Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 05 (part 2 of 4)
A question by an officer regarding a newspaper article which stated that the Allied countries were building more than a million tons of merchant shipping every month, Admiral Dönitz answered by saying that he doubted the credibility of this estimate and said it was based on an announcement by President Roosevelt. He then spoke briefly about President Roosevelt, about the American production program and armament potential, and added that the Allies had great difficulty in manning their ships. Allied seamen considered the route across the Atlantic dangerous, because German U-boats were sinking Allied ships in great numbers. Many of the Allied seamen had been torpedoed more than once; these facts spread and make the seamen reluctant to go to sea again. Some of them were even trying to shirk a crossing of the Atlantic, so that the Allied authorities were compelled, if it became necessary, to retain the men aboard by force of law. Such indications were favorable to the Germans. From the facts that, firstly, the Allies were building very many new merchant ships and, secondly, that the Allies were having considerable difficulties in manning these newly built ships, Admiral Dönitz concluded that the question of personnel was a very grave matter for the Allies. The losses in men affected the Allies especially seriously, because they had few reserves and also because. . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: I don’t want to interrupt you, but did he say anything about rescues at all? You have told us about the Allied losses and how serious they were.
HEISIG: Yes, he mentioned rescues, but I would like to speak about that later.
Grossadmiral Dönitz said that the losses of the Allies affected them very seriously, because they had no reserves and also because the training of new seamen required a very long time. He could not, therefore, understand it, if submarines were still. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, just a moment. I don’t think we want to hear the whole of Admiral Dönitz’ speech. We want to hear the material part of it.
COL. PHILLIMORE [to the witness.]: Now, you have dealt with the question of losses. Will you come to the crucial part of the speech, at the end, and deal with that? What did the Grand Admiral go on to say?
DR. THOMA: The testimony of the witness does not concern me directly, but I have an objection to raise. According to German law and according to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, the witness must say everything he knows about a matter. If he is asked about a speech of Grossadmiral Dönitz, he must not, at least according to German law, relate only those parts which, in the opinion of the Prosecution, are unfavorable to the defendant. I believe this principle should also apply in these proceedings, whenever a witness is questioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not bound by German law. I have already said that the Tribunal does not desire to hear from this witness all of Admiral Dönitz’ speech.
It will be open to any of the counsel for the defendants to cross-examine this witness. Your intervention is therefore entirely unnecessary.
COL. PHILLIMORE [to the witness.]: Now, will you deal with the crucial parts of the Grand Admiral’s speech?
HEISIG: Grossadmiral Dönitz continued, saying approximately that under the circumstances he could not understand how German U-boats could still rescue the crews of the merchant ships they had sunk, thereby endangering their own ships. By doing that, they were working for the enemy, since these rescued crews would sail again on new ships.
The stage had now been reached in which total war had to be waged also at sea. The crews of ships, like the ships themselves, were a target for the U-boats; thus it would be impossible for the Allies to man their newly-built ships; and moreover it could then be expected that in America and the other Allied countries a strike would break out, for already a part of the seamen did not want to go back to sea.
These results could be expected if our tactics would render the war at sea more vigorous. If any of us consider this war or these tactics harsh we should also remember that our wives and our families at home are being bombed.
That, in its main points, was the speech of Grossadmiral Dönitz.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, about how many officers were present and heard that speech?
HEISIG: I have no experience in fixing the number of people present at large indoor gatherings. I can only give you a rough estimate: approximately 120 officers.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States prosecutor wish to ask any question?
[There was no response.]
The Soviet prosecutor?
[There was no response.]
The French prosecutor?
[There was no response.]
Now, any of the defendants’ counsel may cross-examine the witness.
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I represent Grossadmiral Dönitz.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will understand that what I said to Dr. Thoma was not intended to interfere with your cross-examination; it was only intended to save time. The Tribunal did not desire to hear unimportant passages in the Defendant Dönitz’ speech. Therefore, they did not want to hear them from this witness. However, you are at liberty to ask any questions that you please.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Oberleutnant Heisig, did you yourself take part in an action against the enemy?
HEISIG: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: On which boat were you, and who was your commander?
HEISIG: I was on U-877, under Kapitänleutnant Finkeisen.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Please repeat your answer.
HEISIG: I served on U-877 in an action against the enemy, and the commander was Kapitänleutnant Finkeisen.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you successful in action against enemy ships?
HEISIG: The boat was sunk on its way to the area of operations.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Before you were able to sink an enemy ship?
HEISIG: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How was the boat sunk?
HEISIG: By depth charges. Two Canadian frigates sighted the U-boat and destroyed it through depth charges.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Your testimony today differs in an essential point from the statement you made on the 27th of November. How did you come to make this statement of the 27th of November?
HEISIG: I made the statement in defense of my comrades who were put before a military court in Hamburg and sentenced to death for the murder of shipwrecked sailors.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Your statement begins by saying that you had received reports that German sailors were being accused of murder and that you therefore considered it your duty to depose the following affidavit.
What reports had you received, and when?
HEISIG: At the beginning of the Hamburg proceedings against Kapitänleutnant Eck and his officers I was a prisoner of war in Great Britain; there I heard on the radio and read in newspapers that these officers were to be tried. Since I knew one of the accused officers, Leutnant August Hoffmann, very well and had spoken with him on this subject on two or three occasions, I considered it to be my duty to come to his assistance and to his defense.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you not told in your interrogation on the 27th of November that the death sentence against Eck and Hoffmann had already been confirmed?
HEISIG: That—I don’t remember whether it was on the 27th of November, I only remember that I was told here that the death sentence had been carried out. I no longer remember the date, as I was interrogated several times.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Since you have knowledge of the circumstances, do you maintain that the speech of Grossadmiral Dönitz mentioned in any way that fire should be opened on shipwrecked sailors?
HEISIG: No; we gathered that from his words; and from his reference to the bombing war, we gathered that total war had now to be waged against ships and crews. That is what we understood, and I talked about it to my comrades on the way back to the Hansa.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Speak slowly, please.
HEISIG: We were convinced that Admiral Dönitz meant that. He did not express it clearly.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you speak about this point with any of your superiors at the school?
HEISIG: I left the school on the same day. But I can remember that one of my superiors, whose name to my regret I do not recall—nor do I recall the occasion—once spoke to us about this subject and advised us that, if possible, only officers should be on the bridge ready to annihilate shipwrecked sailors, should the possibility arise, or should it be necessary.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: One of your superiors told you that?
HEISIG: Yes, but I cannot remember in which connection and where. I received a lot of advice from my superiors on many things.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was it at the school?
HEISIG: No; I left the U-boat Training Division on the same day.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you instructed at the school in the standing orders of war?
HEISIG: Yes; we were instructed in the standing orders of war.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did these standing orders mention anywhere that shipwrecked sailors were to be fired on or their rescue apparatus destroyed?
HEISIG: The standing orders did not mention that. But—I think one can assume this from an innuendo of Captain Rollmann, who was then officers’ company commander—a short time before that, some teletype message had arrived containing an order prohibiting rescue measures and demanding that sea warfare should be fought with more radical, more drastic means.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you think that the prohibition of rescue measures is identical with the shooting of shipwrecked sailors?
HEISIG: We came to this. . .
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Please, answer my question. Do you think these two things are identical?
HEISIG: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, I am afraid the Tribunal will have to adjourn now; and I have an announcement to make. You may cross-examine tomorrow.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: As I have already said, the Tribunal will not sit in open session this afternoon.
The announcement that I have to make is in connection with the organizations which are alleged to be criminal under Article 9 of the Charter, and this is the announcement:
The Tribunal has been giving careful consideration to the duty imposed upon it by Article 9 of the Charter.
It is difficult to determine the manner in which the representatives of the named organizations shall be permitted to appear in accordance with Article 9, without considering the exact nature of the case presented for the Prosecution.
For this reason, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, at this stage of the Trial, with many thousands of applications being made, the case for the Prosecution should be defined with more precision than appears in the Indictment.
In these circumstances, therefore, it is the intention of the Tribunal to invite argument from the Counsel for the Prosecution and for the Defense, at the conclusion of the case by all prosecutors, in regard to the questions hereinafter set forth.
The questions which need further consideration are as follows:
1. The Charter does not define a criminal organization, and it is therefore necessary to examine the tests of criminality which must be applied and to decide the nature of the evidence to be admitted.
Many of the applicants who have made requests to be heard assert that they were conscripted into the organization, or that they were ignorant of the criminal purposes of the organization, or that they were innocent of any unlawful acts.
It will be necessary to decide whether such evidence ought to be received to rebut the charge of the criminal character of the organization, or whether such evidence ought more properly to be received at the subsequent trials under Article 10 of the Charter, when the organizations have been declared criminal, if the Tribunal so decides.
2. The question of the precise time within which the named organization is said to have been criminal is vital to the decision of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal desires to know from the Prosecution at this stage whether it is intended to adhere to the limits of time set out in the Indictment.
3. The Tribunal desires to know whether, in the light of the evidence, any class of persons included within the named organizations should be excluded from the scope of the declaration, and which, if any.
In the indictment of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Prosecution have reserved the right to request that Politische Leiter of subordinate grades or ranks, or of other types or classes, be exempted from further proceedings without prejudice to other proceedings or actions against them.
Is it the intention of the Prosecution to make any such request? If so, it should be done now.
4. The Tribunal would be glad if the Prosecution would also:
(a) Summarize in respect of each named organization the elements which in their opinion justify the charge of being a criminal organization.
(b) Indicate what acts on the part of individual defendants, indicted in this Trial—in the sense used in Article 9 of the Charter—justify declaring the groups or organizations of which they are members to be criminal organizations.
(c) Submit in writing a summary of proposed findings of fact as to each organization, with respect to which a finding of criminality is asked.
The Tribunal hopes it is not necessary to say to the Prosecution that it is not seeking to interfere with the undoubted right of the Prosecution to present its case in its own way, in the light of the full knowledge of all the documents and facts which it possesses, but the duty of the Tribunal under Article 9 of the Charter makes it essential at this time to have the case clearly and precisely defined.
This announcement will be communicated to the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense Counsel in writing.
The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 15 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THIRTY-FOURTH DAY Tuesday, 15 January 1946
Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Counsel for the Defense wish to cross-examine this witness? [Referring to Peter Josef Heisig, interrogated the previous day.]
[There was no response.]
Then, Colonel Phillimore, do you wish to re-examine?
COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord; I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.
[The witness left the stand.]
COL. PHILLIMORE: Before I call my second witness, Karl Heinz Moehle, an affidavit by him is the next document in the document book.
[Karl Heinz Moehle took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
KARL HEINZ MOEHLE (Witness): Karl Heinz Moehle.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”
[The witness repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You can sit down, if you wish.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Karl Heinz Moehle, you held the rank of Korvettenkapitän in the German Navy?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You served in the German Navy since 1930?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Will you tell the Tribunal what decorations you hold?
MOEHLE: I received the Submarine War Medal; the Iron Cross, Second Class; the Iron Cross, First Class; the Knight’s Cross; the War Service Cross, First and Second Class; and the German Cross in Silver.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you swear to an affidavit covering a statement you have made on the 21st of July 1945?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; I made such a statement.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I show you that document and ask you to say whether that is your affidavit.
[Document 382-PS was submitted to the witness.]
MOEHLE: Yes, this is my affidavit.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I put that document in, which is 382-PS, and it becomes Exhibit GB-202.
[Turning to the witness.] In the autumn of 1942 were you head of the 5th U-boat Flotilla?
MOEHLE: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Were you stationed at Kiel?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
COL. PHILLIMORE: How long did you hold that appointment altogether?
MOEHLE: For 4 years.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Was that from June 1941 until the capitulation?
MOEHLE: That is correct.
COL. PHILLIMORE: What were your duties as commander of that flotilla?
MOEHLE: My main duties as Flotilla Commander consisted of the fitting out of U-boats which were to be sent to the front from home bases, and giving them the orders of the U-boat command.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Had you any special responsibility to U-boat commanders in respect of the orders?
MOEHLE? Yes, Sir; it was my responsibility to see that outgoing U-boats were provided with the new orders of the U-boat command.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Had you any responsibility in explaining the orders?
MOEHLE: The orders of the U-boat command were always very clear and unambiguous. If there were any ambiguities I used to have these ambiguities cleared up myself at the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief of U-boats.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you personally see commanders before they went out on patrol?
MOEHLE: Yes, each commander before leaving for an operational cruise went through a so-called commander’s briefing.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I will go back, if I may, for two or three questions. Did you personally see commanders before they went out on patrol?
MOEHLE: Yes, each commander before sailing on a mission went through a briefing session at my office.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And what did that briefing session consist of? Were there any questions on the orders?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir, all experiences of previous patrols and any questions of the ship’s equipment were discussed with the commander at that session. Also, the commanders had an opportunity at the briefing to clarify any uncertainties, which might have existed in their minds, by asking questions.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Apart from your briefing sessions, did commanders also go to Admiral Dönitz’ headquarters for briefing?
MOEHLE: As far as that was possible it was done, especially from the moment when the Commander-in-Chief of U-boats had transferred his office from Paris to Berlin.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember an order in the autumn of 1942 dealing with lifeboats?
MOEHLE: Yes. In September 1942 I received a wireless message addressed to all commanders at sea, and it dealt with that question.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I show you this document.
My Lord, that is the exhibit I have already put in as GB-199.
THE PRESIDENT: What other number has it?
COL. PHILLIMORE: It is Document D-630.
[Turning to the witness.] Is that the order you are referring to?
MOEHLE: Yes, that is the order.
COL. PHILLIMORE: From the time when you were captured until last Friday had you seen that order?
MOEHLE: No, Sir.
COL. PHILLIMORE: It follows, I think, that the account of the order in your statement was given from recollection?
MOEHLE: Yes, only from recollection.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, after you got that order did you go to Admiral Dönitz’ headquarters?
MOEHLE: Yes, at my first visit to headquarters after receipt of the order, I personally discussed it with Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch who was a specialist on the staff of the U-boat command.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Will you tell the Tribunal what was said at that meeting?
MOEHLE: At that meeting I asked Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch how the ambiguity contained in that order—or I might say, lack of clarity—should be understood. He explained the order by two illustrations.
The first example was that of a U-boat in the outer Bay of Biscay. It was sailing on patrol when it sighted a rubber dinghy carrying survivors of a British plane. The fact that it was on an outgoing mission, that is, being fully equipped, made it impossible to take the crew of the plane on board, although, especially at that time, it appeared especially desirable to bring back specialists in navigation from shot-down aircraft crews to get useful information from them. The commander of the U-boat made a wide circle around this rubber boat and continued on his mission. When he returned from his mission he reported this case to the staff of the Commander-in-Chief of U-boats. The staff officers reproached him, saying that, if he were unable to bring these navigation specialists back with him, the right thing to do would have been to attack that crew, for it was to be expected that, in less than 24 hours at the latest, the dinghy would be rescued by British reconnaissance forces, and they. . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: I don’t quite get what you said would have been the correct action to take. You were saying the correct thing to do would have been. . .
MOEHLE: The right thing to do would have been to attack the air crew as it was not possible to bring back the crew or these specialists, for it could be expected that that crew would be found and rescued within a short time by British reconnaissance forces, and in given circumstances might again destroy one or two German U-boats.
The second example. . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: Did he give you any second example?
MOEHLE: Yes, the second example I am going to recount now.
Example 2. During the first month of the U-boat warfare against the United States a great quantity of tonnage—I do not recollect the exact figure—had been sunk in the shallow waters off the American coast. In these sinkings the greater part of the crews were rescued, because of the close proximity of land. That was exceedingly regrettable, as to merchant shipping not only tonnage but also crews belong, and in the meantime these crews were again able to man newly-built ships.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You have told us about the ambiguity of the order. Are you familiar with the way Admiral Dönitz worded his orders?
MOEHLE: I do not quite understand the question.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Are you familiar with the way Admiral Dönitz normally worded his orders?
MOEHLE: Yes. In my opinion, the order need only have read like this: It is pointed out anew that rescue measures have to be discontinued for reasons of safety for the submarines. This is how, I think, the order should have been worded—if only rescue measures had been forbidden. All. . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: Are you saying that if it had been intended only to prohibit rescue measures it would have been sufficient to refer to the previous order?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; that would have been enough.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Was that previous order also marked “top secret”?
MOEHLE: I do not remember that exactly.
COL. PHILLIMORE: What was the propaganda at the time with regard to crews?
MOEHLE: The propaganda at that time was to the effect that the enemy was having great difficulty in finding sufficient crews for his merchant marine and. . .
THE PRESIDENT: The question as to the propaganda at that time is too general a question for him to answer.
COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Honor pleases, I don’t press it.
[Turning to the witness.] From your knowledge of the way orders were worded, can you tell the Tribunal what you understood this order to mean?
MOEHLE: The order meant, in my own opinion, that although rescue measures remained prohibited, on the other hand it was desirable in the case of sinkings of merchantmen that there should be no survivors.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And was it because you understood this to be the meaning that you went to Admiral Dönitz’ headquarters?
MOEHLE: I did not go to the headquarters of the U-boat command on account of this order alone; these visits took place at frequent intervals in order to discuss other questions also and to have the opportunity of keeping constantly in touch with the views and opinions of the U-boat command, as I had to transmit them to the commanders.
COL. PHILLIMORE: How did you brief commanders on this order?
MOEHLE: At these briefing sessions I read the wording of the wireless message to the commanders without making any comment. In a very few instances some commanders asked me about the meaning of the order. In such cases I gave them the two examples that headquarters had given to me. However, I added, “U-boat command cannot give you such an order officially; everybody has to handle this according to his own conscience.”
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember an order about rescue ships?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Can you say what the date of that order was?
MOEHLE: I do not remember the exact date, but I think it must have been about the same as the order of September 1942.
COL. PHILLIMORE: May the witness see the Document D-663 which I put in yesterday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: It is the German copy of the document that I am showing him; the original is being held.
[Document D-663 was submitted to the witness.]
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; I recognize that order.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You will note that the date on that document is the 7th of October 1943.
MOEHLE: Yes, this order is laid down there in the general Operational Order Atlantic Number 56. According to my recollection, this order was already contained in the previous effective Operational Order Number 54, that is in a wireless message containing practical experiences and instructions. I cannot remember exactly. The date is October 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, is that order in the index here?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, that is the Document D-663, which I put in yesterday as Exhibit GB-200. If it is omitted from the index, Your Lordship will remember it is the document which, as I explained yesterday, we just received.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does it come in?
COL. PHILLIMORE: It comes in after D-630.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes. Thank you.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Your Lordship will remember the order; it deals with rescue ships attached to convoys, and it was on the last sentence that I relied.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to get the words of it.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, Sir. My Lord, also I have the original here now and if it is thought necessary the witness can see it, but he has seen a copy.
[Turning to the witness.] Do you remember an order about entries in logs?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir. At the time, the exact date I do not remember, it had been ordered that sinkings and other acts which were in contradiction to international conventions should not be entered in the log but should be reported orally after return to the home port.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Would you care to say why it is that you are giving evidence in this case?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; because when I was taken prisoner it was claimed that I was the author of these orders, and I do not want to have this charge connected with my name.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for examination by my colleagues and for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any counsel for any defendant wish to ask the witness any questions?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Lieutenant Commander Moehle, since when have you been in the U-boat arm?
MOEHLE: Since the end of 1936.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know Grossadmiral Dönitz personally?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Since when?
MOEHLE: Since October 1937.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you see him here in this room?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Where?
MOEHLE: To the left in the rear.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know Grossadmiral Dönitz as an admiral to whom none of his flotilla chiefs and commanders could speak?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Or was the opposite the case?
MOEHLE: He could be approached by everybody at any time.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Have you yourself been a commander of a U-boat?
MOEHLE: Yes, on nine operations.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: For how long?
MOEHLE: From the beginning of the war until April 1941.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How many ships did you sink?
MOEHLE: Twenty ships.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: After sinking ships, did you destroy the rescue equipment or fire at the survivors?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you have an order to do that?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Had the danger passed for a U-boat after the attack on a merchantman?
MOEHLE: No; the danger to the U-boat does not end when the attack is over.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Why not?
MOEHLE: Because in most instances when a ship is sunk, the ship is in a position to send SOS messages and give its position, and thus bring striking forces to attack the U-boat at the last minute.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Is there a maxim in the U-boat arm that fighting comes before rescuing?
MOEHLE: I never heard of that rule put in that way.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Prior to the order of September 1942 did you know of any other orders by which rescue work was prohibited if it entailed danger to the U-boat?
MOEHLE: Yes, but I do not know when and where this order was laid down. It had been ordered that, as a matter of principle, the safety of one’s own boat takes precedence.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was this ordered only once, or in several instances?
MOEHLE: That I cannot say.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know that the order of September 1942 was given in consequence of an incident in which German U-boats, contrary to orders, had undertaken rescue measures?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And the U-boats were then attacked by Allied aircraft?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: A minute ago you classified the order of September 1942 as ambiguous, did you not?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You interpreted it to the commanders in the sense that the order should include the destruction of rescue facilities and of the shipwrecked crew?
MOEHLE: No, not quite; I gave the two examples to the commanders only if they made an inquiry and I passed them on in the same way as I had received them from the Commander-in-Chief Submarine Fleet and they themselves could draw that conclusion from these two examples.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: In which sentence of the order do you see a hidden invitation to kill survivors or to destroy the rescue facilities?
MOEHLE: In the sentence. . .
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Just a second, I shall read to you each sentence of the order separately.
MOEHLE: Very well.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I read from the Document D-630:
“1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk, and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats, and handing over food and water. These are absolutely forbidden.”
Do you see it in this sentence?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: “Rescue measures contradict the most primitive demands of warfare that crews and ships should be destroyed.”
Do you see that in this sentence?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Does that sentence contain anything as to the destruction of shipwrecked persons?
MOEHLE: No, of crews.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: At the end of the order is the phrase “Be harsh.” Did you hear that phrase there for the first time?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was this phrase used by Commander-in-Chief of U-boats to get the commanders to be severe themselves and to their crews?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you discuss the order with Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember that exactly?
MOEHLE: As far as I can rely upon my recollection after such a long time.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Where did that conversation take place?
MOEHLE: At the staff headquarters of the U-boat command, probably in Paris.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What position did Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch occupy at the time?
MOEHLE: As far as I can remember, he was the man in charge of the Enemy Convoys Department, but I could not say that with any certainty.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was the superior officer of Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch, Commander Hessler?
MOEHLE: Superior officer? I would not say so, because Commander Hessler was on the same level as Kuppisch, a departmental chief.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch’s superior Admiral Goth?
MOEHLE: Yes, in his capacity of Chief of Staff.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you speak to Commander Hessler or Admiral Goth or with the Grossadmiral himself with regard to the interpretation to be given to the order of September?
MOEHLE: Whether I spoke to Commander Hessler, I do not remember, but in any case not to Admiral Goth or the Grossadmiral himself.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You said Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch had told you about the opinion which was prevalent in the staff of the U-boat command.
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: With regard to the attitude towards the aviators in the Bay of Biscay, did he tell you that it was the opinion of the Grossadmiral himself?
MOEHLE: I do not remember that. It is too far back. When explanations were given at staff meetings of the U-boat command and an opinion was expressed by a responsible departmental chief, we flotilla leaders naturally took this to be the official opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the U-boat arm. Admiral Goth personally or the Commander-in-Chief of the U-boat arm was only approached in cases where the departmental chiefs refused to commit themselves definitely or to assume the responsibility for an answer.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you not get to know that the story of the airmen who had been shot down in the Bay of Biscay was in actual fact just the opposite. . .
MOEHLE: I do not understand.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I continue: That the commander was reprimanded because he did not bring home these flyers even if it meant breaking off his operation.
MOEHLE: No, I do not know that.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch tell you in connection with that second example you mentioned, that the shipwrecked or their rescue equipment off the American coast should have been destroyed?
MOEHLE: No; he only said it was regrettable that the crews had been rescued.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And you concluded from that that it was desired to have the shipwrecked killed?
MOEHLE: I did not draw any conclusions at all from that for I passed on these examples without any commentary.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know the standing orders of the U-boat command?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do they contain the guiding principles of U-boat warfare?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Is there any order in the standing orders directing or advising the killing of shipwrecked persons or the destruction of rescue facilities?
MOEHLE: As far as I know, no.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What grade of secrecy was attached to these standing orders?
MOEHLE: As far as I remember, top secret.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember that in Standing Order 511 the following was ordered. . .
Mr. President, I read from an order which I shall submit in evidence later on. I cannot do it now because I have not yet the original.
“Standing Order of the U-boat Command Number 511; 20 May 1943; taking on board of officers of sunken ships.
“1. As far as accommodation facilities on board permit, captains and chief engineers of sunken ships are to be brought in. The enemy tries to thwart this intention and has issued the following order: (a) masters are not allowed to identify themselves when questioned, but should if possible use sailors selected especially for this purpose; (b) crew has to state that masters and chief engineers remained on board.
“If in spite of energetic questioning it is not possible to find the masters or the chief engineers, then other ships’ officers should be taken aboard.
“2. Masters and officers of neutral ships, which, according to Standing Order Number 101, can be sunk (for instance, Swedish ships outside Göteborg traffic), are not to be brought in because internment of these officers would violate international law.
“3. In case ship officers cannot be taken prisoner, other white members of the crew should be taken along as far as accommodation facilities and further operations of the craft permit, for the purpose of interrogation for military and propaganda purposes.
“4. In case of the sinking of a single cruising destroyer, corvette, or escort vessel, try at all costs to take prisoners, if that can be done without endangering the boat. Interrogation of the prisoners at transit camps . . . can produce valuable hints as to antisubmarine tactics, devices, and weapons used by the enemy; the same applies to air crews of shot-down planes.”
[Turning to the witness.] Do you know that order?
MOEHLE: Yes. The order seems familiar to me.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know the order 513?
“Standing Order of U-boat Command; 1 June 1944; taking along of prisoners.
“1. Statements of prisoners are the safest and best source of information regarding enemy tactics, weapons, location appliances and methods. Prisoners from planes and destroyers may be of the greatest importance to us; therefore, as far as possible and without endangering the boat, the utmost is to be done to take such prisoners.
“2. As prisoners are extremely willing to talk when captured, interrogate them at once on board. It is of special interest to know the manner of locating U-boats by aircraft, whether by radar or by passive location methods; for instance, by ascertaining, through electricity or heat, the location of the boat. Report prisoners taken as soon as possible in order to hand them over to returning boats.”
Do you know that order?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you not notice and try to clarify a contradiction between these orders concerning the rescue of air crews in every case and the story you passed on about the destruction of air crews?
MOEHLE: No; because in the order of September 1942 it also says that the order about the bringing in of ships’ captains and chief engineers remains in force.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you hear of any instance where a U-boat brought in captains and chief engineers but shot the rest of the crew?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you consider it at all possible that such an order can be given—that is, that part of the crew should be rescued and the rest of the crew should be killed?
MOEHLE: No, Sir. One cannot make such an order.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you ever hear of any case where a U-boat commander, on the basis of your briefings, destroyed rescue equipment or killed shipwrecked persons?
MOEHLE: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was it permitted to attack neutral vessels outside the fixed blockade zones?
MOEHLE: Only in cases where they were not marked as neutrals according to regulations.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was the Commander of the U-boat fleet particularly severe in enforcing this order for the protection of neutral ships?
MOEHLE: As I know of no such cases, I cannot say anything on that subject.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know that the commanders were threatened with court-martial if they did not obey the orders given for the protection of neutrals?
MOEHLE: Yes; I remember one case which happened in the Caribbean Sea.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember an order of 1944 directing that neutral ships be stopped and searched?
MOEHLE: Yes, it was ordered, but I do not remember the date, that particular Spanish and Portuguese ships in the North Atlantic should be stopped and searched.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you pass on that order to the commanders?
MOEHLE: As far as I recollect, this order was given in writing and was contained in one of the official sets of orders. I passed on orders to commanders only when they were not contained in a set of orders.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: In passing that order on, did you make an addition as to whether that order should be executed or not?
MOEHLE: Yes, I remember that I said—when that order came by radio and the commanders did not know of it yet—that they should be exceedingly careful, when stopping neutrals, as there was always the danger that also a neutral ship might disclose the position of the U-boat by radio. Owing to the air superiority of the enemy in the North Atlantic, it would always be safer or better not to be compelled to stop these ships.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Had you orders from the Commander of the U-boat fleet to make this additional remark?
MOEHLE: As far as I remember, one of the departmental chiefs in the U-boat command—I assume it was Commander Hessler—told me or took particular care to point out that any stopping of ships, even neutrals, involved considerable danger to the U-boat.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Because of the air patrol?
MOEHLE: Because of the air patrol.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Your attention has been called to the order concerning the so-called rescue ships.
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember that?
MOEHLE: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were these “rescue ships” recognized under international law as hospital ships, with appropriate markings?
MOEHLE: As far as I know, they were not.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What orders existed that hospital ships should be protected?
MOEHLE: Where these orders were laid down—whether in writing I do not remember—I only know that the Commander of the U-boats fleet frequently reminded the commanders of the absolute inviolability of hospital ships.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know of any case in which a hospital ship was attacked by a U-boat?
MOEHLE: No; I don’t know of such a case.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: If the Commander of the U-boat fleet had been interested in destroying helpless human beings in violation of international law, the destruction of hospital ships would have been an excellent means, don’t you think?
MOEHLE: Without any doubt.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Defense Counsel wish to cross-examine this witness?
[No response.]
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you ever save any of the survivors of the vessels that you torpedoed?
MOEHLE: I have not been in a position to do that due to the military situation.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean to say it was dangerous to your boat to do it?
MOEHLE: Not only that. A great number of the ships which I sunk were in a convoy or else there was a rough sea, so that it was impossible to undertake any rescue measures owing to navigation conditions.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, do you want to re-examine?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I have about three questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: [Turning to the witness.] When you were a U-boat commander yourself, what was the order with regard to rescue?
