark in compliance with this order. The Tribunal heard from a witness that in this way a 20,000-ton troop transport passed unmolested in front of the torpedo tubes of a German submarine. Such an occurrence in war is grotesque and therefore of course the Naval Operations Staff approved the request of the Commander of U-boats.
The Prosecution has now made much ado about a note written on this occasion by an assistant at the Naval Operations Staff, Kapitänleutnant Fresdorf. The Chief of Section, Admiral Wagner, already disapproved of the opinions expressed in this note; therefore they did not result in corresponding orders. The order to attack blacked-out ships was issued by radio without any further addition on the part of the Naval Operations Staff and on 4 October it was extended to further regions along the British coast, and again without any addition in the sense of the above-mentioned note.
Examining the question of blacked-out vessels from the legal standpoint, Vanselow, the well-known expert on the law governing naval warfare, makes the following remark:[12]
“In war a blacked-out vessel must in case of doubt be considered as an enemy warship. A neutral as well as an enemy merchant vessel navigating without light voluntarily renounces during the hours of darkness all claim to immunity from attack without being stopped.”
I furthermore refer to Churchill’s declaration, made in the House of Commons on 8 May 1940, concerning the action of British submarines in the Jutland area. Since the beginning of April they had had orders to attack all German vessels without warning during the daytime, and all vessels, and thus all neutrals, as well, at night. This amounts to recognition of the legal standpoint as presented. It even goes beyond the German order, insofar as neutral merchant vessels navigating with all lights on were sunk without warning in these waters. In view of the clear legal aspect it would hardly have been necessary to give an express warning to neutral shipping against suspicious or hostile conduct. Nevertheless, the Naval Operations Staff saw to it that this was done.
On 28 September 1939 the first German note was sent to the neutral governments with the request that they warn their merchant ships against any suspicious conduct, such as changes in course and the use of wireless upon sighting German naval forces, blacking out, noncompliance with the request to stop, et cetera. These warnings were subsequently repeated several times, and the neutral governments passed them on to their captains. All this has been proved by documents which have been submitted. If therefore, as a result of suspicious or hostile conduct, neutral ships were treated like enemy ships, they have only themselves to blame for it. The German submarines were not allowed to attack any one who as a neutral maintained a correct attitude during the war, and there are hundreds of examples to prove that such attacks never did occur.
Now I wish to deal with the second danger which threatened neutral shipping: The zones of operations. The actual development, briefly summed up, was as follows:
On 24 November 1939 the Reich Government sent a note to all seafaring neutrals in which it pointed out the use of enemy merchant ships for aggressive purposes, as well as the fact that the Government of the United States had barred to its own shipping a carefully defined naval zone around the central European coast, the so-called U.S.A. combat zone. As the note states, these two facts give the Reich Government cause—I quote:
“... to warn anew and more strongly that in view of the fact that the actions are carried on with all the technical means of modern warfare, and in view of the fact that these actions are increasing in the waters around the British Isles and near the French coast, these waters can no longer be considered safe for neutral shipping.”
The note then recommends as shipping lanes between neutral powers certain sea routes which are not endangered by German naval warfare and, furthermore, recommends legislative measures according to the example set by the United States. In concluding, the Reich Government rejects responsibility for any consequences which might follow if warning and recommendation should not be complied with. This note constituted the announcement of an operational area equivalent in size to the U.S.A. combat zone, with the specified limitation that only in those sea zones which were actually endangered by actions against the enemy consideration could no longer be given to neutral shipping.
The Naval Operations Staff did indeed observe this limitation. The neutral powers had more than 6 weeks in which to take the measures recommended by the German Government for the safety of their own shipping and to direct their shipping along the routes announced. Starting in January the German command then opened up to the German naval forces, within the operational area announced, certain accurately defined zones around the British coast, in which an attack without warning against all ships sailing there was admissible. The naval chart on which these zones had been marked was submitted to the Tribunal. The chart shows that these zones, and only these, were gradually set up where, as a result of mutually increasing attacks and defensive actions at sea and in the air, engagements continually occurred, so that any ship entering this area was operating in the direct presence of the naval forces of both powers. The last of these zones was designated in May 1940. These zones were not, and need not have been, announced because they were all within the area of operations as proclaimed on 24 November 1939. The distance of these zones from the enemy coast was on the average 60 sea miles. Outside their boundaries the declaration concerning the area of operations of 24 November was not observed, that is to say, neutral ships could be stopped and sunk only in accordance with the Prize Ordinance.
This situation changed when, after the collapse of France in the summer of 1940, the British Isles became the center of war operations. On 17 August 1940 the Reich Government sent to the neutral governments a declaration in which the entire area of the U.S.A. combat zone around England without any limitation was designated as an operational area.
“Every ship”—so the note reads—“which sails in this area exposes itself to destruction not only by mines but also by other combat means. Therefore the German Government once more urgently warns against entering this endangered area.”
From this time on the area was fully utilized and the immediate use of arms against craft encountered in it was permitted to all naval and air forces, except where special exceptions had been ordered. The entire development described was openly dealt with in the German press, and Grossadmiral Raeder granted interviews to the foreign press on this subject, which clearly showed the German viewpoint. If therefore in the sea zones mentioned neutral ships and crews sustained losses, at least they cannot complain about not having been warned explicitly and urgently beforehand.
This statement in itself has not much meaning in the question of whether areas of operation as such constitute an admissible measure. Here, too, the Prosecution will take the position that in the London Agreement of 1936 no exceptions of any kind were made for areas of operation and that therefore such exceptions do not exist.
It is a well-known fact that operational areas were originally proclaimed in the first World War. The first declaration of this kind came from the British Government on 2 November 1914, and designated the entire area of the North Sea as a military area. This declaration was intended as a reprisal against alleged German violations of international law. Since this justification naturally was not recognized, the Imperial Government replied on 4 February 1915 by designating the waters around England as a military area. On both sides certain extensions were made subsequently. I do not wish to go into the individual formulations of these declarations and into the judicial legal deductions which were made from their wording for or against the admissibility of these declarations. Whether these areas are designated as military area, barred zone, operational area, or danger zone, the point always remained that the naval forces in the area determined had permission to destroy any ship encountered there. After the World War the general conviction of naval officers and experts on international law alike was that the operational area would be maintained as a means of naval warfare. A development, typical for the rules of naval warfare, was confirmed here, namely, that the modern technique of war forcibly leads to the use of war methods which at first are introduced in the guise of reprisals, but which gradually come to be employed without such a justification and recognized as legitimate.
The technical reasons for such a development are obvious: The improvement of mines made it possible to render large sea areas dangerous. But if it was admissible to destroy by mines every ship sailing, despite warning, in a designated sea area, one could see no reason why other means of naval warfare should not be used in this area in the same way. Besides, the traditional institution of the blockade directly off enemy ports and coasts by mines, submarines, and aircraft was made practically impossible, so that the sea powers had to look for new ways to bar the approach to enemy coasts. Consequently it was these necessities which were the compelling factors in bringing about the recognition of the operational area.
It is true that there was by no means a uniform interpretation concerning the particular prerequisites under which the declaration of such areas would be considered admissible, just as there was none with regard to the designation which the belligerent power must choose. The conferences of 1922 and 1930 did not change anything either in that respect, as can be seen, for instance, from the efforts made after 1930, especially by American politicians and experts in international law, for a solution of this question.[13]
Unfortunately, there is no time at my disposal to discuss these questions in detail and therefore it must suffice for the purposes of the defense to state that during the conferences in Washington in 1922 and in London in 1930 the operational area was an arrangement or system known to all powers concerned, which operated in a way determined by both sides in the first World War; that is, that all ships encountered in it would be subject to immediate destruction. If the operational area were to have been abolished in the afore-mentioned conferences, especially in the treaty of 1930, an accord should have been reached on this question, if not in the text of the agreement then at least in the negotiations. The minutes show nothing of the kind. The relationship between operational area and the London Agreement remained unsettled.
The French Admiral Castex[14] has the same viewpoint; Admiral Bauer, Commander of Submarines in the first World War, voiced his disapproval in 1931 of the application of the London rules in the operational area, and this opinion was not unknown to the British Navy.[15] In a thorough study published by Professor Ernst Schmitz[16] in 1938 a merchant vessel which enters an operational area despite general prohibition is deemed to be guilty of “persistent refusal to stop.” The powers participating in the conferences in Washington and London carefully refrained, as also in other cases, from tackling controversial questions on which no accord could be reached. Therefore every power remained at liberty to champion in practice such an opinion as corresponded with its own interests. There was no doubt left in the minds of the participants as to this fact, and I have as a witness for this no less a person than the French Minister for Foreign Affairs at that time, M. Briand. In his instruction of 30 December 1921 to Sarraut, the French chief delegate in Washington, he announces his basic readiness to conclude an agreement on submarine warfare. However, he then points out a series of questions described as essential parts of such an agreement, among them the arming of merchant ships and the definition of combat zones. The instruction goes on:
“It is indispensable to examine these questions and to solve them by a joint agreement, for surface vessels as well as for submarines and aircraft, in order not to establish ineffective and deceptive stipulations.”[17]
Particularly with respect to the question concerning the area of operations, Briand characterizes the submarine rules as being “ineffective and deceptive.”
After this testimony nobody would designate the German conception as fraudulent, according to which ships in declared areas of operation forfeit the protection under the London Agreement. Even Mr. Roger Allen’s report concedes this.[18] Therefore the attacks of the Prosecution seem to be directed, as I understand from the cross-examination, not so much against the existence of such zones as against their extent, and we have repeatedly heard the figure of 750,000 square sea miles. Incidentally, it must be noted that this figure includes the territorial area of Great Britain, Ireland, and western France; the maritime area only amounts to 600,000 square miles. I quite agree, however, that through operational areas of such a size the interests of the neutrals were badly prejudiced.
It is all the more remarkable that the afore-mentioned American draft of the convention of 1939, which concerns the rights and duties of neutrals, provides for a considerable expansion of the operational area. Such an area, which is termed “blockade zone” in the draft, was to include the waters up to a distance of 50 sea miles from the blockaded coast.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, the Tribunal would like to know what that American draft of 1939 is, to which you refer.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: It is the draft set up by the American Professors Jessup Borchard and Charles Warren, dealing with the rights and duties of neutrals in sea warfare. It was published in the American Journal of International Law of July 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Jessup and Warren, you say?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Jessup Borchard and Charles Warren.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: This would correspond roughly to the area of waters in which attacks without warning were authorized until 17 August 1940; it covers approximately 200,000 square sea miles.
However, it seems to me almost impossible to approach from a juridical angle such an eminently practical question as that of the extent of an operational area. As long as this question is not settled by an agreement the actual determination will always be a compromise between what is desirable from a military point of view and what is politically possible. It seems to me that the law is only violated when a belligerent misuses his power against neutrals. The question as to whether such misuse takes place should be made dependent both upon the attitude of the enemy toward the neutrals and upon the measures taken by the neutrals themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: One minute. Dr. Kranzbühler, does not the right to declare a certain zone as an operational zone depend upon the power to enforce it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not quite follow the point of your question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your contention is, apparently, that any state at war has a right to declare such an operational zone as it thinks right and in accordance with its interests, and what I was asking you was whether the right to declare an operational zone, if there is such a right, does not depend upon the ability or power of the state declaring the zone to enforce that zone, to prevent any ships coming into it without being either captured or shot.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not believe, Mr. President, that there exists agreement of expert opinion regarding that question. In contrast to the blockade zone in a classical sense where full effect is necessary, the operational zone only provides for practical endangering through continuous combat actions. This practical threat was present in the German operational zone in my opinion, and I refer in that connection to the proclamation of President Roosevelt regarding the U.S.A. combat zone, where the entering of that zone was prohibited, because as a result of combat actions shipping must of necessity be continuously endangered.
THE PRESIDENT: The proclamation of the President of the United States was directed, was it not, solely to United States vessels?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I am referring to it only to establish proof of the German interpretation that this area was endangered, and practical danger seems to be the only legal and necessary prerequisite for declaring an operational zone.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you say that it was a valid proclamation if Germany had declared the whole of the Atlantic to be an operational zone?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, I would say that at the beginning of the war that would not have been possible, for the German forces at that time, without doubt, did not constitute an effective danger to the entire Atlantic sea traffic. I am of the opinion, however, that with the increase in the number of U-boats on the one hand, and with the increase of defense by hostile aircraft on the other, the danger zone of course expanded, and therefore the development of this war quite logically led to the point where operational zones were gradually extended and enlarged.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, then, that you are basing the power of the state to declare a certain zone as an operational zone not upon the power of the state to enforce its orders in that zone, but upon the possibility of danger in that zone?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it depends upon the possibility of danger in the zone?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I would not say the possibility of danger, Mr. President, but the probability of danger, and the impossibility for the belligerent to protect neutral shipping against this danger.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what other legal basis there is for the theory you are putting forward, other than the adoption of the blockade?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I am referring as a legal basis especially to the practice of the first World War, and the statements made by experts after the first World War, and also to the generally recognized rules about mined areas. The mined areas actually in this war proved to be operational zones where every means of sea warfare was used to sink without warning. I shall later refer to this topic once more.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: During the presentation of documents, the Tribunal has eliminated all those which I intended to utilize in order to prove that British naval warfare also paid no attention to the interests of neutrals when they were in contradiction with their own interests. If it is the Tribunal’s wish, I will not go into the details of the British measures, and in summing up I will mention them only insofar as they are indispensable for the legal argumentation. The following points are essential:
(1) The British regulations of 3 September 1939 concerning contraband goods, which practically precluded neutral mercantile traffic with Germany through the introduction of the so-called “hunger blockade.”
(2) The decree concerning control ports for contraband goods, which compelled neutral ships to make great detours right through the war zone, and to which must be imputed without doubt a series of losses of neutral ships and crews.
(3) The introduction of an export blockade against Germany on 27 November 1939, by means of which the importation of German goods was cut off for neutrals.
(4) The introduction of the navicert system and the black lists, which put the whole of neutral trade under British control and which made ships refusing to accept this system liable to be seized and confiscated.
I do not have to examine the question here whether these British measures toward neutrals were admissible or not from the point of view of international law. In any case the neutrals themselves considered many of them inadmissible, and there was hardly a single one which did not bring forth more or less vehement protests, for instance from Spain, the Netherlands, Soviet Russia, and the United States. From the beginning, the British Government for its part had forestalled any legal examination of the measures by renouncing the optional clause of the Permanent International Tribunal in The Hague, through a note of 7 September 1939. This step was expressly vindicated by the necessity for providing the British Navy with full freedom of action.
On the British side the fact was emphasized in the first World War and ever since that although British measures did prejudice the interests and possibly also the rights of the neutrals, they did not imperil either the ships or the crews and were therefore to be considered morally superior to the inhuman German measures. Actually, as mentioned before, the obligation to enter control ports was dangerous for neutral ships and crews and for this very reason the neutral countries protested against it. But apart from this, it seems to me that the actual divergence between the British and German measures for blockading the adversary is not founded upon moral differences, but rather upon difference in sea power. In the waters where the British Navy did not exercise naval supremacy, namely, off the coasts we occupied, and in the Baltic Sea, it used the same methods of naval warfare as we did.
In any case the official German opinion was that the afore-mentioned British control measures against neutrals were inadmissible, and the Reich Government reproached the neutral powers with the fact that, although protesting, they in point of fact submitted to the British measures. This is clearly stated in the proclamation issued on the occasion of the declaration of the blockade on 17 August 1940. Consequently, the following facts confronted, the German Naval Command:
(1) A legal trade between the neutrals and the British Isles no longer existed. On the grounds of the German answers to the British stipulations concerning contraband goods and the British export blockade, any trade to and from England was contraband trade and therefore illegal from the point of view of international law.
(2) The neutrals in practice submitted to all British measures, even when these measures were contrary to their own interests and their own conception of legality.
(3) Thus, the neutrals directly supported British warfare, for by submitting to the British control system in their own country they permitted the British Navy to economize considerably on fighting forces which, according to the hitherto existing international law, should have exercised trade control at sea and which were now available for other war tasks.
Therefore the German Government, in determining its operational area with a view to preventing illegal traffic from reaching England, saw no reason for giving preference to the neutrals over its own military requirements, all the less so since neutral shipping, which despite all warnings continued to head for England, demanded a great deal of money for this increased risk and therefore despite all risks still considered trade with England a profitable business.[19]
In addition to that, the most important neutrals themselves took measures which can be regarded as a completely novel interpretation of the existing laws of naval warfare. All the American countries jointly proclaimed the Pan-American safety zone, an area along the American coast within a distance of approximately 300 sea miles. In these waters, comprising altogether several million square miles, they required belligerents to forego the exercise of these rights which, according to hitherto existing international law, the naval forces of the belligerents were entitled to apply to neutrals. On the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the President of the United States prohibited, on 4 November 1939, U.S. citizens and ships from entering the waters extending over approximately one million square miles along the European coast. Thus the development of the laws of naval warfare, under the influence of the neutrals, necessarily led to the recognition of large areas reserved either for the purpose of safety or for that of combat. In this connection the American President explicitly stated in his proclamation that the maritime zone he had closed was “endangered by combat action” as a result of technical developments. The proclamation thus only took into account the development of modern weapons; the long-range coastal artillery which, for example, could easily fire across the English Channel; the invention of locating devices which permitted coastal supervision of maritime traffic over large areas; and particularly the increased speed and range of aircraft.
From this development the German Naval Command drew the same conclusion as the above-mentioned neutrals, namely, that defensive and offensive action would necessarily have to cover large maritime areas in this war. It was therefore not through arbitrary action that the German operational area, which the Prosecution objects to, grew to such a size; it was only because the German Naval Command was adapting itself to a system which was recognized by the other powers also as justified.
In order to examine the legality of the German measures on the basis of enemy methods, may I ask the Tribunal to recall the naval chart on which the British zones of warning and danger are marked. These zones cover about 120,000 square sea miles. Even if these dimensions are smaller than those of the German operational area, it seems to me that the difference between 100,000 and 600,000 square miles is not so much a question of legal judgment as one of coastal length and of strategic position on the sea. This observation is confirmed by the American practice against Japan, as described by Admiral Nimitz. He says:
“In the interest of the conduct of operations against Japan the area of the Pacific Ocean is declared a zone of operations.”
This zone of operations covers more than 30 million square miles. All ships therein, with the exception of U.S. and Allied, and hospital ships, were sunk without warning. The order was issued on the first day of the war, on 7 December 1941, when the Chief of the Admiralty ordered unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.
It is not for me to examine whether this order, issued on the first day of the war, is to be looked upon and justified as a measure of reprisal. For me the important thing is to show what actual practice looked like, and that is unequivocal.
The Prosecution finds particularly blameworthy the orders to carry out attacks without warning in the operational areas, if possible without being noticed, so that mine hits could be claimed. Orders to this effect existed for the period between January and August 1940, that is to say, during the period when submarines were not permitted to act without warning throughout the operational area of 24 November 1939, but only in the specially defined areas off the British coast. In this camouflage the Prosecution sees proof of a bad conscience amounting to the recognition of wrongdoing. The real reasons for the measures ordered were both military and political. For the admirals concerned the military reasons, of course, took first place, and these alone were known to the Commander of U-boats. The enemy was to be left in uncertainty as to what weapons of naval warfare had caused his losses, and his defense was to be led astray in this manner. It is obvious that such misleading of the enemy is fully justified in time of war. The measures had the desired military success, and in numerous cases the British Navy employed flotillas of mine sweepers on the spot where a ship had been torpedoed, and conversely started a submarine chase where a loss had occurred through mine hits.
For the Supreme Command, however, it was not the military but the political reasons that were the determining factor. These invisible attacks were meant to provide an opportunity of denying to the neutrals that the sinkings were due to submarines, and of tracing, them back to mines. This actually did happen in some cases. Does that mean that the German Government itself considered the use of submarine action without warning within the area of operations to be illegal? I do not think so.