MOEHLE: At the beginning of the war we had been told that the safety of one’s own boat was the decisive thing, and that the boat should not be endangered by rescue measures. Whether these orders already existed in writing at the outbreak of the war I do not remember.
COL. PHILLIMORE: When you got this order of the 17th of September 1942, did you take it merely as prohibiting rescue or as going further?
MOEHLE: When I received that order I noticed that it was not entirely clear, as orders of the B. d. U. normally were. One could see an ambiguity in it.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You have not answered my question. Did you take the order to mean that a U-boat commander should merely abstain from rescue measures, or as something further?
MOEHLE: I took the order to mean that something further was implied, only it was not actually ordered but was considered desirable.
COL. PHILLIMORE: The instance you were given about the Bay of Biscay, had you any knowledge of the facts of that incident?
MOEHLE: No, the circumstances of that case are not known to me.
COL. PHILLIMORE: What were the actual words you used when you passed that order on to commanders?
MOEHLE: I told the commanders in so many words: We are now approaching a very delicate and difficult chapter; it is the question of the treatment of lifeboats. The Commander of the U-boat fleet issued the following radio message in September 1942—I then read the radio message of September 1942 in full. For most of those present the chapter was closed; no commander had any questions to ask. Explanations were not given unless questions were asked. In some few instances the commanders asked, “How should this order be interpreted?” Then as a means of interpretation I gave the two examples which had been related to me at the U-boat command and added, “Officially such a thing cannot be ordered; everybody has to reconcile that with his own conscience.”
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember any comment being made by commanding officers after you had read the order?
MOEHLE: Yes, Sir. Several commanders, following the reading of this radio message said, without making any further comment, “That is very clear, but damned hard.”
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I would now put before the Tribunal two cases where that order of the 17th of September 1942 was apparently put into effect. The first case is set out at the next document in the document book, which is D-645. My Lord, I put that document in and it becomes Exhibit GB-203. It is a report of the sinking of a steam trawler, a fishing trawler, the Noreen Mary, which was sunk by U-247 on the 5th of July 1944. The first page of the document contains an extract from the log of the U-boat. The time reference 1943 on the document is followed by an account of the firing of two torpedoes which missed, and then, at 2055 hours, the log reads:
“Surfaced. Fishing Vessels. . . .”—bearings given of three ships—“Engaged the nearest. She stops after 3 minutes.”
Then there is an account of a shot fired as the trawler lay stopped, and then, the final entry:
“Sunk by flak, with shots into her side. Sank by the stern.”
The Tribunal will notice there is no mention in the log of any action against the torpedoed or the shipwrecked seamen.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is it entered as 5. 7. 1943?
COL. PHILLIMORE: It is a typing error. I should have pointed it out.
My Lord, the next page of the document is a comment on the action by the U-boat command, and the last line reads:
“Recognized success: Fishing vessel Noreen Mary sunk by flak.”
And then there is an affidavit by James MacAlister, who was a deckhand on board the Noreen Mary at the time of the sinking. My Lord, reading the last paragraph on the first page of the affidavit. He has dealt earlier with having seen the torpedo tracks, which missed the trawler. The last paragraph reads:
“At 2110 hours, while we were still trawling, the submarine surfaced on our starboard beam, about 50 yards to the northeast of us, and without any warning immediately opened fire on the ship with a machine gun. We were 18 miles west from Cape Wrath, on a northwesterly course, making 3 knots. The weather was fine and clear, sunny, with good visibility. The sea was smooth, with light airs.”
My Lord, then there is an account of the firing in the next, paragraph, and then, if I might read from the second paragraph, on Page 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not read the first?
COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases:
“When the submarine surfaced I saw men climbing out of the conning tower. The skipper thought at first the submarine was British, but when she opened fire he immediately slackened the brake to take the weight off gear”—that is, the trawl—“and increased to full speed, which was about 10 knots. The submarine chased us, firing her machine gun, and with the first rounds killed two or three men, including the skipper, who were on deck and had not had time to take cover. The submarine then started using a heavier gun from her conning tower, the first shot from which burst the boiler, enveloping everything in steam and stopping the ship.
“By now the crew had taken cover, but in spite of this all but four were killed. The submarine then commenced to circle round ahead of the vessel, and passed down her port side with both guns firing continuously. We were listing slowly to port all the time but did not catch fire.
“The mate and I attempted to release the lifeboat, which was aft, but the mate was killed whilst doing so, so I abandoned the attempt. I then went below into the pantry, which was below the waterline, for shelter. The ship was listing more and more port, until finally at 2210 she rolled right over and sank, and the only four men left alive on board were thrown into the sea. I do not know where the other three men had taken cover during this time, as I did not hear or see them until they were in the water.
“I swam around until I came across the broken bow of our lifeboat which was upside down, and managed to scramble on top of it. Even now the submarine did not submerge, but deliberately steamed in my direction and when only 60 to 70 yards away fired directly at me with a short burst from the machine gun. As their intention was quite obvious, I fell into the water and remained there until the submarine ceased firing and submerged, after which I climbed back on to the bottom of the boat. The submarine had been firing her guns for a full hour.”
My Lord, then the affidavit goes on to describe the deponent and others attempting to rescue themselves and to help each other, and then they were picked up by another trawler.
The last paragraph on that page:
“Whilst on board the Lady Madeleine the second engineer and I had our wounds dressed. I learned later that the second engineer had 48 shrapnel wounds, also a piece of steel wire 2½ inches long embedded in his body.”
And there is a sentence on which I don’t rely, and the last sentence:
“I had 14 shrapnel wounds.”
My Lord, and then the last two paragraphs of the affidavit:
“This is my fourth wartime experience, having served in the whalers Sylvester (mined) and New Seville (torpedoed), and the trawler Ocean Tide, which ran ashore.
“As a result of this attack by U-boat, the casualties were six killed . . . two missing . . . two injured. . . .”
My Lord, the next document, D-647, I put in as Exhibit GB-204. My Lord, this is an extract from a statement given by the second officer of the ship Antonico, torpedoed, set afire, and sunk, on the 28th of September 1942, on the coast of French Guiana. The Tribunal will observe that the date of the incident is some 11 days after the issue of the order. My Lord, I would read from the words “that the witness saw the dead,” slightly more than halfway down on the first page. An account has been given of the attack on the ship, which by then was on fire:
“. . . that the witness saw the dead on the deck of the Antonico as he and his crew tried to swing out their lifeboat; that the attack was fulminant, lasting almost 20 minutes; and that the witness already in the lifeboat tried to get away from the side of the Antonico in order to avoid being dragged down by the same Antonico and also because she was the aggressor’s target; that the night was dark, and it was thus difficult to see the submarine, but that the fire aboard the Antonico lit up the locality in which she was submerging, facilitating the enemy to see the two lifeboats trying to get away; that the enemy ruthlessly machine-gunned the defenseless sailors in Number 2 lifeboat, in which the witness found himself, and killed the Second Pilot Arnaldo de Andrade de Lima, and wounded three of the crew; that the witness gave orders to his company to throw themselves overboard to save themselves from the bullets: in so doing, they were protected and out of sight behind the lifeboat, which was already filled with water; even so the lifeboat continued to be attacked. At that time the witness and his companions were about 20 meters in distance from the submarine. . . .”
My Lord, I haven’t got the U-boat’s log in that case, but you may think that, in view of the order with regard to entries in logs, namely that anything compromising should not be put in, it would be no more helpful than in the case of the previous incident.
My Lord, the next Document, D-646(a), I put in as Exhibit GB-205. It is a monitored account of a talk by a German naval war reporter on the long wave propaganda service from Friesland. The broadcast was in English, and the date is the 11th of March 1943. It is, if I may quote:
“Santa Lucia, in the West Indies, was an ideal setting for romance, but nowadays it was dangerous to sail in these waters—dangerous for the British and Americans and for all the colored people who were at their beck and call. Recently a U-boat operating in these waters sighted an enemy windjammer. Streams of tracer bullets were poured into the sails and most of the Negro crew leaped overboard. Knowing that this might be a decoy ship, the submarine steamed close, within 20 yards, when hand grenades were hurled into the rigging. The remainder of the Negroes then leaped into the sea. The windjammer sank. There remained only wreckage, lifeboats packed with men, and sailors swimming. The sharks in the distance licked their teeth in expectation. Such was the fate of those who sailed for Britain and America.”
My Lord, the next page of the document I don’t propose to read. It is an extract from the log of the U-boat believed to have sunk this ship. It was, in fact, the C. S. Flight.
My Lord, I read that because, in my submission, it shows that it was the policy of the enemy at the start to seek to terrorize crews, and it is a part with the order with regard to rescue ships and with the order on the destruction of seamen.
If I might say so, in view of the cross-examination, the Prosecution do not complain of rescue ships being attacked. They are not entitled to protection. The point of the order was that they were to be given priority in attack, and the order, therefore, is closely allied with the order of the 17th of September 1942. In view of the Allied building program, it had become imperative to prevent the ships being manned.
My Lord, I pass to the period after the defendant had succeeded the Defendant Raeder. My Lord, the next document is 2098-PS. It has been referred to but not, I think, put in. I put it in formally as Exhibit GB-206. My Lord, I won’t read it. It merely sets out that the Defendant Raeder should have the equivalent rank of a minister of the Reich, and I ask the Tribunal to infer that on succeeding Raeder the Defendant Dönitz would presumably have succeeded to that right.
THE PRESIDENT: This is from 1938 onward?
COL. PHILLIMORE: From 1938 onward.
The next document, D-648, I put in as Exhibit GB-207. It is an affidavit by an official, or rather it is an official report certified by an official of the British Admiralty. The certificate is on the last page, and it sets out the number of meetings, the dates of the meetings and those present, on the occasion of meetings between the Defendant Dönitz or his representative with Hitler from the time that he succeeded Raeder until the end. The certificate states:
“. . . I have compiled from them”—that is, from captured documents—“the attached list of occasions on which Admiral Dönitz attended conferences at Hitler’s headquarters. The list of other senior officials who attended the same conferences is added when this information was contained in the captured documents concerned. I certify that the list is a true extract from the collective documents which I have examined, and which are in the possession of the British Admiralty, London.”
My Lord, I won’t go through the list. I would merely call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that either Admiral Dönitz or his deputy, Konteradmiral Voss, was present at each of these meetings; and that amongst those who were also constantly there were the Defendants Speer, Keitel, Jodl, Ribbentrop, and Göring, and also Himmler or his lieutenants, Fegelein or Kaltenbrunner.
My Lord, the inference which I ask the Tribunal to draw from the document is that from the time that he succeeded Raeder, this defendant was one of the rulers of the Reich and was undoubtedly aware of all decisions, major decisions of policy.
My Lord, I pass to the next document, C-178. That has already been put in as Exhibit Number USA-544. It is an internal memorandum of the naval war staff, written by the division dealing with international law to another division, and the subject is the order with regard to the shooting of Commandos, of the 18th of October 1942, with which the Tribunal are, I think, familiar.
The point of the document is that some doubt appeared to have arisen in some quarters with regard to the understanding of the order, and in the last sentence of the memorandum it is suggested:
“As far as the Navy is concerned, it remains to be seen whether or not this case should be used to make sure, after a conference with the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, that all departments concerned have an entirely clear conception regarding the treatment of members of Commando units.”
My Lord, whether that conference took place or not I do not know. The document is dated some 11 days after this defendant had taken over from the Defendant Raeder.
But the next document in the book, D-649, which I put in as Exhibit GB-208, is an instance of the Navy in July of that year—July 1943—handing over to the SD for shooting Norwegian and British naval personnel whom the Navy decided came under the terms of the order. My Lord, it is an affidavit by a British barrister-at-law who served as judge advocate at the trial of the members of the SD who executed the order.
Paragraph 1 sets out that the deponent was judge advocate at the trial of 10 members of the SD by a military court held at the law courts, Oslo, Norway, which sat on Thursday, 29 November 1945, and concluded its sitting on Tuesday, 4 December 1945.
My Lord, the next paragraph sets out who convened the court and the names of the prosecuting and defending counsel, and the third paragraph states:
“The accused were charged with committing a war crime, in that they at Ulven, Norway, in or about the month of July 1943, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were concerned in the killing of. . .”
Then there follow the names of six personnel of the Norwegian Navy, including one officer, and one leading telegraphist of the Royal Navy, prisoners of war. I might read from Paragraph 4:
“There was evidence before the court which was not challenged by the Defense that Motor Torpedo Boat Number 345 set out from Lerwick in the Shetlands on a naval operation for the purpose of making torpedo attacks on German shipping off the Norwegian coast, and for the purpose of laying mines in the same area. The persons mentioned in the charge were all the crew of the torpedo boat.”
Paragraph 5:
“The Defense did not challenge that each member of the crew was wearing uniform at the time of capture, and there was abundant evidence from many persons, several of whom were German, that they were wearing uniform at all times after their capture.”
Paragraph 6:
“On 27th July 1943, the torpedo boat reached the island of Aspo off the Norwegian coast, north of Bergen. On the following day the whole of the crew were captured and were taken on board a German naval vessel which was under the command of Admiral Von Schrader, the admiral of the west coast. The crew were taken to the Bergenhus where they had arrived by 11 p. m. on 28th July. The crew were there interrogated by Lieutenant H. P. K. W. Fanger, a naval lieutenant of the Reserve, on the orders of Korvettenkapitän Egon Drascher, both of the German Naval Intelligence Service. This interrogation was carried out upon the orders of the staff of the admiral of the west coast. Lieutenant Fanger reported to the officer in charge of the intelligence branch at Bergen that in his opinion all the members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and that officer in turn reported both orally and in writing to the Sea Commander Bergen, and in writing to the admiral of the west coast.
“7. The interrogation by the naval intelligence branch was concluded in the early hours of 29th July, and almost immediately all the members of the crew were handed over on the immediate orders of the Sea Commander Bergen, to Obersturmbannführer of the SD Hans Wilhelm Blomberg, who was at that time Kommandeur of the Sicherheitspolizei at Bergen. This followed a meeting between Blomberg and Admiral Von Schrader, at which a copy of the Führer Order of 18 October 1942 was shown to Blomberg. This order dealt with the classes of persons who were to be excluded from the protection of the Geneva Convention and were not to be treated as prisoners of war, but when captured were to be handed over to the SD. Admiral Von Schrader told Blomberg that the crew of this torpedo boat were to be handed over, in accordance with the Führer Order, to the SD.
“9. The SD then conducted their own interrogation. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: You can summarize the rest, can’t you?
COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases.
My Lord, Paragraph 9 described the interrogation by officials of the SD, and that these officials took the same views as the naval intelligence officers, that the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war; that despite this they were taken out and shot by an execution squad composed of members of the SD. Then there is a description of the disposal of the bodies.
My Lord, the last paragraph is perhaps important in connection with the case against the Defendant Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, read it.
COL. PHILLIMORE: “11. It appeared from the evidence that in March or April, 1945, an order from the Führer headquarters, signed by Keitel, was transmitted to the German authorities in Norway. The substance of the order was that members of the crew of Commando raids who fell into German captivity were from that date to be treated as ordinary prisoners of war. This order referred specifically to the Führer Order referred to above.”
The member of the Tribunal will of course have noted the date; it was time to put their affairs in order.
My Lord, the next document, C-158, I put in as Exhibit GB-209. It consists of two extracts from minutes of conferences on the 19th and 20th of February 1945, conferences between the Defendant Dönitz and Hitler. If I might read the first and last sentence from the first paragraph of the first extract:
“The Führer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention.”
That is of course the 1929 prisoners-of-war convention. And the last sentence:
“The Führer orders the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to consider the pros and cons of this step and to state his opinion as soon as possible.”
Then the second extract—the Defendant Dönitz states his opinion in the presence of the Defendant Jodl and the representative of the Defendant Ribbentrop. It is the last two sentences on which I rely:
“. . . On the contrary, the disadvantages”—that is, the disadvantages of renouncing the convention—“outweigh the advantages. Even from a general standpoint it appears to the Commander-in-Chief that this measure would bring no advantage. It would be better to carry out the measures considered necessary without warning, and at all costs to save face with the outer world.”
My Lord, it is no small matter, that document, when one reflects that it was to that convention that we owe the fact that upwards of 165,000 British and 65,000 to 70,000 American prisoners of war were duly recovered at the end of the war. And to advocate breaching that convention, preferably without saying so, is not a matter to be treated lightly.
My Lord, the next document, C-171; I put in as Exhibit GB-210. It is another extract from the minutes of a meeting between the Defendant Dönitz and Hitler, on the 1st of July 1944. The extract is signed by the defendant:
“Regarding the general strike in Copenhagen, the Führer says that the only weapon to deal with terror is terror. Court-martial proceedings create martyrs. History shows that the names of such men are on everybody’s lips, whereas there is silence with regard to the many thousands who have lost their lives in similar circumstances without court-martial proceedings.”
My Lord, the next document, C-195, I put in as Exhibit GB-211. It is a memorandum signed by the defendant, dated late in 1944. There is no specific date on the document, but it is late in 1944—in December, I think, of 1944. The distribution on the third page includes Hitler, Keitel, Jodl, Speer, and the Supreme Command of the Air Force.
My Lord, if I might read the second paragraph. He is dealing with the review of German shipping losses:
“Furthermore, I propose reinforcing the shipyard working parties by prisoners from the concentration camps, and as a special measure for relieving the present shortage of coppersmiths, especially in U-boat construction, I propose to divert coppersmiths from the reduced construction of locomotives to shipbuilding.”
Then he goes on to deal with sabotage, and the last two paragraphs on that page are:
“Since, elsewhere, measures for exacting atonement taken against whole working parties amongst whom sabotage occurred, have proved successful, and, for example, the shipyard sabotage in France was completely suppressed, possibly similar measures for the Scandinavian countries will come under consideration.”
THE PRESIDENT: Do you need to read any more than that?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, no. The last sentence of the document in the next page is Item 2 of the summing-up:
“12,000 concentration camp prisoners will be employed in the shipyards as additional labor (Security Service agrees to this)”—that is the SD.
My Lord, this man was one of the rulers of Germany, and in my submission, that document alone is sufficient to condemn him. It was not for nothing that at these meetings Himmler and his lieutenants, Fegelein and Kaltenbrunner, were present.
My Lord, they were not there to discuss U-boats or the use of battleships. It is clear, in my submission, from this document that this defendant knew all about concentration camps and concentration camp labor, and as one of the rulers of Germany he must bear his full share of that responsibility.
My Lord, I pass to the last document, D-650, which I put in as Exhibit GB-212.
My Lord, this contains the orders issued by the defendant in April. The document, in my submission, shows the defendant’s fanatical adherence to the Nazi creed, and his preparedness even at that stage to continue a hopeless war at the expense of human life and with the certainty of increased destruction and misery to the men, women, and children of his country. I read the last paragraph on the second page:
“I therefore demand of the commanding officers of the Navy: . . . that they clearly and unambiguously follow the path of military duty, whatever may happen. I demand of them that they stamp out ruthlessly all signs and tendencies among the men which endanger the following of this path.”
Then he refers to an order.
“I demand from senior commanders that they should take just as ruthless action against any commander who does not do his military duty. If a commander does not think he has the moral strength to occupy his position as a leader in this sense, he must report this immediately. He will then be used as a soldier in this fateful struggle in some position in which he is not burdened with any task as a leader.”
And then the last paragraph on that page, from a further order of 19th of April, he gives an example of the type of under-officer who should be promoted.
“An example: In a prison camp of the auxiliary cruiser Cormoran, in Australia, a petty officer acting as camp senior officer, had all communists who made themselves noticeable among the inmates of the camp systematically done away with in such a way that the guards did not notice this. This petty officer is sure of my full recognition for his decision and his execution. After his return, I shall promote him with all means, as he has shown that he is fitted to be a leader.”
My Lord, of course the point is not whether the facts were true or not, but the type of order that he was issuing. My Lord, if I might just sum up, the defendant was no plain sailor, playing the part of a service officer, loyally obedient to the orders of the government of the day; he was an extreme Nazi who did his utmost to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people with the Nazi creed. It is no coincidence that it was he who was chosen to succeed Hitler; not Göring, not Ribbentrop, not Goebbels, not Himmler. He played a big part in fashioning the U-boat fleet, one of the most deadly weapons of aggressive war. He helped to plan and execute aggressive war, and we cannot doubt that he knew well that these wars were in deliberate violation of treaties. He was ready to stoop to any ruse where he thought he would not be found out: Breaches of the Geneva Convention or of neutrality, where he might hope to maintain that sinking was due to a mine. He was ready to order, and did order, the murder of helpless survivors of sunken ships, an action only paralleled by that of his Japanese ally.
My Lord, there can be few countries where widows or parents do not mourn for men of the merchant navies whose destruction was due to the callous brutality with which, at the orders of this man, the German U-boats did their work.
My Lord, my learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, now deals with the Defendant Raeder.
MAJOR F. ELWYN JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present to the Tribunal the evidence against the creator of the Nazi Navy, the Defendant Raeder. The allegations against him are set out in Appendix A of the Indictment at Pages 33 and 34 (Volume I, Page 78), and the Tribunal will see that the Defendant Raeder is charged with promoting and participating in the planning of the Nazi wars of aggression; with executing those plans; and with authorizing, directing, and participating in Nazi War Crimes, particularly war crimes arising out of sea warfare.
At the outset the Tribunal may find it convenient to look at Document 2888-PS, which is already before the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-13, which the Tribunal will find at Page 96 of the document book. That is a document which sets out the offices and positions held by the Defendant Raeder. The Tribunal will see that he was born in 1876 and joined the German Navy in 1894. By 1918 he had become commander of the cruiser Köln. In 1928 he became an admiral, chief of naval command, and head of the German Navy. In 1935 he became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. In 1936, on Hitler’s 47th birthday, he became general admiral, a creation of Hitler’s. In 1937 he received the high Nazi honor of the Golden Badge of Honor of the Nazi Party. In 1938 he became a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. And in 1939 he reached the empyrean of Grossadmiral, a rank created by Hitler, who presented Raeder with a marshal’s baton. In 1943 he became Admiral Inspector of the German Navy, which, as the Tribunal will shortly see, was a kind of retirement into oblivion, because from January 1943 on, as the Tribunal has heard, Dönitz was the effective commander of the German Navy.
In these eventful years of Raeder’s command of the German Navy from 1928 to 1943 he played a vital role. I would like in the first instance to draw the Tribunal’s attention to Raeder’s part in building up the German Navy as an instrument of war to implement the Nazis’ general plan of aggression.
The Tribunal is by now familiar with the steps by which the small navy permitted to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles was enormously expanded under the guidance of Raeder. I will do no more than to remind the Tribunal of some of the milestones upon Raeder’s road to Nazi mastery of the seas, which mercifully he was unable to attain.
With regard to the story of Germany’s secret rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, I would refer the Court to the Document C-156, which is already before the Court as Exhibit Number USA-41 and which the Tribunal will find at Page 26 of the document book. That document, as the Tribunal will remember, was A History of the Fight of the German Navy against Versailles, 1919 to 1935, which was published secretly by the German Admiralty in 1937. The Tribunal will remember that that history shows that before the Nazis came to power the German Admiralty was deceiving not only the governments of other countries, but its own legislature and at one stage its own Government. Their secret measures of rearmament ranged from experimental U-boat and S-boat building to the creation of secret intelligence and finance organizations. I only propose to trouble the Tribunal with a reference to the last paragraph at Page 33 of the document book, which refers to the role of Raeder in this development. It is an extract from Page 75 of this Document C-156, and it reads:
“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral . . . Raeder, had received hereby a far-reaching independence in the building and development of the Navy. This was only hampered insofar as the previous concealment of rearmament had to be continued in consideration of the Versailles Treaty.”
As an illustration of Raeder’s concealment of rearmament, I would remind the Tribunal of the Document C-141, Exhibit Number USA-47, which is at Page 22 of the document book. In that document Raeder states that:
“In view of Germany’s treaty obligations and the disarmament conference, steps must be taken to prevent the first S-boat half-flotilla—which in a few months will comprise new S-boats of the same type—from appearing openly as a formation of torpedo-carrying boats, as it was not intended to count these S-boats against the number of torpedo-carrying boats allowed us.”
The next document, C-135, which will be Exhibit Number GB-213, and which is at Page 20 of the document book, is of unusual interest because it suggests that even in 1930 the intention ultimately to attack Poland was already current in German military circles. This document is an extract from the history of war organization and of the scheme for mobilization. The German text of this document is headed “850/38,” which suggests that the document was written in the year 1938. The extracts read:
“Since under the Treaty of Versailles all preparations for mobilization were forbidden, these were at first confined to a very small body of collaborators and were at first only of a theoretical nature. Nevertheless, there existed at that time . . . an ‘Assembling Order,’ and ‘Instructions for Assembling,’ the forerunners of the present-day scheme for mobilization, also an assembling organization and adaptable instructions for assembling which were drawn up for each ‘A-year’ (cover-name for mobilization year).
“As stated, the ‘Assembling Organization’ at that time was to be judged purely theoretically, for they had no positive basis in the form of men and materials. They provided nevertheless a valuable foundation for the establishment of a war organization as our ultimate aim.”
Paragraph 2:
“The crises between Germany and Poland, which were becoming increasingly acute, compelled us, instead of making theoretical preparation for war, to prepare in a practical manner for a purely German-Polish conflict.
“The strategic idea of a rapid forcing of the Polish base of Gdynia was made a basis; and the fleet on active service was to be reinforced by the auxiliary forces which would be indispensable to attain this strategic end; and the essential coastal and flak batteries, especially those in Pillau and Swinemünde, were to be taken over. Thus in 1930 the Reinforcement Plan was evolved.”
If the Tribunal turns over the page to Paragraph 3, to the second paragraph:
“Hitler had made a clear political request to build up for him in 5 years, that is to say, by the 1st of April 1938, armed forces which he could place in the balance as an instrument of political power.”
Now that entry is a pointer to the fact that the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was a signal to Raeder to go full speed ahead on rearmament. The detailed story of this development has already been told by my American colleague, Mr. Alderman; and I would simply refer the Court in the first place to the Document C-189, Exhibit Number USA-44, which is at Page 66 of the document book. In that document Raeder tells Hitler, in June 1934, that the German Fleet must be developed to oppose England and that therefore from 1936 on the big ships must be armed with big guns to match the British King George class of battleship. It further, in the last paragraph, refers to Hitler’s demand that the construction of U-boats should be kept completely secret, especially in view of the Saar plebiscite. In November 1934 Raeder had a further talk with Hitler on the financing of naval rearmament, and on that occasion Hitler told him that in case of need he would get Doctor Ley to put 120 to 150 million from the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy. The reference to that is the Document C-190, Exhibit Number USA-45, at Page 67 of the document book. The Tribunal may think that that proposed fraud upon the German working people was a characteristic Nazi manifestation.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
MAJOR JONES: If Your Lordship pleases.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
MAJOR JONES: May it please the Tribunal, the next document which I desire to draw to the Tribunal’s attention is the Document C-23, Exhibit Number USA-49, at Page 3 of the document book, which states that the true displacement of certain German battleships exceeded by 20 percent the displacement reported to the British. That, I submit, is typical of Raeder’s use of deceit.
The next document to which I wish to refer briefly is C-166, Exhibit Number USA-48, Page 36 of the document book. It is another such deceitful document, which orders that auxiliary cruisers, which were being secretly constructed, should be referred to as “transport ships.”
Then there is the Document C-29, Exhibit Number USA-46, at Page 8 of the document book, which is signed by Raeder and deals with the support given by the German Navy to the German armament industry, and, I submit, is an illustration of Raeder’s concern with the broader aspects of Nazi policy and of the close link between Nazi politicians, German service chiefs, and German armament manufacturers.
THE PRESIDENT: Has that been put in before?
MAJOR JONES: That has been put in before, My Lord, as Exhibit Number USA-46.
A final commentary on the post-1939 naval rearmament is the Document C-155, at Page 24 of the document book, which is a new document and will be Exhibit GB-214 and is a letter from Raeder to the German Navy, dated 11 June 1940. The original, which is now submitted to the Tribunal, shows the very wide distribution of this letter. There is provision in the distribution list for 467 copies. This letter of Raeder’s is a letter both of self-justification and of apology. The extracts read:
“The most outstanding of the numerous subjects of discussion in the Officers Corps are, for the time being, the torpedo positions and the problem whether the naval building program, up to autumn 1939, envisaged the possibility of the outbreak of war as early as 1939, or whether the emphasis ought not to have been laid, from the first, on the construction of U-boats. . . .
“If the opinion is voiced in the Officers Corps that the entire naval building program has been wrongly directed and if, from the first, the emphasis should have been on the U-boat weapon and after its consolidation on the large ships, I must emphasize the following matters:
“The building up of the fleet was directed according to the political demands, which were decided by the Führer. The Führer hoped, until the last moment, to be able to put off the threatening conflict with England until 1944-45. At that time the Navy would have had available a fleet with a powerful U-boat superiority and a much more favorable ratio as regards strength in all other types of ships, particularly those designed for warfare on the High Seas.
“The development of events forced the Navy, contrary to the expectation even of the Führer, into a war which it had to accept while still in the initial stage of its rearmament. The result is that those who represent the opinion that the emphasis should have been laid from the start on the building of the U-boat arm appear to be right. I leave undiscussed how far this development, quite apart from difficulties of personnel, training, and dockyards, could have been appreciably improved in any way in view of the political limits of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. I leave also undiscussed, how the early and necessary creation of an effective air force slowed down the desirable development of the other branches of the forces. I indicate, however, with pride, the admirable and, in spite of the political restraints in the years of the Weimar Republic, far-reaching preparation for U-boat construction, which made the immensely rapid construction of the U-boat arm, both as regards equipment and personnel, possible immediately after the assumption of power. . . .”
There is here, the Tribunal sees, no trace of reluctance in co-operating with the Nazi program. On the contrary, the evidence points to the fact that Raeder welcomed and became one of the pillars of Nazi power. And it will now be my purpose to develop the relationship between Raeder, the Navy, and the Nazi Party.
The Prosecution’s submission is that Raeder, more than anyone else, was responsible for securing the unquestioned allegiance of the German Navy to the Nazi movement, an allegiance which Dönitz was to make even more firm and fanatical.
Raeder’s approval of Hitler was shown particularly clearly on the 2d of August 1934, the day of Hindenburg’s death, when he and all the men under him swore a new oath of loyalty with considerable ceremony, this time to Adolf Hitler and no longer to the fatherland. The oath is found in the Document D-481 at Page 101 of the document book. That will be Exhibit GB-215, and it may be of interest to the Court to see what the new oath was. The last paragraph reads:
“The service oath of the soldiers of the armed forces:
“‘I swear this holy oath by God that I will implicitly obey the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and that, as a brave soldier, I will be willing to stake my life at any time for this oath.’”
The Tribunal will see that for his fatherland Raeder substituted a Führer.
I am not proposing to take the Tribunal’s time with reiterating the steps by which the German Navy was progressively drawn into the closest alliance with the Nazi Party. I would remind the Court of facts of history, like the incorporation of the swastika into the ensign under which the German Fleet sailed and the wearing of the swastika on the uniform of naval officers and men, which are facts which speak for themselves.
The Nazis for their part, were not ungrateful for Raeder’s obeisance and collaboration. His services in rebuilding the German Navy were widely recognized by Nazi propagandists and by the Nazi press. On his 66th birthday, the chief Party organ, the Völkischer Beobachter, published a special article about him, to which I desire to draw the Tribunal’s attention. It is at Page 100 of the document book; it is Document D-448, Exhibit GB-216. It is a valuable summing-up of Raeder’s contribution to Nazi development:
“It was to Raeder’s credit”—writes the Völkischer Beobachter—“to have already built up by that time a powerful striking force from the numerically small fleet, despite the fetters of Versailles.
“With the assumption of power, National Socialism began the most fruitful period in the reconstruction of the German fleet.
“The Führer openly expressed his recognition of Raeder’s faithful services and unstinted co-operation, by appointing him Grossadmiral on the 20th of April 1936.”
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it necessary to read the entire document?
MAJOR JONES: I was going to turn to the last paragraph but one, My Lord, which I think is helpful.
“As a soldier and a seaman, the Grossadmiral has proved himself to be the Führer’s first and foremost naval collaborator.”
This, in my submission, is a summing-up of his status and position in Nazi Germany.
I now propose to deal with Raeder’s personal part in the Nazi conspiracy. The evidence indicates that Raeder, from the time of the Nazi seizure of power, became increasingly involved in responsibility for the general policies of the Nazi State.
Long before he was promoted to General-Admiral in 1936, he had become a member of the very secret Reich Defense Council, joining it when it was founded on the 4th of April 1933. And thus, at an early date, he was involved, both militarily and politically, in the Nazi conspiracy. The relevant document upon that is Document EC-177, Exhibit Number USA-390, at Page 68 of the document book, which I would remind the Tribunal contains the classic Nazi directive: “Matters communicated orally cannot be proven; they can be denied by us in Geneva.”
On the 4th of February 1938 Raeder was appointed to be a member of a newly-formed secret advisory council for foreign affairs; and the authority for that statement is Document 2031-PS at Page 88 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-217.
Three weeks after this a decree of Hitler’s stated that, as well as being equal in rank with a cabinet minister, Raeder was also to take part in the sessions of the Cabinet. That has already been established in Document 2098-PS, which was submitted as Exhibit GB-206.
In my submission, therefore, it is thus clear that Raeder’s responsibility for the political decisions of the Nazi State was steadily developed from 1933 to 1938 and that in the course of time he had become a member of all the main political advisory bodies. He was, indeed, very much a member of the inner councils of the conspirators and, I submit, must carry with them the responsibility for the acts that led to the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and the outbreak of war.
As an illustration, I would remind the Tribunal that Raeder was present at two of the key meetings at which Hitler openly declared his intention of attacking neighboring countries. I refer the Tribunal to Document 386-PS, which is Exhibit Number USA-25 and is found at Page 81 of the document book, which the Tribunal will remember is the record of Hitler’s conference at the Reich Chancellery on the 5th of November 1937 about matters which were said to be too important to discuss in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet. The document, which Mr. Alderman submitted, establishes conclusively that the Nazis premeditated their Crimes against Peace.
Then there was the other conference of Hitler’s on the 23rd of May 1939, the minutes of which are found in the Document L-79, Exhibit Number USA-27, at Page 74 of the document book. That, the Tribunal will remember, was the conference at which Hitler confirmed his intention to make a deliberate attack upon Poland at the first opportunity, well knowing that this must cause widespread war in Europe.
Now, those two were key conferences. At many, many others Raeder was also present to place his knowledge and his professional skill at the service of the Nazi war machine.
His active promotion of the military planning and preparation for the Polish campaign is by now well-known to the Tribunal, and I am not proposing to reiterate that evidence again. Once the war did start, however, the Defendant Raeder showed himself to be a master of the most typical of the conspirators’ techniques, namely that of deceit on a grand scale. There are few better examples of this allegation than that of his handling of the case of the Athenia.
The Athenia, as the Tribunal will be aware, was a passenger liner which was sunk in the evening of the 3rd of September 1939, when she was outward bound to America, about a hundred lives being lost.
On the 23rd of October 1939 the Nazi Party paper, the Völkischer Beobachter, published in screaming headlines the story, “Churchill Sank the Athenia.” I would refer the Court to Document 3260-PS, at Page 97 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-218. And I would like the Tribunal to look for a moment at the copy of the Völkischer Beobachter here, and see the scale with which this deliberate lie was perpetrated. I have a photostat of the relevant page of the Völkischer Beobachter for that day. That is the third page and the Tribunal will see on this front page, with the big red underlining, there are the words, “Now We Indict Churchill.”
The extract from the Völkischer Beobachter, which is at Page 97 of the document book, reads as follows:
“Churchill Sank the Athenia. The above picture”—and the Tribunal will see it is a fine picture of this fine ship—“shows the proud Athenia, the ocean giant, which was sunk by Churchill’s crime. One can clearly see the big radio equipment on board the ship. But nowhere was an SOS heard from the ship. Why was the Athenia silent? Because her captain was not allowed to tell the world anything. He very prudently refrained from telling the world that Winston Churchill attempted to sink the ship through the explosion of a time bomb. He knew it well, but he had to keep silent. Nearly 1,500 people would have lost their lives if Churchill’s original plan had resulted as the criminal wanted. Yes, he longingly hoped that the 100 Americans on board the ship would find death in the waves so that the anger of the American people, who were deceived by him, should be directed against Germany, as the presumed author of the deed. It was fortunate that the majority escaped the fate intended for them by Churchill. Our picture on the right shows two wounded passengers. They were rescued by the freighter City of Flint, and as can be seen here, turned over to the American coast guard boat Gibb for further medical treatment. They are an unspoken accusation against the criminal Churchill. Both they and the shades of those who lost their lives call him before the tribunal of the world and ask the British people, ‘How long will the office, one of the richest in tradition known to Great Britain’s history, be held by a murderer?’”
Now, in view of the maliciousness of this Völkischer Beobachter announcement and in fairness to the men of the British Merchant Navy, I think it is proper that I should say, that contrary to the allegation in this Nazi sheet, the Athenia of course made repeated wireless distress signals which were in fact intercepted and answered by His Majesty’s ship Electra, in escort, as well as by the Norwegian steamship Knut Nelson and the yacht Southern Cross.
I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal to establish that, in fact, the Athenia was sunk by the German U-boat U-30. So unjustifiable was the torpedoing of the Athenia, however, that the German Navy embarked upon a course of falsification of their records and on other dishonest measures, in the hope of hiding this guilty secret. And for their part, as the Tribunal has seen, the Nazi propagandists indulged in their favorite falsehood of seeking to shift the responsibility to the British.
The captain of the U-30, Oberleutnant Lemp, was later killed in action; but some of the original crew of the U-30 have survived to tell the tale, and they are now prisoners of war. And so that the truth of this episode may be placed beyond a peradventure, I submit to the Tribunal an affidavit by a member of the crew of the U-30, as to the sinking of the Athenia and as to one aspect of the attempt to conceal the true facts.
I refer to Document C-654, Exhibit GB-219, at Page 106 of the document book. The affidavit reads:
“I, Adolf Schmidt, Official Number N 1043-33T, of the German Navy and former member of the crew of the U-30, do solemnly declare that:
“1. I am now confined to Camp No. 133, Lethbridge, Alberta.
“2. That on the first day of war, 3 September 1939, a ship of approximately 10,000 tons was torpedoed in the late hours of the evening by the U-30.
“3. That after the ship was torpedoed and we surfaced again, approximately half an hour after the explosion, the commandant called me to the tower in order to show me the torpedoed ship.
“4. That I have seen the ship with my very eyes, but that I do not think that the ship could see our U-boat at that time on account of the position of the moon.
“5. That only a few members of the crew had an opportunity to go to the tower in order to see the torpedoed ship.
“6. That apart from myself, Oberleutnant Hinsch was in the tower when I saw the steamer after the attack.
“7. That I observed that the ship was listing.
“8. That no warning shot was fired before the torpedo was launched.
“9. That I myself observed much commotion on board the torpedoed ship.
“10. That I believe that the ship had only one smoke stack.
“11. That in the attack on this steamer one or two torpedoes were fired which did not explode but that I myself heard the explosion of the torpedo which hit the steamer.
“12. That Oberleutnant Lemp waited until darkness before surfacing.
“13. That I was severely wounded by aircraft 14 September 1939.
“14. That Oberleutnant Lemp, shortly before my disembarkation in Reykjavik 19 September 1939, visited me in the forenoon in the petty officers’ quarters where I was lying severely wounded.
“15. That Oberleutnant Lemp then had the petty officers’ quarters cleared in order to be alone with me.
“16. That Oberleutnant Lemp then showed me a declaration under oath according to which I had to bind myself to mention nothing concerning the incidents of 3 September 1939 on board the U-30.
“17. That this declaration under oath had approximately the following wording:
“‘I, the undersigned, swear hereby that I shall shroud in secrecy all happenings of 3 September 1939 on board the U-30, regardless whether foe or friend, and that I shall erase from my memory all happenings of this day.’
“18. That I have signed this declaration under oath, which was drawn up by the commandant in his own handwriting, with my left hand very illegibly.
“19. That later on in Iceland when I heard about the sinking of the Athenia the idea came into my mind that the U-30 on the 3 September 1939 might have sunk the Athenia, especially since the captain caused me to sign the above-mentioned declaration.
“20. That up to today I have never spoken to anyone concerning these events.
“21. That due to the termination of the war I consider myself freed from my oath.”
Dönitz’ part in the Athenia episode is described in an affidavit which he has sworn, which is Document D-638, Exhibit GB-220, at Page 102 of the document book. The affidavit was sworn in English, and I invite the Tribunal to look at it and observe the addition in Dönitz’ handwriting of four words at the end of the affidavit, the significance of which will be seen in a moment.
The Defendant Dönitz states:
“U-30 returned to harbor about mid-September. I met the captain, Oberleutnant Lemp, on the lockside at Wilhelmshaven, as the boat was entering harbor, and he asked permission to speak to me in private. I noticed immediately that he was looking very unhappy and he told me at once that he thought he was responsible for the sinking of the Athenia in the North Channel area. In accordance with my previous instructions he had been keeping a sharp lookout for possible armed merchant cruisers in the approaches to the British Isles, and had torpedoed a ship he afterwards identified as the Athenia from wireless broadcasts, under the impression that she was an armed merchant cruiser on patrol. I had never specified in my instructions any particular type of ship as armed merchant cruiser nor mentioned any names of ships. I dispatched Lemp at once by air to report to the SKL at Berlin; in the meantime, I ordered complete secrecy as a provisional measure. Later in the same day or early on the following day, I received a verbal order from Kapitän zur See Fricke”—who was head of the operations division of the naval war staff—“that:
“Firstly, the affair was to be kept a total secret.
“Secondly, the OKM considered that a court-martial was not necessary as they were satisfied that the captain had acted in good faith.
“Thirdly, political explanations would be handled by the OKM.
“I had had no part whatsoever in the political events in which the Führer claimed that no U-boat had sunk the Athenia.
“After Lemp returned to Wilhelmshaven from Berlin, I interrogated him thoroughly on the sinking and formed the impression that, although he had taken reasonable care, he had still not taken sufficient precaution to establish fully the identity of the ship before attacking. I had previously given very strict orders that all merchant vessels and neutrals were to be treated according to naval prize law before the occurrence of this incident. I accordingly placed him under cabin arrest, as I felt certain that a court-martial would only acquit him and would entail unnecessary publicity”—and then Dönitz had added the words “and loss of time.”
It is right, I think, that I should add the Dönitz’ suggestion that the captain of the U-30 sank the Athenia in mistake for a merchant cruiser must be considered in the light of a document which Colonel Phillimore submitted—the Document C-191, Exhibit GB-193, dated the 22 of September 1939—in this period, which contained Dönitz’ order that “the sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary cruiser.”
Now, the U-30 returned to Wilhelmshaven on 27 September 1939. I submit another fraudulent naval document, Document D-659, Page 110 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-221, which is an extract from the War Diary of the chief of U-boats, and it is an extract for the 27th of September 1939. The Tribunal will see that it reads:
“U-30 comes in. She had sunk: S. S. Blairlogies; S. S. Fanad Head.”
There is no reference at all, of course, to the sinking of the Athenia.
But perhaps the most elaborate forgery in connection with this episode was the forgery of the log book of the U-30, which was responsible for sinking the Athenia; and I now submit that original log book to the Tribunal as Document D-662, which will be Exhibit GB-222, and an extract from the first and relevant page of it is found at Page 111 of the document book. I would like the Tribunal to examine the original, if you will be good enough to do so, because the Prosecution’s submission is that the first page of that log book is a forgery, but a forgery which shows a curiously un-German carelessness about detail. The Tribunal will see that the first page of the text is a clear substitute for pages that have been removed. The dates in the first column of that page are in Arabic numerals. On the second and more authentic looking page, and throughout the other pages of the log book, they are in Roman numerals.
The Tribunal will also see that all reference to the action of the sinking of the Athenia on the 3rd of September is omitted. The entries are translated on Page 111 of the document book for the Court’s assistance.
The log book shows that the position at 1400 hours, of the U-30 on the 3rd of September, is given as AL 0278, which the Tribunal will notice is one of the very few positions quoted at all upon that page, and which was, in fact, some 200 miles west of the position where the Athenia was sunk. The course due south, which is recorded in the log book, and the speed of 10 knots—those entries are obviously designed to suggest that the U-30 was well clear of the Athenia’s position on the 3rd of September.
Finally, and most curiously, the Tribunal will observe that Lemp’s own signature upon the page dealing with the 3rd of September differs from the other signatures in the text. Page 1 shows Lemp’s signature with a Roman “p” as the final letter of his name. On the other signatures, there is a script “p,” and the inference I submit is that either the signature is a forgery or it was made up by Lemp at some other, and probably considerably later date.
Now, in my submission, the whole of this Athenia story establishes that the German Navy under Raeder embarked upon deliberate fraud. Even before receiving Lemp’s reports, the German Admiralty had repeatedly denied the possibility that a German U-boat could be in the area concerned. The charts which showed the disposition of U-boats and the position of sinking of the Athenia, which Colonel Phillimore introduced, have shown the utter dishonesty of these announcements; and my submission upon this matter is this: Raeder, as head of the German Navy, knew all the facts. Censorship and information control in Nazi Germany were so complete that Raeder, as head of the Navy, must have been party to the falsification published in the Völkischer Beobachter, which was a wholly dishonorable attempt by the Nazi conspirators to save their faces with their own people and to uphold the myth of an infallible Führer backed by an impeccable war machine.
The Tribunal has seen that truth mattered little in Nazi propaganda, and it would appear that Raeder’s camouflage was not confined to painting his ships or sailing them under the British flag, as he did in attacking Norway and Denmark. With regard to that last matter—the invasion of Norway and Denmark—I think it is hardly necessary that I should remind the Tribunal of Raeder’s leading part in that perfidious Nazi assault, the evidence as to which has already been presented. I think I need only add Raeder’s proud comment upon those brutal invasions, which is contained in his letter in Document C-155 at Page 25 of the document book, which is already before the Tribunal as Exhibit GB-214. That document, which is a letter of Raeder’s to the Navy, part of which I have already read, states: “The operations of the Navy in the occupation of Norway will for all time remain the grand contribution of the Navy to this war.”
Now, with the occupation of Norway and of much of Western Europe safely completed, the Tribunal has seen that Hitler turned his eyes towards Russia. Now, in fairness to Raeder, it is right that I should say that Raeder himself was against the attack on Russia and tried his best to dissuade Hitler from embarking upon it. The documents show, however, that Raeder approached the problem with complete cynicism. He did not object to the aggressive war on Russia because of its illegality, its immorality, its inhumanity. His only objection to it was its untimeliness. He wanted to finish England first before going further afield.
The story of Raeder’s part in the deliberations upon the war against Russia is told in the Document C-170, at Page 37 of the document book, which has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USA-136. That document consists of extracts from a German compilation of official naval notes by the German naval war staff.
The first entry, at Page 47 of the document book, which bore the date of 26 September 1940, which is at Page 11 of Document C-170, showed that Raeder was advocating to Hitler an aggressive Mediterranean policy in which, of course, the Navy would play a paramount role, as opposed to a continental land policy. The entry reads:
“Naval Supreme Commander with the Führer. Naval Supreme Commander presents his opinion about the situation: The Suez Canal must be captured with German assistance. From Suez, advance through Palestine and Syria; then Turkey in our power. The Russian problem will then assume a different appearance. Russia is fundamentally frightened of Germany. It is questionable whether action against Russia from the north will then be still necessary.”
The next entry at Page 48 of the document book, for the 14th of November:
“Naval Supreme Commander with the Führer. Führer is ‘still inclined’ to instigate the conflict with Russia. Naval Supreme Commander recommends putting it off until the time after the victory over England, since there is heavy strain on German forces and the end of warfare is not in sight.”
Then there is the entry on Page 50 for 27 December 1940:
“Naval Supreme Commander with the Führer. Naval Supreme Commander emphasizes again that strict concentration of our entire war effort against England as our main enemy is the most urgent need of the hour. On the one hand, England has gained strength by the unfortunate Italian conduct of the war in the eastern Mediterranean and by the increasing American support. On the other hand, however, she can be hit mortally by a strangulation of her ocean traffic which is already taking effect. What is being done for submarine and naval air force construction is much too little. Our entire war potential must work for the conduct of the war against England; thus for the Navy and Air Force, every dispersion of strength prolongs the war and endangers the final success. Naval Supreme Commander voices serious objections against Russia campaign before the defeat of England.”
At Page 52 of the document book, on the 18th of February 1941, there is the entry:
“Chief of Naval Operations (SKL) insists on the occupation of Malta even before Barbarossa.”
On the next page, on the 23rd of February, there is this interesting entry:
“Instruction from Supreme Command, Armed Forces (OKW) that seizure of Malta ‘is contemplated for the fall of 1941 after the execution of Barbarossa’”—which the Tribunal may think is a sublime example of wishful thinking.
The next entry, for the 19th of March 1941, which is at Page 54 of the document book, shows that by March of 1941 Raeder had begun to consider what prospects of naval action the Russian aggression had to offer. There is the entry:
“In case of Barbarossa, Supreme Naval Commander describes the occupation of Murmansk as an urgent request of the Navy; Chief of Supreme Command Armed Forces considers compliance very difficult. . . .”
In the meantime, the entries in this document show that Mussolini, the flunky of Nazism, was crying out for a more active Nazi Mediterranean policy. I refer the Court to Page 57 of the document book, the entry for the 30th of May. The word “Duce” is omitted from the first line, and the entry should read:
“Duce demands urgently decisive offensive Egypt-Suez for fall 1941; 12 divisions needed for that. ‘This stroke would be more deadly to the British Empire than the capture of London’; Chief, Naval Operations, agrees completely. . . .”
And then, finally, the entry for the 6th of June, indicating strategic views of Raeder and the German Navy at this stage, reads as follows. It is at Page 58 of the document book:
“Supreme Naval Commander with the Führer. Memorandum of the Chief, Naval Operations: ‘Observation of the strategic situation in the eastern Mediterranean after the Balkan campaign and the occupation of Crete and further conduct of the war.’”
A few sentences below:
“The memorandum points with impressive clarity to the decisive aims of the war in the Near East. Their advancement has moved into grasping distance by the successes in the Aegean area and the memorandum emphasizes that the offensive utilization of the present favorable situation must take place with the greatest acceleration and energy, before England has again strengthened her position in the Near East with help from the United States of America. The memorandum realizes the unalterable fact that the campaign against Russia would be opened very shortly; but demands, however, that the undertaking Barbarossa ‘which, because of the magnitude of its aims, naturally stands in the foreground of the operational plans of the armed forces leadership,’ must under no circumstances ‘lead to an abandonment, diminishing, or delay of the conduct of the war in the eastern Mediterranean.’”
So that Raeder was, throughout, seeking an active role for his Navy in the Nazi war plans.
Now, once Hitler had decided to attack Russia, Raeder sought a role for his Navy in the campaign against Russia; and the first naval operational plan against Russia was a particularly perfidious one. I refer the Tribunal to the Document C-170 which I have just been reading from, at Page 59 of the document book. There the Tribunal will see an entry for the 15th of June 1941:
“On the proposal of Chief Naval Operations . . . use of arms against Russian submarines south of the northern boundary of the Öland warning area is permitted immediately; ruthless destruction is to be aimed at.”
The Defendant Keitel provided a characteristically dishonest pretext for this action in his letter, the Document C-38, which is at Page 11 of the document book and which will be Exhibit GB-223. The Tribunal sees that Keitel’s letter is dated the 15th of June 1941:
“Subject: Offensive action against enemy submarines in the Baltic Sea.
“To: High Command of the Navy—OKM (SKL).
“Offensive action against submarines south of the line Memel-southern tip of Öland is authorized if the boats cannot be definitely identified as Swedish during the approach by German naval forces.
“The reason to be given up to B-day is that our naval forces believed to be dealing with penetrating British submarines.”
Now, that was on the 15th of June 1941, and the Tribunal will remember that the Nazi attack on Russia did not take place until the 22d of June of 1941. In the meantime Raeder was urging Hitler, as early as the 18th of March 1941, to enlarge the scope of the world war by inducing Japan to seize Singapore. The relevant document is C-152, Exhibit GB-122, at Page 23 of the document book. There is just one paragraph which I would like to be permitted to read. The document describes the audience of Raeder with Hitler on the 18th of March and the entries in it, in fact, represent Raeder’s own views:
“Japan must take steps to seize Singapore as soon as possible, since the opportunity will never again be as favorable (whole English fleet contained; unpreparedness of U.S.A. for war against Japan; inferiority of U.S. fleet vis-à-vis the Japanese). Japan is indeed making preparations for this action, but according to all declarations made by Japanese officers she will carry it out only if Germany proceeds to land in England. Germany must therefore concentrate all her efforts on spurring Japan to act immediately. If Japan has Singapore all other East Asiatic questions regarding the U.S.A. and England are thereby solved (Guam, Philippines, Borneo, Dutch East Indies).
“Japan wishes, if possible, to avoid war against the U.S.A. She can do so if she determinedly takes Singapore as soon as possible.”
The Japanese, of course, as events proved, had different ideas from that.
By the 20th of April 1941, the evidence is that Hitler had agreed with this proposition of Raeder’s of inducing the Japanese to take offensive action against Singapore. I refer the Tribunal again to the Document C-170 and to an entry at Page 56 of the document book, for the 20th of April 1941. A few sentences from that read:
“Naval Supreme Commander with Führer. Navy Supreme Commander asks about result of Matsuoka’s visit and evaluation of Japanese-Russian pact. . . . Führer has informed Matsuoka ‘that Russia will not be touched if she behaves in a friendly manner according to the treaty. Otherwise, he reserves action for himself.’ Japan-Russia pact has been concluded in agreement with Germany and is to prevent Japan from advancing against Vladivostok and to cause her to attack Singapore.”
Now an interesting commentary upon this document is found in the Document C-66, at Page 13 of the document book. The Document C-66 has already been exhibited as GB-81. I would refer the Court to Paragraph 3 at Page 13 of the document book. At that time the Führer was firmly resolved on a surprise attack on Russia, regardless of what was the Russian attitude to Germany. This, according to reports coming in, was frequently changing; and there follows this interesting sentence: “The communication to Matsuoka was designed entirely as a camouflage measure and to ensure surprise.”
The Axis partners were not even honest with each other, and this, I submit, is typical of the kind of jungle diplomacy with which Raeder associated himself.
I now, with the Tribunal’s permission, turn from the field of diplomacy to the final aspect of the case against Raeder, namely, to crimes at sea.
The Prosecution’s submission is that Raeder throughout his career showed a complete disregard for any international rule or usage of war which conflicted in the slightest with his intention of carrying through the Nazi program of conquest. I propose to submit to the Tribunal only a few examples of Raeder’s flouting of the laws and customs of civilized states.
Raeder has himself summarized his attitude in the most admirable fashion in the Document UK-65, which the Tribunal will find at Page 98 of the document book, and which will be Exhibit GB-224. Now that Document UK-65 is a very long memorandum compiled by Raeder and the German naval war staff on the 15th of October 1939—that is to say, only a few weeks after the war started. And it is a memorandum on the subject of the intensification of the war at sea, and I desire to draw the Tribunal’s attention to the bottom paragraph at Page 98 of the document book. It is headed, “Possibilities of Future Naval Warfare”:
“I. Military requirements for the decisive struggle against Great Britain:
“Our naval strategy will have to employ all the military means at our disposal as expeditiously as possible. Military success can be most confidently expected if we attack British sea communications wherever they are accessible to us, with the greatest ruthlessness; the final aim of such attacks is to cut off all imports into and exports from Britain. We should try to consider the interests of neutrals in so far as this is possible without detriment to military requirements. It is desirable to base all military measures taken on existing international law; however, measures which are considered necessary from a military point of view, provided a decisive success can be expected from them, will have to be carried out, even if they are not covered by existing international law. In principle, therefore, any means of warfare which is effective in breaking enemy resistance should be based on some legal conception”—the nature of which is not specified—“even if that entails the creation of a new code of naval warfare.
“The supreme war council . . . will have to decide what measures of military and legal nature are to be taken. Once it has been decided to conduct economic warfare in its most ruthless form, in fulfillment of military requirements, this decision is to be adhered to under all circumstances. Under no circumstances may such a decision for the most ruthless form of economic warfare, once it has been made, be dropped or released under political pressure from neutral powers; that is what happened in the World War to our own detriment. Every protest by neutral powers must be turned down. Even threats of further countries, particularly of the United States, coming into the war, which can be expected with certainty should the war last a long time, must not lead to a relaxation in the form of economic warfare once embarked upon. The more ruthlessly economic warfare is waged, the earlier will it show results and the sooner will the war come to an end. The economic effect of such military measures on our own war economy must be fully recognized and compensated through immediate reorientation of German war economy and the re-drafting of the respective agreements with neutral states; for”—these are the final words—“for this, strong political and economic pressure must be employed if necessary.”
I submit that those comments are most revealing; and the general submission of the Prosecution is that as an active member of the inner council of the Nazi State right up to 1943, Raeder, holding such ideas as these, must share responsibility for the many War Crimes committed by his confederates and their underlings in the course of the war.
But quite apart from this over-all responsibility of Raeder, there are certain crimes which the Prosecution submits were essentially initiated and passed down the naval chain of command by Raeder himself.
I refer to the Document C-27, at Page 7 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-225. Those are minutes of a meeting between Hitler and Raeder on the 30th of December 1939. I will read with the Court’s approval the second paragraph beginning:
“The Chief of the Naval Operations Staff requests that full power be given to the Naval Operations Staff in making any intensification suited to the situation and to the means of war. The Führer agrees in principle to the sinking without warning of Greek ships in the American prohibited area and of neutral ships in those sections of the American prohibited area in which the fiction of mine danger can be upheld, e.g., the Bristol Channel.”
At this time, of course, as the Tribunal knows, Greek ships were also neutral and I submit that this is yet another demonstration of the fact that Raeder was a man without principle.
This incitement to crime was, in my submission, a typical group effort, because in the Document C-12, which is at Page 1 of the document book, the Tribunal will see that a directive to the effect of those naval views was issued on the 30th of December 1939 by the OKW, being signed by the Defendant Jodl. And that Document C-12 will be Exhibit GB-226. It is an interesting document. It is dated the 30th of December 1939, and it reads:
“On the 30th of December 1939, according to a report of the Supreme Commander of the Navy, the Führer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces decided that:
“1) Greek merchant ships in the area declared by England and the U.S.A. to be a barred zone are to be treated as enemy vessels.
“2) In the Bristol Channel all shipping may be attacked without warning—where the impression of a mining incident can be created.
“Both measures are authorized to come into effect immediately.”
Another example of the callous attitude of the German Navy, when it was under Raeder’s command, towards neutral shipping, is found in an entry in Jodl’s diary. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps you should read the pencil note, oughtn’t you?
MAJOR JONES: The pencil note on the Document C-12 reads:
“Add to 1): Attack must be carried out without being seen. The denial of the sinking of these steamships, in case the expected protests are made, must be possible.”
As I was saying, My Lord, another example of the callous attitude of Raeder’s Navy towards neutral shipping is found in an entry in Jodl’s diary for the 16th of June 1942, at Page 112 of the document book, which is Document 1807-PS, and will be Exhibit GB-227. This extract from Jodl’s Diary is dated the 16th of June 1942 and it reads:
“The Operational Staff of the Navy (SKL) applied on the 29th May for permission to attack the Brazilian sea and air forces. The SKL considers that a sudden blow against the Brazilian warships and merchant ships is expedient at this juncture because defense measures are still incomplete, because there is the possibility of achieving surprise, and because Brazil is actually fighting Germany at sea.”