In view of the repeated accusations which the Prosecution have construed here and elsewhere from the camouflaging of measures and the denial of facts, I feel obliged to make a few remarks on the point as to whether there is any obligation at all in international politics to tell the truth. However things may be in peacetime, in times of war at any rate one cannot recognize any obligation to tell the truth in a question which may be of advantage to the enemy. I need only point to Hugo Grotius who says: “It is permissible to conceal the truth wisely. Dissimulation is absolutely necessary and unavoidable.”[20]
What would it have meant for the military situation if U-boat sinkings such as in the instances dealt with here had not been denied but admitted instead? First of all, since that would have come to the knowledge of the enemy too, we should have lost the military advantage which lay in misleading his defense. Furthermore—and this is no less important—we might quite possibly have furnished our enemy with allies who would have helped him at least with propaganda, if not with their weapons. In view of the fact that some of the neutrals concerned were so dependent on England, they probably would not have recognized the German viewpoint as to the legitimacy of the operational areas, especially since this viewpoint was contrary to their own interests. It would have led to political tensions, and possibly to armed conflicts. Our enemies would have derived the only immediate advantage from it. From the standpoint of the law this endeavor to camouflage the use of submarines with regard to the neutrals does not seem objectionable to me.
But if the Prosecution uses this with the intention of moral defamation, it is applying standards which heretofore have never been applied to the conduct of a war and to the politics of any other country in the world. It was precisely in naval warfare that the same methods of camouflage were employed by the other side, too. The operational areas which Great Britain declared off the European coasts from Norway to Biscay were, with the exception of the Biscay area, declared mine danger zones. But we know from Churchill’s statement of May 1940, as well as from testimonies of witnesses, that in these areas there were unlimited attacks with submarines, speedboats and, above all, with airplanes. Consequently very often neither the German command nor the neutral country which had been attacked knew whether a loss sustained in such an area really should be traced back to a mine or to another weapon of naval warfare. To conclude that the camouflaging of a measure constitutes its illegality thus seems to me entirely without basis.
Within the German operational zone all ships were on principle attacked without warning. However, orders had been given to make exceptions in the case of certain neutrals, such as, in the beginning, Japan, the Soviet Union, Spain, and Italy. In this measure the Prosecution saw the endeavor of the Naval Operations Staff to terrorize the smaller neutral countries whereas it dared not pick a quarrel with the big ones. The real reason for this differentiating treatment is given in Document UK-65 in the notation on the report which the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy made to the Führer on 16 October 1939.
According to this the neutral governments mentioned are requested to declare that they will not carry contraband; otherwise they would be treated just like any other neutral country. The reason for the different treatment was merely that certain countries were willing and able to forbid their vessels from carrying contraband to England, whereas others could not or would not do so because of their political attitude or their economic dependence on England. Therefore it is not a question of terrorizing the smaller neutrals and sparing the bigger ones, but of preventing traffic in contraband and sparing legal commercial trade. Since no general legal maxim exists which compels the belligerent power to treat all neutral powers alike, no objection can be raised on the basis of international law. It would indeed be strange if here in the name of humanity the demand were made that German submarines should have sunk even those ships which they did not want to sink at all.
The Tribunal saw from the standing war orders submitted that during the further course of the war even the small powers, which were the only neutral ones left, could by virtue of shipping agreements cross the operational area along certain routes without being molested by German submarines. In this way for instance Sweden and Switzerland as well as Turkey could carry on their maritime trade during the entire war.
Outside the operational area announced the German submarines were never permitted to attack neutral ships. In this respect the Naval Command refrained from waging any submarine warfare against neutral merchant shipping, since enemy air surveillance made stopping and searching too dangerous for German submarines. Against the disadvantage of submarine warfare within the operational area, the neutrals had, outside the area, the advantage of remaining completely unmolested, even if they were shipping contraband goods, which fact in itself made them liable to be sunk after being stopped. Thus a neutral vessel outside the operational area was only in danger if it behaved in a suspicious or hostile way or if it was not clearly marked as neutral. The German Naval Operations Staff again and again called the attention of the neutral powers to this necessity.
In this connection I must mention the order of 18 July 1941, according to which United States vessels within the operational area were placed on an equal basis with all other neutrals, that is to say, could be attacked without warning. The Prosecution have seen in this special proof that the submarine warfare against neutrals was waged in a “cynical and opportunist” way. If this is meant to convey that it was influenced also by political considerations, then I am ready to admit it. But I do not consider this a reproach; since war itself is a political instrument, it is in keeping with its essence if individual parts of it are placed under the leadership of politics. In particular, no reproach should be seen in the orders of the German Command as regards the utilization of submarines against the United States, because they precisely furnish proof of the efforts to avoid any conflict with the United States.
As the Tribunal knows from documents and the testimonies of witnesses, the ships of the United States during the first years of the war were exempt from all measures of naval warfare, and this applied even when contrary to the original American legislation they sailed into the U.S.A. combat zone and thus into the German operational area in order to carry war matériel to England.
This policy was not changed until, in addition to the many unneutral acts of the past, the active employment of the American Navy had been ordered for the protection of British supply lines.
Everybody is familiar with the statements of President Roosevelt, which he made at that time, about the “bridge of boats over the Atlantic” and the support which should be given to England “by every means short of war.” It may be considered a matter of doubt whether the “realistic attitude”[21] which the U.S. naval and air forces were ordered to take at that time did not already constitute an illegal war, as has been claimed just now on the part of the Americans.[22]
At least the United States had abandoned her neutrality and claimed the status of a “nonbelligerent,” which also presented a new aspect of international law in this war. If in this connection one wishes to raise the charge of cynicism, it should hardly be directed against the orders which were issued as a justified reaction to the American attitude.
I have endeavored to present to the Tribunal a survey of the essential orders issued, and to say a few things with respect to their legality. No doubt there were instances of attacks on ships which according to the orders mentioned should not have been attacked. There are just a few such cases, and some of them have been brought up at this Trial. The best known concerns the sinking of the British passenger vessel Athenia on 3 September 1939 by U-30 under the command of Kapitänleutnant Lemp. The sinking of this ship was due to the fact that the commander mistook it for an armed merchant cruiser.
If the Tribunal should still hesitate to believe the concurring statements of all the witnesses heard here on this critical instance, which was used especially for propaganda purposes, these doubts ought to be removed by the behavior of the same commander in the days and weeks following the sinking. Kapitänleutnant Lemp, as the log of U-30 at that time shows, adhered strictly to the Prize Ordinance, and from this log I was able to submit several examples of the fair and gentlemanly conduct of German commanders even when by such conduct they greatly endangered their submarines.
Only on the return of U-30 from the operations at the end of September 1939 were the Commander of U-boats and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy fully informed of the whole affair of the sinking of the Athenia. Upon his return the commander immediately reported to the Commander of U-boats the mistake which he himself meanwhile recognized as such, and was sent to Berlin to report in person.
Dr. Siemers will deal with the political aspect of this matter. I only mention the military occurrences. Admiral Dönitz received the following communication from the Naval Operations Staff:
(1) The affair was further to be dealt with politically in Berlin.
(2) Court-martial proceedings were not necessary since the commander acted in good faith.
(3) The entire matter was to be kept in strict secrecy.
On the grounds of this order the Commander of U-boats gave orders that the report on the sinking of the Athenia be deleted from the log of U-30 and that the log be complemented in such a manner as to make the absence of the entry inconspicuous. As the Tribunal has seen, this order was not adequately carried out, obviously for the reason that the officer in charge had no experience whatever in such dealings.
The Prosecution pointed to this changing of the War Diary as a particularly criminal act of falsification. This, it seems to me, is based on a misunderstanding of the facts. The War Diary is nothing but a military report by the commander to his superiors. What occurrences should or should not be included in reports of this kind is not decided by any legal or moral principle, but is solely a matter of military regulations. The War Diary was meant to be secret; however, it was—like many secret matters—accessible to a very large group of people. This is already apparent from the fact that it had been circulated in eight copies, of which some were intended not only for higher staffs but for schools and for training flotillas as well. Therefore, whenever an occurrence was to be restricted to a small group of individuals, it was not to be reported in the War Diary. Since the sequence of the War Diary continued, the missing period had to be filled in with another, necessarily incorrect, entry. I can see nothing immoral in such a measure, much less anything illegal. As long as there is secrecy in time of war—and that is the case in all countries—it means that not all facts can be told to everybody, and therefore one sometimes may have to make incorrect statements. A certain moral offense could perhaps be seen in such action in the case of the Athenia if thereby a falsification for all times had been intended. This, however, was by no means the case. The commander’s report with regard to the sinking of the Athenia was of course submitted in the original form to the immediate superiors, the Commander of U-boats and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and kept in both their offices. I should like further to say briefly that a general order not to enter certain happenings into the War Diary has never existed.
The Athenia case brings another fact to light and that is the manner in which the compliance of U-boat commanders with any orders issued was enforced. In spite of the justified conception of the Naval Operations Staff that the commander acted in good faith, he was put under arrest by Admiral Dönitz because by exercising greater caution he perhaps might have recognized that this was not an auxiliary cruiser. Punishment was meted out in other cases, too, where orders had been mistakenly violated.
The Tribunal is familiar with the wireless communications of September 1942, by which, on occasion of the sinking of the Monte Corbea, the commander had been informed that upon his return he would have to face court-martial proceedings for violation of orders regarding conduct toward neutrals. All commanders received notice of this measure.
The Tribunal will please consider what such strict warnings mean to a commander at sea. If the directives of the American manual for courts-martial were to be considered as a basis, then court-martial proceedings against officers should only be initiated in cases where dismissal from the service seems warranted.[23] That should never be the case when the violation of an order is an accidental one. For a commanding officer who is supposed with his soldiers to wage war and gain successes, it is extremely hard and, in fact, under certain circumstances actually a mistake to have one of his commanders on his return from a successful operation tried before a court-martial because of a single slip which occurred in that action.
Every military command acts in accordance with these principles. In this connection I will refer to the unreserved recognition which the commander of the British destroyer Cossack received for setting free the prisoners of the Altmark in spite of the incidents which occurred during this action, which were probably regretted by the British too.
I had to go into those matters in order to meet the accusation that all sinkings carried out against orders were afterward sanctioned by the High Command in that no drastic steps were taken against the commanders. Especially in the field of submarine warfare compliance with orders issued was insured by the continuous personal contact of the commanders with their commanding officer. Upon conclusion of every enemy operation an oral report had to be made, and all measures taken were subjected to sharp criticism, while instructions were given at the same time for future behavior.
The German submarines undertook many thousands of combat operations during this war. In the course of these, orders issued were violated only in very rare instances. If one considers how difficult it is for a submarine to establish its exact position and the boundaries of an operational area, and to distinguish an armed from an unarmed ship, a passenger ship from a troop transport, or a neutral from an enemy ship, the low number of sinkings considered unjustified by the Germans, too, must be taken as proof of an especially effective and conscientious leadership.
After this discussion of the factual development of German submarine warfare, I still have to deal with the accusations built up by the Prosecution from certain preparatory deliberations on the subject of the organization of submarine warfare.
Simultaneously with the combat instructions of 3 September 1939, whereby German submarines were ordered to adhere in their operations strictly to the Prize Ordinance, an order was prepared in the Naval Operations Staff decreeing action without warning in case the enemy merchantmen were armed. In addition to this, during the first days of the war there was an exchange of correspondence with the Foreign Office on the subject of declaring prohibited zones.
The Prosecution looks upon these two documents as proof of the intention to conduct a war contrary to international law from the very start. I, on the other hand, regard these same documents as proof of the fact that the Naval Operations Staff was fully unprepared for a war with England, and that it was only when the British had already declared war that they began to set about thinking in the most elementary manner on how such a war should be conducted. Since neither surprise attacks on armed merchant vessels nor the declaration of prohibited zones violate international law, a belligerent might well be allowed to consider after the outbreak of war if and when he wants to make use of these opportunities. As we know from the afore-mentioned orders of the British Admiralty, as early as 1938 a thorough study of all the possibilities resulting from the war upon commercial shipping had been made and elaborated for practical purposes.
This same standpoint holds good also for the memorandum of the Naval Operations Staff of 15 October 1939, which has been quoted several times by the Prosecution. Its very heading shows that it is a study: “Possibilities for the Intensification of Naval Warfare.”
In accordance with the heading, the memorandum provides an examination of the military demands for effective naval warfare against England, and of the legal possibilities for fulfilling these demands. The result was the order of 17 October 1939, decreeing the immediate use of arms against all enemy merchant vessels, since, as we have already shown, they had been armed and incorporated into the military system. Further intensifying measures were for the time being recognized as not yet justified, and the suggestion was made to wait and see what the further conduct of the enemy would be.
One sentence in this memorandum arouses special suspicion on the part of the Prosecution. It says that naval warfare must, as a matter of principle, be kept within the framework of existing international law. However, measures which might result in successes decisive for the war would have to be taken even if new laws of naval warfare were created thereby.
Does this really constitute a renunciation of international law? Quite the contrary. A departure from existing international law is made dependent only on two quite limited conditions: (1) A military one, namely, that measures are involved which are of decisive importance for the outcome of the war, that is, also of importance in shortening the war;[24] (2) a moral one, namely, the nature of the new measures makes them suitable for incorporation into the new international law.
The memorandum itself states that this would be possible only within the framework of the laws of military combat ethics and a demand is therefore made for rigid adherence without any exceptions to these ethics of warfare. Under these conditions there can hardly be any doubt as to the possibility of formulating new international laws.
The well-known expert on international law, Baron von Freytagh-Loringhoven says, and I quote:
“... always been war which has given its strongest impulses to international law. Sometimes they have been of a positive, sometimes of a negative nature. They have led to further development of already existing institutions and norms, to the creation of new forms or the reversion to old ones, and not infrequently also to failures.”[25]
Especially in this Trial, which itself is supposed to serve the development of new international law, the possibility of such a development cannot be denied.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit in open session after 1 o’clock tomorrow, Wednesday; it will sit in closed session during the afternoon. The Tribunal will not sit in open session on Saturday; it will sit in closed session on Saturday morning.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Before the recess I was speaking about the possibilities of development of naval law.
The American prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, in his report to the President of the United States with regard to this problem, expressed his opinions as follows, and I quote:[26]
“International law is not capable of development by legislation, for there is no continuously sitting international legislature. Innovations and revisions in international law are brought about by the action of governments, designed to meet a change in circumstances. It grows, as did the common law, through decisions reached from time to time in adapting settled principles to new situations.”
These words carry a full justification of the clause objected to by the Prosecution in the memorandum of the Naval Operations Staff. And the fact that the Allies also deemed war-deciding measures to be justified even though they were contradictory to hitherto valid concepts of international law is proved by the use of the atomic bomb against Japanese cities.
Since I am interested in justifying the actual measures taken by the Naval Command in Germany; I have not dealt with the point as to which one of the two admirals accused carried greater or lesser responsibility for one or another. As a formal basis in nearly all cases a Führer decree exists. Both admirals, however, stated here that they considered themselves fully responsible for all orders of naval war which they gave or transmitted. I should like to add to that only two remarks.
As far as political considerations were decisive for orders of the U-boat war, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had no influence on them. The Commander of U-boats had not been notified of such considerations any more than of the political settlement of incidents which arose through U-boats.
My second remark concerns the question as to what extent a military commander may be held responsible for the accuracy of legal reasonings which he does not indulge in himself, but which are delivered to him by the leading experts of his country, who after all are not just small-town lawyers. In addition, the Commander of U-boats had only tactical tasks and his staff contained only a few officers, none of whom was qualified to examine questions of international law of the import mentioned here. He therefore had to rely on the fact that the orders issued by the Naval Operations Staff were examined as to their legality and were in order. That is probably handled in a like manner in every navy in the world. A professional seaman is not competent for legal questions; with this reason the Tribunal cut off a remark by Admiral Dönitz about a legal question. This condition must, however, be considered in applying the principle which the German Supreme Court, during the war crimes trials after the first World War, formulated in this regard, and I quote: “The culprit must be conscious of the violation of international law by his actions.”
This appears to me to be equally just, as I should deem it to be incompatible with the demands of justice if soldiers were charged with a criminal responsibility in deciding legal questions which could not be settled at international conferences and are hotly disputed among the experts themselves.
In this connection I should like to mention that the London Pact of 1930 did not from the Root Resolution of 1922 adopt the principle of criminal prosecution for violations of the rules of U-boat warfare. The five naval powers participating in this conference apparently came to the conclusion that the problems of naval warfare cannot be solved by means of penal law. And this fact applies fully today, too.
I am now coming to the second basic charge of the Prosecution—intentional killing of shipwrecked crews. It is directed only against Admiral Dönitz, not Admiral Raeder. The legal basis for the treatment of shipwrecked crews for those ships which are entitled to the protection of the London Agreement of 1936 is laid down in the agreement itself. There it says that, before the sinking, crews and passengers must be brought to safety. This was done by the German side, and the difference of opinion with the Prosecution concerns only the question already dealt with, namely, which ships were entitled to protection under the agreement and which were not.
In the case of all ships not entitled to protection under the agreement, sinking should be considered a military combat action. The legal basis, therefore, with regard to the treatment of shipwrecked crews, in these cases is contained in the Hague Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Geneva Convention to Naval Warfare of 18 October 1907, although it was not ratified by Great Britain. According to this, both belligerents shall after each combat action make arrangements for the search for the shipwrecked, as far as military considerations allow this. Accordingly the German U-boats were also bound to assist the shipwrecked of steamers sunk without warning as long as by doing so, first, the boat would not be endangered and, secondly, the accomplishment of the military mission would not be prejudiced.
These principles are generally acknowledged. In this connection I am referring to the order of the British Admiralty, for example, and I quote: “No British ocean-going merchantman shall aid a ship attacked by a U-boat.”
I further refer to the affidavit of Admiral Rogge, according to which in two cases, personally witnessed by him, nothing was done by a British cruiser to rescue the shipwrecked, because U-boats were assumed to be nearby, once correctly so and once erroneously. A higher degree of self-endangering would appear to apply to U-boats as compared with other types of vessels because of their exceptional vulnerability.
As to the second exception to rescue duty, namely, prejudice to the military mission, the U-boat is also subject to special conditions. It has no room to take guests aboard. Its supply of food, water, and fuel is limited and any considerable expenditure will prejudice its combat mission. Furthermore, it is typical for the U-boat that the combat mission may call for an unobserved attack and therefore exclude rescue duty. In order also to present an opinion about the tactics of the opposite side, I quote from the statement of Admiral Nimitz:
“In general U.S. submarines did not rescue enemy survivors if it meant an unusual additional danger for the submarine or if the submarine was prevented from further carrying out its mission.”
In the light of these principles I will briefly deal with rescue measures by U-boats until the autumn of 1942. The basic order was issued by the Naval Operations Staff on 4 October 1939, and specified rescue whenever possible from the military standpoint. This was temporarily restricted by Standing War Order 154. This order, issued in December 1939, applied to the small number of submarines at that time operating immediately off the British coast. It may be seen from the order itself that every paragraph deals with combat in the presence of enemy escort and patrol forces. The last paragraph therefore also deals only with this aspect and serves the warranted purpose of protecting submarine commanders against the dangers to which, under the existing circumstances, they would in every case expose their boats by rescue measures. When after the Norwegian campaign the scene of activity of the submarines gradually shifted to the open Atlantic, this order became outdated, and it was finally canceled in the autumn of 1940. In the period that followed, the German submarine commanders carried out rescue measures whenever they could assume responsibility from the military standpoint. This is known to the Tribunal from numerous specific examples cited here, contained both in the statements of submarine commanders submitted here and in the war diaries. This situation was changed through Admiral Dönitz’s order of 17 September 1942, in which he forbade rescue measures on principle. The decisive sentences are:
“The rescue of members of the crew of a ship sunk is not to be attempted. Rescue is contradictory to the most primitive demands of warfare, which are the annihilation of enemy ships and crews.”