This, the Tribunal will see, was a plan for a kind of Brazilian “Pearl Harbor” because the Tribunal will recollect that war did not in effect break out between Germany and Brazil until the 22d of August 1942.
Raeder himself also caused the Navy to participate in War Crimes ordered by other conspirators, and I shall give one example only of that.
On the 28th of October 1942, as the Document C-179, Exhibit USA-543, at Page 63 of the document book shows, the head of the operations division of the naval war staff promulgated to naval commands Hitler’s notorious order of the 18th of October 1942 with regard to the shooting of Commandos which in my submission amounted to denying the protection of the Geneva Convention to captured Commandos.
The Tribunal will remember the document is dated the 28th of October 1942, and it reads:
“Enclosed please find a Führer order regarding annihilation of terror and sabotage units.
“This order must not be distributed in writing to officers below the rank of a flotilla leader or a section commander. After verbal notification to subordinate sections such officers must hand this order over to the next higher section which is responsible for its withdrawal and destruction.”
What clearer indication could there be than the nature of these instructions as to the naval command’s appreciation of the wrongfulness of the murders Hitler ordered?
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for 10 minutes?
[A recess was taken.]
MAJOR JONES: I have drawn the Tribunal’s attention to the circulation of Hitler’s order to shoot Commandos. I now draw the Tribunal’s attention to an example of the execution of that order by the German Navy during the period when Raeder was its commander.
My learned friend Mr. Roberts has already given the Tribunal an account of a Commando operation of December 1942, which had as its objective an attack on shipping in Bordeaux harbor. The Tribunal will recollect that the Wehrmacht account he quoted, Document UK-57, Exhibit GB-164, stated that six of the 10 participants in that commando raid were arrested and that all were shot on the 23 March 1943. In connection with that episode the Prosecution has a further document throwing more light on this Bordeaux incident and showing how much more expeditiously the Navy under Raeder had implemented Hitler’s order on this particular occasion. I draw the Court’s attention to Document C-176, at Page 61 of the document book, Exhibit GB-228.
That document consists of extracts from the war diary of Admiral Bachmann, who was the German flag officer in charge of western France. The first entry, at Page 61, is dated 10 December 1942 and reads:
“About 1015. Telephone call from personal representative of the Commander of the SD in Paris, SS Obersturmführer Dr. Schmidt, to flag lieutenant, requesting postponement of the shooting, as interrogation had not been concluded. . . .
“After consultation with the Chief of Operations Staff, the SD had been directed to get approval direct from headquarters.
“1820. SD, Bordeaux, requested Superior SD Office at Führer’s headquarters to postpone the shooting for 3 days. Interrogations continued for the time being.”
The next day, 11 December 1942:
“Shooting of two English prisoners was carried out by a unit (strength 1/16 men) attached to the harbor command, Bordeaux, in the presence of an officer of the SD on order of the Führer.”
Then there is a note in green pencil in the margin opposite this entry which reads:
“SD should have done this. Phone flag officer in charge in future cases.”
The Tribunal will therefore see from this Document C-176, that the first two gallant men to be shot as a result of the Bordeaux operation were actually put to death by a naval firing party on the 11th of December 1942. They were Sergeant Wallace and Marine Ewart, who had the misfortune to be captured on the 8th of December in the preliminary stages of the operation.
Of interest is the comment of the naval war staff upon this shooting, which is found in Document D-658.
THE PRESIDENT: What do the last two lines in Document C-176 about the operation being “particularly favored” mean?
MAJOR JONES: “The operation was particularly favored by the weather conditions and the dark night”—that presumably, My Lord, is a reference to the operation of the marine Commandos in successfully blowing up a number of German ships in Bordeaux harbor. Alternately, I am advised by the naval officer who is assisting me, that it probably is a reference to the conditions prevailing at the time of the shooting of the two men.
THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought so.
MAJOR JONES: I stand corrected by the representative of the British Navy upon my interpretation of the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn’t it indicate that naval men had done it?
MAJOR JONES: The shooting was in fact, as the entry of 11 December shows, carried out by a naval party—by units belonging to the naval officer in charge of Bordeaux.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR JONES: I was seeking to draw the Tribunal’s attention to the comment of the naval war staff upon that shooting, which is in Document D-658, at Page 109, Exhibit GB-229. It reads:
“The Naval Commander, west France, reports that during the course of the day explosives with magnets to stick on, mapping material dealing with the mouth of the Gironde, aerial photographs of the port installations at Bordeaux, camouflage material, and food and water for several days were found. Attempts to salvage the canoe were unsuccessful. The Naval Commander west France has ordered that both soldiers be shot immediately for attempted sabotage, if their interrogation, which has begun, confirms what has so far been discovered; their execution has, however, been postponed in order to obtain more information.
“According to a Wehrmacht report, both soldiers have meanwhile been shot. The measure would be in accordance with the Führer’s special order but is nevertheless something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform.”
I submit that that last sentence shows very clearly that the Naval High Command under Raeder accepted allegiance to the Nazi conspiracy as of greater importance than any question of moral principle or of professional honor and integrity. This operation of the shooting of those two Commandos was, as I submit, not an act of war, but a murder of two gallant men; and it is upon this somber note that it is my duty to summarize this part of the Prosecution’s case against the Defendant Raeder.
The Prosecution’s submission is that he was not just a military puppet carrying out political orders. The Tribunal has seen that, before the Nazis came, he had worked actively to rebuild the German Navy behind the back of the Reichstag. When the Nazis seized power, he unreservedly joined forces with them. He was the prime mover in transferring the loyalty of the German Navy to the Nazi Party. He was as much a member of the inner councils of the Nazis as possibly any other defendant. And he was a member of their main political advisory bodies.
He was well aware of their aggressive designs and I submit he assisted in their realization not only as a military technician, but also as a mendacious politician. And he furthered, as I have submitted, their brutal methods of warfare. And yet of all these conspirators Raeder was one of the first to fall from his high position. It is in fact true that the extension of war beyond the boundaries of Poland came as a disappointment to him. His vision of a Nazi armada mastering the Atlantic reckoned without Ribbentrop’s diplomacy and Hitler’s ideas of strategy.
I would draw the Tribunal’s attention to Document C-161, at Page 35 of the document book, which is an extract, Exhibit GB-230, from a memorandum of Raeder, dated 10 January 1943, just before his retirement, entitled, “The Importance of German Surface Forces for Conducting the War by the Powers Signatory to the Three Power Pact.” The material entry reads:
“. . . it was planned by the leaders of the National Socialist Reich to give the German Navy by 1944-45 such a strength that it would be possible to strike at the British vital arteries in the Atlantic with sufficient ships, fighting power, and range.
“In 1939, the war having begun 5 years earlier, the construction of these forces was still in its initial stages. . . .”
The Tribunal will see from that document how completely Raeder was cheated in his ambitious plans by miscalculation as to when his high seas fleet would be required. The Tribunal has seen that Raeder made a great effort to recover some of his lost glory with his attack on an inoffensive Norway. He made many efforts to liven up the war at sea, both at the expense of neutrals and also of the customs and laws of the sea. But his further schemes, however, were disregarded by his fellow conspirators, and in January 1943, Raeder retired, and thereafter he was a leader in name only.
I invite the Court’s attention to the Document D-655, at Page 108 of the document book, Exhibit GB-231, which is a record in Raeder’s handwriting of his interview with Hitler on the 6th of January 1943, which led to Raeder’s retirement. I am only proposing to read the fifth paragraph, in which Raeder records:
“. . . if the Führer was anxious to demonstrate that the parting was of the friendliest character and wished that the name Raeder should continue to be associated with the Navy, particularly abroad, it would perhaps be possible to make an appointment to the Inspector General, giving appropriate publicity in the press, et cetera. But a new Commander-in-Chief of the Navy with full responsibility for this office must be appointed. The position of Inspector General, or whatever it was decided to call it, must be purely nominal.
“The Führer”—the record reads—“accepted this suggestion with alacrity. The Inspector General could perhaps carry out special tasks for him, make tours of inspection, et cetera. The name of Raeder was still to be associated with the Navy. After Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had repeated his request, the Führer definitely agreed to 30th January as his release date. He would like to think over the details.”
This was Raeder’s twilight, and indeed a very different occasion from the period of his ascendancy in 1939, when on the 12th of March Raeder spoke on the occasion of the German Heroes’ Day. I now refer the Court to the final document on Raeder, an account of that speech in March 1939, which is at Page 103 of the document book, in the Document D-653, Exhibit GB-232. The first paragraph reads:
“Throughout Germany celebrations took place on the occasion of Hero Commemoration Day. . . . These celebrations were combined for the first time with the celebration of the freedom to rearm. . . . The day’s chief event was the traditional ceremony held in the Berlin State Opera House in Unter den Linden.”
In the presence of Hitler and representatives of the Party and Armed Forces, General-Admiral Raeder made a speech, extracts from which are given below.
I turn to Page 2 of the record, Page 104 of the document book, to about the 15th line:
“National Socialism”—says Raeder—“which originates from the spirit of the German fighting soldier, has been chosen by the German people as its ideology. The German people follow the symbols of its regeneration with as much great love as fanatical passion. The German people has had practical experience of National Socialism and it has not been imposed, as so many helpless critics abroad believe. The Führer has shown his people that in the National Socialist solidarity of the people lies the great and invincible source of strength, whose dynamic power ensures not only peace at home but also enables us to release all the Nation’s creative powers.”
There follow eulogies of Hitler, and a few sentences below:
“This is the reason for the clear and unsparing summons to fight Bolshevism and international Jewry, the nation-destroying activities of which our own people have sufficiently suffered. Therefore, the alliance with all like-minded nations who, like Germany, are not willing to allow their strength, dedicated to construction and peaceful work at home, to be disrupted by alien ideologies and by parasites of a foreign race.”
Then a few sentences on:
“If later on we instruct in the technical handling of weapons, this task demands that the young soldier should also be taught National Socialist ideology and the problems of life. This part of the task, which becomes for us both a duty of honor and a demand which cannot be refused, can and will be carried out if we stand shoulder to shoulder and in sincere comradeship to the Party and its organizations. . . .”
The next sentence:
“The Armed Forces and the Party thus became more and more united in attitude and spirit.”
And then just two sentences on the next page:
“Germany is the protector of all Germans within and beyond our frontiers. The shots fired at Almeria are proof of that.”
That refers, of course, to the bombardment of the Spanish town of Almeria, carried out by a German naval squadron on the 31 May 1937 during the course of the Spanish Civil War.
There are further references to the Führer and his leadership, and then a final sentence of the first paragraph of Page 3:
“They all planted into a younger generation the great tradition of death for a holy cause, knowing that with their blood they will lead the way towards the freedom of their dreams.”
My submission is that that speech of Raeder’s is the final proof of his deep personal involvement in the Nazi conspiracy. There is the mixture of heroics and fatalism that led millions of Germans to slaughter. There are boasts of violence used on the people of Almeria. There is the lip service to peace by a man who planned conquest. “Armed Forces and the Party have become more and more united in attitude and spirit”—there is the authentic Nazi voice. There is the assertion of racialism. Finally, there is the anti-Semitic gesture, Raeder’s contribution to the outlook that produced Belsen. Imbued with these ideas he became an active participant on both the political and military level in the Nazi conspiracy to wage wars of aggression and to wage them ruthlessly.
MR. RALPH G. ALBRECHT (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the United States will continue with the presentation, showing the individual responsibility of the Defendant Von Schirach. It will be made by Captain Sprecher.
CAPTAIN DREXEL A. SPRECHER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, it is my responsibility to present the individual responsibility of the Defendant Schirach for Crimes against the Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity as they concern directly the Common Plan or Conspiracy.
The Prosecution contends that the Defendant Schirach is guilty of having exercised a leading part in the Nazi conspiracy from 1925 until the Nazi downfall.
The conspiratorial acts and the criminality of the Defendant Schirach may be grouped for purposes of convenience into three principal phases: (1) His early support of the conspirators over the period 1925-1929; (2) his leadership and direction of German youth over the period 1929-1945; (3) his leadership of the Reichsgau Vienna as chief representative of the Nazi Party and the Nazi State in Vienna for the period July 1940 to 1945. The presentation will take up each of these principal phases after a brief listing of all the principal positions which Schirach held.
In presenting first a listing of the positions held by Schirach, it is not intended immediately to describe the functions of each of these positions. Insofar as a description of the functions of any particular position is still felt necessary at this stage of the Trial, it will be given later during the discussion of Schirach’s conspiratorial acts as Nazi Youth Leader and as Nazi official in Vienna.
For the consideration of the Tribunal, we have submitted a brief on this subject. The document book contains English translations of 29 documents. Although we feel that we have reduced the number of documents to the minimum, the document book is still large. But Schirach’s subversion of German youth is a large subject, even apart from any of his other acts. Most of these documents are from German publications, of which the Tribunal can take judicial notice. Therefore, in most cases, it is intended only to paraphrase these documents, unless the Tribunal in particular instances will indicate that they like fuller treatment.
Before passing to the proof I want to express my appreciation, particularly to Major Hartley Murray, Lieutenant Fred Niebergall at my right, and Mr. Norbert Heilpern for their assistance in research, analysis, translation, and organization of these materials.
Schirach agrees he held the following positions. They are found in two affidavits, an affidavit of certificate and one affidavit of report dated December 1945, which is Document 3302-PS, document book, Page 110.
I want to offer that affidavit as Exhibit Number USA-665. The certificate, which I will rely on for only one point, is Document 2973-PS. It is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-14.
Turning first to Document 3302-PS: This affidavit shows that Schirach was a member of the Party from 1925 to 1945; that he was a leader of the National Socialist Student League from 1929 to 1931; that he was leader of the Hitler Youth Organization from 1931 to 1940. In 1931 and 1932 Schirach was Reich Youth Leader on the staff of the SA Supreme Command, where at that time all Nazi youth organizations were centralized. Also, Schirach was Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP from 1931 to 1940.
In 1932 Schirach became an independent Reich Leader (Reichsleiter), in the Party. Upon acquiring this relatively independent position, he no longer remained on the staff of the SA Supreme Command, since Nazi youth affairs thereafter, with the creation of the Reich Youth Leadership, were directly subordinate to Hitler with Schirach at the helm. We had that kind of condition existing in the Party where, under the Leadership Principle, at the pinnacle you had one man, Schirach, and you no longer had the youth affairs underneath the SA. However, within the SA, Schirach retained the rank and the title of a Gruppenführer throughout the period from 1931 to 1941, and in that year, 1941, he was elevated to the rank of an SA Obergruppenführer, a rank which Schirach continued to hold in the SA until the collapse.
Schirach was Reich Leader of Youth Education in the NSDAP from 1932 until the collapse. In other words, from before the Nazis came to state power until the final downfall, this defendant held the high position of a Reichsleiter, a Reich Leader, inside the Party.
Now, in addition to these positions in the Party, Schirach held the following positions in the Nazi State:
Reich Youth Leader, 1933 to 1940; Reich governor (Reichsstatthalter) of the Reichsgau Vienna, 1940 to 1945; Reich Defense Commissioner of Vienna, 1940 to 1945.
Now, although Schirach gave up some of his positions with respect to the leadership of German youth in 1940 when he accepted these positions in Vienna, he still continued to hold after that time the Party position of Reich Leader for Youth Education in the NSDAP. Moreover, he was given a very special position: Deputy to the Führer for the Inspection of the Hitler Youth, the organization which he, of course, had led until 1940. He continued in these last two positions until the downfall.
The certificate, Document 2973-PS, the only thing I rely on there in this particular presentation, is to show that Schirach was a member of the Reichstag from 1932 to 1945.
We next take up acts showing that Schirach actively promoted the NSDAP and its affiliated youth organizations before the Nazis seized power. Schirach was an intimate and a servile follower of Hitler from the year 1925. In that year, when he was only 18 years old, Schirach joined the Nazi conspirators by becoming a member of the Party. Upon special request of Hitler, he went to Munich to study Party affairs. He became active in converting students to National Socialism. I am paraphrasing there, Your Honors, from Paragraph 2 of Schirach’s own affidavit, Document 3302-PS, Exhibit Number USA-665, found at Page 110 of the document book.
Now, this was the start of conspiratorial activities which Schirach thereafter continued for two decades in a spirit of unbending loyalty to Hitler and to the principles of National Socialism. Hitler’s early personal attentions to this defendant bore fruit for the conspirators, and we find Schirach’s stature in the Party circles rapidly growing through these early years.
In 1929 Schirach was made national leader of the entire National Socialist German Students League. He retained this position for 2 years until 1931. Document 3464-PS, document book, Page 121, is an extract from the 1936 edition of the Party manual, Exhibit Number USA-666, which I would like to offer in evidence. This makes it clear that the purpose of the Nazi Students League was the ideological and political conversion of students in universities and technical schools to National Socialism.
After 1931 Schirach devoted his full time to Party work. Schirach was elected a Nazi member of the Reichstag in 1932, and therefore he played his part in the unparliamentary conduct of the Nazi Reichstag members during the last months of the existence of the Reichstag as an independent instrument of government.
Some of the best evidence concerning Schirach’s support of the conspiracy in its early stages comes from Schirach’s own words in his book The Hitler Youth. Excerpts from this book are found in Document Number 1458-PS, document book, Page 1. It is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-667. Now, since this book, Your Honors, covers many years and many topics, I shall be required to refer to it occasionally later on.
An example of Schirach’s servile loyalty to Hitler during the early years is found at Page 17 of this book, Page 12 of your document book. There he writes of his early years of Party activity as follows:
“We were not yet able to account for our conception in detail. We simply believed. And when Hitler’s book Mein Kampf was published, it was our bible, which we almost learned by heart in order to answer the questions of the doubters and superior critics. Almost everyone who today is leading youth in a responsible position joined us in those years.”
Before 1933 Schirach moved throughout Germany, leading demonstrations, summoning German youth to membership in the Hitler Youth. When the Hitler Youth and the wearing of its uniform were forbidden by law, Schirach continued his activities by illegal means. Of this period he himself writes, at Page 26 of his book on The Hitler Youth, Pages 16 and 17 of your document book, as follows:
“At this time the HJ (the Hitler Jugend) gained its best human material. Whoever came to us during this illegal time, boy or girl, risked everything. . . . With pistols in our pockets we drove through the Ruhr district while stones came flying after us. We jumped every time we heard a bell ring, because we lived in constant fear of arrests and expected our houses to be searched.”
At Page 27 of the same book, Page 18 of Your Honors’ document book, Schirach indicates that in the early intra-Party fight between Hitler and Strasser, Schirach clung steadfastly to the Hitler clique, and then, in discussing Strasser, he exchanged his confidence only with Hitler and the Defendant Streicher. It is hardly necessary to argue that such an intimate of the Führer, himself, was advised from the beginning of the general purposes, plans, and methods of the conspiracy.
As an interesting sidelight, I believe a number of those conferences, you will note, took place in Schirach’s apartment in Munich, and that Hitler used to come there occasionally.
Schirach was the leading Nazi conspirator in destroying all independent youth organizations and in building the Nazi youth movement. In connection with this point, the attention of the Tribunal is invited to the brief of the United States Chief of Counsel entitled “The Reshaping of Education, Training of Youth,” which was written for the United States Chief of Counsel by Major Hartley Murray, and to the documents cited therein under the section headed “b.” “The Nazi conspirators supplemented the school system by training youth through the Hitler Jugend.” These documents were offered in evidence in Document Book D in the earlier phase of this Trial. The attention of the Tribunal is also called to the motion picture The Nazi Plan, which was shown before the Tribunal on the 11th of December, insofar as that film involved the Defendant Schirach and his Hitler Youth organization. Occasions when Schirach’s activities are shown in this film are noted in Document Number 3054-PS, the index and the guide to this film, which is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-167.
It was the task of Schirach to perpetuate the Nazi regime through generations by poisoning the minds of youth with Nazi ideology and preparing youth for aggressive war. This poisoning will long outlive the defendant. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of this exposure must be to bring to those German youths who survived the Nazi-created catastrophe a true picture of this man whom Nazi propaganda presented as a great youth hero; a man against whom the living breath of free criticism and the truth itself could make no answer before German youth or before the German people, for more than 10 years.
Again, from Schirach’s own hand in his book, The Hitler Youth, we have crystal-clear evidence concerning the methods and the tactics employed by this defendant in his destruction of independent youth organizations and their incorporation into the Hitler Youth. At Page 32, Pages 19 and 20 of Your Honors’ document book, Schirach states that in 1933 the new Cabinet ministers were too overburdened to solve the youth question by their own initiative; that therefore he, Schirach, then leader of the Hitler Youth, commissioned one of his confederates to lead 50 members of the Berlin Hitler Youth in a surprise raid on the Reich Committee of German Youth Organizations. This raid resulted in destroying the Reich Committee and its absorption within the Hitler Youth. This raid was closely followed by a second surprise raid of like success upon the Youth Hostels Organization, Page 33, The Hitler Youth, found at Pages 20 and 21 of the document book.
Now, after these successful showings of force and terror, Schirach’s star climbed higher. He was appointed Youth Leader of the German Reich in June 1931 in a solemn ceremony before Hitler. Concerning his next steps, Schirach writes at Pages 35 and 36 of his book, Page 22 of the document book, as follows:
“The first thing I did was to dissolve the Greater German League. Since I headed all German youth organizations and I had the right to decide on their leadership, I did not hesitate for a moment to take this step which was for the Hitler Youth the elimination of an unbearable state of affairs.”
Schirach accomplished the dissolution and destruction of most youth organizations by orders which he issued and signed as Youth Leader of the German Reich. This is shown by the order contained in Document Number 2229-PS, your document book, Page 65, which is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-668.
By this one order of Schirach nine youth organizations were dissolved, including the Boy Scout movement.
The Protestant and Catholic youth organizations were the last to be destroyed and absorbed by the Hitler Youth. Schirach accomplished the absorption of the Protestant youth organization by agreement with the Hitler-appointed Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller, Page 38 of The Hitler Youth, Page 24 of the document book. Schirach’s objective in forcing all German youth into the Hitler Youth was finally accomplished in December 1936 by the basic law on the Hitler Youth. Document Number 1392-PS is a decree, 1936, Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 993, of which, of course, the Tribunal may take judicial notice. This law declared in part, and Your Honors, I read from this because it shows so clearly the nature of what was to happen and what was already happening to German youth under Schirach.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it set out in the document book?
CAPT. SPRECHER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
CAPT. SPRECHER: It is Document Number 1392-PS. It is at Page 6 of your document book:
“The future of the German nation depends on its youth, and German youth will have to be prepared for its future duties. . . . All of the German youth in the Reich is organized within the Hitler Youth. . . . The German youth, besides being reared within the family and school, shall be educated physically, intellectually, and morally in the spirit of National Socialism to serve the people and the community through the Hitler Youth. . . . The task of educating the German youth through the Hitler Youth is being entrusted to the Reich Leader of German Youth in the NSDAP. . . .”
The first executive order on this basic law concerning the Hitler Youth was issued on the 25th of March 1939. If you refer to Page 40 of your document book, this decree, 1939, Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 709, among other points confirms the exclusive nature of Schirach’s responsibility concerning German youth. I will quote only one sentence:
“The Youth Leader of the German Reich is solely competent for all missions of the physical, ideological, and moral education of the entire German youth outside home and school.”
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, I think you have told us enough now to satisfy us that Von Schirach was in charge, of the ideological education of German youth and completely in charge of it.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And we don’t desire to hear any more of it.
CAPT. SPRECHER: I understand.
In exercising his far-reaching control over German youth, Schirach naturally relied on the common techniques of the Nazi conspirators, including the Leadership Principle, the nature of which has already been established before this Tribunal. The Tribunal will find a galling glorification and explanation of the Leadership Principle as it was applied to German youth, in Schirach’s book, The Hitler Youth, at Page 68, translated at Page 32 of the document book. I won’t read from that.
In his affidavit, Document Number 3302-PS, Paragraph 5, Schirach states, “It was my task to educate the youth in the aims, ideology, and directives of the NSDAP, and beyond this to direct and to shape them.”
Naturally, Schirach established and directed an elaborate propaganda apparatus to accomplish a thorough-going poisoning of the minds of German youth. Document Number 3349-PS, your document book Page 114, is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-666.
This is an excerpt from Pages 452 and 453 of the 1936 edition of the Party manual. This document will show that the Reich Youth Leadership (Reichsjugendführung) of the NSDAP prepared and published numerous periodicals ranging from a daily press service to monthly magazines. This document also shows that the propaganda office of the Hitler Youth maintained, through liaison agents, a political and ideological connection with the propaganda office of the NSDAP and with the Propaganda Ministry, both of which, of course, were headed by the conspirator Goebbels.
Schirach shares with the conspirator Dr. Robert Ley, Reich Organizationsleiter of the NSDAP, the responsibility for the establishment and general administration of the Adolf Hitler Schools. This is shown by a joint statement of Ley and Schirach in the year 1937, which is found in the document book at Page 100. It is our Document 2653-PS, offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-669. This document shows that these Adolf Hitler Schools were open free of charge to outstanding and proved members of the Young Folk, the junior section of the Hitler Youth organization. It further shows that the object of these schools was the building of youthful leadership for the Nazi Party and the Nazi State apparatus.
Schirach extended his education of German Youth into the field of law and the legal profession even though these fields were principally under the control of the Defendant Frank. Proof is found in Document Number 3459-PS, Page 120 of the document book. This is a one-page extract from an account of the Congress of German Law in 1939. It is offered as Exhibit Number USA-670. This document shows that beyond purely technical education in law it was considered by the conspirators to be the task of the Party to exercise influence upon the ideological conceptions of the Young Law Guardians League. This league was a junior organization of the National Socialist Law Guardians League, a Nazi-controlled organization of lawyers.
Now, at this Congress to which the document refers, an official of the youth law guardians declared that ignorance of the simplest legal principles could best be fought within the Hitler Youth and that, therefore, the legal education program of the Hitler Youth was to receive the broadest support.
Obergebietsführer Arthur Axmann, the subordinate of Schirach at that time and who in 1940 was to succeed him as leader of the Hitler Youth, was at that time, namely, May 1939, appointed the chairman of a youth legal committee for the establishment of the Youth Law. He was appointed by the Defendant Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, I don’t think I made it quite clear that the Tribunal is not really interested in these details by which the Defendant Von Schirach acquired his power over the German Youth. You have told us sufficient to establish in our minds, so far at any rate, that he managed to get absolute command over the German youth. The only thing that seems to me to be material, at the present stage, is whether or not you can show us any direct evidence that the Defendant Schirach was a party to the aggressive aims of the Reich leaders, or to any War Crimes or to any Crimes against Humanity. Unless you can show us that, your address to us is really not useful to us at this stage.
CAPT. SPRECHER: I plan to take up directly, Your Honor, the question of the militarization of youth. I did want to make one reference at this point to the relation of the Hitler Youth to the League for Germans Abroad, if that is satisfactory to Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that may bear on the aggressive aims of the Reich leaders.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Schirach extended the influence of the Hitler Youth beyond the borders of Germany by means of co-operation between the Hitler Youth and the League for Germans Abroad, the VDA. This is proved by an agreement made in 1933 between Schirach and leaders of the VDA which is contained in Document L-360(h), document book Page 3. This is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-671.
Now, Schirach discusses in his book, The Hitler Youth, under the chapter heading, “Work Abroad”—that is Chapter 4 of the book, Pages 34 to 38 of the document book—some of the connections of the Hitler Youth with such Nazi ideas as Lebensraum, colonial policy as an ideological weapon.
I won’t read from that, since it also covers to a certain extent. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Did it talk about Lebensraum?
CAPT. SPRECHER: It actually used the word Lebensraum. At Page 36 of the document book there is reference made to the Ostraum, space in the East. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the document you were dealing with was L-360 on Page 3.
CAPT. SPRECHER: I am sorry. I had gone on from there, to speak about Schirach’s book, Document 1458-PS, and I had mentioned that at Pages 34 to 38 of the document book there were references concerning the Nazi ideas of colonial policy and Lebensraum, and that this book by Schirach indicated that the Hitler Youth was charged with spreading those ideas.
He uses the word “Ostraum” in speaking of space in the East, and he discusses German youth organizations abroad and the German schools in these countries. And then I wish particularly to point out on Page 37 the following sentence:
“It will be taken into consideration concerning this schooling that the guiding line of German population policy which aims at the utilization of the space in the East will not be violated.”
Now, the conspirators devoted a great deal of energy to the perpetuation of their scheme of things by selecting and training successors for Nazi leadership, selecting and training and acquiring active Nazis for the rank and file of the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations, including the SA and the SS which are alleged here to be criminal organizations.
A number of orders issued by the Party Chancellery under the heading, “Successor Problems,” show the dominant part assumed by Schirach and his Hitler Youth in this field. Our Document Number 3348-PS, “Selections from Volume I of the Decrees, Regulations, and Announcements of the Party Chancellery,” already marked in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-410, contains some of these orders, which I won’t take the time to read. But they are all contained on one page, Page 113, of your document book.
Only Hitler Youth members who distinguished themselves were to be admitted to the Party. Nazi leaders were directed to absorb full-time Hitler Youth leaders into their staffs so as to offer them practical experience and thus secure necessary successors for the Leadership Corps which is also alleged as a criminal organization. This pivotal and central function of the Hitler Youth in the domination of German life by the Party is also shown at Pages 80 and 81 of the 1938 Party manual, Exhibit Number USA-430, found at Page 74 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: That last page, Page 113, does that refer to any of the matters to which I drew your attention? It is simply the organization of the youth; it has nothing to do with any criminal aims.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Your Honor, it certainly is the contention of the Prosecution that any man who took an active part in furnishing for these criminal organizations young members committed a crime.
THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand that, and that is why I told you that we were satisfied that so far you had shown that he had acquired absolute control over and was the leader of the German youth. The only thing we want to hear about at this stage is whether he was a party to the schemes for aggressive war, to War Crimes, or to Crimes against Humanity. That is what we want to hear, and we don’t want to hear anything else.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Your Honors, may I pass, then, to the connection of Hitler Youth to the SS. Document 2396-PS, which is found at Page 69 of the document book and which is offered as Exhibit Number USA-673, has a quotation in it concerning the Streifendienst of the Hitler Youth; the Streifendienst being the patrol service, a type of self-police organization of the Hitler Youth. The quotation which I intend to read will indicate how this organization became the principal supplier of the SS.
Are Your Honors interested in having me read that quotation concerning the Hitler Youth as the main source of the SS?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps; I haven’t read it.
CAPT. SPRECHER: This document is an agreement between Schirach and Himmler. It was concluded in October 1938. It bears, I think, partial quoting:
“Organization of the Streifendienst.
“1. Since the Streifendienst in the Hitler Youth has to perform tasks similar to those which the SS perform for the whole movement, it is organized as a special unit for the purpose of securing recruits for the General SS. However, as much as possible, recruits for the SS Special Troops, for the SS Death’s Head Units, and for the officer-candidate schools, should also be taken from these formations.”
I am skipping down now to 4a, which is underlined in red in your book:
“The selection of Streifendienst members is made according to the principles of racial selection of the Schutzstaffel. The competent officials of the SS, primarily unit leaders, race authorities, and SS physicians, will be consulted for the admission tests.”
Skipping to 5:
“To insure from the beginning a good understanding between Reich Youth Leadership and Reich SS leadership, a liaison officer will be ordered from the Reich Youth Leadership to the SS Main Office starting 1 October 1938. The appointment of other leaders to the higher SS sections is a subject for a future agreement.”
Then, going down to what I think is the most striking quotation, Your Honor, 6:
“After the organization is completed, the SS takes its replacement primarily from these Streifendienst members. Admission of youths of German blood who are not members of the Hitler Youth is then possible only after information and advice of the competent Bannführer.”
Now, the Bannführer referred to there was the local leader of the Hitler Jugend; and without his consent no one could go into the SS in the future after that agreement was made, which was in October 1938.
Now, the second agreement which Schirach made with Himmler was made in December 1938. It is found in our document book, Number 2567-PS, Page 98. It is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-674. It states that the Farm Service of the Hitler Youth “is, according to education and aim, particularly well suited as a recruiting agency for the SS, General SS, and the armed section of the SS, SS Special Troops, and SS Death’s Head battalions.”
The agreement concludes by stating that Farm Service members of the Hitler Youth who pass the SS admission tests will be taken over by the SS immediately after leaving the Hitler Youth Farm Service.
I might point out to Your Honors that this meant that after that time any Hitler Youth member who was in the Farm Service was obliged to go into the SS.
And now, to come directly to the point you have been inquiring about, Your Honor:
Throughout the 6 years of Nazi political control over Germany before the launching of aggressive war, Schirach was actively engaged in militarizing German youth. From the beginning, the Hitler Youth was set up along military lines with uniforms, ranks and titles. It was regimented and led in military fashion under the Leadership Principle.
If Your Honors will take any edition whatsoever of the Organization Book, the Party manual, and turn to the tables, beginning with Table 54, and leaf through the book, you will see the very striking insignia of the Hitler Youth and how much it compares to what the normal military insignia were. You will further notice that one of the most prominent insignia is an “S” of the same type that the Nazis used with respect to the SS. You will notice that part of the uniform was a long knife.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t that all a part of what they are pleased to call the Nazi ideology? I mean, the Führer Principle, military training?
CAPT. SPRECHER: There is a relation between all of these things, perhaps, and the Leadership Principle, because the Leadership Principle dominated absolutely every aspect of German life. However, Your Honors, I suggest that showing to you, in this graphic means, the similarity between the uniform of the Hitler Youth and military uniforms has some bearing upon the preparation for aggressive wars, about which I am further to speak in just a moment.
Now, Document 2654-PS, found at Page 102 of your document book, is a whole book given over to just this question of the organization and the insignia of the Hitler Youth.
The Tribunal will see how the Hitler Youth was divided into branches or divisions which were very similar to military divisions.
That document is offered as Exhibit Number USA-675. I will refer no further to it.
Now, in a speech in February 1938, when the conspirators had already dropped some of the camouflage which surrounded their earlier military preparations for the wars which we have recently suffered, Hitler discussed the military training of the Hitler Youth in the Völkischer Beobachter of the 21st of February 1938. This is our Document 2454-PS, found at Page 97 of the document book. It is offered as Exhibit Number USA-676.
Hitler there said that thousands of German boys had received specialized training through the Hitler Youth in naval, aviation, and motorized groups and that over 7,000 instructors had trained more than 1 million Hitler Youth members in rifle shooting. That was February 1938, shortly before the Anschluss. Note the progress of military training within the Hitler Youth between then and August 1939, just 1 month before the invasion of Poland.
At that time the Defendant Schirach and the Defendant Keitel, as Chief of the High Command, entered into another one of those informative agreements, which many of these defendants liked to make among themselves. It is Document Number 2398-PS, your document book Page 72. It is offered as Exhibit Number USA-677. It is taken from Das Archiv which, in introducing the actual agreement, declared that this agreement was “the result of close co-operation” between Schirach and Keitel. The agreement itself states, in part:
“While it is exclusively the task of the Hitler Youth to attend to the training of their units in this direction, it is suitable, in the sense of a uniformed training corresponding to the demands of the Wehrmacht, to support the leadership of the Hitler Youth for their responsible task as trainers and educators in all fields of training for defense by special courses.”
And then, skipping down towards the end, you will note this quotation within the agreement: “A great number of courses are in progress.”
Your Honor, if I may take about 5 minutes, I can finish this one section on the aggressive war phase.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Whereas Hitler, in February 1938, mentioned that 7,000 Hitler Youth leaders were engaged in training German youngsters in rifle shooting, Schirach and Keitel, in their agreement of August 1939, note the following:
“. . . 30,000 Hitler Youth leaders are already being trained annually in field service. The agreement with the Wehrmacht gives the possibility of roughly doubling that number. The billeting and messing of the Hitler Youth leaders is done, according to the regulations for execution already published, in the barracks, drill grounds, et cetera, of the Wehrmacht, at a daily cost of 25 Pfennig.”
Just as Schirach dealt with the head of the SS in obtaining zealous recruits for organized banditry and the commission of atrocities, so also he dealt with the head of the Wehrmacht in furnishing young men as human grist for the mill of aggressive war.
The training of German youths runs through the Nazi conspiracy as an important central thread. It is one of the manifestations of Nazism which has shocked the entire civilized world. The principal responsibility for the planning and execution of the Nazi Youth policy falls upon this defendant.
I wish to take merely one sentence from his own affidavit, Paragraph 5, Document Number 3302-PS, so that there can be no doubt before this Tribunal or before the world, indeed, as to this defendant’s own feeling of responsibility: “I feel myself responsible for the policy of the youth movement in the Party and later within the Reich.” I underline the phrase “I feel myself responsible.”
Your Honor, that is a convenient breaking point before coming to a discussion of Schirach’s connection to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 16 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THIRTY-FIFTH DAY Wednesday, 16 January 1946
Morning Session
CAPT. SPRECHER: May it please the Tribunal, I now pass to activities which involve Schirach in the commission of Crimes against Humanity as they bear directly on Count One. The presentation of all specific acts will deal with the Reichsgau Vienna; but first allow me to refer back to two important points in the previous proof, which will show that Schirach bears responsibility for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity which bring in the whole of Europe. Through his agreements with Himmler he provided, through the Hitler Youth, many if not most of the SS men who administered, in the main, the concentration camps and whose War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity throughout Europe generally are notorious.
Nor should we pass to further specific acts of Schirach without mentioning one more thing: that he cannot escape responsibility for implanting in youth the Nazi ideology generally, with its tenets of a master race, sub-human peoples, and Lebensraum and world domination. For such notions were the psychological prerequisites for the instigation and for the tolerance of the atrocities which zealous Nazis committed throughout Germany and the occupied countries.
To present Schirach’s responsibilities for crimes committed within the Reichsgau Vienna, where Schirach was Gau leader and Reich governor from July 1940 until the downfall, the general basic functions of these two offices must be held in mind.
The first document I refer to is Document Number 1893-PS. This is an extract from the Party manual of 1943 and therefore catches Schirach in midstream in his activities in the Reichsgau Vienna. That is Page 42 of the document book, and Pages 70, 71, 75, 98, 136, and 140b of the Party manual, extracts from each of those pages appearing in your document book.
The following highlights concerning the Gau leader’s functions will appear, and I propose only to paraphrase. Since Your Honor may take judicial notice of the Party manual, you may check at your leisure unless you wish me to read from any one of these specific orders. These orders make it appear that the Gau leader was the highest representative of Hitler in his Gau, that he was the bearer of sovereignty—the top Hoheitsträger—and that he had sovereign political rights. Beyond that, he was responsible for the entire political situation in his Gau. He could call—and we believe this is important—he could call upon SA and SS leaders as “needed in the execution of a political mission.” Beyond that he was obliged to meet at least once a month with the leaders of the affiliated Party organizations within his Gau, and this, of course, included the SS.
Now, the position of the Reich Governor in Vienna is somewhat special. After the Anschluss the State of Austria was abolished, and Austria was divided into seven Reich Gaue. The most important of these Gaue was the Reichsgau Vienna, of which Schirach was Governor. Reference to any statistical manual of the Reich at this time will establish that at that time Vienna had a population of over 2 million people. Therefore it was certainly one of the principal cities of the Reich. The Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice of the decree, 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 777, our Document Number 3301-PS, found at Page 107 of the document book. This is the basic law on the administrative reorganization of Austria. It was enacted in April 1939, a little more than a year before Schirach became Governor. This law shows that Schirach, as Governor, was the lieutenant of the head of the German State, Hitler; that he could issue decrees and orders within the limitations set by the supreme Reich authorities; that he was especially under the administrative supervision of the Defendant Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior; and that he was also the first mayor of the city of Vienna. For the same period that Schirach was Gau leader and Reich Governor of Vienna, he was also Reich Defense Commissioner of Vienna; and after 1940, of course, the Reich was engaged in war.
Because of his far-reaching responsibilities and authority in these positions, the Prosecution contends that Schirach must be held guilty, specifically, of all the crimes of the Nazi conspirators in the Reichsgau Vienna, on the ground that he either initiated, approved, executed, or abetted these crimes. Specific examples follow which, in fact, demonstrate that Schirach was actively and personally engaged in Nazi crimes, and that, when he became boastful—a characteristic never lacking in most of these defendants—he himself admitted his own involvement in acts which are crimes within the competence of this Tribunal.
I come first to slave-labor.
The slave-labor program naturally played its part in staffing the industries of as large and important a city as Vienna. The general nature of this program and the crimes flowing therefrom have been in part set before you by Mr. Dodd. The Soviet prosecutors will present further acts later on. Our Document Number 3352-PS, found at Page 116 of your document book, which I would like to offer as Exhibit USA-206, gives extracts from a number of orders of the Party chancellery. Each of these orders from which the extracts have been taken bear on the Gau leader’s responsibility for manpower placement and utilization. They prove quite simply and in unmistakable language that the Gau leaders under the direction of the experienced old Gau leader Sauckel, who was plenipotentiary for manpower, became the supreme integrating and co-ordinating agents of the Nazi conspirators in the entire manpower program. At Page 116 of your document book—Page 508 of the original volume of orders—the Defendant Göring is shown to have agreed, as leader of the Four Year Plan, to Sauckel’s suggestion that the Gau leaders be utilized to assure the highest efficiency in manpower. At Page 117 of your document book—Page 511 of the orders of the Party chancellery—Sauckel in July 1942 makes the Gau leaders his special plenipotentiaries for manpower within their Gaue, with the duty of establishing a harmonious co-operation of all interests concerned. In effect the Gau leader became the supreme arbitrator for all the conflicting interests that exist during wartime with respect to claims upon manpower. Under this same order the regional labor offices and their staffs were “directed to be at the disposal of the Gau leaders for information and advice and to fulfill the suggestions and demands of the Gau leader for the purpose of improvements in manpower. . . .” At Pages 118 and 119 of your document book—Page 567 of the Party chancellery orders—the Defendant Sauckel ordered that his special plenipotentiaries, the Gau leaders, familiarize themselves with the general regulations on Eastern Workers. He stated that his immediate objective was “to prevent politically inept factory heads giving too much consideration to the care of Eastern Workers and thereby cause justified annoyance among the German workers.”
We submit to the Tribunal that if Schirach as Gau leader was required to concern himself in such manpower details as concern over the alleged annoyance of German workers for the consideration given Eastern Workers, it is unnecessary to press further into the detailed workings of the manpower program to establish Schirach’s connection with, and responsibility for, the slave-labor program in the Reichsgau Vienna.
I now pass to the persecution of the churches.
The elimination of the religious youth organizations while Schirach was chief Nazi youth leader has already been noted. In March 1941 two letters, one from the Defendant Bormann, the other from the conspirator Hans Lammers. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, have you any other evidence which connects Von Schirach with the problem of manpower?
CAPT. SPRECHER: I had planned on presenting nothing further, Your Honor. I felt that in view of the fact that our Soviet colleagues are going further with the details of the manpower program, particularly in the East, the main objective under Count One should merely be to show the general responsibility of the Defendant Schirach for the slave-labor program, and the question of specific acts will have to be taken from the other proof in the Record, which will come, into the Record later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
CAPT. SPRECHER: There is just one further point: When I come to the treatment of the Jews in a few minutes, there will be one or two specific examples.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now going to deal with the persecution of churches, is that right?
CAPT. SPRECHER: Yes, Sir.
Now, the Tribunal is referred to Document R-146, at Page 5 of the document book. This is offered as Exhibit USA-678.
I am a little in doubt, Your Honors, as to whether I should read all this document, in view of our common anxiousness to pass rapidly on; but perhaps I may paraphrase it, and if you are not satisfied I will read it.
These documents establish clearly that during a visit by Hitler to Vienna, Schirach and two other officials brought a complaint before the Führer that the confiscations of Church property in Austria, made on various pretexts, should be made in favor of the Gaue rather than of the Reich. Later the Führer decided the issue in favor of the position which had been taken by Schirach, namely, in favor of the Gau. I use this merely to connect Schirach with the persecution of the churches, concerning which there has been a great deal of evidence before this time.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): None of it is in evidence yet. You have not put anything in evidence. We cannot take judicial notice of something unless you ask us to.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Your ruling is that this would not be in evidence unless I read it?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not making any ruling; I was merely pointing out to you that we have nothing in evidence on the last document.
CAPT. SPRECHER: I think, under the circumstances, I had better read this document:
“Munich, 20 March 1941, Brown House, Personal-Secret.
“To: All Gau leaders. Subject: Sequestration of Church properties (Monastery property, et cetera).
“Recently, valuable church properties have had to be sequestered on a large scale, especially in Austria; according to reports of the Gauleiter to the Führer, these sequestrations were often because of violations of ordinances relating to war economy (for example, hoarding of foodstuffs of various kinds, textiles, leather goods, et cetera). In other cases they were for violations of the law relating to subversive acts against the State and in some cases because of illegal possession of arms. Obviously no compensation is to be paid to the churches for sequestrations made for the above-mentioned reasons.
“With regard to further sequestrations, several Austrian Gau leaders, on the occasion of the Führer’s last visit to Vienna, attempted to clarify the question of who should acquire such sequestered properties. Please take note of the Führer’s decision, as contained in the letter written by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to the Reich Minister of the Interior, dated 14 March 1941. I enclose copy of extracts of the same.”—Signed—“M. Bormann.”
I had offered that document as Exhibit USA-678. Do you still wish me to read the enclosure that went with it?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I don’t wish you to read anything; I was simply pointing out that, as you had not read it, it was not in evidence.
CAPT. SPRECHER: In that event I will continue, Your Honor. The copy reads as follows:
“Berlin, 14 March 1941; The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery.
“To the Reich Minister of the Interior. Subject: Draft of an ordinance supplementing the provisions on confiscation of property of enemies of the People and State.
“The Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter Von Schirach, Dr. Jury and Eigruber complained recently to the Führer that the Reich Minister of Finance still maintains the point of view that confiscation of property of enemies of the People and State should be made in favor of the Reich and not in favor of the Reich Gaue. Consequently the Führer has informed me that he desires the confiscation of such properties to be effected in favor of the Reich Gau in whose area the confiscated property is situated, and not in favor of the Reich. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: You need not read any more of it.
CAPT. SPRECHER: I pass over now to the Jewish persecution.
The Prosecution submits, finally, that Schirach authorized, directed, and participated in anti-Semitic measures. Of course, the whole ideology and teaching of the Hitler Youth was predicated upon the Nazi racial myth. Before the war, Schirach addressed a meeting of the National Socialist German Students’ League, the organization he headed from 1929 to 1931. Document 2441-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-679, an affidavit by Gregor Ziemer. I wish to read merely from the bottom of Page 95 of the document book to the end of the first paragraph at the top of Page 96 of the document book. The deponent Ziemer is referring to a meeting at Heidelberg, Germany, which he personally attended some time before the war, at which Baldur von Schirach addressed the Students’ League, which he himself had at one time led. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What is this document?
CAPT. SPRECHER: It is an affidavit of Gregor Ziemer:
“He”—meaning Schirach—“declared that the most important phase of German university life in the Third Reich was the program of the NSDSTB. He extolled various activities of the League. He reminded the boys of the service they had rendered during the Jewish purge. Dramatically he pointed across the river to the old university town of Heidelberg where several burnt-out synagogues were mute witnesses of the efficiency of Heidelberg students. These skeleton buildings would remain there for centuries as inspiration for future students, as warning to enemies of the State.”
To attempt to visualize the true extent of the fiendish treatment of Jews under Schirach, we must look to his activities in the Reichsgau Vienna and to the activities of his assistants, the SS and the Gestapo, in Vienna.
Document Number 1948, Page 63 of your document book, is offered as Exhibit USA-680. You will note it is on the stationery of the last Governor of Vienna.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, I have been reading on in this Document 2441-PS, on Page 96 of the document book. It seems to me you ought to read the next three paragraphs on Page 96 from the place where you left off.
CAPT. SPRECHER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The second, third, and fourth paragraphs.
CAPT. SPRECHER: “Even as old Heidelberg Castle was evidence that Old Germany had been too weak to resist the invading Frenchmen who destroyed it, so the black remains of the synagogues would be a perpetual monument reminding coming generations of the strength of New Germany.
“He reminded the students that there were still countries which squandered their time and energy with books and wasteful discussions about abstract topics of philosophy and metaphysics. Those days were over. New Germany was a land of action. The other countries were sound asleep.
“But he was in favor of letting them sleep. The more soundly they slumbered, the better opportunity for the men of the Third Reich to prepare for more action. The day would come when German students of Heidelberg would take their places side by side with legions of other students to conquer the world for the ideology of Nazism.”
I was about to refer, Your Honors, to Document Number 1948-PS, which is found at Page 63 of your document book, and which I offer as Exhibit USA-680. This, you will note, is on the stationery of the Reich Governor of Vienna, the Reichsstatthalter in Vienna.
“. . . 7 November 1940.
“Subject: Compulsory labor of able-bodied Jews.
“1. Notice: On 5 November 1940 telephone conversation with Colonel”—Standartenführer—“Huber of the Gestapo. The Gestapo has received secret directions from the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) as to how able-bodied Jews should be drafted for compulsory labor service. Investigations are being made at present by the Gestapo to find out how many able-bodied Jews are still available, in order to make plans for the contemplated mass projects. It is assumed that there are not many more Jews available. If some should still be available, however, the Gestapo has no scruples to use the Jews even for clearing away the destroyed synagogues.
“SS Standartenführer Huber will make a report personally to the Regierungspräsident in this matter.
“I have reported to the Regierungspräsident accordingly. The matter should be kept further in mind.”
The signature is by Dr. Fischer.
I want to call the Court’s attention to the significance of the title Regierungspräsident. The SS Colonel, you will note, was to report to the Regierungspräsident. If you will refer back again to the decree which set up the Reichsgau Vienna, 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 777 (Document 3301-PS), you will find that the Regierungspräsident was Schirach’s personal representative within the governmental administration of Vienna.
Now, it seems to us that this Document Number 1948-PS, which was signed by Fischer, concerning compulsory labor of able-bodied Jews, answers the argument that persons of the rank of Gauleiter were ignorant of the atrocities of the Gestapo and the SS in their own locality. It shows further that even the assistants of the Gau leaders were informed of the details of the persecution projects which were afoot at the time.
Schirach also had concern for, and knowledge of, the housing shortage in Vienna, which was alleviated for some members of the alleged master race who succeeded to the houses of the luckless Jews who were moved into oblivion in Poland.
On December 3, 1940, the conspirator Lammers wrote a letter to Schirach. It is our Document 1950-PS, Page 64 of your document book, and it is offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-681. The letter is very short:
December 1940. . .”
the stationery of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, and it is marked “secret”:
“To the Reich Governor in Vienna, Gauleiter Von Schirach:
“As Reichsleiter Bormann informs me, the Führer has decided, after receipt of one of the reports made by you, that the 60,000 Jews still residing in the Reichsgau Vienna will be deported most rapidly”—that is, still during the war—“to the Government General, because of the housing shortage prevalent in Vienna. I have informed the Governor General in Kraków, as well as the Reichsführer SS, about this decision of the Führer, and I request you also to take cognizance of it.”—Signed—“Lammers.”
As a last piece of illustrative evidence against this youngest member of the defendants in the dock, I take something from his own lips, which was published for all Vienna and, indeed, for all Germany and the world to know, even at that time. It appears in the Vienna edition of the Völkischer Beobachter, on the 15th of September 1942, Document 3048-PS, your document book, Page 106. It is already in evidence as Exhibit USA-274.
I would like to point out that these words were uttered before the so-called European Youth League in Vienna in 1942. The Tribunal will recall that Schirach was still Reich Leader for Youth Education in the NSDAP at that time:
“Every Jew who exerts influence in Europe is a danger to European culture. If anyone reproaches me with having driven from this city, which was once the European metropolis of Jewry, tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Jews into the ghetto of the East, I feel myself compelled to reply, ‘I see in this an action contributing to European culture.’”
Although Schirach’s principal assistance to the conspiracy was made in his commission of the German youth to the conspirators’ objectives, he also stands guilty of heinous Crimes against Humanity as a Party and governmental administrator of high standing, after the conspiracy had reached its inevitable involvement in wars of aggression.
This completes, Your Honors, the presentation on the individual responsibility of the Defendant Schirach.
The Prosecution will next take up the responsibility of the Defendant Martin Bormann, and the presentation will be made by Lieutenant Lambert.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, as to the various errors made in the case against Schirach, I shall state my position when the Defense has its turn. But I should like to take the opportunity now of pointing out an error in translation in one of the documents. It is in Document 3352-PS.
It is an order of the Reich Chancellery to the subordinate offices, and this order mentions that the labor offices had to be at the disposal of the Gauleiter under certain circumstances. In the German original of this order it reads as follows: “Anregungen und Wünsche.” Now “Anregungen und Wünsche,” that is. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the document is it?
DR. SAUTER: I think, Page 512 of Document 3352-PS, on Page 117 of the document book.
This German expression “Anregungen und Wünsche” has been translated by “suggestions” (for “Anregungen”) and “demands” (for “Wünsche”).
The first translation, the translation for “Anregungen,” we consider to be correct; but the second translation, namely, “demands” for “Wünsche,” we consider false, because, so far as we know, this word is “Befehle” or “Forderungen” in German. We should consider it correct if the English translation “demands” could be translated by another word, “wishes,” which is an exact translation of the word “Wünsche.” I do not know whether I have pronounced the word correctly in English. That is all I have to say for the time being. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT (to Captain Sprecher): Do you wish to say anything about that?
CAPT. SPRECHER: I think that Dr. Sauter has made a very good point. I have checked with the translator beside me, Your Honor, and the German word “Wünsche” has been translated too strongly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
LIEUTENANT THOMAS F. LAMBERT, JR. (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution comes now to deal with the Defendant Bormann and to present the proofs establishing his responsibility for the crimes set forth in the Indictment. And, if the Tribunal will allow, we should like to observe on the threshold that because of the absence of the Defendant Bormann from the dock we believe that we should make an extra effort to make a solid record in the case against Bormann, out of fairness to Defense Counsel and for the convenience of the Tribunal.
I offer the document book supporting this trial address as U.S. Exhibit JJ, together with the trial brief against the Defendant Bormann.
The Defendant Bormann bears a major responsibility for promoting the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators, the consolidation of their total power over Germany, and the preparation for aggressive war set forth in Count One of the Indictment.
Upon the Record of this Trial the Nazi Party and its Leadership Corps were the main vehicles of the conspiracy and the fountainhead of the conspiracy.
Now, following the flight of the Defendant Hess to Scotland in May 1941, Bormann became executive chief of the Nazi Party. His official title was Chief of the Party Chancellery. Before that date Bormann was chief of staff to the Defendant Hess, the Deputy to the Führer.
By virtue of these two powerful positions—Chief of the Party Chancellery and Chief of Staff to the Deputy to the Führer—Bormann stands revealed as a principal architect of the conspiracy. Subject only—and we stress—subject only to the supreme authority of Hitler, Bormann engineered and employed the vast powers of the Party, its agencies, and formations, in furtherance of the Nazi conspiracy; and he employed the Party to impose the will of the conspirators upon the German people; and he then directed the powers of the Party in the drive to dominate Europe.
Accordingly, the Defendant Bormann is blameworthy for the multiple crimes of the conspiracy, for the multiple crimes committed by the Party, its agencies, and the German people, in furthering the conspiracy.
It might be helpful to give a very brief sketch of the career in conspiracy of the Defendant Bormann.
Bormann began his conspiratorial activities more than 20 years ago. In 1922, only 22 years of age, he joined the Organization Rossbach, one of the illegal groups which continued the militaristic traditions of the German Army and employed terror against the small struggling pacifist minority in Germany. While he was district leader for this organization in Mecklenburg, he was arrested and tried for his part in a political assassination, which, we suggest, indicates his disposition to use illegal methods to carry out purposes satisfactory to himself. On 15 May 1924 he was found guilty by the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic and sentenced to 1 year in prison.
Upon his release from prison in 1925 Bormann resumed his subversive activities. He joined the militarist organization “Frontbann,” and in the same year he joined the Nazi Party and began his ascent to a prominent position in the conspiracy. In 1927 he became press chief for the Party Gau of Thuringia. In other words, relating back to the case against the Leadership Corps, he became an important staff officer of a Gauleiter. On 1 April 1928 he was made District Leader (Bezirksleiter) in Thuringia and business manager for the entire Gau.
We come now to a particularly important point involving Bormann’s tie-up with the SA.
From 15 November 1928 to August 1930 he was on the staff of the Supreme Command of the SA.
Now the Tribunal has heard the demonstration of the criminality of the SA and knows full well that this was a semi-military organization of young men whose main mission was to get control of the streets and to impose terror on oppositional elements of the conspiracy.
Our submission at this stage is that, by virtue of Bormann’s position on the staff of the Supreme Command of the SA, he shares responsibility for the illegal activities of the SA in furtherance of the conspiracy.
In August 1930 Bormann organized the Aid Fund (Hilfskasse) of the Nazi Party, of which he became head. Through this fund he collected large sums for the alleged purpose of aiding the families of Party members who had been killed or injured while fighting for the Party.
As the Tribunal knows, on 30 January 1933 the conspirators and their Party took over the Government of Germany. Shortly thereafter, in July 1933, Bormann was given the number three position in the Party, that of chief of staff to the Defendant Hess, the Deputy to the Führer. At the same time he was made a Reichsleiter; and as the Tribunal knows, that makes him a member of the top level of the alleged illegal organization, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.
In November 1933 he was made a member of the Reichstag.
I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the authoritative German publication The Greater German Reichstag, edition of 1943. The facts which I have recited in the foregoing sketch of Defendant Bormann’s career are set forth on Page 167 of that publication, the English translation of which appears in Document 2981-PS of the document book now before the Tribunal.
With respect to Bormann’s conviction for political murder, I offer in evidence Document 3355-PS, Exhibit USA-682, which is the affidavit of Dr. Robert M. W. Kempner, and I quote therefrom briefly as follows:
“I, Robert M. W. Kempner, an expert consultant of the War Department, appeared before the undersigned attesting officer and, having been duly sworn, stated as follows:
“In my capacity as Superior Government Counsellor and Chief Legal Advisor of the pre-Hitler Prussian Police Administration, I became officially acquainted with the criminal record of Martin Bormann, identical with the Defendant Martin Bormann now under indictment before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.
“The official criminal record of Martin Bormann contained the following entry:
“Bormann, Martin, sentenced on May 15, 1924, by the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic, in Leipzig, Germany, to 1 year in prison, for having been an accomplice in the commission of a political murder.”—Signed—“Robert M. W. Kempner.”—End of quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Lambert, I don’t think it is necessary for you, when dealing with a document of that sort, to read the formal parts. If you state the nature of the document and read the material part, you needn’t deal with the formal parts, for instance, “I, Robert Kempner, an expert consultant,” and all that. Do you understand me?
LT. LAMBERT: Thank you very much, Sir, for a very helpful suggestion.
As Defendant Hess’ chief of staff, Bormann was responsible for receiving and channelling up to the Defendant Hess the demands of the Party in all fields of State action. These demands were then secured by the Defendant Hess by virtue of his participation in the legislative process, his power with respect to the appointment and promotion of government officials, and by virtue of his position in the Reich Cabinet.
I come now, as it seems to us, to an important point, which ties up the Defendant Bormann with the SD and the Gestapo. As chief of staff of the Defendant Hess, Bormann took measures to reinforce the grip of the Gestapo and the SD over the German civil population. I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a Bormann order of 14 February 1935, set forth in the official publication Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, Edition 1937, Page 257. I quote merely the pertinent portions of that decree, the English version of which is set forth in our Document 3237-PS, which reads as follows. That is our Document 3237-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is a document of which we can take judicial notice, it is sufficient for you to summarize it without reading it.
LT. LAMBERT: I appreciate that, Sir. This quotation is so succinct and so brief that we perhaps could avoid summarization.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.
LT. LAMBERT: “The Deputy to the Führer expects that Party offices will now abandon all distrust of the SD and will support it wholeheartedly in the performance of the difficult tasks with which it has been entrusted for the protection of the Movement and our people.
“Because the work of the SD is primarily to the benefit of the work of the Party, it is inadmissable that its development be upset by uncalled-for attacks when individuals fall short of expectations. On the contrary, it must be wholeheartedly assisted.”—Signed—“Bormann, Chief of Staff to the Deputy to the Führer.”
That is with respect to Bormann’s support of the SD. I deal now with Bormann’s effort to support the work of the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Lambert, wouldn’t it be sufficient to say that document indicates the support Bormann promised to the SD?
LT. LAMBERT: I was anxious merely on one point, Sir, that a document was not in evidence unless it had been quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you began by asking us to take judicial notice of it. If we can take judicial notice of it, it need not be quoted.
LT. LAMBERT: Then, with respect to Bormann’s efforts to reinforce the grip of the Gestapo, I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a Bormann order of 3 September 1935, calling on Party agencies to report to the Gestapo all persons who criticize Nazi institutions or the Nazi Party. This decree appears in the official Party publication Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, 1937, at Page 190. The English translation is set forth in our Document 3239-PS. I shall summarize the effect of this document shortly. In its first paragraph it refers to a law of 20 December 1934. As the Tribunal will recall, this law gave the same protection to Party institutions and Party uniforms as enjoyed by the State; and in the first and second paragraphs of this decree it is indicated that whenever a case came up involving malicious or slanderous attack on Party members or the Nazi Party or its institutions, the Reich Minister of Justice would consult with the Deputy of the Führer in order to take joint action against the offenders. Then, in the third paragraph, Bormann gives his orders to all Party agencies with respect to reporting to the Gestapo individuals who criticized the Nazi Party or its institutions. I quote merely the last paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I took down what you said in your first sentence, which was that the document showed that he was ordering that a report should be made to the Gestapo on anyone criticizing the Party. Well, that is sufficient, it seems to me, and all that you said after is cumulative.
LT. LAMBERT: There is, however, one brief point, if I may be permitted, which I should like to emphasize, about the last paragraph, because I think it is helpful to the Prosecution’s case against the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.
The Tribunal will recall that it asked certain very material questions with respect to whether the Prosecution’s evidence involved the rank and file of the Leadership Corps. In the last paragraph of this decree Bormann instructs the Ortsgruppenleiter—now that is way down in the Leadership Corps hierarchy under Kreisleiter and Gauleiter—to report to the Gestapo persons who criticize Nazi Party institutions.
Now, an important point with respect to the tie-up between Bormann and the SS. The Tribunal has already received the evidence establishing the criminality of the SS. In this connection, I respectfully request the Tribunal to notice judicially the July 1940 issue of Das Archiv, our Document 3234-PS. On Page 399 of that publication, under date 21 July 1940, it is stated that the Führer promoted Defendant Bormann from major general to lieutenant general in the SS. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that Bormann is chargeable and jointly responsible for the criminal activities of the SS.
After the flight of the Defendant Hess to Scotland in May 1941, the Defendant Bormann succeeded him as head of the Nazi Party under Hitler, with the title Chief of the Party Chancellery. I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of a decree of 24 January 1942, 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 35. In our conception this is an extremely important decree, because by virtue of it the participation of the Party in all legislation and in government appointments and promotions had to be undertaken exclusively by Bormann. He was to take part in the preparation—and we emphasize that—as well as the enactment and promulgation of all Reich laws and enactments; and further, he had to give his assent to all enactments of the Reich Länder—that is, the states—as well as all decrees of the Reich governors. All communications between state and Party officials had to pass through his hands. And, as a result of this law, we respectfully submit, Bormann is chargeable for every enactment issued in Germany after 24 January 1942 which facilitates and furthers the conspiracy.
It will be helpful, I believe, to point out and to request the Court to take judicial notice of a decree of 29 May 1941, 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 295 (Document 2099-PS); in this decree Hitler ordered that Bormann should take over all powers and all offices formerly held by the Defendant Hess. I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of another very important decree, that of the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich, 16 November 1942 . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are these documents set out in the document book?
LT. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You haven’t given us the reference.
LT. LAMBERT: That is true, Sir. I recall from memory, although I do not have it in my manuscript, that document, that important decree of 24 January 1942, is our Document, I believe, 2100-PS.
I now request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the important decree of the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich, dated 16 November 1942, 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 649 (Document JN-5). Under this decree all Gauleiter, who were under Bormann by virtue of his position as Chief of the Party Chancellery, were appointed Reich defense commissars and charged with the co-ordination, supervision, and management of the aggressive Nazi war effort.
From then on the Party, under Bormann, became the decisive force in planning and conducting the aggressive Nazi war economy.
On 12 April 1943, as is shown in the publication The Greater German Reichstag, 1943 edition, Page 167, our Document 2981-PS, Bormann was appointed Secretary of the Führer, and we submit that this fact testifies to the intimacy and influence of the Defendant Bormann with the Führer and enlarges his role in, and responsibility for, the conspiracy.
We now come to the important point of Bormann’s executive responsibility for the acts of the Volkssturm. I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a Führer order of 18 October 1944, which was published in the official Völkischer Beobachter, 20 October 1944 edition, in which Hitler appointed Bormann political and organizational leader of the Volkssturm. This is set forth in our Document 3018-PS. In this decree Himmler is made the military leader of the Volkssturm, but the organizational and political leadership is entrusted to Bormann. The Tribunal will know that the Volkssturm was an organization consisting of all German males between 16 and 60. By virtue of his leadership of the Volkssturm Bormann was instrumental in needlessly prolonging the war, with a consequential destruction of the German and the European economy and a loss of life and destruction of property.
We come now to deal with the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann with respect to persecution of the Church. The Defendant Bormann authorized, directed, and participated in measures involving the persecution of the Christian Church. The Tribunal, of course, has heard much in this proceeding concerning the acts of the conspiracy involving the persecution of the Church. We have no desire now to rehash that evidence. We are interested in one thing alone, and that is nailing on the Defendant Bormann his responsibility, his personal, individual responsibility, for the persecution of the Church.
I shall now present the proofs showing the responsibility of Bormann with respect to such persecution of the Christian churches.
Bormann was among the most relentless enemies of the Christian Church and Christian clergy in Germany and in German-occupied Europe. I refer the Tribunal, without quoting therefrom, to Document D-75, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-348, which contains a copy of the secret Bormann decree of 6 June 1941 entitled “The Relationship of National Socialism to Christianity.” In this decree, as the Tribunal will well recall, Bormann bluntly declared that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible, and he indicated that the ultimate aim of the conspirators was to assure the elimination of Christianity itself.
I next refer the Tribunal, without quotation, to Document 098-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-350. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 22 February 1940, in which Bormann reaffirms the incompatibility of Christianity and National Socialism.
Now, in furtherance of the conspirators’ aim to undermine the Christian churches, Bormann took measures to eliminate the influence of the Christian Church from within the Nazi Party and its formations. I now offer in evidence Document 113-PS, as Exhibit USA-683. This is an order of the Defendant Bormann, dated 27 July 1938, issued as chief of staff to the Deputy of the Führer, Hess, which prohibits clergymen from holding Party offices. I shall not take the time of the Tribunal to spread this quotation upon the Record. The point of it is, as indicated, that Bormann issued an order forbidding the appointment of clergymen to Party positions.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break off for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
LT. LAMBERT: May it please the Tribunal, we are dealing with the efforts of the Defendant Bormann to expel and exorcise from the Party all church and religious influence.
I offer in evidence Document 838-PS, as Exhibit USA-684. I shall not burden the Record with extensive quotation from this exhibit, but merely point out that this is a copy of a Bormann decree dated 3 June 1939, which laid it down that followers of Christian Science should be excluded from the Party.
The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 840-PS, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA-355. The Tribunal will recall that this was a Bormann decree of 14 July 1939, referring with approval to an earlier Bormann decree of 9 February 1937 in which the Defendant Bormann ruled that in the future all Party members who entered the clergy or who undertook the study of theology were to be expelled from the Party.
I next offer in evidence Document 107-PS, Exhibit USA-351. This is a circular directive of the Defendant Bormann, dated 17 June 1938, addressed to all Reichsleiter and Gauleiter—top leaders of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party—transmitting a copy of directions relating to the non-participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious celebrations. The Reich Labor Service, the Tribunal will recall, compulsorily incorporated all Germans within its organization.
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): The member of the Prosecution has just submitted a number of documents, in which he proves that, on the suggestion of Bormann, members of the Christian religion were to be excluded from the Party or from certain organizations. I beg the High Tribunal to allow the member of the Prosecution to explain to me how and why this activity, that is, the exclusion of Christians from the Party, can be a War Crime. I cannot gather this evidence from the trial brief. The Party is described as criminal—as a conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime? How and why is the exclusion of certain members from the Party a crime?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will answer you.
LT. LAMBERT: If the Tribunal will willingly accommodate argument at this stage, we find that the question. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Only short argument.
LT. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir. . . . admits of a short, and, as it seems to us, an easy answer.
The point we are now trying to prove—and evidence is abounding on it—is that Bormann had a hatred and an enmity and took oppositional measures towards the Christian Church. The Party was the repository of political power in Germany. To have power one had to be in the Party or subject to its favor. By his efforts, concerted, continuing, and consistent, to exclude clergymen, theological students, or any persons sympathetic to the Christian religion, Bormann could not have chosen a clearer method of showing and demonstrating his hatred and his distrust of the Christian religion and those who supported it.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Bormann can present his argument upon this subject at a later stage. The documents appear to the Tribunal to be relevant.
LT. LAMBERT: With the Tribunal’s permission, I had just put in Document 107-PS and pointed out that it transmitted directions relating to the non-participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious celebrations. I quote merely the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Page 1 of the English translation of Document 107-PS, which reads as follows:
“All religious discussion is forbidden in the Reich Labor Service because it disturbs the comrade-like union of all working men and women.
“For this reason also any participation of the Reich Labor Service in church, that is, confessional, services and celebrations is impossible.”
The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 070-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-349. The Tribunal will recall that this was a letter from Bormann’s office to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 25 April 1941, in which Bormann declared that he had achieved progressive success in reducing and abolishing religious services in schools and in replacing Christian prayers with National Socialist mottoes and rituals. In this letter Bormann also proposed a Nazified morning service in the schools in place of the existing confession and morning service.
In his concerted efforts to undermine and subvert the Christian churches, Bormann authorized, directed, and participated in measures leading to the closing, reduction, and suppression of theological schools, faculties, and institutions. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 116-PS, Exhibit Number USA-685, which I offer in evidence. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 24 January 1939, enclosing for Rosenberg’s cognizance a copy of Bormann’s letter to the Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Popular Culture. In the enclosed letter Bormann informs the Minister as to the Party’s position in favor of restricting and suppressing theological faculties. Bormann states that, owing to war conditions, it had become necessary to reorganize the German high schools and, in view of this situation, he requested the Minister to restrict and suppress certain theological faculties.
I now quote from the first paragraph on Page 3 of the English translation of Document 116-PS, which reads as follows:
“I therefore should like to see you put the theological faculties under substantial limitations, where, for the above reasons, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will apply not only to the theological faculties at universities but also to the various state institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places.
“I request that no express explanations be given to churches or other institutions and that public announcement of these measures be avoided. Complaints and the like are to be answered if at all, with the explanation that these measures are carried out in the course of planned economy and that the same is happening to other faculties.
“I would be glad if the professorial chairs thus made vacant could then be turned over especially to those fields of research newly created in recent years, such as racial research, archeology, et cetera, Martin Bormann.”
In our submission, what this document comes to is a request from Bormann to this effect: Please close down the religious faculties and substitute in their place Nazi faculties and university chairs with the mission of investigating racism, cultism, Nazi archeology. This sort of thing was done in the Hohe Schule, as was so clearly demonstrated in the Prosecution’s case against the plundering activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg.
The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 122-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-362. The Tribunal will recall that 122-PS is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 17 April 1939, transmitting to Rosenberg a photostatic copy of the plan of the Reich Minister of Science, Education, and Popular Culture for the combining and dissolving of certain specified theological faculties. In his letter of transmittal Bormann requested Rosenberg to take “cognizance and prompt action” with respect to the proposed suppression of religious institutions.
I next offer in evidence Document 123-PS, Exhibit USA-686. This is a confidential letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Minister of Education, dated 23 June 1939, in which Bormann sets forth the Party’s decision to order the suppression of numerous theological faculties and religious institutions. The Tribunal will note that the letter lists 19 separate religious institutions with respect to which Bormann ordered dissolution or restriction.
After directing the action to be taken by the Minister in connection with the various theological faculties, Bormann stated as follows—and I quote from the next to last paragraph of Page 3 of the English translation of Document 123-PS:
“In the above I have informed you of the Party’s wishes, after thorough investigation of the matter with all Party offices. I should be grateful if you would initiate the necessary measures as quickly as possible. With regard to the great political significance which every single case of such a consolidation will have for the Gau concerned, I ask you to take these measures and particularly to fix dates for them always in agreement with me.”
I next offer in evidence, without quotation, Document 131-PS as Exhibit USA-687. In summary, without quotation therefrom, this is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 12 December 1939, relating to the suppression of seven professorships in the near-by University of Munich.
Now I deal briefly with the responsibility of Bormann for the confiscation of religious property and cultural property. Bormann used his paramount power and position to cause the confiscation of religious property and to subject the Christian churches and clergy to a discriminatory legal regime.
I offer in evidence Document 099-PS, Exhibit USA-688. This is a copy of a letter from Bormann to the Reich Minister for Finance, dated 19 January 1940, in which Bormann demanded a great increase in the special war tax imposed on the churches. I quote from the first two paragraphs of Page 2 of the English translation of Document 099-PS, which read as follows:
“As it has been reported to me, the war contribution of the churches for the 3-month period beginning 1 November 1939 has been tentatively set at RM 1,800,000 per month, of which RM 1 million are to be paid by the Protestant Church, and RM 800,000 by the Catholic Church.
“The fixing of such a low amount has surprised me. I see from numerous reports that political communities are obliged to raise such a large war contribution that the performance of their tasks—some of them very important; for example, in the field of public welfare—is endangered. In view of this, a higher quota also from the churches appears to me to be absolutely justified.”
The question may arise: Of what criminal effect is it to demand larger taxes from church institutions? As to this demand of Bormann’s taken by itself, the Prosecution would not suggest that it had criminal effect, but when viewed within the larger frame of Bormann’s demonstrated hostility to the Christian Church and his efforts not merely to circumscribe but to eliminate it, we suggest that this document has probative value in showing Bormann’s hostility and his concrete measures to effectuate that hostility against the Christian churches and clergy.
I next refer the Tribunal to Document 089-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-360. The Tribunal will recall that this was a letter from Bormann to Reichsleiter Amann, dated 8 March 1940, in which Bormann instructed Amann, Reichsleiter of the Press, to make a sharper restriction in paper distribution against religious writings in favor of publications more acceptable to the Nazi ideology.
I next offer in evidence Document 066-PS, as Exhibit USA-689. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 24 June 1940, transmitting a draft of a proposed discriminatory church law for Danzig and West Prussia. This decree is a direct abridgment of religious freedom, for in Paragraph 1—I do not quote, but briefly and rapidly summarize—the approval of the Reich deputy for Danzig and West Prussia is required as a condition for the legal competence of all religious organizations.
Paragraph 3 of the decree suspended all claims of religious organizations and congregations to state or municipal subsidies and prohibited religious organizations from exercising their right of collecting dues without the approval of the Reich deputy.
In Paragraph 5 of the decree the acquisition of property by religious organizations was made subject to the approval of the Reich deputy. All credit rights acquired by religious organizations prior to 1 January 1940 were required to be ratified by the Reich Deputy in order to become actionable.
I now offer in evidence Document 1600-PS, Exhibit USA-690. This comprises correspondence of Bormann during 1940 and 1941 relating to the confiscation of religious art treasures. I quote the text of the second letter set forth on Page 1 of the English translation of Document 1600-PS, which is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to Dr. Posse of the State Picture Gallery in Dresden, dated 16 January 1941, which reads as follows, and I quote:
“Dear Dr. Posse:
“Enclosed herewith I am sending you the pictures of the altar from the convent in Hohenfurth near Krumau. The convent and its entire property will be confiscated in the immediate future because of the subversive attitude of its inmates toward the State.
“It would be up to you to decide whether the pictures are to remain in the convent at Hohenfurth or are to be transferred to the museum at Linz after its completion.
“I shall await your opinion in the matter. Bormann.”
The Tribunal may know that, in what is described as Hitler’s last will and testament, he makes a bequest of all the art treasures he had in the museum at Linz, and from a legal point of view he uses the euphemism “art treasures which I have bought.” This document, on its face, suggests how at least certain of the properties, the art treasures in the museum at Linz, were acquired.
Finally, as the war drew increasing numbers of German youth into the Armed Forces, the Defendant Bormann took measures to exclude and exorcise all religious influence from the troops. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 101-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-361. The Tribunal will recall that this is a letter from the Defendant Bormann, dated 17 January 1940, in which Bormann pronounced the Party’s opposition to the circulation of religious literature to the members of the German Armed Forces. In this letter Bormann stated that if the influence of the church upon the troops was to be effectively fought, this could only be done by producing, in the shortest possible time, a large amount of Nazi pamphlets and publications.
I now offer in evidence Document 100-PS, as Exhibit Number USA-691. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 18 January 1940, in which Bormann declares that the publication of Nazi literature for army recruits as a counter measure to the circulation of religious writings was the “most essential demand of the hour.”
I forbear quoting from that document. Its substance is indicated.
I now request the Tribunal to notice judicially the authoritative Nazi publication entitled Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, edition of 1937; and I quote from Page 235 of this volume the pertinent and important decree issued by the Defendant Bormann to the Commissioner of the Party Directorate, dated 7 January 1936, the English version of which is set forth in the English translation of our Document 3246-PS. In this one sentence Bormann aims and directs the terror of the Gestapo against dissident church members who crossed the conspirators, and I quote:
“If parish priests or other subordinate Roman Catholic leaders adopt an attitude of hostility toward the State or Party, it shall be reported to the Secret State Police”—Gestapo—“through official channels.”—Signed—“Bormann.”
By leave of the Tribunal, I come now to deal with the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann for the persecution of the Jews.
Again, the Prosecution seeks not to rehash the copious evidence in the Record on the persecution of the Jews but rather to limit itself to evidence fastening on the Defendant Bormann his individual responsibility for the persecution of the Jews. Bormann shares the deep guilt of the Nazi conspirators for their odious program in the persecution of the Jews. It was the Defendant Bormann, we would note, who was charged by Hitler with the transmission and implementation of the Führer’s orders for the liquidation of the so-called Jewish problem.
Following the Party-planned and Party-directed program of 8 and 9 November 1938, in the course of which a large number of Jews were killed and harmed, Jewish shops pillaged and wrecked, and synagogues set ablaze all over the Reich, the Defendant Bormann, on orders from Hitler, instructed the Defendant Göring to proceed to the “final settlement of the Jewish question” in Germany.
The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 1816-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-261. The Tribunal is well acquainted with this document. It has frequently been referred to. The Tribunal knows that Document 1816-PS is the minutes of a conference on the Jewish question, held under the direction of Göring on the 12th of November 1938. 1 quote only the first sentence of Document 1816-PS, which fastens the responsibility upon Bormann and which reads as follows:
“Göring: ‘Gentlemen, today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have received a letter written on the Führer’s orders by the Chief of Staff of the Führer’s Deputy, Bormann, requesting that the Jewish question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and solved in one way or another.’”
The Tribunal is well aware of the proposals, the discussions, and the actions taken in this conference that constituted the so-called “settlement of the Jewish question.”
As a result of this conference a series of anti-Jewish decrees and measures were issued and adopted by the Nazi conspirators. I offer in evidence Document 069-PS, Exhibit USA-589. This is a decree of Bormann, dated 17 January 1939, in which Bormann demands compliance with the new anti-Jewish regulations stemming and flowing from the Göring conference just referred to, under which Jews were denied access to housing, travel, and other facilities of ordinary life. I quote the Bormann order, which appears at Page 1 of the English translation of Document 069-PS, which reads as follows:
“According to a report of General Field Marshal Göring, the Führer has made some basic decisions regarding the Jewish question. The decisions are brought to your attention in the enclosure. Strict compliance with these directives is requested.”—Signed—“Bormann.”
In the interests of expediting the proceedings, I shall resist the temptation to quote extensively from the enclosed order in Bormann’s letter of transmittal. In effect, the crux of it is that Jews are denied sleeping compartments in trains, the right to give their trade to certain hotels in Berlin, Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and the like. They are banned and excluded from swimming pools, certain public squares, resort towns, mineral baths, and the like. The stigma, the degradation, and the inconvenience in the ordinary affairs of life promoted by this decree are plain.
I next request the Tribunal to notice judicially the decree of 12 November 1938, 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 1580 (Document JN-6), quite familiar to this Tribunal, for it was the decree which excluded Jews from economic life. This decree forbade Jews to operate retail shops, and it was a decree which went far to eliminate Jews from economic life.
Now Bormann also acted through other state agencies to wipe out the economic existence of large sections of the Jewish population. In that respect I request the Tribunal to notice judicially the authoritative Nazi publication entitled Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, edition of 1937, our Document 3240-PS. At Page 383 of this publication there appears a decree of the Defendant Bormann, dated 8 January 1937, reproducing an order of the Defendant Frick, issued at Bormann’s instigation, denying financial assistance to government employees who employed the services of Jewish doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, morticians, and other professional classes. I shall forbear from quoting the text of that decree. Its substance is as given.
If it please the Tribunal, for the benefit of the translators I shall continue reading from Page 25 of the manuscript.
After the outbreak of war the anti-Jewish measures increased in intensity and brutality. Thus, the Defendant Bormann participated in the arrangements for the deportation to Poland of 60,000 Jewish inhabitants of Vienna, in co-operation with the SS and the Gestapo. I have no doubt that the Tribunal received this document in connection with the case against Von Schirach; it is our Document 1950-PS, and on its face it points out, and Lammers says: Bormann has informed Von Schirach of your proposal to bring about the deportations. I limit myself to pointing out that single, solitary fact.
When Bormann succeeded the Defendant Hess as Chief of the Party Chancellery, he used his vast powers in such a way that he was a prime mover in the program of starvation, degradation, spoliation, and extermination of the Jews—and we use those terms advisedly—subject to the Draconian rule of the conspirators.
I request the Tribunal to notice judicially the decree of 31 May 1941, 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 297, which was signed by the Defendant Bormann and which extends the discriminatory Nuremberg laws into the annexed Eastern territories. I request the Tribunal to notice judicially the 11th ordinance under the Reich citizenship law of 25 November 1941, 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 722, signed by Defendant Bormann, which ordered the confiscation of the property of all Jews who had left Germany or who had been deported.
I request the Tribunal to notice judicially an order of Bormann’s dated 23 October 1941. . .
THE PRESIDENT: You have not given us the PS numbers of either the decree of 31 of May 1941 or the one after that.
LT. LAMBERT: I confess dereliction of duty there. These decrees, in translated form, are all in the document book. I do not have, in my manuscript, their PS citation. However, in the brief now filed with or soon to be delivered to the Tribunal, these decrees are given with their PS numbers opposite.
THE PRESIDENT: 3354-PS and 3241-PS.
LT. LAMBERT: That is very good of you, Sir. Thank you.
I request the Tribunal to notice judicially an order of the Defendant Bormann, dated 23 October 1942, Volume II of the publication Decrees, Regulations, Announcements, Page 147. This is our document, I rejoice to be able to say, 3243-PS, which announces a Ministry of Food decree, issued at Bormann’s instigation, which deprived Jews of many essential food items, all special sickness and pregnancy rations for expectant mothers and ordered confiscation of food parcels sent to the beleaguered Jews from the sympathetic outside world.
I now request the Tribunal to notice judicially the 13th ordinance under the Reich citizenship law of 1 July 1943, 1943 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 372, signed by the Defendant Bormann, under which all Jews were completely withdrawn from the protection of the ordinary courts and handed over to the exclusive jurisdiction of Himmler’s police. This is our Document 1422-PS.
With leave of the Tribunal, we respectfully request the opportunity to underline the significance of that decree. In a society which desires to live under the rule of law, men are judged only after appearance before, and adjudication by, a court of law. The effect of this decree was to remove all alleged Jewish offenders from the jurisdiction of the courts of law and to turn them over to the police. The police were to have jurisdiction over alleged Jewish offenders, not the tribunal of law.
The result of this law was soon forthcoming, a result for which the Defendant Bormann shares the responsibility. On July 3, 1943, Himmler issued a decree, our Document 3085-PS, 1943 Ministry of Interior Gazette, Page 1085. I respectfully request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this decree, which charged the Himmler police and Gestapo with the execution of the foregoing ordinance closing the courts to the Jews and entrusting them to Himmler’s police.
Finally, with respect to Bormann’s responsibility for the persecution of the Jews, I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a decree of Bormann’s, dated 9 October 1942, Volume II, Decrees, Regulations, Announcements, Pages 131, 132. It declared that the problem of eliminating forever millions of Jews from Greater German territory could no longer be solved by emigration merely, but only by the application of ruthless force in special camps in the East.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What are you referring to there?
LT. LAMBERT: That, Sir, is Document 3244-PS.
We had desired at the outset, Sir, to quote this decree in full as an irrefutable answer to a question put by Defense Counsel some days ago in cross-examination, as to whether or not anti-Semitic policies of the conspirators were the policies merely of certain demented or deviational members of the conspiracy and not the concerted, settled policy of the conspiracy itself. Time does not permit the full quotation of this decree, but with the indulgence of the Tribunal, if I may offer the essence of this decree in a brief sentence or two.
Bormann starts out in this decree by saying: Recently rumors have been stimulated throughout the Reich as to “‘violent things’ we are doing with respect to the Jews.” These rumors are being brought back to the Reich by our returning soldiers who have eye-witnessed them in the East. If we are to combat the effect of these rumors, then our attitude, as I now outline it to you officially, must be communicated to the German civil population. Bormann then reviews what he terms “the two-thousand-year-old struggle against Judaism,” and he divides the Party’s program into two spheres: the first, the effort of the Party and the conspirators to excommunicate and expel the Jews from the economic and social life of Germany. Then he adds: When we started rolling with our war, this measure by itself was not enough; we had to resort to forced emigration and set up our camps in the East. He then goes on to say that: As our armies have advanced in the East, we have overrun the lands to which we have sent the Jews, and now these emigration measures, our second proposal, are no longer sufficient.
Then he comes to the proposal, the considered proposal of himself and the Party Chancellery: We must transport these Jews eastward and farther eastward and place them in special camps for forced labor. I quote now merely the last sentence of Bormann’s decree:
“It lies in the very nature of the matter that these problems, which in part are very difficult, can be solved only with ruthless severity in the interest of the final security of our people.”—Bormann.
With leave of the Tribunal, I come now to deal. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is it signed by Bormann? It does not appear to be. I thought you said, “Bormann.”
LT. LAMBERT: That is what I said, true, Sir.
If the Tribunal will refer, as it has, to Document 3244-PS, it is clear that this is a Bormann decree, issued from the Office of the Deputy to the Führer. It is true in this translation of the decree, Sir, Bormann’s name is not affixed; but in the original volume it is very clear that this is a decree of Bormann’s, issued from the Party Chancellery. The Prosecution so assures the Tribunal and accepts responsibility for that submission.
With leave of the Tribunal, I now come to deal with the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann for overt acts, for the commission and planning of a wide variety of crimes in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Tribunal knows the vast powers that Bormann possessed; that has already been put in evidence. Our point is that he used these vast powers, buttressed by his position as secretary to the Führer attending all the conferences at the Führer’s headquarters, in the planning, the authorization, and the participation in overt acts denominated War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document L-221, previously put in as Exhibit USA-317. The Tribunal knows that this document is a comprehensive report, dated 16 July 1941, made by the Defendant Bormann just 3 weeks after the invasion of the territory of the Soviet Union by Germany. It is a report of a 20-hour conference at Hitler’s field headquarters with the Defendants Göring, Rosenberg, Keitel, and with Reich Minister Lammers. This conference resulted in the adoption of detailed plans and directives for the enslavement, depopulation, Germanization, and annexation of extensive territories in the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe.
In his report on this conference, set forth in Document L-221, Bormann included numerous proposals of his own for the execution of these plans.
Later the Defendant Bormann took a prominent part in implementing the conspiratorial program. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 072-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-357. The Tribunal will recall that this is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 19 April 1941, dealing with the confiscation of cultural property in the East. I quote merely the last two paragraphs of the English translation of Document 072-PS, which reads as follows:
“The Führer emphasized that in the Balkans the use of your experts”—I parenthetically insert that that is the experts of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg organization, the plundering organization—“the use of your experts would not be necessary, since there were no art objects to be confiscated. In Belgrade, only the collection of Prince Paul existed, which would be returned to him completely. The remaining material of the lodges, et cetera, would be seized by the men of SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.
“The libraries and art objects of the monasteries confiscated in the Reich were to remain for the time being in these monasteries, insofar as the Gauleiter had not determined otherwise. After the war, a careful examination of the stock could be undertaken. Under no circumstances, however, should a centralization of all the libraries be undertaken . . . .”—Signed—“Bormann.”