It has been disputed by the Prosecution that this actually prohibits rescue. It looks upon this order as a hidden provocation to kill the shipwrecked, and it has gone through the press of the world as a command for murder. If any accusation at all has been refuted in this Trial, then it seems to me to be this ignominious interpretation of the order mentioned above.
How was this order brought on? Beginning with June 1942, the losses of German submarines through the Allied air force rose by leaps and bounds, and jumped from a monthly average of 4 or 5 during the first 6 months of 1942 to 10, 11, 13, finally reaching 38 boats in May 1943. Orders and measures from the command of submarine warfare multiplied in order to counter those losses. They were of no avail and every day brought fresh reports of air attacks and losses of submarines.
This was the situation when on 12 September it was reported that the heavily armed British troop transport Laconia with 1,500 Italian prisoners of war and an Allied crew of 1,000 men and some women and children aboard had been torpedoed. Admiral Dönitz withdrew several submarines from current operations for the purpose of rescuing the shipwrecked, no distinction being made between Italians and Allies. From the very start the danger of enemy air attacks filled him with anxiety. While the submarines during the following days devotedly rescued, towed boats, supplied food, and so forth, they received no less than three admonitions from the Commander to be careful, to divide the shipwrecked, and at all times to be ready to submerge. These warnings were of no avail. On 16 September one of the submarines displaying a Red Cross flag and towing life boats was attacked and considerably damaged by an Allied bomber; one lifeboat was hit and losses caused among the shipwrecked. Following this report the Commander sent three more radio messages with orders immediately to submerge in case of danger and under no circumstances to risk the boats’ own safety. Again without avail. In the evening of that day, 17 September 1942, the second submarine reported that during rescue actions it had been taken unawares and bombed by an airplane.
Notwithstanding these experiences, and in spite of the explicit order from Führer headquarters not to endanger any boats under any consideration, Admiral Dönitz did not discontinue rescue work, but had it continued until the shipwrecked were taken aboard French warships sent to their rescue. However, this incident was a lesson. Due to enemy air reconnaissance activity over the entire sea area, it was simply no longer possible to carry out rescue measures without endangering the submarine. It was useless to give orders over and over again to commanders to undertake rescue work only if their own boats were not endangered thereby. Earlier experiences had already shown that their human desire to render aid had led many commanders to underestimate the dangers from the air. Yet it takes a submarine with decks cleared at least one minute to submerge on alarm, while an airplane can cover 6,000 meters in that time. In practice this means that a submarine engaged in rescue action when sighting a plane has not time enough to submerge.
These were the reasons which caused Admiral Dönitz directly after the close of the Laconia incident to forbid rescue measures on principle. This was motivated by the endeavor to preclude any calculation on the part of the commander as to the danger of air attack whenever in individual cases he should feel tempted to undertake rescue work.
It is difficult to judge the actual effects of this order. From 1943 on about 80 percent of the submarines were fighting against convoys, where even without this order rescue measures would have been impossible. Whether or not some commander would have, without this order, again risked concerning himself with the lifeboats, nobody can tell with certainty. As is known, an order existed since the middle of 1942 to bring in as prisoners, if possible, captains and chief engineers. Over a period of almost 3 years this order was carried out not even a dozen times, which proves how high the commanders themselves estimated the danger to their boats in surfacing. On the other hand, nothing was more distressing for members of the crews of torpedoed ships than to be taken aboard a U-boat, because of course they knew that their chance of being rescued was much better in a lifeboat than on a U-boat which, with a probability of at least 50 percent, would not return to its base. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion, as did Admiral Godt, that the Laconia order may have cost the lives of some Allied seamen just as it may have saved the lives of others. Be that as it may, in the face of the enormous losses by the enemy air forces the order forbidding rescue was justified. It was completely in line with the basic idea of the precedence of one’s own vessel and of one’s own task, as prevailing in all navies; a principle which I believe I have proved as commonly valid in view of existing British and American orders and practices.
How then can the Prosecution consider this order an “order to murder”? Grounds for this are said to be furnished by the discussion between Hitler and the Japanese Ambassador, Oshima, in January 1942, in which Hitler mentioned a prospective order to his U-boats to kill the survivors of ships sunk. This announcement, the Prosecution infers, Hitler doubtless followed up, and Admiral Dönitz carried it out by the Laconia order. Actually, on the occasion of a report on U-boat problems which both admirals had to make in May 1942, the Führer suggested that in future action should be taken against the shipwrecked, that is, to shoot them; Admiral Dönitz immediately rejected this sort of action as thoroughly impossible and Grossadmiral Raeder unreservedly agreed with him. Both admirals specified the improvement of torpedoes as the only permissible way to increase losses among the crews. In the face of the opposition of both admirals Adolf Hitler dropped his proposal, and following this report no order whatever was given concerning shipwrecked crews, let alone concerning the killing of the shipwrecked by shooting. The destruction of the crews through improved efficiency of the torpedoes is an idea which for the first time cropped up during this discussion in May 1942, and which recurs in later documents of the Naval Operations Staff. I must therefore express myself on the legality of such a tendency. According to classical international law the destruction of combatants constituted a legal aim of war actions, not however that of noncombatants.[27] In view of the development of the last wars one may be doubtful whether this classical theory still has any validity. I am inclined to regard the hunger blockade as the first important infringement of this theory, which by cutting off all food supply was aimed at the civilian population, therefore the noncombatants of a country. The victims of this during the first World War were estimated at 700,000 people.[28] Although this blockade was frequently acknowledged to be inadmissible according to international law,[29] it was nevertheless practiced, and therefore it amounts to an infringement of the principle of protection for noncombatants against war measures.[30]
The second great infringement was brought on by aerial warfare. I do not wish to discuss the unsolvable question of who started it, but only to state the fact that war from the air, at least during the two final years, was aimed against the civilian population. If in dozens of attacks on residential quarters of German cities thousands or tens of thousands of civilians were among the victims while soldiers numbered only a few dozen or a few hundred, then nobody can assert that the civilian population was not included in the target of the attack. The mass dropping of explosives and incendiary bombs on entire areas does not permit of doubt, and the use of the atomic bomb has produced final evidence thereof.
In view of the hundreds of thousands of women and children who in this manner miserably perished in their houses by being buried, suffocated, or burnt to death, I am surprised at the indignation of the Prosecution about the loss of about 30,000 men who lost their lives in war areas on ships which were armed and carried war material, and often enough bombs destined for German cities. Moreover, most of these men died in combat, that is, by mines, aircraft action, and especially in attacks on convoys, all actions which according to British conception, too, were lawful.
The German Naval Operations Staff regarded these men as combatants. The British Admiralty takes the opposite standpoint in its orders to the merchant navy. In this connection Oppenheim, the foremost British expert on international law, before the outbreak of the first World War still maintained that the crew should be put on the same level as combatants.[31] He points to the century-old practice, especially followed in Britain, of taking the crew of merchant ships prisoner of war. He find’s this principle confirmed in the 11th Hague Convention of 1907, and looks upon the crew of the merchant navy as potential members of the navy. The legal position in their defense against a warship is described by him as “entirely analogous to the position of the population of an unoccupied territory which takes up arms in order to combat invading troops.” It is well known that such a force is considered a combat unit. According to Paragraph 2 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, they are considered combatants irrespective of whether or not the individual actually makes use of weapons. Accordingly, Oppenheim also refused to make any distinction among the crew, between men who are enrolled in the enemy navy and men who are not.
If this interpretation was already valid before the first World War, it certainly was unassailable in the year 1942, at a time when there were no more unarmed enemy ships and when the neutrals who happened to enter the zone of operations were exclusively moving in enemy convoys, which made them, just like enemy ships, integral parts of the enemy forces. All of them had lost their peaceful character and were considered as being guilty of active resistance. Active resistance against acts of war is not permitted to any noncombatant in land warfare and results in his being punished as a franc-tireur. And in naval warfare should a ship’s crew be entitled to the combatant’s privileges, without suffering any of his disadvantages? Should a crew be permitted to participate in every conceivable act of war, even including the use of guns and depth charges, and yet remain noncombatant? Such an interpretation renders illusory the entire concept of a noncombatant. Nor does it make any difference whether or not only part of the crew has anything to do with the firing of the guns. The ship as an entity represents a fighting unit, and on board a merchant ship more people actually had something to do with the handling of weapons than on board a submarine. These men were trained under military supervision, they fired the guns along with gunners of the navy, and the use of their weapons was regulated according to the Admiralty’s orders.[32] The crews of ships were accordingly combatants and thus it was legitimate for the adversary to try to destroy them by the use of arms.
This explains at the same time the sentence about the destruction of ships and crews, which is considered by the Prosecution as a specific indication that the Laconia order bore the character of a murder order. There has been enough discussion concerning the meaning of this sentence as an argument for forbidding rescue work. It may, taken out of its context, give cause for misunderstanding. But whoever goes to the trouble of reading the entire order cannot misunderstand it. To me the decisive crime appears to be that, in accordance With its origin, it was never meant to be a murder order and was not interpreted as such by the commanders. This is proved by the declarations and statements of dozens of submarine commanders. From its context it could not have been interpreted as a murder order. In fact in the next paragraphs it was explicitly ruled that so far as possible certain members of the crew should be brought back as prisoners. Surely one must credit a military command with enough intelligence, when giving such a murder order at all, to refrain from additional orders to conserve a number of witnesses of its crime.
Contrary to the Prosecution, the British Admiralty clearly did not believe in such a murder order. Otherwise it would not have given orders to its captains and chief engineers to escape capture by German submarines by camouflaging themselves as plain sailors while in the lifeboats. According to the interpretation by the Prosecution, such an order would indeed have meant that the captain would have been killed by the submarine along with all the other members of the crew.
Furthermore, the Prosecution have quoted the order to attack so-called “rescue ships” as evidence of the intention to kill shipwrecked people. However, only the individual who is either in the water or in a lifeboat is shipwrecked. A shipwrecked combatant who is again on board a ship is nothing but a combatant, and accordingly the legitimate aim of an attack. I have already pointed out, during the hearing of evidence, the shooting down of German sea rescue planes with intent to kill the rescued airmen, in order to show that the enemy acted according to the same conception.
I shall discuss as briefly as possible the depositions of witnesses on which the Prosecution tries to base its interpretation of the Laconia order. In my opinion, the deposition of Oberleutnant zur See Heisig, as made here before the Tribunal, is irrelevant. His earlier affidavit is wrong, and we know why from the witness Wagner. Here, before the Tribunal, Heisig has explicitly denied that in Grossadmiral Dönitz’s address to the cadets of the submarine school in September 1942 there was any reference to the effect that shipwrecked people should be fired upon. Rather did he personally draw this conclusion from the passage that total war must be waged against ship and crew, with added reference to air bombing. His interpretation may be explained by the fresh impression of the bombing of Lübeck, which he had just experienced. The other listeners did not share this interpretation; in fact, it did not even occur to them. This is evident from the deposition of three persons who heard the address. The further assertion of Heisig, that an officer unknown to him had instructed him on an unknown occasion that the men should be ordered below deck when exterminating shipwrecked people, I consider as an improvisation of his imagination, which appears to be easily excited. If this had really been the case, then so astonishing an occurrence, which would have been in contradiction to all training principles of the Navy, must have made such an impression on a young officer that he would have retained some recollection of the full circumstances of such an instruction.
The testimony of Korvettenkapitän Möhle must be taken much more seriously, because he had—there is no doubt about it—at least hinted to a few submarine commanders that the Laconia order demanded, or at least approved of, the killing of shipwrecked. Möhle did not receive this interpretation either from Admiral Dönitz himself, nor from the Chief of Staff nor his chief assistant, Fregattenkapitän Hessler; that is to say, from none of the officers who alone would have been qualified to transmit such an interpretation to the chief of a flotilla.
How Möhle actually arrived at this interpretation has in my opinion not been explained by the Trial. He maintains that it was due to the fact that Korvettenkapitän Kuppisch from the staff of the Commander of U-boats had told him the story of U-386, a boat whose commander had been reprimanded for not having shot Allied airmen drifting in a rubber dinghy. This explanation of Möhle’s cannot be correct. It is proven beyond any doubt by the War Diary and by witnesses that the commander of U-386 had been reprimanded because he did not take on board the airmen concerned and bring them back. The whole affair concerning U-386, furthermore, took place a year after the Laconia incident in September 1943 and Korvettenkapitän Kuppisch, who was supposed to have told it, had already been killed in action as a U-boat commander in August 1943. It is not my task to try to explain how Möhle actually acquired his knowledge about the Laconia order. One thing at any rate has been proven, namely, that Admiral Dönitz and his staff had not caused this briefing to be given, nor did they know anything about it. Considering the frequent personal contacts between the U-boat commanders and the staff of the Commander of U-boats this can only be explained by the fact that the few commanders whom Möhle thus briefed did not take his words seriously.
Is Admiral Dönitz thus responsible for the interpretation of the Laconia order as given by Möhle? Criminal responsibility in the first place presupposes guilt, that is to say, possibility of foreseeing the result. Considering the close contact with his flotilla chiefs and commanders, for whom alone the Laconia order was intended, Admiral Dönitz could not foresee that a flotilla chief might give such an interpretation to that order without taking any steps to be enlightened by the Commander of U-boats. Such conduct is beyond anything that could reasonably be expected.
Therefore all guilt is excluded. Criminal responsibility requires another criterion, namely, that results shall be proven. This also is entirely lacking. The Prosecution have not even made a serious attempt to prove that any one of the commanders briefed by Möhle in that sense ever actually fired on shipwrecked crews. As far as we are informed, such a thing occurred only once in this war on the German side in the case of Kapitänleutnant Eck. It is significant that this case was presented not by the Prosecution, but by the Defense. For the conduct of Eck has nothing whatsoever to do with the Laconia order as the Prosecution desires to construe it. He was not concerned with the destruction of human lives but with the removal of wreckage and floats from which the Allied airplanes could deduce the presence of a German U-boat in the area. For this conduct he and two of his officers were sentenced to death, and thereby punished with a severity which less agitated times will no longer comprehend.
The two cases presented by the Prosecution, where shipwrecked crews allegedly were shot at, are so obviously unsuited to prove this accusation that I need not deal with them any further. The testimony about the sinking of the Noreen Mary bears the stamp of phantasy in various points, and in the case of the attack on the Antonica the intention to destroy shipwrecked people is out of the question because everything was over in 20 minutes and the night was dark.
I was in the fortunate position to be able to present to the Tribunal a compilation of the Naval Operations Staff concerning a dozen cases in which Allied forces had allegedly shot at German shipwrecked crews. It seems to me that every one of these instances is better than that of the Prosecution, and some appear rather convincing. I therefore attach all the more value to the sober attitude assumed by the Naval Operations Staff when transmitting their opinion on these cases to the Führer’s headquarters.
They point out that: (1) Part of the incidents occurred during combat operations; (2) shipwrecked men swimming in the water might easily be led to believe that a miss on other targets was aimed at them; (3) so far no written or verbal order for the use of arms against shipwrecked crews had been traced. I can only request that these principles be equally applied to the incidents presented by the Prosecution.
In the same written opinion to the Führer’s headquarters the Naval Operations Staff reject reprisals by destroying enemy shipwrecked; that was on 14 September 1942, 3 days before the Laconia order. Since the latter, as a radio order, came to the knowledge of the Naval Operations Staff, it would doubtlessly have been canceled in accordance with the opposite viewpoint just expressed to the Führer’s headquarters if it had been understood to be an order for the shooting of shipwrecked crews.
And now I am coming to the positive counterevidence against the opinion of the Prosecution. It consists in the first place of the number of rescued Allied sailors. This amounted, according to a survey by the British Minister of Transport in 1943, to 87 percent of the crews. Such a result is simply not compatible with an order for destruction. Furthermore, it has been established that Grossadmiral Dönitz in 1943, that is, after the Laconia order, rejected all consideration of action against shipwrecked crews.
In a written opinion given to the Foreign Office on 4 April 1943, a directive to the U-boats to take action against lifeboats or shipwrecked crews was considered impossible by the Naval Operations Staff, since that would go against the grain of every sailor. In June 1943 Grossadmiral Dönitz, on receiving reports from Korvettenkapitän Witt about British aviators having fired on shipwrecked crews of German submarines, most decidedly rejected the idea of attacking a foe rendered defenseless in combat, stating that this was incompatible with our principles of warfare.
Summing up, I am convinced that the assertion of the Prosecution that German submarines had received an order to murder shipwrecked men has been strikingly disproved. Grossadmiral Dönitz stated here that he would never have allowed the spirit of his submarine men to be endangered by mean acts. With losses ranging from 70 to 80 percent, he could only replenish his troops with volunteers if he kept the fight clean, in spite of its being tough. And if the Tribunal will recall the declaration of the 67 commanders in British captivity, it will have to admit that he created an attitude and morale which survived defeat.
I have endeavored to present to the Tribunal the most important facts supplemented by a number of legal considerations regarding naval warfare in order to clarify the most important problems to be discussed here from the point of view of the Defense. We are concerned with the examination of the behavior of admirals in naval warfare, and the question of what is permissible according to international law is intimately connected with what is necessary according to the military standpoint. Therefore, in examining this particular point of the Indictment, I deeply regret that the Charter of this Tribunal deprives the accused officers of a privilege guaranteed to them as prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention, namely, the passing of judgment by a military tribunal applying the laws and regulations binding on its own officers. According to Article 3 of the Charter, I am not allowed to question the competency of this Tribunal. I can therefore only request the Tribunal to make up for the unfairness that I see in the afore-mentioned article of the Charter by applying the same standards, where the military appreciation and moral justification of the actions of these German admirals is concerned, as the Tribunal would apply to admirals of their own countries. A soldier, out of practical knowledge of the procedure in warfare as applied not only by his own country but also by the adversary, is keenly sensitive to the dividing line between combat and war crimes. He knows that the interpretation of international law concerning what is allowed or forbidden in naval warfare is in the last resort governed by the interests of his country. An insular power like Great Britain, having long and vulnerable sea lanes, has always looked upon these questions from a different angle than the continental powers. The attitude of the United States from the renunciation of submarine warfare by the Root Resolution of 1922 to unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan in 1941, reveals how a change in strategic position can entail a change in legal evaluation. No one can tell to what extent a changed strategic position at sea will cause a modification of legal conception. No one can know to what degree the development of air forces and the efficacy of bombs will increasingly force navies under water and render obsolete all previous conceptions of submarine warfare.[33] For a naval officer these are obvious reflections, and they should prevent a man of law from settling controversial questions of law and policy pertaining to naval war at the expense of those whose professional duty it is to direct navies.
In the first World War German submarine warfare was accompanied by a storm of indignation. It seems significant to me today that the British historian, Bell, in a paper intended only for official use of the Foreign Office, judges the right to such indignation as follows:
“It is an old rule of military honor never to belittle the deeds of an enemy who has put up a stiff and brave fight. If this rule had been followed in England, the public would better appreciate the place which the war between submarines and commerce will occupy in the history of strategy and of war. It is unfortunate that the cries of terror as well as the unseemly insults of journalists were repeated by responsible people, with the result that the slogans ‘piracy’ and ‘murder’ entered the vocabulary and have engendered the corresponding feelings in the hearts of the people.”[34]
I must now treat the other points of the Indictment against Grossadmiral Dönitz which are not concerned with naval war. To begin with, there is the charge of preparation of aggressive wars. It is known how much contradiction this very accusation has aroused on the part of professional officers of probably all Allied countries. In answer to such attacks in public, Justice Jackson formulated for the press (The Stars and Stripes, European Edition, 5 December 1945) the ideas of the Prosecution regarding this subject as follows:
“I have made it clear that we do not prosecute these militarists because they served their country, but because they dominated it and led it into war. Not because they conducted the war, but because they have been driving to war.”
If this standard is used, then for the defense of Admiral Dönitz against the charge of preparing aggressive wars I need only point to the result of the evidence. At the beginning of the war he was a relatively young commander; his only task was the training and commanding of submarine crews; he did not belong to the General Staff in the meaning of the Indictment and did not participate in any of the addresses which were presented here as proof of war intentions. The charge that he had advocated the occupation of submarine bases in Norway is likewise disproved. The same applies to the allegation that in 1943 he had proposed an attack upon Spain in order to capture Gibraltar. The conquest of Gibraltar against the will of Spain was absolutely impossible and out of the question during the entire war, and especially so in 1943.
For Germany the war had already reached a stage of defense, even of dangerous setbacks, on all fronts at the time when Admiral Dönitz was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Navy on 1 February 1943. This fact may be significant for his participation in the so-called conspiracy. The Prosecution is not very clear about the precise moment at which they want to fix the beginning of such participation. In the individual Indictment intimate connection with Hitler since 1932 is mentioned. This, however, is obviously an error. Admiral Dönitz did not become acquainted with Hitler until the autumn of 1934, on the occasion of the submission of a military report, and in the following years talked to him briefly and always only about military problems, altogether eight times, and never alone. Since, aside from this fact, the defendant never belonged to any organization which is accused of conspiracy by the Prosecution, I see no connection of any kind with this conspiracy prior to 1 February 1943.
All the more important is the question of the retroactive effects of joining the conspiracy, as has been illustrated by the British Prosecutor by the example of the perpetrators of railway sabotage. This idea of guilt, retroactive on past events, is very difficult for the German jurist to understand. The continental concept of law is reflected by the formulation of Hugo Grotius: “To participate in a crime a person must not only have knowledge of it but also the ability to prevent it.”[35]
While the entire legal concept of the conspiracy in itself represents a special creation of Anglo-Saxon justice in our eyes, this applies even more to the retroaction of the so-called conspiracy. A judgment laying claim to international validity, one which should be understood by the peoples of Europe and especially by the Germans, must be based upon generally recognized principles of law. This, however, is not the case regarding a retroactive guilt. Though such a legal construction may seem fitting in dealing with certain typical crimes, it seems to me entirely inapplicable in judging events such as are being discussed here.
Admiral Dönitz became the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in the course of a normal military career entirely free of politics. The appointment was based upon the proposal of his predecessor, Grossadmiral Raeder, for whom his proven abilities in the guidance of U-boat warfare alone were the determining factor. Specific acceptance of the appointment was no more required than in the case of an appointment to any other military position. Admiral Dönitz entertained the sole thought, as any officer might well have done in a similar position, whether he would be equal to the task and whether he could accomplish it in the best interest of the Navy and of his people. All other considerations which the Prosecution apparently expected of him during this period, namely, as to the legitimacy of the Party Program and of the policy of the Party from 1922 on, as well as German internal and foreign policy since 1933, can be but fictitious; they have nothing to do with the facts. Fictions of such nature are not limited by time nor by reality. Is the responsibility for past measures on taking over a high position to extend only to acts of the present cabinet, or is it to extend to acts of former cabinets, and over what period? Is it to comprise only one’s own internal and foreign policy or is it to include one’s allies? Such considerations cannot be refuted logically; however, they lead to unacceptable results and show the impracticability of the idea of retroaction regarding the so-called conspiracy.
To measure by exact standards the participation in such a conspiracy is difficult enough, if events not of a criminal but of a military and political nature are involved. Of what meaning are such concepts as “voluntary accession” and “knowledge of the criminal plan” when in times of greatest danger an officer assumes the task to prevent the collapse of his nation’s maritime warfare?
Even the Prosecution seems to realize this. For, corresponding to their general idea, they attempt to link Admiral Dönitz with the conspiracy in a political way. This is accomplished by the assertion that he became a member of the Reich Cabinet by virtue of his appointment to the High Command of the Navy. This allegation is based upon the decree whereby the Commanders-in-Chief of the Army and of the Navy were invested with the rank of Reich Minister and upon the order of Hitler were to participate in Cabinet meetings.
It is evident that one is not actually a Reich minister merely by being invested with the rank of Reich minister. Also one is not a member of the Cabinet if one is only permitted to participate in it upon special orders. This obviously indicates that he was only to be consulted on technical matters, but never had authority to gain information about other departments, much less to give advice. One cannot, however, speak of a political task and a political responsibility without the existence of such an authority. For an activity as a minister all legal basis is lacking. According to the Reich Defense Law there existed for the entire Armed Forces but one minister, the Reich War Minister. This post remained unoccupied after the resignation of Field Marshal Von Blomberg. The business of the ministry was conducted by the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces. A new ministry was not created either for the Army or for the Navy. The Commanders-in-Chief of the Army and of the Navy therefore would have had to be ministers without portfolio. Since, however, they each headed a department, namely, the Army and the Navy, such an appointment would have constituted a contradiction to all legal customs of the State. The countersigning of all laws in which the minister participates according to his jurisdiction must be considered the basic criterion of all ministerial activity. There exists not a single law which was countersigned by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. I have demonstrated this to the Tribunal by the example of the Prize Ordinance. That is to say that, even applying the legal standards of a democratic system, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy cannot be designated as a member of the Reich Cabinet, because he lacked all authority of participation in legislative acts and every collective responsibility for policies assumed. His task was, and remained, a military one even though for reasons of etiquette he was put on an equal basis in rank with other Reich ministers.
The Prosecution themselves realized that a Reich Government in the constitutional sense no longer existed during the war, and consequently stated that the actual governing was carried out by those who participated in the situation conferences at the Führer’s headquarters. As all witnesses examined here stated, we are concerned here with events of a purely military nature, where incoming reports were presented, military measures discussed, and military orders issued. Questions of foreign policy were only very rarely touched upon if they had any connection with military problems; they were, however, never discussed and no decision was rendered on them in these Führer conferences on the situation. Internal policy and the security system were never on the agenda. Insofar as nonmilitary persons participated, they were attendants or listeners who gathered information for their respective departments.
The Reichsführer SS or his deputy were present for the command of the Waffen-SS, and during the last year of war also for the Reserve Army. Admiral Dönitz always participated in these Führer conferences when he was at the Führer’s headquarters. Notes taken down by whoever accompanied him on all these meetings and discussions of the Commander-in-Chief are all in the possession of the Prosecution. As the Prosecution has not presented a single one of these notes from which it would appear that the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy participated in reporting on or in discussing and deciding affairs of a political nature, one can assume that such notes do not exist.
Thus the testimony of witnesses has been confirmed according to which the Führer conferences had nothing whatever to do with governing in a political sense, but were exclusively an instrument of the military leadership. Therefore, an over-all responsibility of Grossadmiral Dönitz for all events that occurred since 1943, which in the course of this Trial have been designated as criminal, certainly does not exist. Consequently, I shall deal only with those individual allegations by which the Prosecution tries directly to connect Admiral Dönitz with the conspiracy. I believe I am all the more justified to proceed in that manner, as a short time ago the Tribunal refused the cross-examination of witnesses in the Katyn case with the argument that no one was accusing Admiral Dönitz in connection with this case. I conclude, therefore, that at any rate in the eyes of the Tribunal he is only accused of such cases wherein he allegedly directly participated.
To begin with, this does not apply to the Führer’s order for the extermination of sabotage Commandos, dated 18 October 1942. The Prosecution has tried to establish that this order had been presented to Admiral Dönitz in detail, together with all possible objections, shortly after his assumption of the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. It has failed to establish this assertion. In fact Dönitz, as he himself admits, did read or have presented to him the order in question in the autumn of 1942 in his capacity of Commander of U-boats, and in the same form in which the front-line commanders received it.
I do not wish to speak here of the circumstances which led to objections against this order on the part of the High Command of the Armed Forces. Indeed, all these circumstances could not be discernible to one who received this order at the front. For such a man it was a matter of reprisal against saboteurs who seemed to be soldiers, but did not fight according to the regulations which are binding upon soldiers. Whether such reprisals were admissible at all according to the Geneva Convention, and to what extent, could not be judged by, nor did that come within the competence of, the recipient of the order. Every superior officer, at any rate, probably recognized that the order not to grant any pardon, and to hand over such persons in certain cases to the SD, was in itself an infringement of the rules of war. However, since the essence of any reprisal is to avenge a wrong on the part of the enemy with a wrong on one’s own part, this does not prove anything concerning the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the reprisal order. If no one but the leadership of the State is competent to order reprisals, then hundreds or thousands of German officers cannot be required today to have considered themselves also competent, and to have been presumptuous enough to verify orders whose actual and legal basis was entirely unknown to them. In this case the principle prevails, at least for the front-line commanders, that the subordinate may, when in doubt, rely on the order as given.[36]
Now, the Prosecution seems to be of the opinion that Admiral Dönitz a few months later, when he had become Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, had the opportunity and also the obligation to inform himself as to the basis of the Commando Order. This conception fails to appreciate the duties of a Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. He has to wage naval war. The whole German naval war, especially submarine warfare, in the spring of 1943, owing to huge losses inflicted by the enemy air force, was on the verge of collapse. These were the worries with which the new Commander-in-Chief had to cope, in addition to an abundance of new problems concerning the Navy which were coming up. How can one require such a man as in the quietest of times to cope with an order of remote date, which had nothing whatever to do with naval warfare? On the contrary, a special paragraph explicitly excluded prisoners taken during naval operations.
A word or two on the channels of command. The naval units were under the control of the Naval Operations Staff only in those matters which belonged to the duties of the Navy, that is to say, naval warfare and coastal defense by artillery. Concerning so-called territorial questions they were not subordinate to the Naval Operations Staff but to the Armed Forces commander of the theater of war in which their basis was established. Orders concerning such measures of war on land were given without collaboration on the part of the Naval Operations Staff and their execution was not reported to them. Just as hardly anyone can think seriously of holding a general responsible for German submarine warfare, just as little, in my opinion, does it seem justified to hold an admiral responsible for orders given in land warfare.
Mr. President, I have come to the end of a section.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. We will break off.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Before the noon recess I was discussing the fact that units of the Navy were not subordinate to the Naval Operations Staff in matters affecting warfare on land.
This channel of orders for territorial questions also explains the complete ignorance of Admiral Dönitz and of his colleagues in the Naval Operations Staff about the delivery to the SD of the crew of the Norwegian motor torpedo boat MTB 345 after its capture by units under Admiral Von Schrader. As the testimony of witnesses and the records of the Oslo War Crimes Court show, the Naval Operations Staff only received an operational report about the capture of the boat and the number of prisoners. All other details, the discovery on board of material for sabotage, of civilian suits and sabotage orders, and the treatment of the crew as saboteurs according to the Commando Order were regarded as territorial matters, and as such dealt with by Admiral Von Schrader and the Armed Forces commander in Norway. The decision regarding the fate of the crew came from the Führer’s headquarters in reply to an inquiry from Gauleiter Terboven. Not only is there no proof that the Naval Operations Staff took part in those territorial questions, but this must in fact be considered refuted on the basis of the evidence submitted and the chain of command as explained.
I regard as the second attempt of the Prosecution to establish a participation in the alleged conspiracy to commit war crimes the submission of Admiral Wagner’s minutes on the question of withdrawal from the Geneva Convention in the spring of 1945. The details are contained in Wagner’s testimony, according to which the Führer pointed out in a conference on 17 February that the enemy propaganda about the good treatment of prisoners of war was clearly having an influence on the units fighting on the Western Front, and that many cases of desertion to the enemy were being reported. He ordered that the question of a withdrawal from the Geneva Convention be investigated. In this way he wanted to convince his own soldiers that they could no longer rely upon receiving good treatment as prisoners of war, and thus create a countereffect against enemy propaganda. Two days later Hitler returned to this idea, although he then put forward another reason as the main one. He termed enemy warfare in the East and the bomb attacks on the German civilian population an outright renunciation of international law by the enemy, and he, for his part, also desired to free himself from all obligations by withdrawing from the Geneva Convention. Once more he asked for the opinion of the Armed Forces in this matter and addressed himself directly to Grossadmiral Dönitz, who did not answer. The attitude of the military leaders on this matter was unanimously negative.
On the next day, just before the daily conference on the situation, a 10-minute conversation took place between Grossadmiral Dönitz, Generaloberst Jodl, and Ambassador Hewel; in the course of this conversation Dönitz expressed his negative attitude. According to the notes of Admiral Wagner he said that “it would be better to take the measures considered necessary without previous announcement and, at any rate, to save face before the world.” The Prosecution sees in this a readiness and a design to expose hundreds of thousands of Allied prisoners of war to arbitrary murder.
Admiral Dönitz himself has no recollection of this sentence. That is not surprising, as this is not a record, but a summary of a lengthy conversation in four sentences, the summary being worded on the day after the conversation by Admiral Wagner. This summary admits that the Grossadmiral disapproved of any “wild measures” which would put us in the wrong from the beginning, and considered justifiable only measures actually warranted by the conduct of the enemy in each case. Since Wagner himself, as the author of the transcript, should know best what he meant thereby, I personally cannot add anything to this statement. The interpretation of the Prosecution is equally little supported by other circumstances. There was no question at all of keeping any measures secret; they had to be made known, regardless of whether they were meant to deter our own deserters or as reprisals. But Wagner’s note does not mention any kind of concrete measures to be taken, and all witnesses present at this situation conference in Hitler’s headquarters state that not a word was spoken on that subject. The idea of killing prisoners of war could not, therefore, have been present in the minds of any of the participants in this discussion which Wagner noted down.
Now it has come to light here, through the statements of the Defendants Ribbentrop and Fritzsche, that apart from the action for which he was preparing the ground during the discussion with the generals, Hitler had evidently at the same time planned a second action, in which only Goebbels and Himmler were to participate, and which by chance also came to Ribbentrop’s knowledge. In this action the shooting of thousands of prisoners of war seems to have been contemplated as a reprisal against the air attack on Dresden. Hitler, very wisely, did not give the slightest indication of such a plan to the generals. This plan was not followed up and no reprisals were taken.
And now I return to the facts. It is a fact that Admiral Dönitz disapproved of the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention, and that Hitler, in view of the attitude of all military leaders who clearly opposed it did not follow up the idea any further. It is also a fact that no measures in violation of international law were taken by the Germans as a result of this remark which the Prosecution has criticized, and finally it is a fact that enemy sailors who were captured were sent to a prisoner-of-war camp of the Navy where they were treated in an exemplary way up to the last day of the war.
Whoever, in his own sphere, behaved as Admiral Dönitz did with regard to the prisoners of war of the Navy, cannot reasonably be charged with having thrown overboard all standards of law and ethics applying to prisoners of war. A British commander has certified that when the prisoner-of-war camp of the Navy was taken over by British troops, all prisoners without exception said that they had been treated with fairness and consideration. The Tribunal will, no doubt, appreciate such unanimous expression of views, especially after what has come to light elsewhere in these proceedings with regard to the breakdown not only by Germans in the proper treatment of prisoners of war.
I shall now deal with the conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity, and I should like first of all to point out that Admiral Dönitz is not accused, under Count Four of the Indictment, of direct commission of Crimes against Humanity. Not even participation in the conspiracy to commit Crimes Against Humanity was contended in the detailed charges. That, I would say, is an admission that there was in fact no relation, between his activity and the Crimes against Humanity of which the Prosecution has brought evidence. Nevertheless the Prosecution presented some documents which are apparently meant to prove his participation in the responsibility for certain Crimes against Humanity.
In judging these documents the most important question always is: What did Admiral Dönitz know of those alleged crimes? On this subject I should like to make one point clear. During the entire war he resided and lived at his staff headquarters, first on the North Sea coast, after 1940 in France, in 1943 for a short time in Berlin, and then in the Camp Koralle near Berlin. When he was at the Führer’s headquarters, he stayed with the naval staff there. Even outside his duty, his time was thus spent almost exclusively with naval officers. This may have been a weakness, but it is a fact which gives an additional explanation of his lack of knowledge of many events.
The fact that the defendant forwarded a proposal by the Ministry for Armaments to employ 12,000 men from concentration camps as workers in the shipyards proves, according to the Prosecution, that Admiral Dönitz knew and approved of the arrest of countless innocent people and their ill-treatment and extermination in concentration camps.
He actually knew, of course, that concentration camps existed and he also knew that, apart from the professional criminals, people arrested for political reasons were kept there. As has already been explained here, the protective custody of political adversaries for reasons of safety is a measure adopted by all states, at any rate in an emergency, and knowledge of such a measure can therefore incriminate no one. However, an unusually high number of political prisoners—out of proportion to the number of the population—may stamp a regime as a regime of terror, but taking into account a population of 80 million in the fifth year of a grim war, even twice or three times the number of 12,000 men, which is the number mentioned by Admiral Dönitz, would not indicate a regime of terror, and the Prosecution will hardly claim that.
Admiral Dönitz stated here that the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, as well as his collaborators and the overwhelming part of the German people, did not know of the abuses and killings that occurred in the concentration camps. All that the Prosecution has put forward against this are assumptions, but no proofs.
On this point, therefore, I will only refer to the statement of the then Minister for Armaments, Speer, according to which the inmates of concentration camps were much better off in industrial work than in camp, and that they tried with all means to obtain employment in such work. The proposal forwarded therefore did not imply anything inhuman, but rather the opposite.
The same request also contains a suggestion to take energetic measures against sabotage in Norwegian and Danish shipyards, where seven out of eight vessels under construction had been destroyed. If need be, the personnel should be entirely or in part employed as “KZ workers” because, so it says, sabotage of such dimensions can only occur if all the workers silently condone it. This therefore amounts to a proposition for security measures to consist in keeping the workers who actively or passively participated in sabotage in a camp close to the shipyard, so that their connections with sabotage agents would be cut off. I do not believe that juridical objections can be raised against such measures of security. According to the practice of all occupation troops even measures of collective punishment would be justified in such cases.[37]
Actually the measures proposed were never carried out and the Prosecution presumably presents them only to accuse Admiral Dönitz quite generally of a brutal attitude toward the inhabitants of occupied territories. For this same purpose it even refers to a statement of the Führer at a conference on the military situation in the summer of 1944, according to which terror in Denmark must be fought with counterterror. Admiral Dönitz’s only connection with this statement was that he heard it and that his companion, Admiral Wagner, wrote it down. The Navy had no part in this statement, nor did it take any measures as a result of it.
In contrast to this line of evidence of the Prosecution, I should like to emphasize the attitude which Admiral Dönitz actually showed toward the population of the occupied territories. There is before the Tribunal a survey of the administration of justice by the naval courts in protecting the inhabitants of the occupied territories against excesses by members of the Navy. The survey is based on an examination of about 2,000 files on delicts and some of the judgments given are quoted with the facts and the reasons of the verdicts. Judging from that survey, one can fairly say that the naval courts protected the inhabitants in the West and in the East with justice and severity, including their lives as well as their property and the honor of their women. This administration of justice was constantly supervised by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy as the Chief Court Administrator. Under terms of legal procedure it was his duty to confirm death penalties imposed on German soldiers.
The time at my disposal does not permit a more detailed discussion of some of these judgments. A phrase expressed in one of them may be taken to apply to all: All soldiers must know that in occupied territory as well the life and property of others will be fully safeguarded. This was the general attitude in the Navy, and the severity of the penalties inflicted proves how seriously it was taken.