I now offer in evidence Document 061-PS, Exhibit USA-692. This is a secret letter from Bormann, dated 11 January 1944, in which Bormann discloses—and we stress this, very important as it seems to us—the existence of large-scale operations to drain off commodities from German-occupied Europe for delivery to the bombed-out population in Germany. The Tribunal knows that the Hague Regulations and the laws of war permit the requisitioning of goods and services only for the use of the Army of Occupation and for the needs of the administration of the area. This proposal and this action represent the requisitioning of materials in occupied areas for the use of the folk at home—of the home front.
I now quote the first two paragraphs of the English translation—Bormann’s letter of 11 January 1944, set forth in the English translation of our Document 061-PS, which reads as follows:
“Since the supply of textiles and household goods for the bombed population is becoming increasingly difficult, the proposition was made repeatedly to effect purchases in the occupied territories in greater proportions. Various Gauleiter proposed to let these purchases be handled by suitable private merchants who know these districts and have corresponding connections.
“I have brought these proposals to the attention of the Reich Minister of Economics and am quoting his reply of 16 December 1943 on account of its fundamental importance:
“‘I consider it an especially important task to make use of the economic power of the occupied territories for the Reich. You are aware of the fact that, since the occupation of the Western territories, the buying out of these countries has been effected to the greatest extent possible. Raw materials, semi-finished products, and stocks in finished goods have been rolling into Germany for months; valuable machines were sent to our armaments industry. Everything was done at that time to increase our armament potentialities. Later on, the shipments of these important economic goods were replaced by the so-called transfer of orders from industry to industry.’”
I shall end the quotation there. The rest is not material to the point.
In the course of the war—and this is of utmost importance in the view of the Prosecution. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is it clear that that was confiscation?
LT. LAMBERT: It was not suggested, Sir, that this was confiscation. Our point was that the Hague regulations allow requisitions in return for payment only for the needs of the army of occupation and for the needs of administration of the occupied area. This represents, as it seems to us, a requisitioning program for the needs of the home front. It is on that point that we offer it.
We come now to what the Prosecution considers a most important point against the Defendant Bormann. In the course of the war Bormann issued a series of orders establishing Party jurisdiction over the treatment of prisoners of war, especially when employed as forced labor.
The Tribunal knows that, under the Geneva Convention of 1929 relating to prisoners of war, prisoners of war are the captives, not of the troops who take them or even of the army which captures them, but of the capturing power; and it is the capturing power which has jurisdiction over and responsibility for them.
By the series of decrees now to be put in, Bormann asserts and establishes Nazi Party jurisdiction over Allied prisoners of war. In the exercise of that Party jurisdiction he called for excessively harsh and brutal treatment of Allied prisoners of war.
I now offer in evidence Document 232-PS as Exhibit USA-693. This is a decree of the Defendant Bormann, dated 13 September 1944, addressed—will the Tribunal please note—to all Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter, and leaders of the Nazi affiliated organizations—numerous levels, that is, of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party—a decree establishing Nazi Party jurisdiction over the use of prisoners of war for forced labor.
I quote the first three paragraphs of Bormann’s order, set forth on Page 1 of the English translation of Document 232-PS, which reads as follows:
“The regulations valid until now on the treatment of prisoners of war and the tasks of the guard units are no longer justified in view of the demands of the total war effort.”
The Prosecution would intrude to ask the question: Since when do the exigencies of the war effort repeal or modify the provisions of international law?
“Therefore, the OKW, on my suggestion issued the regulation, a copy of which is enclosed.
“The following observations are made on its contents:
“1. The understanding exists between the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and myself that the co-operation of the Party in the commitment of prisoners of war is inevitable. Therefore, the officers assigned to the prisoner-of-war organization have been instructed to co-operate most closely with the Hoheitsträger. The commandants of the prisoner-of-war camps have immediately to detail liaison officers to the Kreisleiter.
“Thus the opportunity will be afforded the Hoheitsträger to alleviate existing difficulties locally, to exercise influence on the behavior of guards units”—and this is the point we underline—“and better to assimilate the commitment of prisoners of war to the political and economic demands.”
Will the Tribunal permit me to observe that on the face of this order, addressed to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter, and so to the officials of the Leadership Corps, in the terms of the order itself Hoheitsträger are referred to as co-operating media in this scheme.
The Tribunal has graciously given me an opportunity to observe that this decree is addressed to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and to the leaders of the affiliated and controlled Nazi organizations. As the Tribunal knows, within the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party the Kreisleiter is a pretty low level. That is a county leader. On the face of the decree itself the co-operation of the Hoheitsträger is directed—and the Tribunal knows, under the evidence presented against the Leadership Corps, that Hoheitsträger range all the way from the Reichsleiter on the top—down to and including the 500,000 or so Blockleiter implicated.
I next offer in evidence Document D-163 as Exhibit USA-694. This is a letter of the Defendant Bormann, dated 5 November 1941, addressed—the Tribunal will please note—to all Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter (the last just mere county leaders), transmitting to these officials of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party the instructions of the Reich Minister of the Interior prohibiting decent burials with religious ceremonies for Russian prisoners of war. I quote the pertinent portions of these instructions, beginning with the next to the last sentence of Page 1 of the English translation of D-163, which reads as follows:
“To save costs, service departments of the Army will generally be contacted regarding transport of corpses (furnishing of vehicles) whenever possible. No coffins will be indented for the transfer and burial. The body will be completely enveloped with strong paper (if possible, oil, tar, asphalt paper) or other suitable material. Transfer and burial is to be carried out unobtrusively. If a number of corpses have to be disposed of, the burial will be carried out in a communal grave. In this case, the bodies will be buried side by side (not on top of each other) and in accordance with the local custom regarding depth of graves. Where a graveyard is the place of burial a distant part will be chosen.
“No”—we repeat—“No burial ceremony or decoration of graves will be allowed.”
I now offer in evidence Document 228-PS, Exhibit USA-695. This is a Bormann circular, dated 25 November 1943, issued from the headquarters of the Führer, demanding harsher treatment of prisoners of war and the increased exploitation of their manpower. I now quote the Bormann circular which is set forth on Page 1 of the English translation of Document 228-PS, which reads as follows:
“Individual Gau administrations often refer in reports to a too indulgent treatment of prisoners of war on the part of the guard personnel. In many places, according to these reports, the guarding authorities have even developed into protectors and caretakers of the prisoners of war.
“I informed the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of these reports, with the comment that the productive German working population absolutely cannot understand it if, in a time when the German people is fighting for existence or nonexistence, prisoners of war—hence our enemies—are leading a better life than the German working man and that it is an urgent duty of every German who has to do with prisoners of war, to bring about a complete utilization of their manpower.
“The chief of prisoner-of-war affairs in the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces has now given the unequivocal order, attached hereto in copy form, to the commanders of prisoners of war in the military districts. I request that this order be brought orally to the attention of all Party office holders in the appropriate manner.
“In case that in the future, complaints about unsuitable treatment of prisoners of war still come to light, they are to be immediately communicated to the commanders of the prisoners of war with a reference to the attached order.”
The Tribunal will note, of course, that on the face of the decree Bormann instructs that these orders be communicated orally to all Party officials and that surely must include the members of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.
THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, I don’t see anything particularly wrong in that communication.
LT. LAMBERT: On that point, Sir, we submit that if you take a document which says, “We wish to utilize all the labor power of prisoners of war in our control possible and to get this result by suitable means,” probably it tends to appear unexceptional. But viewing this document in relation to the other evidence in, and to be presented, which show a concerted and settled policy by Bormann and his co-conspirators to. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn’t necessary to argue it.
LT. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir. Thank you, Sir.
The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 656-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-339. The Tribunal will recall that this is a secret Bormann circular transmitting instructions of the Nazi High Command of 29 January 1943, providing for the enforcement of labor demands on Allied prisoners of war through the use of weapons and corporal punishment. I quote a brief excerpt from these instructions, beginning with the third sentence of the third numbered paragraph of Page 2 of the English translation of Document 656-PS, which reads as follows; and I quote:
“Should the prisoner of war not fulfill his order, then he has”—that is the guard unit, the guard personnel—“then he has, in the case of very exceptional need and extreme danger, the right to force obedience with weapons, if he has no other means. He may use the weapon insofar as this is necessary to attain his goal. If the assistant guard is not armed, then he is authorized in forcing obedience by other appropriate means.”
The Tribunal knows that, under the Geneva Prisoners-of-War Convention of 1929, when prisoners of war prove derelict and refuse to carry out proper orders of the captive power or its forces, such prisoners of war are subject to court-martial and military proceedings as if they were serving under their own forces. Here is a decree which, on its face, authorizes or attempts to authorize guard personnel to use the rifle or other suitable means of violence; and of course Your Lordship will understand it was this type of document we had in mind when we suggested that the decree of Bormann should be considered in the light of his other orders relating to the treatment of prisoners of war.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
LT. LAMBERT: The Tribunal will recall that at the close of the morning session I had been putting in a series of decrees of the Defendant Bormann in which he called for increasingly harsh and severe treatment of Allied prisoners of war. These instructions issued by the Defendant Bormann culminated in his decree of 30 September 1944. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 058-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-456. The Tribunal will recall that this decree of the Defendant Bormann removed jurisdiction over all prisoners of war from the Nazi High Command and transferred it to Himmler. The decree also provided that all PW camp commanders should be under the orders of the local SS commanders. By virtue of this order of the Defendant Bormann, Hitler was enabled to proceed with his program of inhuman treatment and even extermination of Allied prisoners of war.
We now proceed to put in what the Prosecution conceive to be extremely important and extremely incriminating evidence against Bormann and the co-conspirators, that is, the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann for the organized lynching of Allied airmen. I offer in evidence Document 062-PS, Exhibit Number USA-696; and I very respectfully request the Tribunal to turn to this document. On its face it is an order dated 13 March 1940 from the Defendant Hess addressed to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and other Nazi officials and organizations. In this order these Party officials are instructed by the Defendant Hess to instruct the German civil population to arrest or liquidate all bailed-out Allied fliers. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the third paragraph on the first page of the English translation of Document 062-PS. In the third paragraph Hess directs that these instructions, which I shall soon read, are to be passed out only orally to all—will the Tribunal please mark that—district leaders or Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppenleiter, cell leaders, and even the block leaders; that is to say, this order must be passed out by all the officials of the Leadership Corps to the Hoheitsträger, ranging from Reichsleiter down to, and including, the Blockleiter.
Now turn to Document 062-PS, and the Tribunal will find the instructions which Hess demanded be disseminated by the Leadership Corps orally: The lynching of Allied fliers. These directions are headed: “About behavior in case of landings of enemy planes or parachutists.” The first three instructions I omit as not material to the basic point now being made. Instruction 4 reads, and I quote: “Likewise enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or liquidated.”
It speaks for itself and requires no further comment from the Prosecution.
Now, in order to insure the success of this scheme ordered by the Defendant Hess, Bormann issued a secret letter, dated 30 May 1944, to the officials, if the Tribunal will please mark, of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, prohibiting any police measures or criminal proceedings against German civilians who had lynched or murdered Allied airmen. This document, our 057-PS, has been previously put in and received by the Tribunal in connection with the Prosecution’s case against the alleged criminal organization, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.
Now, may it please the Tribunal, that such lynchings, organized, authorized, and consented to by Defendant Bormann, actually took place has since been fully and indisputably demonstrated by trials by American military commissions which have resulted in the conviction of German civilians for the murder of Allied fliers. I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of Military Commission Order Number 2, Headquarters 15th U. S. Army, dated 23 June 1945. This order is our Document 2559-PS. This order imposed the sentence of death upon a German civilian for violation of the laws and usages of war in murdering an American airman who had bailed out and landed without any means of defense.
The Tribunal will note from that order of the American Military Commission the 15th of August 1944 as date of crime; Bormann’s order was dated May 1944.
I request the Tribunal to notice judicially Military Commission Order Number 5, Headquarters 3rd U. S. Army and Eastern Military District, dated 18 October 1945. This order is set forth in Document 2560-PS. This order imposed a sentence of death upon a German national for violating the laws and usages of war by murdering, on or about 12 December 1944, an American airman who landed in German territory.
We could cite further orders of American and other Allied military commissions sentencing German civilians to death for the lynching and murdering of Allied airmen who had bailed out and landed without means of defense on German territory. We think our point is made by taking the time of the Tribunal to cite those two orders.
As previously mentioned in the trial address, on 20 October 1944, when Nazi defeat in the war had become certain, Bormann assumed political and organizational command of the newly-formed Volkssturm, the people’s army. By virtue of ordering the continued resistance by the Volkssturm, Bormann bears some responsibility for the resistance which prolonged the aggressive war for months.
I come now, if it please the Tribunal, to present the proofs showing that Bormann authorized, directed, and participated in a wide variety of Crimes against Humanity in aid of the conspiracy. Bormann played an important role in the administration of the forced labor program. I offer in evidence Document D-226, Exhibit Number USA-697. This is a Speer circular, a circular of the Defendant Speer of 10 November 1944, transmitting Himmler’s instructions that the Party and the Gestapo should co-operate in securing a larger productivity from the millions of impressed foreign workers in Germany. I quote the second numbered paragraph of Page 2 of the English translation of Document D-226, which reads as follows. I quote:
“All men and women of the NSDAP, its subsidiaries and affiliated bodies in the works”—meaning of course factories—“will, in accordance with instructions from their Kreisleiter, be warned by their local group leaders”—we intrude to say that means Ortsgruppenleiter—“and be put under obligation to play their part in keeping foreigners under the most careful observation. They will report the least suspicion to the works foreman, which he will pass on to the defense deputy or, where such a deputy has not been appointed, to the police department concerned, while at the same time reporting to the works manager and the local group leader”—the Ortsgruppenleiter—“to exert untiringly and continuously their influence on foreigners, both in word and deed, in regard to the certainty of German victory and the German will to resist, thus producing a further increase of output in the works.
“Party members, both men and women, and members of Party organizations and affiliated bodies must be expected more than ever before to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner.”
Now, in a word, the significance of that decree: It is true it is a circular of Speer’s reciting an arrangement between himself and Himmler, but the effect of the arrangement is to impose the onus and the continuous task of supplying foreign workers on Party members, a Party which, as the Tribunal knows, Bormann headed as executive chief.
Under the decree of 24 January 1942 no such directive could have been issued without the participation of Bormann, both in its preparation and its enactment.
I now offer in evidence Document 025-PS as Exhibit Number USA-698. This is a conference report dated 4 September 1942 which states that the recruitment, importation, mobilization, and processing of 500,000 female domestic workers from the east would be handled exclusively by the Defendant Sauckel, Himmler, and the Defendant Bormann. I quote the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the English translation of Document 025-PS, which reads as follows:
“The Führer has ordered the immediate importation of 400,000 to 500,000 female domestic eastern workers from the Ukraine between the ages of 15 and 35 and has charged the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor with the execution of this action which is to end in about 3 months. In connection with this—this is also approved by Reichsleiter Bormann—the illegal bringing of female housekeepers into the Reich by members of the Armed Forces, or various other agencies is to be allowed subsequently and, furthermore, irrespective of the official recruiting, is not to be prevented.”
And I now quote from the first sentence of the last paragraph on Page 4 of the English translation of Document Number 025-PS, and this is the part that hooks in the Defendant Bormann with the scheme:
“Generally one gathered from this conference that the questions concerning the recruitment and mobilization, as well as the treatment of female domestic workers from the east, are being handled by the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, the Reichsführer SS, and the Chief of the German Police and the Party Chancellery, and that the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories is in these questions considered as having no, or only limited, competence.”
The Party Chancellery is here mentioned in terms, and Bormann was the leader of the Party Chancellery, as the Tribunal knows.
Now the defendant imposed his will on the administration of the German-occupied areas and insisted on the ruthless exploitation of the inhabitants of the occupied East. The attention of the Tribunal is respectfully invited to Document R-36, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-344. The Tribunal is well acquainted with this document, for it has been referred to several times in these proceedings, and knows that this is an official memorandum of the Ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories, dated 19 August 1942, which states that the repressive views of the Defendant Bormann with respect to the inhabitants of the Eastern areas actually determined German occupational policies in the East. The Tribunal recalls the now almost notorious quotation from this Document R-36, which purports to paraphrase and constitute the essence of Bormann’s views with respect to German occupational policy in the East. So often has it been quoted that I shall resist the temptation to repeat it, but in essence it comes to this. Bormann in effect says:
“The Slavs are to work for us. In so far as we don’t need them, they may die. They should not receive the benefits of the German public health system. We do not care about their fertility. They may practice abortion and use contraceptives; the more the better. We don’t want them educated; it is enough if they can count up to 100. Such stooges will be the more useful to us. Religion we leave to them as a diversion. As to food, they will not get any more than is absolutely necessary. We are the masters; we come first.”
We respectfully submit this as an accurate paraphrase and summary of the text of that document, Document R-36.
The attention of the Tribunal is next respectfully invited to Document 654-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-218. The Tribunal will recall that this is a conference report, dated 18 November 1942, embodying an agreement between the Minister of Justice and Himmler entered into by Bormann’s suggestion under which all inhabitants of the Eastern occupied areas are subjected to a brutal police regime in the place of an ordinary judicial system. And the agreement refers all disputes between the Party, Reich Minister for Justice, and Himmler to Bormann for settlement.
Now, because Bormann issued these and related orders, we submit that he bears a large share of the responsibility for the discriminatory treatment and the extermination of great numbers of persons in German-occupied areas of the East.
With the indulgence of the Tribunal, I put the substance of what I have been privileged to present in a few words. We have shown that Bormann, only 45 years old at the time of Germany’s defeat, contributed his entire adult life to the furtherance of the conspiracy. His crucial contribution to the conspiracy lay in his direction of the vast powers of the Nazi Party in advancing the multiple objectives of the conspiracy. First, as Chief of Staff to the Defendant Hess and then, as leader, in his own name, of the Party Chancellery, subject only to Hitler’s supreme authority, he applied and directed the total power of the Party and its agencies to carry into execution the plans of the conspirators. He used his great powers to persecute the Christian Church and clergy and was an unrepentant foe of the fundamentals of the Christianity with which he warred.
He actively authorized and participated in measures designed to persecute the Jews, and his was a strong hand in pressing down the crown of thorns of misery on the brow of the Jewish people, both in Germany and in German-occupied Europe.
As Chief of the Party Chancellery and secretary to the Führer, Bormann authorized, directed, and participated in a wide variety of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, including, without limitation, the lynching of Allied airmen, the enslavement and inhuman treatment of the inhabitants of German-occupied Europe, the cruelty of impressed labor, the breaking up of homes contrary to the clear provisions of the Hague regulations, and the planned persecution and extermination of the civil population of Eastern Europe.
May it please this Tribunal, every schoolboy knows that Hitler was an evil man. The point we respectfully emphasize is that without chieftains like Bormann, Hitler would never have been able to seize and consolidate total power in Germany, but he would have been left to walk the wilderness alone.
He was, in truth, an evil archangel to the Lucifer of Hitler; and, although he may remain a fugitive from the justice of this Tribunal, with an empty chair in the dock, Bormann cannot escape responsibility for his illegal conduct.
And we close with what seems to us an extremely important point. Bormann may not be here, but under the last sentence of Article VI of the Charter every defendant in this dock shown in our evidence to have been a leader, an organizer, an inciter, and an accomplice of this conspiracy is responsible for the acts of all persons in furtherance of the general scope of the conspiracy. And resting squarely on this proposition we submit, even though Bormann is not here, that every man in the dock shares responsibility for his criminal acts. And with this we close. The name of Bormann is not “written in water,” but will be remembered as long as the Record of Your Honors’ Tribunal is preserved.
I now have the privilege of introducing Lieutenant Henry Atherton, who will present the case for the Prosecution against the individual Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
LIEUTENANT HENRY K. ATHERTON (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has prepared a trial brief for the convenience of the Tribunal showing the individual responsibility of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. Copies of this brief are now being handed to the Tribunal. At the same time the document books which bear the letters “KK” and which contain translations of the evidence referred to in the brief, or to be introduced in evidence at this time, are also being handed to the Tribunal. At the outset I wish to make clear my intention to deal at this time only with the individual responsibility of Seyss-Inquart for the crimes charged in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. Evidence to show his guilt as charged under Counts Three and Four of the Indictment, that is, evidence specifically directed thereunto, is to be introduced later by the prosecutors of the French Republic and the Soviet Union.
Seyss-Inquart has agreed that he held the following positions in State and Party, and I am referring now to Document 2910-PS, which is Exhibit Number USA-17. He was State Councillor of Austria from May 1937 to 12 February 1938. He was Minister of [the] Interior and Security of Austria from 16 February 1938 to 11 March 1938; Chancellor of Austria from 11 March to 15 March 1938; Reich Governor of Austria from 15 March 1938 to 1 May 1939; Reich Minister without Portfolio from 1 May 1939 until September of that year; member of the Reich Cabinet from 1 May 1939 until the end of the war; Chief of the Civil Administration of South Poland from the early part of September 1939 until 12 October 1939; Deputy Governor General of Poland under the Defendant Frank from 12 October 1939 until May 1940; and, finally, Reich Commissioner of the Occupied Territories of the Netherlands from 29 May 1940 until the end of the war. He has also agreed that he became a member of the National Socialist Party on 13 March 1938 and that he was appointed a general in the SS 2 days later.
Now this list of positions which Seyss-Inquart has agreed that he held, if the Tribunal please, shows the place which he held in the Nazi Common Plan or Conspiracy. It shows his steady rise to greater influence and power, and especially it emphasizes his particular talent, his skill in effecting the enslavement of the smaller nations surrounding Germany for the benefit of what he called the Greater German Reich.
Now the Defendant Seyss-Inquart first became a member of the Nazi conspiracy in connection with the Nazi assault on Austria. Mr. Alderman has shown how the Nazis implemented their diplomatic and military preparations for this event by intensive political preparations within Austria.
The ultimate purpose of these preparations was to secure the appointment of Nazis, or persons known to be sympathetic to them, to key positions in the Austrian Government, particularly that of Minister of the Interior and Security, which controlled the police, thus permitting quick suppression of all opposition to the Nazis when the time came.
For this purpose Seyss-Inquart was a most effective tool, the first of the so-called Quislings or traitors used by the Nazis to further their aggressions and to fasten their hold on their victims. Seyss-Inquart has admitted his membership in the Party only from 13 March 1938, but I want to show that he was closely affiliated with them at a much earlier time. For this purpose I now offer in evidence Document 3271-PS as Exhibit Number USA-700.
Reading from Page 9 of the translation, he says in this letter, which is a letter to Himmler, dated 19 August 1939:
“As far as my membership in the Party is concerned, I state that I was never asked to join the Party but had asked Dr. Kier in December 1931 to clarify my relationship with the Party, since I regarded the Party as the basis for the solution of the Austrian problem . . . I paid my membership fees and, as I believe, directly to the Gau Vienna. These contributions also took place after the period of suppression. Later on I had direct contact with the Ortsgruppe in Dornbach. My wife paid these fees, but the Blockwart”—and I believe that is another word for Blockleiter—“was never in doubt, considering that this amount, 40 shillings per month, was a share for my wife and myself, and I was in every respect treated as a Party member.”
Seyss-Inquart, in the last sentence of the paragraph says:
“In every way, therefore, I felt as a Party member, considered myself a Party member, thus, as stated, as far back as December 1931.”
Now, if the Tribunal please, and before I leave this letter, I want just to refer to one or two sentences which the Tribunal will find in the third paragraph on Page 7 of the translation. Referring to a meeting which he had had with Hitler, Seyss-Inquart says:
“I left this discussion a very upright man with the unspeakably happy feeling of being permitted to be a tool of the Führer.”
The truth of the matter is that Seyss-Inquart was an active supporter of the Nazis at all times after 1931. But after the Nazi Party in Austria was declared illegal in July 1934, he avoided too notorious a connection with the Nazi organization, in order to safeguard what the Nazis called his good legal position. By this device he was better able to use his connections with Catholics and others in his work of infiltration for his Nazi superiors.
The Tribunal will remember, as Document 2219-PS, Exhibit Number USA-62, a letter from Seyss-Inquart to Göring of 14 July 1939, in which Seyss-Inquart makes this clear. It was in this letter also that he said:
“Yet, I know that I cling with unconquerable tenacity to the goal in which I believe; that is Greater Germany and the Führer.”
The evidence which Mr. Alderman introduced told in detail the manner in which the Nazi conspirators carried out their assault on Austria. I do not intend to attempt to review any part of this evidence. I merely wish to refer the Tribunal to two documents which are particularly important in showing the part played by this defendant. I refer to the Rainer report to Gauleiter Bürckel, dated 6 July 1939, which relates the part played by the Austrian Nazi Party, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart and others between July 1934 and March 1938; and the astonishing record of telephone calls between the Defendant Göring or his agents in Berlin and Seyss-Inquart and others in Vienna on 11 March 1938. The Rainer report is Document 812-PS, Exhibit Number USA-61, and was read into the Record beginning at Page 502 (Volume II, Page 370) of the English version and continuing for a number of pages thereafter. The transcript of the telephone calls is Document 2949-PS, Exhibit Number USA-76, and was introduced first at Page 566 (Volume II, Page 414) of the English Record.
Now, in order to supplement this and further to show that part played by Seyss-Inquart, I wish now to introduce in evidence the voluntary statement which Seyss-Inquart signed with advice of his counsel on 10 December 1945. This is Document 3425-PS, and I offer it as Exhibit Number USA-701.
In this statement Seyss-Inquart explains, from his point of view, his part in bringing about the Anschluss. I want to read first just a few sentences from the second paragraph on the first page. It states, and I quote:
“In 1918 I became interested in the Anschluss of Austria with Germany. From that year on I worked, planned, and collaborated with others of a like mind to bring about a union of Austria with Germany. It was my desire to effect this union of the two countries in an evolutionary manner, and by legal means.”
Skipping just a sentence or two:
“I supported also the National Socialist Party as long as it was legal, because it declared itself with particular determination in favor of the Anschluss. From 1932 onwards I made financial contributions to this Party, but I discontinued financial support when it was declared illegal in 1934.”
Then skipping down another couple of sentences:
“From July 1936 onwards I endeavored to help the National Socialists to regain their legal status and, finally, to participate in the Austrian Government. During this time, particularly after the Party was forbidden in July 1934, I knew that the radical element of the Party was engaged in terroristic activities, such as attacks on railroads, bridges, telephone communications, et cetera. I knew that the governments of both Chancellors, Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, although they held in principle the same total German viewpoint were opposed to the Anschluss then because of the National Socialist regime in the Reich. I was sympathetic towards the efforts of the Austrian Nazi Party to gain political power and corresponding influence, because they were in favor of the Anschluss.”
Now, briefly summarizing, the Tribunal will note that the defendant tells how his appointment as State Councillor, in May 1937, was the result of an agreement between Austria and Germany in July 1936, and that was the agreement which Rainer agreed Seyss-Inquart had helped to bring about; that his appointment as Minister of the Interior and Security was one of the results of the agreement between Schuschnigg and Hitler at Berchtesgaden, 12 February 1938. And he admits that after the appointment and the agreement the Austrian National Socialists engaged in more and more widespread demonstrations. He tells how immediately after this appointment as Minister of the Interior and Security he went directly to Berlin and talked with Himmler and Hitler; and then, finally, he describes the events of that day, of the 11th of March 1938, when with the full support of German military power he became Chancellor.
I don’t want to quote at length from that description, because the Tribunal knows already what happened. Reading from the middle of Page 3, he says:
“At 10 o’clock in the morning Glaise-Horstenau and I went to the office of the Bundeskanzler and conferred for about 2 hours with Dr. Schuschnigg. We frankly told him all that we knew, particularly about the possibility of disturbances and of preparations by the Reich.
“The Chancellor said that he would give his decision by 1400 hours. While I was with Glaise-Horstenau and Dr. Schuschnigg, I was repeatedly called to the telephone to speak to Göring.”
THE PRESIDENT: Has this been read already?
LT. ATHERTON: No, Sir; this document has not been in before.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
LT. ATHERTON: “He informed . . . me that the agreement of 12 February had been cancelled and demanded Dr. Schuschnigg’s resignation and my appointment as Chancellor.”
The Tribunal has heard the other side of that story, the actual telephone conversations. And then, finally, the next two paragraphs, he tells how Keppler repeatedly urged him to send a telegram calling on Germany to send troops, and that at first he refused but finally acquiesced, and I now read from the next to the last paragraph:
“As I am able to gather from the records available, I was requested about 10 p. m. to give my sanction to another somewhat altered telegram about which I informed President Miklas and Dr. Schuschnigg. Finally President Miklas appointed me Chancellor, and a little while later he approved my list of proposed ministers.”
If the Tribunal will recall, the telegram in question called on Hitler, on behalf of the Provisional Austrian Government, to send German troops as soon as possible in order to support it in its task and help it to prevent bloodshed. The text of the telegram, as printed in Volume 6 of the Dokumente der Deutschen Politik, appears as Document 2463-PS of the document book. It is interesting to note that the text of this telegram is substantially identical with that dictated by Göring over the phone to Keppler on the evening of the 11th of March, which appears on Page 575 (Volume II, Page 420) of the Record.
Now, on the next morning, again referring to the statement of the defendant, he admits that he telephoned Hitler. . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Are you reading?
LT. ATHERTON: No, Sir; I am summarizing.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): If you don’t read it it is not in evidence.
LT. ATHERTON: In that event I will read a little further. I read now the last paragraph on Page 3:
“During the morning of the 12th of March I had a telephone conversation with Hitler in which I suggested that, while German troops were entering Austria, Austrian troops, as a symbol, should march into the Reich. Hitler agreed to this suggestion and we agreed to meet in Linz, Upper Austria, later on that same day. I then flew to Linz with Himmler, who had arrived in Vienna from Berlin. I greeted Hitler on the balcony of the City Hall and said that Article 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain was now inoperative.”