I need only say a few words about the order issued in the spring of 1945, in which a German prisoner of war, a noncommissioned officer, was cited as an example, because he had unobtrusively and systematically done away with some Communists who were attracting attention to themselves in their prison camp. As Admiral Wagner recalled, it was actually an informer who was liquidated. But the facts were camouflaged as described in order to avoid giving enemy intelligence a clue to the camp and the person of the noncommissioned officer. There cannot be any doubt that this order in its true background could be justified in view of the enormous number of political murders which have been committed with the connivance or assistance of governments engaged in the war, the perpetrators being today extolled as heroes. I cannot, however, consider as serious the argument that the unfortunately camouflaged wording could be proof of a general plan to liquidate Communists. A court judgment for the protection of Communists will reveal the true circumstances. A sergeant had stolen hospital blankets which were intended for Soviet prisoners of war and had extracted a dead prisoner’s gold teeth. This sergeant was sentenced to death by a naval court and executed after the sentence had been confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief.
Finally, the Prosecution also established a connection with the Jewish question through a remark in which Grossadmiral Dönitz speaks of the “creeping poison of Jewry.” On this point I should like to add some comments. Dönitz knew as little of the plan for the destruction of the Jews as he did of its execution. He did know of the resettlement in the Government General of Jews living in Germany. I do not think that a resettlement of this sort can be condemned at a time when expulsions of Germans on a much larger scale are taking place before the eyes of a silent world. Here, too, I refer to a sentence of long penitentiary terms against two German sailors who, together with some Frenchmen, had robbed French Jews. From the findings of the court I again quote a sentence which characterizes the general attitude: “That the crimes were committed against Jews does not excuse the defendants in any way.”
Similarly, it seems to me that the efforts of the Prosecution to include Admiral Dönitz in its construction of the conspiracy by terming him a fanatical Nazi have failed. He was neither a member of the Party nor was he ever politically prominent before his appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. The assertion of the Prosecution that he became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy because of his political attitude lacks all foundation. As a professional officer, to whom every political activity was forbidden by the Reich Defense Law, he had no reason for dealing with National Socialism in any way. However, he, too, like millions of other Germans, recognized the unique success of Hitler’s leadership in social and economic fields and, of course, also the liberation from the obligations of Versailles which Hitler had brought about and which particularly concerned Admiral Dönitz as a soldier. Therefore, at the time of his appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, he was politically in no way active, although loyal to the National Socialist State.
This appointment introduced two new elements into his relations with National Socialism. There was first of all his personal contact with Adolf Hitler. Like almost everyone else who had personal dealings with this man, he too was most deeply impressed by him. The respect for the head of the State and loyalty to the Supreme Commander inherent in the professional officer were complemented by admiration for the statesman and strategist. It is difficult fully to appreciate such an attitude in view of the information which has come to light in the course of this Trial. I feel neither called upon nor able to judge a personality like Adolf Hitler. But one thing seems to me certain, namely, that with a consummate art of camouflage he skillfully concealed the repulsive traits of his character from those of his collaborators to whom he did not dare reveal this part of his nature. The Hitler with whom the new Commander-in-Chief of the Navy became acquainted at that time, and whom he admired, was therefore an entirely different man from the one which the world—rightly or wrongly—pictures today.
The second new element in the relations between Grossadmiral Dönitz and National Socialism was that in the performance of his military duties he necessarily came into contact with the political authorities of the Reich. Whether he needed more men, more ships, or more arms, in the end he always had to discuss these matters with the political authorities, and in order to be successful in his demands, he had to make sure that any political mistrust was eliminated from the very start. This he deliberately did, and he demanded the same of his subordinates. To him the Party was not an ideological factor, but rather the actual exponent of political power. He was linked with it in the common aim to win the war, and for the achievement of this aim he considered it his ally. But to obtain the advantages which one expects of an ally, one must be willing to make certain sacrifices, especially sacrifices in overlooking faults and in ignoring conflicting issues.
However, his connection with the Führer and his contact with the Party, which were concomitants of his position and of his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, never led him to participate in anything for which he could not assume responsibility before his conscience. Some points of the Prosecution even go to prove this. The Führer demanded action against shipwrecked crews; Admiral Dönitz rejected it. The Führer asked for withdrawal from the Geneva Convention; Admiral Dönitz rejected it. He stubbornly and successfully resisted the Party’s influence upon the Armed Forces. Thanks to his resistance the National Socialist Führungsoffiziere did not become political commissars, but were, as genuine officers, merely advisers to their commander, who retained the sole responsibility for the leadership of his unit. The transfer of proceedings against soldiers on political grounds from the military courts to the People’s Courts, which had been advocated by the Party, was prevented by Grossadmiral Dönitz until the winter of 1944-45, and a Führer order to this effect issued at that time was never carried out in the Navy. Thus he never identified himself with the Party and can therefore surely not be held responsible for its ideological endeavors or its excesses, just as in foreign politics a government would not be ready to assume responsibility for such things if they had been done by an ally.
I do not by any means want to give the impression that Admiral Dönitz was not a National Socialist. On the contrary, I just want to use him as an example to disprove the theory that every National Socialist as such must be a criminal. This Tribunal is the sole instance in which authoritative personalities of the great Allied Powers are dealing directly and in detail with the last 12 years of the German past. It is, therefore, the only hope of very many Germans for the removal of a fatal error which is causing the weaker elements of our nation to become hypocrites and is thus proving a decisive obstacle on the road to political recovery.
And now I should like to deal with the charge that in February 1945 Admiral Dönitz protracted the inevitable surrender out of political fanaticism, and I wish to do so for a particular reason. This charge, which seems hardly to have anything to do with the Indictment before an International Tribunal, weighs particularly heavily in the eyes of the German people, for this nation truly knows what destruction and losses it endured in those last months from February until May 1945. I have submitted declarations of Darlan, Chamberlain, and Churchill from the year 1940 in which those statesmen, in a critical hour for their countries, called for desperate resistance, for the defense of every village and of every house. Nobody will conclude from this that these men were fanatical National Socialists. The question of unconditional surrender is indeed of such colossal import to a nation, that in fact it is not possible until after the event to judge whether a statesman who had to face this question did or did not do the right thing. Admiral Dönitz, however, was not a statesman in February 1945, but the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Should he have asked his subordinates to lay down their arms at a time when the political authority of the State still considered military resistance as opportune and necessary? Nobody will seriously demand that.
Much more difficult seems to me the question of whether, in view of the high esteem Hitler had for him, he should not have considered it his duty to point out clearly to Hitler the hopelessness of prolonged resistance.
Personally, I would have affirmed this to be his duty toward his nation, if Admiral Dönitz himself at that time had considered that surrender was justified. He did not consider it justified, and he gave his reasons: Surrender implied a halt of the armies and of the population; the German Army on the Eastern Front—still numbering more than 2 million men in February 1945—and the entire civilian population of the German eastern provinces would thereby have fallen into the hands of the Soviet armies, and in a bitterly cold winter month, too. Admiral Dönitz, therefore, was of the opinion, shared by Generaloberst Jodl, that the losses in men suffered in that way would be far greater than the losses which would necessarily be caused if the capitulation were postponed until the warmer season. Only in future years, when more exact data regarding casualties of the Army and of the civilian population both before and after the surrender in the East and in the West are available, will it be possible to view this opinion objectively. But it may already be said today that such considerations arose entirely from a full sense of responsibility for the life of German men and women.
The same sense of responsibility caused him, when he became head of the State on 1 May 1945, to cease hostilities against the West, but to protract the surrender in the East for a few days, days in which hundreds of thousands were able to escape to the West. From the moment when—to his own complete surprise—he was given a political task, he calmly and intelligently averted a threatening chaos, prevented desperate mass action without a leader, and assumed responsibility before the German people for the gravest action which any statesman can take at all.
Thus, to revert to the beginning of the Indictment, he did nothing to start this war, but he took the decisive steps to end it.
Since that moment the German nation has learned of many things which it did not expect, and more than once it has been referred to the unconditional surrender which the last head of the State carried through. It is for this Tribunal to decide whether in the future this nation will be reminded of the binding value of the signature of a man who is being outlawed as a criminal before the whole world by his partners in the agreement.
At the beginning of my speech I mentioned the doubts which any trial of war criminals is bound to call forth in the mind and heart of any lawyer. They must weigh upon all who bear any responsibility in such a trial. I could not more fittingly describe the task of all the responsible persons than in the words of a British attorney speaking of the trials before the German Supreme Court in the year 1921. I quote:
“The war criminals’ trials were demanded by an angry public rather than by statesmen or the fighting services. Had public opinion in 1919 had its way, the trials might have presented a grim spectacle, of which future generations would have been ashamed. But thanks to the statesmen and the lawyers, a public yearning for revenge was converted into a real demonstration of the majesty of right and the power of law.”[38]
May the verdict of this Tribunal stand in a similar way before the judgment of history.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Siemers for the Defendant Raeder.
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in my final speech for the Defendant Grossadmiral Dr. Raeder, I should like to keep to the order I chose for my document books and for the whole presentation of my evidence. I think a survey of the whole case will thus be made easier.
Raeder, who has just turned 70 years of age, has been exclusively a soldier, body and soul, ever since the age of 18, that is to say, for nigh on half a century covering an eventful period. Although he was never concerned with anything but his duties as a soldier, the Prosecution has accused him, in this great Trial against National Socialism, not only as a soldier, namely, as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, but, a singular and decisive point, as a politician, as a political conspirator, and as a member of the Government, three things which in truth he never was.
I am, therefore, faced with the singular task of defending Raeder as a politician, although it was precisely, as I shall demonstrate, his life principle as an officer to keep aloof from politics, and to command an officers’ corps and a Navy likewise committed to remain entirely free from politics.
If the Prosecution levels such manifold and grave accusations against Raeder, this is primarily because it has conceived a notion entirely foreign to the German Armed Forces, namely the notion of an admiral being responsible for foreign policy and for the outbreak of a war.
I shall disprove this conception and show that it was unjustified and unfounded even in Hitler’s National Socialist State. True, Hitler again and again placed politics in the forefront of the nation and endeavored to give the nation a one-track political education. Foreign countries knew this, and they may well therefore be all the more surprised by the fact that Hitler refrained from such political shaping in one single instance. Every administration, every organization, and every police institution was directed by Hitler on political principles, with the single exception of the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces, and the Navy in particular, remained for a long time and far into the war absolutely unpolitical. And not only did Hitler give Raeder an assurance to this effect, but he had also given the same assurance to Hindenburg as Reich President. This explains the fact, which has also been made clear in this Trial, that up to 1944 no officer could be a member of the Party, and if he was, then his membership was suspended.
After these preliminary reflections it will be understood why Raeder, as his interrogation showed, was disconcerted and amazed at these accusations which amount to a political charge. A man who is nothing but a soldier cannot understand why he should suddenly and without any relation to his military duties be made responsible for things which at no time came within the compass of his activity.
I shall naturally also discuss the military accusations, with the exception of submarine warfare, which, for the sake of uniformity, has already been dealt with by Dr. Kranzbühler on behalf of Raeder, too.
It will be seen from other military accusations, as for instance in the cases of Norway and Greece, that again and again there arises this discrepancy between the political and the military aspects: Raeder acted as Commander-in-Chief on the basis of military considerations, whereas the Prosecution now calls him to account on the basis of political considerations, by evaluating the military actions as political ones.
The first instance of this discrepancy already lies in the accusations raised against Raeder with regard to the period before 1933, that is, before National Socialism. In connection with these accusations it must not be overlooked that Hitler, the head of the alleged conspiracy for the waging of wars of aggression, did not rule Germany at that time, and yet already at that time there is supposed to have existed a common conspiracy between Hitler and a part of the defendants.
This is all the more surprising because Raeder, as a naval officer and after 1928 as Chief of the Naval High Command, at that time had nothing, absolutely nothing at all, to do with National Socialism, and did not even know Hitler and his co-workers in the Party. The accusations concerning the violations of the Versailles Treaty are included by the Prosecution in the conspiracy, although the violations did not take place under Hitler’s leadership, but under the leadership or with the approval of the democratic governments in Germany at the time. This shows that the Prosecution does not only want to attack National Socialism through this Trial, as has been emphasized again and again during the war and after the collapse, but that the Indictment extends its scope to large circles in Germany which had nothing to do with National Socialism, some of whom were even direct enemies of National Socialism.
(1) For this very reason it seemed to me extremely important to clear up the question of the violation of the Treaty of Versailles in the course of the presentation of evidence in the Raeder case. I have endeavored to do so with the approval of the Tribunal, and I am firmly convinced that I have succeeded. I need not discuss each of the violations, which have been treated in detail and which the Prosecution has produced in Document C-32. It should be sufficient if I refer to the extensive evidence as well as to the following facts:
Every single point was either a mere trifle or else a military measure—such as for example the antiaircraft batteries—based exclusively on the notion of defense. Raeder has plainly admitted that treaty infractions did occur, but the trivial nature of the infractions showed that these measures could not possibly have been connected with an intention to wage wars of aggression.
Moreover, I need only point out that from the legal point of view a treaty violation cannot ipso jure be a crime. Certainly the violation of a treaty between nations is no more permissible than the violation of a contract between private firms in commercial law. Such a violation is, however, not a punishable action, much less a crime. Even on the basis of the argument of the Prosecution, such action would be punishable only if the violation had been undertaken with criminal intent, that is, if it had been aimed at a war of aggression in contradiction to the Kellogg Pact. However, not even the Prosecution will be able to maintain this, and it has already indirectly intimated as much by refraining from taking up these points during the cross-examination of witnesses.
(2) The position is somewhat different with regard to a charge which the Prosecution discussed in detail only during cross-examination, namely, the charge concerning the participation of the German Navy in U-boat constructions in Holland; in this connection the Prosecution has relied upon Document C-156, the book by Kapitän zur See Schüssler entitled, Der Kampf der Marine gegen Versailles, as well as on statements contained in the notes of the naval historian, Admiral Assmann, found in Document D-854.
These documents prove that the German Navy had a share in a U-boat designing office in Holland, the firm N. V. Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw. This participation occurred during the period before the Navy was under Raeder’s command. The Tribunal will recall that Raeder did not become Chief of the Naval Command until 1 October 1928, whereas participation in the designing office in Holland dates back to 1923 and the following years.
May I emphasize, however, that in not a single instance was a U-boat built for the German Navy, and that consequently no U-boats were obtained or put into commission by the German Navy. In this connection I refer to the Versailles Treaty, Exhibit Number Raeder-1; Article 188 et sequentes of the Treaty of Versailles contain the terms with regard to the Navy. According to Article 188, Germany was bound to deliver her U-boats to the Allied nations or to dismantle them. This obligation Germany fulfilled completely. Moreover, Article 191 stipulates the following; I quote: “The construction and purchase of all submarine vessels, even for commercial purposes, is forbidden in Germany.”
It appears from this clear treaty clause that participation in the Dutch firm was not a violation of the Treaty of Versailles. According to Article 191, Germany was only forbidden to construct or purchase U-boats, moreover, strictly speaking, only in Germany.
As a matter of fact, no U-boat was built in Germany in violation of the Treaty, and no U-boat was built for Germany abroad either. Participation in a foreign designing office was not forbidden, nor was this the purpose of the Treaty of Versailles. The point was merely that Germany should not create a U-boat force for herself. The Navy, however, was permitted to participate in a designing office so as to keep abreast of modern submarine construction, to gather information for the future, and to lay the foundation for an eventual construction of submarines, when permitted, by training technical experts (See Exhibit Number Raeder-2, Lohmann Affidavit). The afore-mentioned documents, submitted by the Prosecution, prove that the submarines designed by the Dutch firm and built abroad were put into service abroad, namely by Turkey and Finland.
Even if one were to take the view that designing work also was prohibited, then what was said under Figure (1) also applies. The designing was limited to only a few submarines, so that this small number in itself proves that there cannot have been any intention of waging wars of aggression.
(3) In case the High Tribunal should be unable to follow this train of thought as a sole argument, I may point out in addition that the lack of an aggressive intention is also evident from the fact that the trivial violations of the treaty were in a certain way compensated. I refer to the second affidavit of Admiral Lohmann, Exhibit Number Raeder-8, which shows that according to the Treaty of Versailles Germany was allowed to build 8 armored ships, whereas in fact she only built 3; it shows also that instead of 8 cruisers only 6 were built up to 1935, and that instead of 32 destroyers or torpedo boats, only 12 destroyers and no torpedo boats were built. In fact, with regard to the really important weapons, and especially those which may be considered as offensive weapons, the Navy kept far below the maximum permitted by the Treaty of Versailles, and this indeed to such an extent that by comparison the trivial violations in naval matters hardly count.
(4) According to the Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919, Articles 47 and 50 (Exhibit Number Raeder-3), the President of the Reich had supreme command of all the Armed Forces. In order to be valid, the decrees of the Reich President required the countersignature of the Reich Chancellor or the Reich ministers concerned, in this case, the Minister of Defense. I quote: “Responsibility is assumed through the countersignature.” Thus, from the point of view of constitutional law it is absolutely clear that the responsibility rests with the Minister of Defense or the Reich Government and the President of the Reich. It is, of course, true that before 1928, that is, before Raeder became the responsible Chief of the Naval Command, the Navy took a number of measures without the knowledge of the Reich Cabinet. But the evidence which I presented, especially the statement of the former Reich Minister Severing, shows that, contrary to the statements of the Prosecution, no secret measures were taken after Raeder became Chief of the Naval High Command. Severing has confirmed that the Müller-Stresemann-Severing Cabinet, in a Cabinet meeting of 18 October 1928, obtained a clear picture of the secret measures of the Armed Forces by interrogating Raeder as Chief of the Naval High Command and Heye as Chief of the Army Command.
Both Raeder and Heye, after they had given an explanation, were obliged and directed by the Cabinet, in conformity with the afore-mentioned paragraphs of the Reich Constitution, to take no future measures without the knowledge of the Minister of Defense or the Cabinet. At the same time the Cabinet established that the secret measures taken before Raeder’s time were only trifling matters, and expressly assumed responsibility for them. If the Cabinet, in conformity with the Constitution, assumed the responsibility, this amounted to a legally and constitutionally effective procedure which exonerated Raeder as Chief of the Naval High Command and relieved him of responsibility. It appears, therefore, to be inadmissible that the defendant, who no longer bears the responsibility, should be made responsible for actions for which the Cabinet assumed responsibility.
The attitude of the Cabinet in the Cabinet meeting of 18 October 1928 further shows that none of these actions can have had as their basis any criminal intent to wage a war of aggression, for even the Prosecution will not desire to assert that men like Stresemann, Müller, and Severing intended to wage wars of aggression, but instead will have to believe Severing when he says that Stresemann, Müller, and he himself assumed responsibility for these violations only because they were based purely on conceptions of defense. One will also have to believe Severing’s words that such conceptions of defense were justified, since in the twenties the danger that Germany might be attacked, for instance by Poland, was quite real, and she would then not have been in a position to defend herself with the small Armed Forces allowed her by the Versailles Treaty. This danger was particularly evident in connection with Polish border incidents in East Prussia and Silesia and during the occupation of Vilna, and it even increased when all attempts of Stresemann and Müller failed to achieve adherence to the promise to disarm which the other powers had given in the Versailles Treaty.
How difficult Germany’s position was and how justified measures of defense were, Justice Jackson himself admitted in his opening speech, when he said, I quote:
“It is quite possible that Germany in the twenties and thirties was confronted with desperately difficult tasks, tasks which would have justified the boldest measures, but not war.”
I shall not even go as far as Mr. Justice Jackson, but I believe that these measures taken by the Navy are certainly covered by his own concept of “boldest measures.”
The British prosecutor, Mr. Elwyn Jones, attempted during the cross-examination of Severing to prove that Raeder did not observe the obligations imposed on him in the Cabinet meeting of 18 October 1928, because Severing, according to his testimony, was not informed of the construction abroad of the small submarines for Turkey and Finland. In this connection, two things must be considered:
a. During his testimony Severing did not remember the details, but only the fundamental and decisive questions; with regard to the details, he naturally relied on the competent minister, in this case, the Reich Defense Minister.
b. According to Severing’s testimony it was an exception that the Chief of the Naval High Command appeared before the entire Cabinet on 18 October 1928. Raeder as Chief of the Naval High Command was not obliged to inform all the members of the Cabinet, but was, in accordance with the Constitution, merely obliged to inform the Reich Defense Minister, and that Raeder did. What the Reich Defense Minister then for his part submitted to the other members of the Cabinet and to the Reichstag was not only beyond Raeder’s knowledge, it was also outside Raeder’s responsibility, and solely within that of the Reich Defense Minister and the Cabinet.
In conclusion may I point out the following: If, despite all this, the Prosecution wishes to look upon these violations of the Treaty of Versailles on the part of the Navy as evidence of an intention to wage a war of aggression, then the Social Democrat or Democrat governments of that time bear the responsibility. Thereby the Indictment on this point collapses, for to take the governments of that time to task for the intention of waging wars of aggression would lead the Prosecution on this point to an ad absurdum.
(5) The treaty violations during the period from 1933 until the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 show the same factual and juridical picture. During these 2 years no important expansion of naval armament took place either. The only disputable accusation made by the Prosecution in this respect is contained in Document D-855, which was submitted during cross-examination. This is the report of Flottenintendant Thiele. According to this it was decided in March 1935, that is, a few months before the naval agreement, to prepare plans for the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau with a displacement of 27,000 tons, although the maximum of 10,000 tons fixed by the Treaty of Versailles was still formally in force at that time for another 3 months, in contrast to a maximum displacement of 35,000 tons provided for in the Naval Agreement of 1935.
Here it should be taken into consideration that in March 1935 Germany could already count on the speedy conclusion of an Anglo-German agreement, whereas the period between the planning and the completion of a battleship is a much longer one, which cannot be counted in months, but only in years. As a matter of fact, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were only commissioned in 1938 and 1939, 3 and 4 years respectively after the naval pact (see Exhibit Number Raeder-2, Lohmann Affidavit).
The other matters submitted by the Prosecution are again trifles; for instance, the selection (not the construction, as the Prosecution says) of four or five merchantmen (see C-166), or the construction of 5 E-boats of 40 tons each (see C-151), which for technical reasons were built in place of 12 torpedo boats of 200 tons each. The Prosecution cannot in all seriousness turn these facts into grave accusations, especially as the afore-mentioned deviations from the Versailles Treaty were known to foreign technical specialists or—as the witness Schulte-Mönting correctly put it—were an “open secret.”
(6) And now I come to the decisive juridical aspect of all developments up to the summer of 1935. In the field of international law the same principle applies as in the field of internal commercial law: Breaches of agreement are considered adjusted and settled with the signing of a new agreement. In the present case the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 18 June 1935—Exhibit Number Raeder-11—represents the new agreement. This naval agreement deviates completely from the Versailles Treaty both with regard to high-tonnage vessels and with regard to U-boats. It is only on the basis of what is permitted Germany by this new agreement that the insignificance of earlier violations of the Versailles Treaty, not at the time covered by existing agreements, becomes apparent.
10,000-ton cruisers were replaced by 35,000-ton battleships, and the ban on the construction of U-boats was replaced by the acknowledgement of equal rights with regard to U-boat tonnage. Germany’s demands were not unreasonable; on the contrary, in the document mentioned, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom explicitly confirmed the German proposal to be “... an exceedingly important contribution to future limitation of naval armaments.”
This agreement between Britain and Germany concluded the debate on the Versailles Treaty both factually and juridically, as far as the Navy is concerned. This naval agreement was generally welcomed in Britain and Germany at that time, and it was supplemented by a new agreement on 17 June 1937 (see Exhibit Number Raeder-14). As proof of the fact that the Navy violated the naval agreement, too, with aggressive intentions, the Prosecution has raised two charges:
(1) In the Agreement of 1937 both contracting governments were bound to a mutual exchange of information, which was to take place annually, within the first 4 months of every calendar year, and was to contain details of the building program. According to Document C-23, the Navy violated this obligation insofar as it gave lower figures for the displacement and the draught of the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz which were being built at the beginning of 1938, namely, as 35,000 tons instead of 41,700 tons. That this violation of the treaty did occur is openly admitted by Raeder, but again it is not such a serious violation as the Prosecution contends, that is, it is not a violation which shows proof of criminal intent. That is clear from the detailed evidence I have presented and from the testimonies of witnesses which I need not repeat here; it will be sufficient if I refer to the absolutely convincing expert testimony of the ship-building director, Dr. Süchting, which I have submitted as Exhibit Number Raeder-15. According to this, the increase in tonnage demanded by the Navy during the construction served a purely defensive idea, namely, that of increasing the armor plating of the battleships and of arranging the bulkheads in such a way that the battleships would be virtually unsinkable. This defensive idea, Dr. Süchting emphasizes, actually proved to be correct during the attack on and sinking of the battleship Bismarck. If it was only a question of a defensive idea, no aggressive intentions can be construed from this treaty violation.
With regard to the juridical aspect, it must be added that in the Naval Agreement of 1937, Articles 24, 25, and 26 conceded to the contracting governments the right to deviate, under certain circumstances, from the contracted agreements and especially from the tonnage limitation of battleships, if any other sea powers should build or acquire larger battleships. This case, stated in Article 25, had actually arisen, and so the violation of the agreement consisted in the fact that the Navy, although now entitled to build larger battleships, neglected to inform Britain of her desire to make use of that right. It was, therefore, only a violation of the obligation to exchange information. How meaningless this measure was is proved by the alteration of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement by virtue of the London Protocol of 30 June 1938, which I have submitted as Exhibit Number Raeder-16.
Already on 31 March 1938, that is, only 6 weeks after the date of Document C-23, Britain on her part had stated, according to the London Protocol of 30 June 1938, that she must make use of the afore-mentioned right granted by Article 25, and therefore proposed that the battleship tonnage be increased from 35,000 to 45,000. This agreement was then signed by both countries on 30 June 1938, and thus the violation of the treaty evident from Document C-23, became illusory.
(2) The British prosecutor raised a second charge by submitting Document D-854 during cross-examination. It consists of notes made by Admiral Assmann for his historical writings; on Sheet 15 of these notes he writes that Germany abided by the terms of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement least of all in the sphere of U-boat building and that 55 U-boats were allowed by the treaty up to 1938, but 118 were actually completed or begun. These statements by Assmann are actually incorrect, and in reality Germany strictly followed all the stipulations of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with regard to U-boat building. Despite the assurance of equality of rights Germany by the Naval Agreement of 1935 voluntarily limited herself to 45 percent; but the right to increase this percentage at any time by friendly agreement with Britain was reserved for her. The presentation of evidence has shown (see the testimony of Raeder and Schulte-Mönting) that in December 1938 corresponding negotiations took place between the British Admiral Lord Cunningham and Grossadmiral Raeder, during which His Majesty’s Government approved the increase to 100 percent. It was not clear at the time when this evidence was presented, whether this approval had also been given in writing, as was to be assumed. Meanwhile I have been able to establish that such a document must have existed; I was able to gather this from the afore-mentioned Assmann Document D-854 in which on Page 169, in connection with Page 161, the letter in question dated 18 January 1939 is mentioned. In conclusion it remains to be said that the figure of 55 U-boats mentioned by Assmann corresponds to 45 percent, whereas the figure of 118 U-boats corresponds to 100 percent; accordingly Assmann, and therefore the Prosecution as well, are wrong. Actually there was no violation at all of the naval agreement with regard to U-boats.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. SIEMERS: I now come to the allegation of the Prosecution that Grossadmiral Raeder took part in a conspiracy to wage wars of aggression, and in particular supported Hitler and National Socialism despite his alleged knowledge that Hitler from the beginning had the intention of waging wars of aggression.
(1) How did Raeder establish contact with Hitler, and was he able, or even bound, at that time to realize an intention on the part of Hitler to wage wars of aggression?
As I have said, it is a fact that Raeder before 1933 had nothing to do with National Socialism and knew neither Hitler nor his Party collaborators; he met Hitler on 2 February 1933, when he and the other commanders were introduced to Hitler by Baron von Hammerstein. As Chief of the Naval High Command Raeder had only one superior, Reich President Von Hindenburg, who, according to the Constitution and the Defense Law,[39] was the Supreme Commander of the whole Armed Forces. Hindenburg, as Reich President, had appointed Hitler Reich Chancellor, and thus a connection was of necessity created between Hitler and the Armed Forces. There was thus no question of any decision on the part of Raeder. As Hindenburg’s subordinate, he had as a soldier to submit to the political decision which Hindenburg had taken as President of the Reich. The constitutional basis with regard to the Armed Forces was in no way altered by the fact that Hitler came to power. As Chief of the Naval High Command Raeder took as little part in this political decision as he had done on previous occasions when Müller, who was a Social Democrat, or Brüning, who belonged to the Center Party, became Reich Chancellors.
Nor was there any cause for Raeder to resign his post on account of this internal political decision, for Hitler had explained to him and the other high officers at the first conference on 2 February 1933, and particularly also on the occasion of the first naval report in the same month, that nothing in the Armed Forces would be changed and that the Armed Forces must remain aloof from politics, as laid down in the Constitution and the Defense Law.
The testimony of Raeder and Schulte-Mönting proves that during the naval report Hitler explained his fundamental ideas in regard to a peaceful policy, in which connection, in spite of the amicable revision of the Versailles Treaty to which he aspired, it was essential to come to an understanding with England by means of a treaty providing for the development of the Navy within the general limitations of naval armament. During this conversation Hitler clearly indicated that he did not want a naval armament race and that the development of the Navy should take place only in friendly agreement with England. This principle was absolutely in line with the viewpoint of Raeder and the Navy, and it was therefore quite out of the question for Raeder to tell his superior, Hindenburg, that on account of Hitler he could no longer head the Navy.
Now the Prosecution maintains that the leading personalities in Germany at that time already knew Hitler’s true intentions from his book Mein Kampf, and has cited as proof several quotations, partly torn from their context, from Hitler’s propaganda book of 1924. This argument of the Prosecution does not seem to hold good, because Hitler wrote this book as a private individual belonging to an opposition party. In this Trial it has several times been pointed out that the statements of foreign private individuals are irrelevant even when these foreigners are well known, and subsequently—as in Hitler’s case—received a position in the government. Raeder could assume, as could anyone else, that as Reich Chancellor Hitler would not uphold all the Party doctrines which years before he had defended as a member of the opposition, particularly since the statements of Hitler on military matters contradicted these former Party ideas. Moreover, the Navy relations with England were always of foremost importance and in this connection Hitler himself had said in his book Mein Kampf, Page 154: “But for such a policy there was only one possible partner in Europe: England.” (Document Book 2, Document Number Raeder-20, Page 119.)
In rebuttal of the quotations submitted by the Prosecution it must also be said that they are all taken from the 1933 edition and that, in spite of great pains, the General Secretary’s office has been unable to procure an earlier edition, particularly the first edition of 1925 and 1927. It is a known fact that in later years Hitler himself made changes on many points in numerous places in his book, consequently the quotations from the 1933 edition cannot be taken as a basis on their face value.
Ought Raeder in the following years to have realized that Hitler desired to abandon the fundamental idea of an understanding with England, and is it possible to agree with the argument of the Prosecution that Raeder should have refused further collaboration at some time before 1939? I believe that this question must be answered in the negative for reasons which appear quite naturally from various facts which the Prosecution or the Defense submitted in evidence:
Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934, and the Prosecution reproaches Raeder because he thereupon took an oath in which he named the Führer in the place of the fatherland. (Record of 15 January 1946, Volume V, Page 262.) This point was sufficiently clarified in the presentation of evidence. Therefore I need only refer to the error which the Prosecution made in its assertion; the Prosecution itself produced Document D-481 which shows the oath of allegiance taken by the soldiers of the Armed Forces on Hitler’s orders. The document is a law signed by Hitler, Frick, and Blomberg and it shows that it was not Raeder who replaced the word “Vaterland” by “Hitler,” but that Hitler himself demanded that all soldiers should take the oath to him as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Before Hitler demanded this oath, which he had cleverly devised and which proved so fateful in the future, Raeder had neither been informed nor had his advice been asked on the wording. He was simply summoned to the Reich Chancellery without knowing the reason. The question as to what kind of oath is to be taken by a soldier is again a political one, a question of legislation, upon which Raeder as a soldier and Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had no influence.
The Prosecution charges Raeder with having been informed of many political decisions and with having, as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, made strategic plans and preparations on the occasions of such political measures. The Prosecution referred to the withdrawal from the League of Nations on 14 October 1933, the occupation of the Rhineland on 7 March 1936, the Austrian Anschluss in March 1938, the incorporation of the Sudetenland in the autumn of 1938, and the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939.[40]
The documents in question are in the main those marked in the footnote, and I can refer to them jointly in this connection. There is one fact common to all of these decisions, namely, that Raeder did not politically take part in any of them. Raeder was never consulted beforehand and as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy he had no authority to participate in such decisions. Raeder did nothing more than take note of these documents and reports, and then issue the orders necessary for precautionary military measures in case the country became involved in war. It seems quite incomprehensible that the commander-in-chief of a branch of the Armed Forces should be reproached for having made strategic preparations in the event of political complications. I imagine that it is customary all over the world that an admiral never takes part in political decisions, while at the same time he is obliged to make certain precautionary preparations depending upon such political decisions of the government. This is another example of the discrepancy I have already mentioned affecting the position of a military commander, which, although the Prosecution considers it to be a political one, is in reality purely military. There is hardly any doubt that the military commands of foreign countries involved in these political decisions or interested in them were also at the same time taking precautionary military measures.
A military commander could not judge whether these political decisions of Hitler were crimes or even violations of international law, all the less since he was never summoned to the consultations. Neither the withdrawal from the League of Nations, as a result of the failure of all endeavors to induce the other countries to disarm in the spirit of the Versailles Treaty, nor the occupation of the Sudetenland or the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, can be regarded as criminal activities, in the sense of the Indictment, of a disinterested commander-in-chief. They were certainly deviations from the Versailles Treaty, but even the British Prosecutor, Sir Hartley Shawcross, declared on 4 December 1945 in this courtroom that “many objections against Versailles were possibly justified.”[41] And even Justice Jackson, as quoted above, said that the boldest measures would have been justified for the purpose of revising this treaty, but not a war.
All these measures taken by Germany were in fact carried out without a war, and therefore come under the heading of measures which Justice Jackson considers justified, all the more so since they were all silently condoned by foreign countries, or even agreed upon by treaty, as for instance in the case of the incorporation of the Sudetenland by the Munich Agreement of September 1938, or, as in the case of Austria, by agreement with that country.
In the cases of Austria and of the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Prosecution quite justifiably, looking at these cases objectively and retrospectively, points out that Hitler employed extremely dubious and possibly criminal means to achieve his aims; however, this can have no significance as far as the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy is concerned, since it has been firmly established that he was not informed of these activities, much less of the means employed therein. It has been established in particular that Raeder was neither informed of the details of the Austrian Anschluss nor of the kind of conference which ultimately led to an agreement with President Hacha. He was not told of the discussions with Hacha, nor of the threat of a bombardment of Prague, which was made in the course of these discussions; I refer in this connection to the testimony of the witnesses Raeder and Schulte-Mönting. In the eyes of Raeder, therefore, these constituted measures permissible under international law, or else agreements which gave him no cause to interfere or to question Hitler, quite apart from the fact that as a military commander he had no right whatsoever to do so.
Moreover, had military complications arisen, land operations only would have been involved, as is quite obvious from the location of the countries concerned. It would have amounted to an impossible situation if the disinterested Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had seen fit to concern himself with these things although hardly any naval preparations were required. In the case of Czechoslovakia, for example, Document 388-PS lays down, as far as the Navy was concerned, only that it was to participate in possible Army operations by commitment of the Danube flotilla which for this purpose was placed under the orders of the High Command of the Army; this flotilla consisted of very small ships, a few gunboats, if I remember correctly.
In this connection I also quote Sir Hartley Shawcross when on 4 December 1945 he spoke of the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934: “By entering into it”—Hitler—“persuaded many people that his intentions were genuinely pacific ...”[42]
Accordingly, Raeder too had reason to be convinced. It is true that Raeder belonged to the Secret Cabinet Council created in February 1938. But it is also true, and has been proved in the meantime, that the Secret Cabinet Council was just a farce. It is therefore unnecessary to deal with this point which the Prosecution originally considered so important.
The claim of the Prosecution that Raeder was a member of the Government and a Reich minister has been refuted in the same way. This assertion of the Prosecution has from the outset been somewhat incomprehensible. Document 2098-PS, presented by the Prosecution, only states with absolute clarity that Von Brauchitsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and Raeder, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, held—I quote—“a rank equivalent to that of a Reich minister.” This proves that he was not a minister, although for reasons of etiquette he held a rank equal to that of a Reich minister, and it follows that this decree of Hitler did not assign a political task to Raeder, as the Prosecution would like to have it.
Moreover, this decree does not even give him the right to participate in Cabinet sessions at his own will, but only, as Hitler says in the above-mentioned document, “upon my order.” This simply means that Raeder might have been called upon by Hitler to participate in a Cabinet session when technical naval problems were being discussed. In reality this hypothetical and politically insignificant case never arose.
Nor can membership in the Reich Defense Council—Document 2194-PS[43]—be considered incriminating. In the first place the council was concerned, as the text says, only with “preparatory measures for the defense of the Reich,” that is, neither with political activities nor with activities connected in any political sense with aggressive war. Furthermore, according to Document 2018-PS, a later Führer decree of 13 August 1939, and contrary to the claim of the Prosecution, Raeder never belonged to the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich set up at that time, for the simple reason that he was not a minister. Actually other countries, too, possess institutions like a defense council or defense committee. I call attention to the fact that already long before the first World War the British Government had a defense committee which was of much greater importance[44] than the equivalent institution in Germany.
As the final matter in this connection, I wish to point out that the claim of the Prosecution that Raeder was a Party member has also proved untenable. It is true that Raeder received the gold insignia of honor from Hitler; but this was only a decoration; it could not mean anything else, because a soldier could not be a member of the Party. That is clear beyond all doubt from Paragraph 36 of the Reich Defense Law, which forbids soldiers to engage in politics and to be members of a political organization.[45]
I also refer to the evidence, which proved amply that Raeder never had connections with the Party, that indeed he more than once had arguments with Party circles and that he was unpopular with typical National Socialists because of his political and particularly his religious attitude. Goebbels, for instance, positively detested him, and this was not surprising, because on the one hand he always prevented the Party from gaining any sort of influence on the officers’ corps of the Navy, while on the other, in contrast to the Party, he supported the Church to the greatest extent, and saw to it that the morale of the Navy was founded on a Christian basis. I refer in this connection to the typical National Socialist phrase of Bormann:
“National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible.”[46] In the same document Bormann, as he so often did, expressed views devoid of all civilized standards and attacked Christianity so strongly, and so violently advocated the elimination of all Christian ideas, that this attitude by the Party is sufficient proof that Raeder, as a devout Christian, could never have entertained relations with the Party.[47]
I have already stated that in 1933 Hitler said that it would be one of the fundamentals of his policy to make Germany sound and strong by peaceful means, and that for such peaceful development it was absolutely necessary to acknowledge British hegemony and come to an agreement with Britain about the size of the German fleet—if possible, even to come to an alliance. These ideas coincided with Raeder’s fundamental attitude, which he explained in detail during his examination here. As far as my defense is concerned, it may remain an open question whether and when Hitler abandoned that basic thought. In any case, Hitler always emphasized this basic thought to Raeder and actually supported it with deeds; this ever-recurring thought can be traced through all the years up to the outbreak of war, and it was in the pursuit of this basic principle that the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was concluded in 1935 and the second Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1937, that an agreement on submarines was reached with Lord Cunningham in 1938, and that the London protocol on the subject of battleships was signed on 30 June 1938. Thus, throughout the years of the reconstruction of the German Navy the same idea was always predominant, namely, of achieving agreement with Britain, of acknowledging Britain’s supremacy and of avoiding any difference which might lead to a break with Britain.
Looking back now in cognizance of all the documents and all the facts proved during this Trial, Hitler may be assumed at some time, probably in 1938, to have become unfaithful to his own principles and thereby guilty of bringing about the tragic fate of Germany. However, in judging the accusations made against Raeder, the decisive issue is not what must subsequently, in the light of all known facts, be acknowledged as objectively true; the real issue is only whether Raeder realized, or was even able to realize, Hitler’s deviation from his own ideas, and the answer to that is “no.” Raeder could not have guessed, much less have known, that Hitler at some time became untrue to his own political ideas which he had repeatedly stressed and demonstrated, and thus guilty of kindling the frightful conflagration of World War II.
Raeder could not have suspected or known that during the period immediately preceding the war Hitler spoke to him, too, in words which were at variance with his thoughts and also different from his actions. As far as the Navy in particular was concerned, the relatively slow rebuilding of the German fleet showed that Hitler proposed to remain faithful to the ideas which I described. There was no indication at all of a change of mind on Hitler’s part in this field, for a change of mind would surely have resulted in a naval rebuilding program bigger than the one which Hitler actually carried out. At the very least he would then have made full use of possibilities offered by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. According to the Naval Agreement, the German fleet was allowed a total tonnage of 420,595 tons,[48] yet actually this maximum was never utilized. Even with regard to battleships, Germany remained short of the Naval Agreement, with the result that the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz were not available in the first year of the war, and thus could not take part in the occupation of Norway; the Bismarck was completed only in August 1940, and the Tirpitz in 1941.
According to the Naval Agreement, Germany was allowed the same tonnage in submarines as England. In reality, however, U-boat construction was so slow that at the beginning of the war in 1939, as the evidence has proved, Germany had only the small number of 26 U-boats available for Atlantic service. And further, according to Document L-79, known as the “Little Schmundt,” it was laid down as late as the end of May 1939 that—I quote—“no change will be made in the ship-building program.”
All this must have firmly convinced the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy from his personal point of view and his sphere of work that Hitler wanted to stand by his much-stressed basic principle of avoiding war.
Raeder’s firm conviction in this respect—this seems to be an important consideration—was to a large extent confirmed by the attitude of foreign countries. Winston Churchill, in his book Great Contemporaries, wrote in 1935:
“It is not possible to form a just judgment of a public figure who has attained the enormous dimensions of Adolf Hitler, until his lifework as a whole is before us ... We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who has restored honor and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation, and brought it back serene, helpful, and strong to the forefront of the European family circle.”
One year later, at the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, the representatives of the foreign countries appeared in a body and greeted Hitler in a manner which, in its approval bordering on enthusiasm, appeared incomprehensible to many skeptically inclined Germans. Subsequently, the foremost politicians and members of various governments visited Hitler and reached complete understanding with him, and finally, in the autumn of 1938, agreement was again reached under Chamberlain and Lord Halifax; an agreement which strengthened Hitler immeasurably, and by which he sought to prove to the Germans how expedient all his actions had been, since they were thus approved by foreign countries. The joint declaration, which Chamberlain and Hitler issued in Munich on 30 September 1938, can never be overestimated in its importance. I would, therefore, like to quote the first two decisive sentences from it:
“We have had a further discussion today, and are agreed that the question of Anglo-German relations is of primary importance for both countries and for Europe.
“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Treaty as symbolic of the desire of our two nations never again to wage war against each other.”
I think that these references are sufficient. Now, can one demand of a German admiral, who has never been a politician, but always only a soldier, that in judging Hitler he should have looked farther ahead than the great British statesmen, Chamberlain and Churchill? Surely the very question indicates that the answer is “no.”
The Prosecution can seriously confront these numerous aspects only with a few documents which might indicate Raeder’s knowledge of Hitler’s aggressive plans. The Prosecution has indeed presented innumerable documents of which Raeder or the Naval Operations Staff or the High Command of the Navy were stated to have received copies, but in a considerable number of instances the Prosecution could not say anything beyond the fact that Raeder received a copy of the documents; for the most part no real connection existed, nor was it alleged by the Prosecution. Naturally, it is not surprising that for the sake of uniformity military documents went to all branches of the Armed Forces, even if in certain cases one branch of the Armed Forces was not at all, or only vaguely, concerned with them. Of all these documents which have been submitted in the case of Raeder, only the four documents which, because of their importance, the Prosecution described as key documents, could be really incriminating. These are Hitler’s four speeches to the Commanders-in-Chief of 5 November 1937, 23 May 1939, 22 August 1939, and 23 November 1939.[49]
The Prosecution claims that these speeches prove participation in the conspiracy, and that it is clearly evident from them that Hitler wanted to wage wars of aggression. I would therefore like to deal with these documents individually and in detail, and in doing so, show why they cannot modify the general picture I have presented.
Undoubtedly these key documents are of the utmost importance for the subsequent historical findings on what trains of thought motivated Hitler; they are important because they are expressions of Hitler’s opinion and because, in spite of the tremendous amount of captured documentary material, there are hardly any written notes of Hitler. One is tempted, of course, to accept the conclusion that the contents of these documents must be true because they are statements made before a small circle, where Hitler would naturally express himself more openly than in his public speeches. Even though I by no means fail to recognize their value, I nevertheless believe that the Prosecution overestimates the importance of these four documents by far. Certainly, they are to some extent key documents, since they provide the key to an understanding of Hitler’s mind and methods, but they are not a key to the real intentions of Hitler, and more particularly they do not provide a scale for any conclusions which those who listened to the speeches must, in the opinion of the Prosecution, needs draw from them.
Therefore, in order fully to explain the value of the documents, I would like first of all to mention several general points which apply generally to each of these four documents and limit their evidential value, which the Prosecution has overestimated. None of these speeches was taken down in shorthand, so that the actual text of the speeches is not available. Accordingly, in the record of the address of 5 November 1937, Hossbach correctly chose the indirect form of speech, and Generaladmiral Böhm in his record of the speech of 22 August 1939[50] did the same. Surprisingly and not quite correctly, Schmundt chose the direct form of speech in his record of 23 May 1939, although it was not a verbatim record; however, he was at least careful to state at the beginning that Hitler’s words were being reproduced “in essence.”
The feeblest documents, that is to say, the two versions of the speech of 22 August 1939 which the Prosecution has submitted, are written in the direct form of speech, and the authors of these documents, whose names are unknown, have not even deemed it necessary to add some sort of note as Schmundt did. However this may be, in considering the documents it must be kept in mind that they were not reproduced word by word and that therefore the reliability of the reproduction depends on the manner of work and attitude of the author of the document, especially on whether and to what extent he made notes during the speech, and when he prepared his record. In this connection it is important to note that, as Document 386-PS shows, Adjutant Hossbach wrote the record a full 5 days later, namely on 10 November, though the speech itself had already been made on 5 November. In the case of Schmundt, the date of the record is missing altogether, and in the two Prosecution documents on the speech of 22 August 1939 there is also no date. The last two documents also lack any signature, so that in this case it is not even possible to say who bears the responsibility for the record. The same applies to the document on the speech of 23 November 1939. All these formal deficiencies allow considerable doubt concerning evidential value and reliability of the documents to be entertained.
It is different in the case of the Böhm document, who in his affidavit certifies that he wrote down Hitler’s speech as it was being made, that he noted down the exact text of particularly important passages, and that he edited the final draft, submitted here, on the same evening. Since in all these documents the true text is not available, it is obvious how important it is if one can at least establish that the record was made simultaneously with the speech, or at least on the same day and not, as in the case of Hossbach, 5 days later. Even with the best of memories the best adjutant, who has to handle many new matters every day, cannot possibly after 5 days give an absolutely reliable reproduction of a speech.
The second point is just as important, namely, that unlike other military documents these are not official documents with a distribution list, that is, they are not documents which were subsequently sent to those concerned. That the documents were not sent to Raeder was established in the evidence by him and by the witness Schulte-Mönting, apart from the fact that it is already apparent from the lack of a distribution list on the document. This point, in particular, seems to me of great importance. Listening to a speech once—and it will be recalled that Hitler spoke extremely quickly—does not induce the listener to draw conclusions in a way which the reading of the record might, since the record allows for a check and recheck of the contents of the speech. We who have come to know these speeches in the proceedings in their written form and have again and again checked their wording, naturally invest certain words and phrases with more importance than we would have done if we had heard them as part of a quickly delivered address. In addition, all of us are readily inclined to lend more importance to the various phrases, because from our present standpoint and in view of our more extensive knowledge we can now survey everything much more easily; for we have not only one speech on which to base our opinions, but all of them and in addition all the many other documents showing the historical development. In discussing these documents it must always be borne in mind that listeners are inclined to react to the spoken word quite differently, and that often, even after only a few hours, the reports of various listeners differ from one another.
The Prosecution considers these speeches of Hitler to be the basis of the conspiracy, and says that on these occasions Hitler consulted with the commanders, reached a certain decision, and concluded a certain plan of conspiracy with them. The Prosecution is bound to maintain this, because one can only speak of a conspiracy when something is being planned in common. In reality, the assertion of the Prosecution that an influential group of Nazis assembled to examine the situation and make decisions is incorrect; the occasion took the form of an address by Hitler alone, and no discussion and no consultation took place. Nor was any decision reached, either; Hitler just spoke quite generally about—I quote—“possibilities of development.”[51] If one can speak of decisions at all, it was a decision solely on the part of Hitler. All this contradicts the existence of a real conspiracy. Altogether I have the impression that, in its conception of a conspiracy to wage wars of aggression, the Prosecution has conceived an entirely false picture of the real distribution of power within the National Socialist State. In my opinion the Prosecution fails to recognize the characteristics of a dictatorship, and indeed it may be very difficult to understand the immeasurable dictatorial power of Hitler if one has not personally lived through all of those 12 years in Germany, in particular the growth of Hitler’s power from its first beginnings until it finally developed into a dictatorship wielding the most cruel and horrible terror. A dictator like Hitler, who moreover quite obviously exercised immense powers of suggestion and fascination, is not a president of a parliamentary government. I have the impression that in judging the situation as a whole the Prosecution has never completely relinquished the idea of a parliamentary government nor taken the uncompromising ways of a dictator into account.
The idea of a conspiracy between him and the members of the Cabinet or between him and the commanders was quite contrary to Hitler’s own nature, as the testimony of several witnesses showed in the course of the Trial. This was proved with particular emphasis by the testimony of the Swedish industrialist, Dahlerus, who by reason of his excellent and extensive connections both with Britain and Germany was in the course of time able to obtain an objective picture of both countries, and who during his negotiations with Chamberlain and Halifax on the one hand, and Hitler and Göring on the other, was best able to recognize the difference between the parliamentary British Government and the German dictatorship of Hitler. The account of Dahlerus proves convincingly that the difference was irreconcilable. After he had spoken with Chamberlain and Halifax, a discussion with the Cabinet naturally took place before a final decision was taken. On the other hand, when in the night of 26 to 27 August 1939[52] Dahlerus had a discussion of decisive importance with Hitler, at which only Göring was present, Hitler at once made six propositions, without saying a word to any of the Cabinet members or any of the military commanders, without even consulting Göring who sat by silently; proposals, moreover, which did not exactly tally with what he himself had told Sir Nevile Henderson a short time before. A stronger argument against a conspiracy with commanders or members of the Cabinet can hardly exist, unless it be the equally important fact which the witness Dahlerus added, namely, that during the entire 2½ hours Göring did not dare say a single word, and that it was humiliating to see the degree of servility which Hitler demanded even of Göring, his closest associate.[53]
All these Hitler speeches are full of contradictions. Such contradictions naturally impair clarity of thought, and they rob individual ideas of their importance. When reading the documents in their entirety, the number of contradictions becomes evident, as the witness Admiral Schulte-Mönting correctly pointed out during his examination and cross-examination. It is just because of such contradictions and often illogical thinking that the evidential value of the documents is diminished. Naturally it is difficult for a military adjutant like Hossbach or Schmundt to record unclear and contradictory trains of thought; and it is also easy to understand that a military adjutant will be inclined to introduce as clear a line of thought as possible, and will in consequence be misled into applying to certain ideas which have become clear to him more stress than they were actually given in the speech itself. To this can be added a remark of Raeder, who not only points to the contradictions, but especially to Hitler’s overactive imagination, and very appropriately calls him a “master of bluff.”[54]
Moreover, in every speech of that type Hitler followed a very definite tendency. He had a definite purpose in view, namely, to bring about the desired impression on all or some of his hearers, either by intentional exaggeration or by making things appear deliberately harmless. While he spoke, Hitler followed the intuition of the moment; as Schulte-Mönting termed it, he wandered from his notes. He thought aloud and wished to carry his hearers away, but he did not want to be taken at his word.[55] Everyone will agree with me that such practices and such purposefully designed speeches give no clear indication at all of Hitler’s true views at the time. In addition, there is this to be said about all these documents in general:
Following his address of 23 May 1939—known as the “Little Schmundt”—Raeder had an interview with Hitler alone in which he called Hitler’s attention to contradictions in his address and also to the contradiction arising out of Hitler’s assurance to Raeder personally that he, Hitler, would under all circumstances settle the case of Poland equally peacefully. Hitler thereupon put Raeder’s mind completely at rest and told him that he had a firm hold on matters, politically. This was stated by the witness Schulte-Mönting[56] who added that Hitler allayed Raeder’s misgivings about the contradiction between the speech of 23 May 1939 and his other statements by telling him that for him, Hitler, there were three grades of keeping matters secret: Firstly, by private conversation with one partner; secondly, the thoughts he kept to himself; and thirdly, some ideas which he himself did not fully think out.
I believe this way of thinking as explained by Hitler himself illustrates most strikingly how little reliance could ultimately be placed on statements which he made before a small or a large group of people. It seems to me quite plausible, therefore, that Raeder based his deliberations neither on Hitler’s general speeches nor on the address before the commanders which was discussed here, but went solely by what Hitler told him in private discussion. In this respect, the statements of Sehulte-Mönting, Böhm, and Albrecht[57] all prove that as late as 1939 Hitler was still, in private conversation, repeatedly giving Raeder the explicit assurance that there would be no war; and he did this whenever for some reason or other Raeder was particularly anxious and drew Hitler’s attention to the dangers ahead.
In conclusion, therefore, I believe it may be said that the so-called key documents are extremely interesting in assessing Hitler from a psychological point of view, but that their evidential value as regards Hitler’s real intentions is very limited and slight. One cannot reproach Raeder for not letting himself be guided by the tendentious and deliberate speeches which Hitler made before his commanders on the spur of the moment, and preferring to rely on assurances which Hitler himself gave him and on the fact that until the summer of 1939, until the very outbreak of the war, these assurances were in perfect accord with the facts and with Hitler’s actions, that is, with the four naval agreements and the Munich Pact.
It is understandable that Raeder did not permit this basic attitude to be shaken by these speeches to the commanders-in-chief, though they were undoubtedly of a questionable nature, but that he held steadfastly to his belief that Hitler would not deceive him. The fact that we now subsequently realize that Hitler did after all deceive Raeder in his private conversations with him, and also by his special second and third grade of secrecy, does not indicate any guilt on Raeder’s part, but solely on Hitler’s. The vast amount of material in this connection does not indicate that in 1938 and 1939 Raeder planned a war of aggression in violation of international law, but reveals only that Hitler planned a war of aggression in violation of international law.
This completes my general treatment of the key documents and I now ask the Tribunal’s permission to add a few points on each individual document, since the Prosecution again and again stressed these documents as the basis for the charge of conspiracy.
Hossbach Document, discussion of 5 November 1937 in the Reich Chancellery:
The crucial passages of this document are obvious, and the Prosecution has cited them often enough. But in dealing with this document it should be taken into consideration that both Göring and Raeder stated here that Hitler announced in advance his intention of following a certain trend or purpose in his speech. Hitler was dissatisfied with the measures taken by Field Marshal Von Blomberg, and especially by Generaloberst Von Fritsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and felt that progress in the rearmament of the Army was too slow. Hitler therefore intentionally exaggerated, and since this was known only to Göring and Raeder, it is natural that the impression which the speech made on Neurath, who had no idea of this intention, was entirely different and considerably alarming.
It is interesting to note that apparently Hitler did not fully get what he wanted, because the last two paragraphs of the document indicate that to some extent Blomberg and Fritsch saw through Hitler’s scheme, and that his exaggerations did not deceive them. Though Hitler did not permit discussion on such occasions, Blomberg and Fritsch intervened in this instance and pointed to the need for preventing Britain and France from becoming Germany’s adversaries. Blomberg explained the reasons for his protest, and in the penultimate paragraph of the document Fritsch showed unmistakably that he was skeptical of Hitler’s words by remarking that under such circumstances he would not be able to take his planned vacation abroad scheduled to begin on 10 November. It is also significant that Hitler thereupon came round and, in contrast to his earlier statements, said that he was convinced of Britain’s nonparticipation, and that consequently he did not believe in military action against Germany on the part of France either.
That Hitler’s ideas in this document are quite impossible is also evident from the fact that he based his statements on a truly fantastic notion, namely, an Italian-French-British war or, equally fantastic, a civil war in France. In contradictory terms Hitler spoke in his speech on the one hand of an application of force, on the other of an attack by Poland against East Prussia, which could only refer to a defensive aspect—and in regard to Czechoslovakia he said that in all probability Britain and France had already privately written that country off. This reference is an indication that Hitler was prepared to negotiate, which was borne out by actual developments. He said that Austria and Czechoslovakia would be brought to their knees, but nevertheless in the following year, in March and September 1938, he carried on negotiations and settled both questions without war. This fact in particular seems significant, because it proved to Raeder in the course of later events that he was right in not ascribing undue importance to Hitler’s strong words of 5 November 1937, for in spite of these words Hitler in reality did carry on negotiations at a later date.
During his interrogation Raeder also rightly pointed out that the second extensive naval pact had been concluded with England only a few months earlier and that as a result he could not seriously expect Hitler to abandon a line of policy which he himself had initiated.
And finally, there is this point: The whole document deals with political questions on the one hand, and with possible land operations on the other. Raeder had nothing to do with political questions because he is no politician, while Neurath as Foreign Minister naturally had reason to give Hitler’s political attitude more consideration. It is also significant that Neurath testified here that as a result of this speech he too asked Hitler about his personal attitude, and that he refused to remain Foreign Minister because Hitler told him that those were his true intentions. To me it seems typical of Hitler to tell one person, Neurath, that perhaps he would go to war, and to tell another, Raeder, that he would under no circumstances wage war. This divergence in explaining his position was obviously caused by the fact that at that time he no longer relished Neurath as Foreign Minister, because he realized that with regard to the foreign policy which he proposed to follow, Neurath would not be as submissive as the successor whom he had in view, Ribbentrop. On the other hand at that time he still wanted at all events to retain Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. This is another instance of how Hitler’s actions were determined by a certain ultimate purpose, and how he always and without the slightest inhibition followed the principle that the end justifies the means.
Hitler’s speech of 23 May 1939, the so-called “Little Schmundt,” USA-27: Here again Hitler expressed himself in a highly questionable fashion; he speaks of a program of attack, of the preparation of a systematic attack, and of the decision to attack Poland. I fail in no way to recognize that there is good reason for the Prosecution to consider this document as particularly good evidence. I believe, however, that taking into account the numerous aspects which I pointed out, the value of this document as evidence in the case of Raeder is very much smaller than the Prosecution maintains, and very much smaller than a first glance at the wording of the Schmundt version might warrant. Schmundt obviously made an endeavor to formulate Hitler’s contradictory, fantastic, and incongruous statements in a clear way in accordance with his own precise military manner of thinking. This gives the document a clarity which does not correspond to Hitler’s speech. We do not know when Schmundt prepared the document, and he neglected to show the record he had made to the other participants.
During his examination and cross-examination the witness Admiral Schulte-Mönting pointed to the contradictions in this particular document, which I need not repeat here. Paramount importance must however be given to the contradiction between these words and the words which Hitler at the same time again and again used in conversation with Raeder, and which always followed the same line, namely, that he did not intend to wage war and that he would not make excessive demands.
Raeder was shocked by this speech, and was only calmed by the private conversation which he had with Hitler directly after the speech, when Hitler assured him that he would under all circumstances settle the case of Poland in a peaceful manner, too. Raeder believed him, and he had every right to assume that Hitler was telling him the truth in answer to his very precise question. I draw attention to the very exact statements made on this document during the examination of Raeder and the examination of the witness Schulte-Mönting.[58] I especially refer to the statement of Schulte-Mönting that Hitler used the comparison that nobody would go to court if he had received 99 pfennig when claiming one mark, and added that in the same way he had obtained what he had demanded politically, and that consequently there could be no question of war on account of this last political question, that of the Polish Corridor. That Raeder himself was absolutely opposed to a war of aggression, and that in this respect he relied on Hitler’s assurances, is proved by the statements of all witnesses, not least by the deposition by Dönitz that on the occasion of the U-boat maneuvers in the Baltic Sea in July 1939 Raeder, expressed his firm conviction that there would be no war. Raeder, furthermore, knew that the Navy was absolutely unfit for a war at sea against Britain; he had explained that to Hitler again and again. But he was confident that in the Polish question Hitler, as he had said, would again negotiate; the testimony of the witness Dahlerus shows that negotiations did in fact take place, and they were even successful at the beginning. The reason why nevertheless the attempt finally failed and the second World War began, was explained in detail by the witness Dahlerus who illustrated the terrible tragedy of this event.
It seems to me important that up to August 1939 not only the witness Dahlerus, but also Chamberlain still believed in Hitler’s good will. It must be said again therefore that one cannot expect Raeder as a soldier to have been more farseeing and to have recognized Hitler’s dangerous ideas, if men like Chamberlain, Halifax, and Dahlerus did not even at that time see through Hitler.
I have myself referred to the seriousness and the incriminating character of this document, but I ask the Tribunal to take into consideration that the incriminating material in this document, just as in the document of 5 November 1937, is of a political nature. As defense counsel for the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, I have to judge the facts not from a political but from a military point of view. From a military point of view, however, it is absolutely impossible to follow the arguments of the Prosecution, because military leaders are not authorized to take part in decisions about war and peace, but merely obliged to carry out such military preparations as the political leaders consider necessary. In no country of the world does an admiral have to give his opinion on whether some future war, for which he has to make plans, will be a war of aggression or a defensive war. In no country of the world does the decision of the question whether war will be waged rest with the military, but on the contrary it is always left to the political leaders, or to the legislative bodies.
Accordingly, Article 45 of the German Constitution stipulates that the Reich President shall represent the Reich in international relations and continues: “The declaration of war and the conclusion of peace are decreed by a law of the State.”
Therefore, the question whether a war was to be waged against Poland rested with the Reichstag, not with the military leaders. Professor Jahrreiss has already explained that in view of the constitutional development of the National Socialist State this decision rested in the last analysis exclusively with Hitler. For the case of Raeder it is of no consequence whether Hitler could be regarded as constitutionally authorized to start a war on his own decision, as he actually did in the autumn of 1939. The decisive factor is only that at all events the military leaders were not authorized, either in practice or constitutionally, to participate in this decision. The Prosecution cannot possibly maintain that every act of military planning on the part of Germany was a crime; for the military leaders, who merely receive the order to work out a certain plan, are neither authorized nor obliged to determine whether the execution of their plans will later on lead to an aggressive or a defensive war. It is well known that the Allied military leaders rightly hold the same view. No admiral or general of the Allied armed forces would understand a charge being brought against him on the basis of the military plans which were made on the Allied side, too, a long time before the war. I do not have to elaborate this point; I believe it will suffice if I refer to Document Number Ribbentrop-221. This is a secret document, which, according to the title, deals with the “Second Phase of the Anglo-French General Staff Conferences.” This document shows that exact plans, regarding the Allied forces, were worked out for a war embracing many countries; plans which, according to this document, include a war in Europe and a war in the Far East. The document expressly says that the French and British commanders-in-chief in the Far East—I quote—“worked out a joint plan of operations,” and it expressly speaks about the importance of possessing Belgian and Dutch territories as a starting point for the offensive against Germany. The decisive point about this parallel military case seems to me to be the fact that this document bears a date from the same month as Hitler’s much-discussed speech to his commanders-in-chief, namely, May 1939. The document bears the caption: “London, 5 May 1939.”
I now come to the address of Hitler to the commanders-ih-chief on 22 August 1939 at the Obersalzberg.[59] Regarding the evidential value of Documents 1014-PS and 798-PS submitted by the Prosecution, I should like first of all for the sake of brevity to refer to the statements which I made to this Tribunal in connection with the formal application to withdraw Document 1014-PS. Although the Tribunal denied this application, I still maintain that the evidential value attached to these documents, and particularly to Document 1014-PS, is infinitesimal. The American Prosecution, in presenting these documents pointed out at the time[60] that the Tribunal should take into consideration any more accurate version of this speech which the Defense might be able to submit. I therefore submitted Exhibit Number Raeder-27,[61] the version of the witness Generaladmiral Böhm, and I believe that when I submitted it, I showed convincingly that it is in fact a more accurate version than those provided by the Prosecution documents. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe then put in two documents where Böhm’s version is very scrupulously compared with the versions 1014-PS and 798-PS; in this way he considerably facilitated the comparison of these documents for all of us. So as on my part to assist the Tribunal and the Prosecution in making this comparison, I requested Generaladmiral Böhm in the meantime to compare these versions himself and in doing so to use the compilation of the British Prosecution which I mentioned just now. The result is contained in Böhm’s affidavit.
When surveying all this material, it becomes clear that Document 1014-PS is extremely incomplete and inaccurate, all the more so as, apart from its formal deficiencies, it covers only one and a half pages, and for this reason alone cannot be an adequate reproduction of a 2½ hour speech.
Document 798-PS is no doubt more satisfactory, but it also contains numerous errors, as Böhm’s affidavit shows. Not every sentence may be of importance, but the point is that some of the most important passages from which a charge against the commanders-in-chief might at best be deduced were actually, according to Böhm’s sworn statement, never spoken at all. According to Böhm’s affidavit, it is not true that Hitler said that he had decided as early as the spring of 1939 to attack the West first and the East later. Nor did he use the words: “I only fear lest at the last moment some swine will come to me with an offer of mediation; our political aims reach further.” And, most important of all, the following words were never used either: “Annihilation of Poland ranks foremost; the aim is to liquidate the living forces, not to reach a certain line;” Hitler only spoke of the breaking-up of the military forces.
These differences in individual words and phrases are very important, because they concern the sharp phrases to which the Prosecution has frequently drawn attention, and from which the intention of a war violating international law, and even the intention to murder civilians, can be derived. If these phrases had been spoken, one could justly accuse the commanders-in-chief who were present of having waged the war and carried out Hitler’s orders in spite of the criminal end in view. However, if these sentences were not used but, as Böhm testified under oath, other sentences referring merely to military aims, then the Prosecution cannot reproach any of the commanders-in-chief present for having remained at their posts. No one can in earnest demand of an admiral that he should resign his post a few days before the outbreak of a war, and thus shake the military power of his own country. I am quite aware of the fact that the most serious reproaches can be made against Hitler’s attitude following the time of the Munich Agreement until the outbreak of the war in Poland, although, and this is decisive for the Raeder case, not against the military command, but exclusively against the political leader. We know that Hitler himself realized this and for that reason evaded all responsibility by his suicide without, either during or at the end of the war, showing the slightest regard for the life and the welfare of the German people.
I come now to Hitler’s speech to the commanders-in-chief on 23 November 1939.[62] I shall deal with it quite briefly, and if you will permit me, Mr. President, I should like to do this now before the Tribunal adjourns, because the subject which follows is rather longer.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I think I can be relatively brief with regard to this last key document, which again fails to give the date on which the record was made and lacks a signature; we do not therefore know the author of this document. It is not an official transcript; and it again pursues a special objective. Early in November 1939 a serious difference had arisen between Hitler and the generals because Hitler wanted to start the offensive in the West immediately, whereas the generals were of a different opinion, and apparently hoped that the outbreak of a real World War might still be avoided. Hitler’s dissatisfaction and annoyance with his generals are clearly evident. In consequence, by repeating, as usual, his past deeds, he strives to show what he has accomplished, and also to show that he has always been right. It is an absolutely typical Hitler speech reminiscent of his public speeches, in which he also loved to boast and to glorify himself as a genius. Hitler, after all, belonged to those people who always believe themselves to be right, and avail themselves of every opportunity to prove it. He also took the opportunity of using threats in order to nip in the bud the resistance in high military circles which had become known to him, thus strengthening his dictatorship. It is absolutely typical when he says in this document, literally: “I shall not shrink from anything and I shall destroy anyone who is against me.” This was recognized by foreign military leaders, too. I draw attention for example to General Marshall’s official report,[63] which speaks about the “lack of far-reaching military planning” and about the fact that the German High Command did not have an all-embracing strategic plan, and points out in this connection that “Hitler’s prestige reached the stage at which one no longer dared to oppose his views.”
Finally it remains to be mentioned that this last key document dates from a time when the war was already in progress, and that the military leaders cannot be blamed if in all their plannings during a war they strove to attain victory. The Allies too were planning at the same time. I refer to Documents Number Ribbentrop-222 and Exhibit Number Raeder-34; the former dates from 1 September 1939 and is a secret letter from General Gamelin to Daladier containing the basic idea that it was necessary to invade Belgium in order to wage the war outside the French frontier. The other document also deals with military plans; it is a secret letter from General Gamelin to General Lelong, Military Attaché to the French Embassy in London, dated 13 November 1939, and also concerns the operation which the Allies had planned in Holland and Belgium.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 17 July 1946 at 1000 hours.]
NOTES
-----
[12] Vanselow, Völkerrecht, Berlin, 1931, Figure 226 i.
[13] In 1935, the American Senator Ney demanded the prohibition of operational areas. In 1937 Charles Warren made a request for discussion of the subject in the Society for International Law. And also the afore-mentioned draft of a convention by American jurists of 1939 deals with this question.
[14] Théories stratégiques IV, Page 323: “Même en zone de guerre n’aura-t-on pas contre sol le damné article 22 du traité de Londres?”
[15] Bauer, Das U-Boot, 1931, Report on it by Captain G. P. Thomson, R.N. in The Journal of the Royal News Instruction 1931, Page 511.
[16] Sperrgebiete im Seekrieg, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Volume VIII, 1938, Page 671.
[17] French Yellow Book, La Conférence de Washington, Page 88.
[18] Report of 8 October 1940, Page 3: “One thing is certain, namely, apart from vessels in declared war zones, destruction of a merchant vessel is envisaged if even only after capture.”
[19] Commander Russel Grenfell, R.N., The Art of the Admiral, London, 1937, Page 80. “The neutral merchants, however, are not likely to relinquish a highly lucrative trade without a struggle and thus there arises the acrimonious wrangle between belligerents and neutrals which is a regular feature of maritime warfare, the rules for which are dignified by the name of international law.”
[20] De jure pacis ac belli, Book III, Chapter I, Paragraph 6, citation Augustin: “One may conceal the truth wisely,” and Cicero: “Dissimulation is absolutely necessary and unavoidable, especially for those to whom the care of the state is entrusted.”
[21] Admiral King, Report of the American High Command.
[22] John Chamberlain, “The man who pushed Pearl Harbor,” Life, of 1 April 1946.
[23] Manual for Courts Martial U.S. Army, 1928, Page 10.
[24] In this connection I mention the extensive literature dealing with the right of self-preservation in cases of urgent necessity. The surprise attack on the Danish fleet, 1807, as well as the hunger blockade against Germany are based on that.
[25] Freiherr von Freytagh-Loringhoven, Völkerrechtliche Neubildungen im Kriege, Hamburg 1941, Page 5.
[26] Quoted from “Neue Auslese,” 1946, Number 1, Page 16.
[27] Not always acknowledged by English authors. Compare for instance A. C. Bell, A History of the Blockade of Germany, et cetera, London, 1937, Page 213: “The assertion that civilians and the Armed Forces have been treated only since 1914 as a uniform belligerent body is one of the most ridiculous ever made.”
[28] Grenfell, The Art of the Admiral, London, 1937, Page 45: “By the early part of 1918, the civil population of Germany was in a state of semistarvation, and it has been calculated that, as a result of the blockade, over 700,000 Germans died of malnutrition.”
[29] See also protest of the Soviet Government to the British Ambassador of 25 October 1939, printed as Number 44 in “Urkunden zum Seekriegsrecht,” Volume I, edited by the High Command of the Navy.
[30] See for instance Wheaton’s International Law, 5th Edition, Page 727, Liddell Hart, “The Revolution in Naval Warfare,” Observer of 14 April 1946.
[31] Oppenheim, Die Stellung des Kauffahrteischiffes im Seekrieg, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 1914, Page 165.
[32] Concerning the execution of these orders in the first World War, Vidaud, in “Les navires de commerce armés pour leur défense,” Paris, 1936, Pages 63-64 says as follows: “Les équipages eux-mêmes sont militarisés et soumis à la discipline militaire, ainsi que le capitaine Alfred Sheldon, appartenant à la réserve de la Marine Royale, a été condamné, le 8 Septembre 1915 par le conseil de guerre de Devonport, pour n’avoir pas attaqué un sousmarin allemand.”
[33] Compare for instance “Submarines in the Atomic Era” in the New York Herald Tribune, European Edition, of 27 April 1946, Page 2.
[34] A. C. Bell, Historical Section, Committee of Imperial Defense, A History of the Blockade of Germany and of the Countries Associated with Her in the Great War 1914-1918—The introduction contains the remark: “This history is confidential and for official use only.” (Quoted from the German edition by Böhmert, Die englische Hunger-blockade im Weltkrieg, Essen, 1943).
[35] Hugo Grotius, De jure pacis ac belli, Book II, Chapter XXI.
[36] Hugo Grotius, De jure pacis ac belli, Book II, Chapter XXVI. Paragraph 4, “He can believe that in a matter of doubt he must obey his superior.”
[37] See Wheaton’s International Law, 5th Edition, Pages 543-5.
[38] Claud Mullins, The Leipzig Trials, London, 1921.
[39] See Document Book 1, Documents Numbers Raeder-3 and 4, Page 9 et sequentes.
[40] Especially the following documents are concerned:
C-140, USA-51 of 25 October 1933; C-159, USA-54 of 2 March 1936; C-194, USA-55 of 6 March 1936; C-175, USA-69 of 24 June 1937; 388-PS, USA-26 of 20 May 1938; C-136, USA-104 of 21 October 1938.
[41] Record of 4 December 1945, Volume III, Page 95.
[42] Record of 4 December 1945, Volume III, Page 110.
[43] Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938.
[44] For instance under Balfour and Churchill.
[45] Document Book 1, Document Number Raeder-4, Page 12.
[46] Document Book 6, Document Number Raeder-121, Page 524.
[47] Refer also to Ronneberger Affidavit, Document Book 6, Document Number Raeder-126, Page 543 et sequentes which point to the same subjects, especially to the strong Christian belief of Raeder and to the pronounced opposition to Christianity and Church by Bormann.
[48] Second Lohmann Affidavit, Document Number Raeder-8, Document Book 1, Page 41.
[49] Refer to Documents 386-PS, USA-25; L-79, USA-27; 798-PS, USA-29; 1014-PS, USA-30; 769-PS, USA-23.
[50] Document Book 2, Document Number Raeder-27, Page 144 et sequentes.
[51] See Hossbach Document.
[52] Record of 19 March 1946, Volume IX, Page 463.
[53] Record of 19 March 1946, Volume IX, page 481.
[54] Record of 16 May 1946, Volume XIV, Page 35.
[55] Record of 22 May 1946, Volume XIV, Page 314.
[56] Record of 22 May 1946, Volume XIV, Page 306.
[57] Record of 22 May 1946, Volume XIV, Page 306.
Affidavit Generaladmiral Böhm, Document Number Raeder-129.
Affidavit Generaladmiral Albrecht, Document Number Raeder-128.
[58] Record of 22 May 1946, Volume XIV, Page 306.
[59] See Documents Numbers 798-PS, USA-29; 1014-PS, USA-30, Document Book 2. Page 144, Document Number Raeder-77.
[60] Record of 26 November 1945, Volume II, Page 292.
[61] Raeder Document Book 2, Page 144.
[62] See Document 789-PS, USA-93.
[63] Document Book 2, Pages 116-117, Document Number Raeder-19.
ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTIETH DAY Wednesday, 17 July 1946
Morning Session
DR. SIEMERS: Yesterday I dealt with the events before the outbreak of war. Now I shall turn to the events which occurred during the war.
I think I have shown that the Navy had an extremely insignificant part in all events prior to the war, and that the transactions in which the Navy was authoritatively involved were carried out on a peace basis, namely, on the basis of the naval agreements with England. When the war nevertheless ultimately broke out, involving England, too, on 3 September 1939, a regrettable incident occurred on the very first day, through the sinking of the Athenia, from which the Prosecution endeavors by the use of exaggerated terms to construe a grave moral charge against Raeder, not so much indeed on the basis of its actual military aspect, that is, the sinking, which my colleague Dr. Kranzbühler has already discussed, as on account of an article published in the Völkischer Beobachter of 23 October 1939 entitled “Churchill Sinks the Athenia.” Were the facts as brought forward by the Prosecution correct, the moral accusations against Raeder and the Navy would be justified, even though, of course, an untruthful newspaper article is no crime. Consequently the accusation brought by the Prosecution is made for the sole purpose of vilifying Raeder’s personality in contrast to the lifelong esteem which Raeder has enjoyed in the whole world, in fact especially abroad.
I think the evidence has sufficiently revealed that the statement of facts presented by the Prosecution is not correct. It is quite plausible that at first sight the Prosecution should have believed that the odious article in the Völkischer Beobachter could not have appeared without the knowledge of the naval command. The Prosecution believed this because, in view of their conspiracy theory, they are inclined to assume in every case that there was constant discussion and close co-operation among the various departments. The course of the Trial has shown that this assumption is far from correct. The contrast between the various departments, and especially between the Navy and the Propaganda Ministry, or Raeder and Goebbels, was far greater than the contrast between departments in a democratic state. In addition, the testimonies of the witnesses Raeder, Schulte-Mönting, Weizsäcker, and Fritzsche, together with the documents, establish the following facts absolutely clearly:
(1) In early September 1939 Raeder himself firmly believed that the sinking was not to be imputed to a German U-boat, because it was revealed by the reports that the nearest German U-boat was at least 75 nautical miles away from the spot of the sinking.
(2) Accordingly Raeder, as stated in Document D-912, published a bona fide denial and gave statements to this effect to the American Naval Attaché and to the German State Secretary, Baron Weizsäcker.
(3) Raeder did not realize the mistake until after the return of U-30 on 27 September 1939.
(4) Hitler insisted, as evidenced by witnesses Raeder and Schulte-Mönting, that no rectification of the facts should be made to any other German or foreign department, that is to say, that the sinking should not be acknowledged as caused by a German U-boat. He apparently let himself be guided by political considerations and wished to avoid complications with the U.S.A. over an incident which could not be remedied, however regrettable it was. Hitler’s order was so strict that the few officers who were informed were put under oath to keep it secret.