I have referred to the slavish manner in which, as the evidence has shown, Seyss-Inquart carried out orders conveyed to him by telephone from Göring on 11 March 1938 in his negotiations with Chancellor Schuschnigg and President Miklas. This relationship had in fact existed for some time. Early in January 1938, Seyss-Inquart, although he then held an important position in the Austrian Government, had already considered himself as holding a mandate from the Nazi conspirators in Berlin in his negotiations with his own Government. As evidence of the way in which this happened, I offer Document 3473-PS as Exhibit Number USA-581. This is a letter from Keppler to Göring, dated 6 January 1938, in which he states, and I quote:
“My dear Colonel General:
“Councillor of State, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, has sent a courier to me with the report that his negotiations with the Federal Chancellor, Dr. Schuschnigg, have run aground, so that he feels compelled to return the mandate entrusted to him. Dr. Seyss-Inquart desires to have a discussion with me regarding this before he acts accordingly.
“May I ask your advice, whether at this moment such a step, entailing automatically also the resignation of the Federal Minister Glaise von Horstenau, appears indicated or whether I should put forth efforts to postpone such an action.”
The letter is signed by Keppler. On top of the original is a brief note apparently attached by the secretary of the Defendant Göring and dated Karinhall, 6 January 1938, reading as follows:
“Keppler should be told by telephone:
“1) He should do everything to avoid the resignation of Councillor of State Dr. Seyss-Inquart and State Minister Glaise von Horstenau. If some difficulties should arise, Seyss-Inquart should come to him first of all.”
Now as a result of this directive, apparently telephoned to Keppler, Keppler, on the 8th of January 1938, wrote a letter to Seyss-Inquart. I now offer this letter, which is Document Number 3397-PS, in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-702. Keppler writes, and the Tribunal will remember that Keppler was, at that time, Secretary of State in charge of Austrian affairs of the German Government:
“Dear State Councillor:
“The other day I had a visit from Mr. Pl. who gave us a report of the state of affairs, and informed us that you are seriously considering the question of whether or not you are forced to hand back the mandate entrusted to you.
“I informed General Göring of the situation in writing, and G. just had me informed that I should try my utmost to prevent you, or any one else, from taking this step. This is also in the same vein as G.’s conversation with Dr. J. before Christmas; at any rate, G. requests you to undertake nothing of this nature under any circumstances before he himself has the opportunity of speaking with you once more.
“I can also inform you that G. is, furthermore, making an effort to speak to Ll., in order that certain improper conditions be eliminated by him.”
Then the letter is signed by Keppler.
The two letters together, if the Tribunal please, show clearly enough the extent to which this defendant was a tool, the extent to which he was being used at that time by the conspirators in their planning for their assault on Austria. Now, once German troops were in Austria and Seyss-Inquart had become Chancellor, he lost no time carrying out the plan of his Nazi fellow conspirators.
I next offer in evidence Document 3254-PS, which is a memorandum written by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart entitled, “The Austrian Question.” It is Exhibit Number USA-704. I offer it only because of the description which he gives of the manner in which he secured the passage of an Austrian act in annexing Austria to Germany. He said that on March 13 German officials brought him a proposal for inviting Austria into Germany. They reported that. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are you quoting?
LT. ATHERTON: I now quote from the middle of Page 20 of the English text:
“I called a meeting of the Council of Ministers, after having been told by Dr. Wolf that the Bundespräsident would make no difficulties in regard to that realization; he would return to his home in the meantime and would await me there. On my proposal the Council of Ministers assembled in the meantime adopted the draft bill to which my law section had made some formal modifications. The vote on the 20th of April had been planned already in the first draft. According to the provisions of the Constitution of 1 May 1934, any fundamental modification of the Constitution could be decided by the Council of Ministers with the approbation of the Bundespräsident. A vote or a confirmation by the nation was in no way provided for. In the event that the Bundespräsident should, for any reason, either resign his functions or be for some time unable to fulfill them, his prerogatives were to go over to the Bundeskanzler. I went to the Bundespräsident with Dr. Wolf. The President told me that he did not know whether this development would be of benefit to the Austrian nation but that he did not wish to interfere and preferred to resign his functions, so that all constitutional rights would come into my hands.”
And then, skipping two or three sentences to the top of Page 21:
“Thereafter I returned to Linz by car, where I arrived about midnight and reported to the Führer the accomplishment of the Anschluss law.”
The same day Germany formally incorporated Austria into the Reich by a decree and declared it to be a province of the German Reich, in violation of Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of Document Number 2307-PS, which is the decree to this effect, published in 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 237.
If the Defendant Seyss-Inquart seems unduly modest as to the part which he played in undermining the Government to which he owed allegiance, his fellow conspirators were quick to recognize the importance of his contributions. In a speech on the 26th of March 1938, the Defendant Göring said—and I am reading now from Document 3270-PS, Exhibit Number USA-703, which is an extract from the Dokumente der Deutschen Politik, Volume 6, Page 183:
“A complete unanimity between the Führer and the National Socialist confidants inside of Austria existed. . . . If the National Socialists’ rising succeeded so quickly and thoroughly and without bloodshed, it is first of all due to the calm, firm, prudent, and decisive attitude of the present Reichsstatthalter Seyss-Inquart and his confidants.”
I want, before leaving the matter of the Anschluss, to stress this once more, because this was a time of great importance, and it was Seyss-Inquart who held the key position in this first open attack on another country. Had it not been for his part, as has been shown, things might have gone very differently, and if there were no other place where he was connected with the conspirators’ plans for aggression, this would be sufficient to rank him with the foremost of the conspirators.
Now, passing on, Mr. Alderman has shown the way in which Seyss-Inquart co-operated with the conspirators in integrating Austria as fully as possible into the Reich, making its resources available to the Reich—its resources of wealth and its resources of manpower.
In furtherance of the conspirators’ plan, Reichsstatthalter Seyss-Inquart for the first time demonstrated his talent for the persecution of Jewish citizens. In an address in Vienna on the 26th of March 1938, which will be found at Page 2326 (Volume IV, Page 552) of the Record, he recalls that Göring expressly commissioned this defendant, as Reichsstatthalter, to institute anti-Semitic measures.
And the Tribunal will remember from previous evidence the kind of wholesale larceny which this involved. So successfully did Seyss-Inquart perform his task that at the meeting of the Air Ministry under the chairmanship of the Defendant Göring on the 12th of November 1938, Fischböck, a member of Seyss-Inquart’s official family, was able to relate the efficiency with which the civil administration in Austria dealt with the so-called “Jewish question.” I refer to Document Number 1816-PS, Exhibit Number USA-261, and I am reading first from Page 14 of the English translation. The Tribunal will note that this is the third full paragraph from the bottom of Page 14:
“Your Excellency: In this matter we have already a very complete plan for Austria. There are 12,000 Jewish artisans and 5,000 Jewish retail shops in Vienna. Before the seizure of power we had already a definite plan for tradesmen, regarding this total of 17,000 stores. Of the shops of the 12,000 artisans about 10,000 were to be closed definitely and 2,000 were to be kept open; 4,000 of the 5,000 retail stores should be closed and 1,000 should be kept open, that is, Aryanized. According to this plan, between 3,000 and 3,500 of the total of 17,000 stores would be kept open, all others closed. This was decided following investigations in every single branch and according to local needs, in agreement with all competent authorities, and is ready for publication as soon as we receive the law which we requested in September. This law shall empower us to withdraw licenses from artisans quite independent of the Jewish question.”
Göring said:
“I shall have this decree issued today.”
Then, if the Tribunal please, I just wish to read one more sentence from the middle of the next page, in which Fischböck says:
“Out of 17,000 stores 12,000 or 14,000 would be closed and the remainder Aryanized or handed over to the Bureau of Trustees which is operated by the State.”
And Göring replies:
“I have to say that this proposal is grand. This way the whole affair would be wound up in Vienna, one of the Jewish capitals, so to speak, by Christmas or by the end of the year.”
The Defendant Funk then says:
“We can do the same thing over here.”
In other words, Seyss-Inquart’s so-called solution was so highly regarded that it was considered a model for the rest of the Reich.
The task of integrating Austria into the Reich being substantially complete, the Nazi conspirators were able to use Seyss-Inquart’s expert services for the subjugation of other peoples. As an illustration I refer the Tribunal to Document D-571, Exhibit Number USA-112, which has already been read in evidence. The Tribunal will recall that from this document it appeared that on the 21st of March 1939 an official of the British Government reported from Prague to Viscount Halifax that a little earlier, on the 11th of March 1939, Seyss-Inquart, Bürckel, and five German generals attended a meeting of the Cabinet of the Slovak Government and told them that they should proclaim the independence of Slovakia, that Hitler had decided to settle the question of Czechoslovakia definitely (this has been read in court today) and that, unless they did as they were told, Hitler would disinterest himself in their fate. It just gives an indication of the manner in which this man continued to be busy in the aggressive plans of these Nazi conspirators.
Now early in September 1939, after the opening of the attack against Poland, Seyss-Inquart became Chief of the Civil Administration of south Poland. A few weeks later, on 12 October 1939, Hitler promulgated a decree providing that territories occupied by German troops, except those incorporated within the German Reich, should be subject to the authority of the Governor General of the occupied Polish territories and he appointed the Defendant Frank as Governor General and the Defendant Seyss-Inquart as Deputy Governor General. This decree will be found in the 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 2077, and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. Shortly thereafter, on 26 October 1939, Frank promulgated a decree establishing the administration of the occupied Polish territories, of which he was Governor. This decree is published in the Dokumente der Deutschen Politik and appears in the document book as 3468-PS. I am informed that this book, Volume 7, has also received the Exhibit Number 705 and I offer it as such.
Article 3 of the decree provided that the Chief of the Office of the Governor General and the Higher SS and Police Leader are directly subordinate to the Governor General and his Deputy. The Deputy, of course, was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
The significance of that provision is obvious in the light of the evidence which the Tribunal has heard and will hear. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
As Deputy Governor General of the Polish occupied territories, Seyss-Inquart seems to have had the job of setting up a German administration throughout this territory; that is, he worked under the Defendant Frank but did much of the work of interviewing the various local leaders, telling them what they should do. As an illustration I offer in evidence a report of a trip which Seyss-Inquart and his consultants took between the 17th and 22d of February 1939. This is our Document Number 2278-PS, and I offer it as Exhibit Number USA-706. If the Tribunal please, I have misstated that date or period. It was the 17th to the 22d of November 1939, in other words, shortly after the administration was set up. On the first page of the English translation—and I now quote from the second full paragraph—the following appears:
“At 3:00 p. m. Reich Minister, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, addressed the department heads of the district chief and stated among other things that the chief guiding rule for carrying out German administration in the Government General must be solely the interests of the German Reich. A stern and inflexible administration must make the area of use to German economy; and, so that excessive clemency may be guarded against, the results of the intrusion of the Polish race into German territory must be brought to mind.”
This report is too long, if the Tribunal please, to quote from at too great length; but if the Tribunal will turn over to Page 7, I would like to read in some extracts of what occurred while the defendant was in Lublin. From the report it appears that the Defendant Seyss-Inquart after meeting the various local German administrative officers “then expounded the principles,” and I am now quoting from the top of Page 7, “in accordance with which the administration in the ‘Government’ must be conducted.” Then, skipping a sentence:
“The resources and inhabitants of this country would have to be made of service to the Reich, and only within these limits could they prosper. Independent political thought should no longer be allowed to develop. The Vistula area might perhaps be still more important to German destiny than the Rhine. The Minister then gave as a guiding theme to the district leaders: ‘We will further everything which is of service to the Reich and will put an end to everything which may harm the Reich.’ Dr. Seyss-Inquart then added that the Governor General wished that those men who were fulfilling a task for the Reich here should receive a post with material benefits in keeping with their responsibility and achievements.”
Then, if the Tribunal will turn over two more pages, the reporter is describing a sightseeing tour which was made to the village of Wlodawa, Cycow, and I quote:
“Cycow is a German village. . .”—skipping down a couple of sentences—“Reich Minister Dr. Seyss-Inquart made a speech in which he pointed out that the fidelity of these Germans to their nationality now found its justification and reward through the strength of Adolf Hitler.”
And then the next sentence, apparently thrown in by the reporter:
“This district with its very marshy character could, according to District Chief Schmidt’s deliberations, serve as a reservation for the Jews, a measure which might possibly lead to heavy mortality among the Jews.”
THE PRESIDENT: We might break off here for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
LT. ATHERTON: If the Tribunal please, at the time the Tribunal rose, I was in the process of considering the functions of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his place as Deputy Governor General of Poland, between 1939 and 1940.
Now the Tribunal has already heard evidence of the atrocities which were perpetrated by the administration which Seyss-Inquart thus helped to create. The prosecutors for the Soviet Union will present to the Tribunal more evidence of such atrocities. For our present purposes, to show the importance of the work which this man did to further the Nazi plan for the Government General of Poland, it is enough to quote a few words from the diary of the Defendant Frank.
On the occasion of what was apparently a farewell lunch to Seyss-Inquart, when he became Reich Commissioner of the Netherlands, Frank said—and I now quote from Document 3465-PS, Pages 510 and 511 of Volume 2, the 1940 volume of the diary, which is Exhibit Number USA-614:
“I am extremely glad, Mr. Reich Commissioner and Reich Minister, to assure you, in this hour of your departure, that the months of our collaboration with you belong to the most precious memories of my life and that your work in the Government General will be remembered forever in the building of the coming world empire of the German nation.”
Skipping down a little, if the Tribunal please, Frank went on to say:
“In the construction of the Government General your name will forever take a place of honor as an originator of this organization and this state system. . . . I express our thanks, Mr. Reich Minister, for your collaboration and for your creative energy.”
Then reading the last two or three sentences:
“During the hard times common work united us here in the East, but it is at the same time the beginning point for a gigantic power development of the German Reich. Its perfection will show the development of the greatest energy unit which there ever was in the history of the world. In this work you were placed by the Führer, very effectively, in the most important position.”
And to these remarks the Defendant Seyss-Inquart replied and I now quote from the second page of the translation:
“I learned here a lot, many things which I did not understand before at all, and mainly on account of the initiative and firm leadership as I saw them in my friend Dr. Frank.”
Then, skipping a sentence:
“I will now go to the West, and I want to be quite open with you. With my whole heart I am present, because my whole attitude is one directed toward the East. In the East we have a National Socialist mission; over there, in the West, we have a function; that may be the difference.”
I submit, if the Tribunal please, that the sentences which I have just read show clearly enough the conscious participation of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart in the Polish phase of the conspiracy.
Thus equipped with experience gained in Poland under the Defendant Frank, Seyss-Inquart was ready to undertake his last and most ambitious task, the enslavement of the Netherlands. The ruthless manner in which he performed it marks his position in the Nazi Common Plan or Conspiracy.
I ask the Tribunal first to take judicial notice of a decree of Hitler of 18 May 1940, which is found in 1940 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 778. The translation will be found in the book as Document 1376-PS. By Section 1 of this decree it is provided that:
“The Reich Commissioner is protector of the interests of the Reich and will represent the supreme power of the Government within the civil sphere. He will be directly subordinated to me and will receive directives and orders from me.”
Section 3 provides that:
“The Reich Commissioner may use German Police forces to carry out his orders. The German Police forces are at the disposal of the German military commander in the Netherlands insofar as military necessities require this and if the missions of the Reich Commissioner permit it.”
Then by Paragraph or Section 5 of the law it is provided that the Reich Commissioner may promulgate laws by decree, such orders to be published in the Verordnungsblatt for the occupied territory of the Netherlands, a publication which I shall hereafter refer to merely as the Verordnungsblatt.
On the 29th of May 1940, acting within these powers, the defendant promulgated an order covering the exercise of governmental authority in the Netherlands and this appears as Document 3588-PS in the document book. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of its contents.
That will contain two decrees. I am now referring to the first one.
By Section 1 of this decree the defendant modestly purports to assume, to the extent required for the fulfillment of his duties, “all powers, privileges, and rights heretofore vested in the King and the Government, in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the Netherlands.” That is a direct quotation.
And then Section 5 of the order entrusts the maintenance of public peace, safety, and order to the Netherlands Police force unless the Reich Commissioner calls on German SS or Police forces for the enforcement of his orders. It further provides that the investigation and combatting of all activities hostile to the Reich and Germanism shall be the concern of the German Police force.
On June 3, 1940, a further decree was promulgated concerning the organization and establishment of the Office of the Reich Commissioner. This decree is found in the Verordnungsblatt for 1940, Issue 1, at Page 11, and is the second decree under Document 3588-PS. This decree provided for general commissioners on the staff of the Reich Commissioner to head four enumerated sections, one of which, the Superior SS and Police Chief, was to head the section for public safety. It was provided by Section 5 of this decree that:
“This official should command the units of the military SS and German Police forces transferred to the occupied Netherlands territories, supervise the Netherlands central and municipal police forces and issue to them necessary orders.”
Section 11 provided that the Reich Commissioner alone. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Atherton, don’t you think that we can assume that the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had been appointed to administer the occupied territory of the Netherlands, had all these powers and that you can turn your attention to what he did under those powers?
LT. ATHERTON: Yes, Sir; I will do that but I wanted to make plain to the Tribunal, because of the peculiar set-up of this German Police force, the fact that he was granted the power to give orders to them, and not only that, but that he customarily did. If that point is made clear, as I believe it is, in these two decrees, I will pass on to the next matter.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal has no doubt that an officer under the Reich who had got the powers of the administrator of an occupied territory could make use of the police forces.
LT. ATHERTON: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: It is really a matter that we should be prepared to assume until it is proved to the contrary.
LT. ATHERTON: I agree, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We would wish you to turn attention to show what he did, under those powers, which constitute crimes.
LT. ATHERTON: Yes, Sir. It is not our intention at this time to go into the crimes against persons and property which the Defendant Seyss-Inquart is responsible for in the Netherlands in any detail, because evidence of Nazi barbarity in this country is to be presented by our associates, the prosecutors for the French Republic. It is only our purpose to show a few illustrations and to give some idea of the scope of this defendant’s activities and his responsibilities as evidence of his part in the execution of the Nazis’ Common Plan or Conspiracy, which it is our part to prove.
Now, in the first place, there will be much evidence to show that the defendant was responsible for widespread spoliation of property. Merely as an illustration of the way in which he was implicated in the smallest parts of this, I offer in evidence Document 176-PS, as Exhibit Number USA-707.
This document is a report on the activities of the “Task Force Netherlands,” a part of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, on which the Tribunal has already heard evidence. Quoting from the first page of this report, the first sentence:
“The Task Force Netherlands of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg began its work in agreement with the competent representative of the Reich Commissioner during the first days of September 1940.”
The report then proceeds to detail the property taken from Masonic lodges and similar institutions to a considerable extent. Reading from—I believe it is Page 3 of this report, the very bottom:
“An extremely precious library, containing invaluable works on Sanskrit, was confiscated, when the ‘Theosophic Society’ in Amsterdam was dissolved, and packed into 96 cases.
“A number of smaller libraries belonging to the Spiritists, the Esperanto movement, the Bellamy movement, the International Bible Students, and various other minor international organizations were packed into seven cases; texts belonging to various minor Jewish organizations were packed into four cases; and a library of the ‘Anthroposophic Society’ in Amsterdam into three.
“It is safe to say that the stocks of books confiscated, packed, and so far sent to Germany by the task force are of extraordinary scientific value and will contribute an integral part of the library of the ‘Hohe Schule.’
“The money value of these libraries . . . can only be estimated but must surely amount to from 30 million to 40 million Reichsmark.”
Then, quoting from the very end of the report:
“The task force, in executing the aforementioned tasks, is bound strictly to the pace set by the Reich Commissioner for the handling of the Jewish questions and those of the international organizations.”
As Reich Commissioner it was one of the functions of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart to supervise the execution of the conspirators’ program for deportation of Dutch citizens to Germany for slave-labor. The Tribunal will recall that Mr. Dodd read into evidence at Page 1372 (Volume III, Page 477) a portion of a transcript of an interrogation of the Defendant Sauckel, on 5 October 1945, in which it appeared that the quotas for the workers for Holland were agreed upon and then the numbers given to the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart to fulfill; and after the quota was given to Seyss-Inquart, it was his mission to fulfill it with the aid of Sauckel’s representative. And then the Tribunal will recall that at Page 1310 (Volume III, Page 433) of the Record Mr. Dodd, having shown the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s part in recruitment for slave-labor in this fashion and his responsibility for it, read into the Record, Page 1310 (Volume III, Page 433), some portions from Document 1726-PS, Exhibit Number USA-195, which showed the numbers of Netherlands citizens deported to the Reich at various times. Since that is all a matter of record, I will not go into it again.
In the Netherlands, as in Austria and elsewhere, Seyss-Inquart was relentless in his treatment of Jewish Netherlanders. To illustrate his attitude, I offer in evidence Document 3430-PS, which consists of extracts from the defendant’s book Four Years in the Netherlands (Collected Speeches). It becomes Exhibit Number USA-708. In a speech in Amsterdam on 13 March 1941—and I am now quoting from Page 57 of the original book, the last extract on the translation, Seyss-Inquart said:
“The Jews, for us, are not Dutch. They are those enemies with whom we can come to neither an armistice nor to peace. This applies here, if you wish, for the duration of the occupation. Do not expect an order from me which stipulates this, except regulations concerning police matters. We will beat the Jews wherever we meet them, and those who join them must bear the consequences. The Führer declared that the Jews have played their final act in Europe, and therefore they have played their final act.”
Now, as promised, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart proceeded to promulgate the long series of decrees which first threatened to deprive the Jewish people in the Netherlands of their property, of their rights, and degraded them to something lower than the lowest, which eventually resulted in their deportation to Poland. These decrees, all signed by Seyss-Inquart, are collected in our brief, Page 65. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of them. By way of illustration, the first to which I wish to refer appears in the document book as 3333-PS, and it is a decree of 26 October 1940, requiring the registration of businesses belonging to Jews as defined in the decree, including partnerships or corporations in which Jews owned a substantial interest. You have seen that this type of law was the inevitable prelude to mass confiscation of the property of Jews under the Nazi administration. In a law found in Verordnungsblatt, Volume Number 6, Page 99, 11 February 1941, Document 3325-PS, Dutch universities and colleges were limited in the registration of Jewish students. This of itself does not seem important, but it is a part of the program to take away from these people their rights and degrade them. Document Number 3328-PS is a decree published in Verordnungsblatt Number 44 at Page 841, of 22 October 1941. This prevented the Jews from exercising any profession or trade without authorization from administrative authorities and permitted such authorities to order the termination of any employment contract concerning Jews.
As a final illustration I refer in passing to Document 3336-PS, a decree published in the Verordnungsblatt, Issue 13, Page 289, and dated 21 May 1942. This decree required all Jews to make written declaration of claims of any kind, under which they might be beneficiaries, at a banking firm known as Lippmann-Rosenthal and Company, which was actually an agency of the Reich at Amsterdam. The decree gave the bank, this named bank, all rights to dispose of the claim and provided that payment to the bank should be released in full. This type of Nazi decree was, of course, a forerunner of ultimate deportation to the East and allowed the Nazis to snatch the insurance.
Evidence of the success of this defendant’s efforts to annihilate all Jews in the Netherlands has already been read into the Record. The court will find that Major Walsh—again reading from the report of the Netherlands Government, Exhibit Number USA-195, at Page 1497 (Volume III, Page 565)—showed that out of 140,000 Jewish Netherlanders, 117,000 were deported, over 115,000 of them to Poland, over 80 percent. The evidence has shown what was the probable fate of most of these people, and I shan’t dwell on it further.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the responsibility of this defendant for the systematic terror practiced against the inhabitants of the occupied territory by the Nazis throughout the occupation. Referring again to the collected speeches in Document 3430-PS, on 29 January 1943, the defendant left little doubt of his point of view. He said, and I quote:
“It is also clear, now more than ever, that every resistance which is directed against this fight for existence must be suppressed. Some time ago the representatives of the churches had written to the Wehrmacht commander and to me, and they presented their ideas in regard to the execution of death sentences which the Wehrmacht commander announced in the meantime. To this I can say only the following: At the moment in which our men, fathers, and sons with iron determination look towards their fate in the East and unflinchingly and steadfastly perform their highest pledge, it is unbearable to tolerate conspiracies whose goal is to weaken the rear of this eastern front. Whoever dares this must be annihilated. We must be severe and become even more severe against our opponents. This is the command of a relentless sequence of events and for us, perhaps, inhumanly hard but our holy duty. We remain human because we do not torture our opponents. We must remain hard in annihilating them.”
I do not offer any evidence of the commission of these crimes, because that is to be done by prosecutors of the French Republic. But the position of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart as Reich Commissioner, the control which he exercised, which has been shown, particularly over the SS and Police, and the attitude of the man himself will make clear his authorization and participation in the crimes to be proved and are a further indication of his part in the common plan.
Seyss-Inquart supported the Nazi Party as early as 1931. He was a traitor to the government to which he owed allegiance and in which he held high office. With full knowledge of the ultimate purposes of the conspirators he bent every effort to integrate Austria into the Reich and to make its resources and manpower, as well as its strategic position, available for the Nazi war machine. He performed these tasks with such ruthless efficiency that he was chosen thereafter for key positions in the enslavement of Poland and the Netherlands—the positions which he filled with such satisfaction to his superiors, that ultimately he came to be one of the foremost and most detested leaders in this common plan. As such, under Article 6 of the Charter, he is responsible for all acts performed by any persons in the execution of that plan. As such, he is guilty of the crimes charged to him under Counts One and Two of the Indictment.
I wish to introduce to the Tribunal at this time Dr. Robert M. W. Kempner, who will represent the Prosecution in the next phase of the case dealing with the Defendant Frick.
DR. ROBERT M. W. KEMPNER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal: There have been distributed to the Tribunal and to all Defense Counsel, trial brief and documents relating to the Defendant Frick. The trial brief prepared by my colleague, Karl Lachmann, sets forth, in great detail, evidence, in the form of both documents and decrees, against the Defendant Wilhelm Frick. English translations of the evidentiary material referred to in the trial brief are included in the document book prepared by my colleague Lieutenant Felton. This book has been marked “LL.”
Defendant Frick’s great contribution to the Nazi conspiracy was in the field of governmental administration. He was the administrative brain who devised the machinery of state for Nazism, who geared that machinery for aggressive war.
In the course of his active participation in the Nazi conspiracy, from 1923 to 1945, the Defendant Frick occupied a number of important positions. Document 2978-PS, which has previously been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-8, lists the positions in detail. The original was signed by the Defendant Frick on 14 November 1945. I do not repeat these positions; they are known to the Court. Frick’s past activity on behalf of the Nazi conspirators was his participation in promoting their rise to power. Frick betrayed, in his capacity as law enforcement official of the Bavarian Government, his own Bavarian Government by participating in the Munich Beer Hall Putsch of November 8, 1923. Frick was tried and sentenced together with Hitler on a charge of complicity in treason. His position in the Putsch is described in a record of the proceeding called The Hitler Trial before the People’s Court in Munich, published in Munich in 1924.
I will ask this Tribunal to take judicial notice of this record of these proceedings. Hitler’s appreciation of Frick’s assistance is evidenced by the fact that he honored Frick by mentioning his name in Mein Kampf. Only two other Defendants in this proceeding share this honor, namely, Hess and Streicher. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the favorable mentioning of Defendant Frick in Mein Kampf, German edition, 1933, Page 403.
During the period after the Putsch, Frick made further contributions to the Nazi conspiracy. I should like to refer briefly to Document 2513-PS, an excerpt of Pages 36 and 38 from a report entitled, “The National Socialist Workers Party as an Association Hostile to the State and to the Republican Form of Government and Guilty of Treasonable Activity.” This report has been previously introduced as Document 2513-PS, Exhibit Number USA-235. It is an official report of the criminal activities of Hitler, Frick, and other Nazis prepared by the Prussian Ministry of the Interior in 1930. It states that Frick, next to Hitler, can be regarded as the most influential representative of the Nazi Party at that time. This document reported that at the 1927 Party Congress in Nuremberg Frick said that the Reichstag would first be misused by the Nazi Party, would then be abolished, and that its abolition would open the way for racial dictatorship. The document also reported that Frick stated in a speech in 1929 at Pyritz that this fateful struggle will first be taken up with the ballot, but this cannot continue indefinitely, for history has taught us that in battle blood must be shed and iron broken.
Back in 1927 Frick’s prominent role in helping to bring the Nazis to power was recognized when, on 23 January 1930, he was appointed Minister of the Interior and Education in the State of Thuringia.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you passing from that document now? I thought you were reading from 2513.
DR. KEMPNER: No, this is an introduction of the next document.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, Dr. Kempner.
DR. KEMPNER: I just started to refer to the fact that Adolf Hitler at this time, when Frick was Minister of the Interior in the State of Thuringia, was an undesirable alien, not a German citizen. In his capacity as Minister of Thuringia the Defendant Frick began his manipulations to provide Adolf Hitler, the undesirable alien, with German citizenship, an essential step toward the realization of the Nazi conspiracy.
This lack of German citizenship was highly detrimental to the cause of the Nazi Party because, as an alien, Hitler could not become candidate for the Reich Presidency in Germany.
It was the Defendant Frick who solved this problem by an administrative maneuver. We now introduce in evidence Document 3564-PS, Exhibit Number USA-709. This document is an affidavit by Otto Meissner of 27 December 1945. Meissner was former state secretary and chief of Hitler’s Presidential Chancellery. The last two sentences of this affidavit read as follows:
“Frick also, in collaboration with Klagges, Minister of Brunswick, succeeded in naturalizing Hitler as a German citizen in 1932 by having him appointed a Brunswick government official Regierungsrat. This was done in order to make it possible for Hitler to run as a candidate for the office of President in the Reich.”
When Hitler came to power on 30 January 1933, Frick was duly awarded a prominent post in the new regime as Reich Minister of the Interior. In this capacity he became responsible for the establishment of totalitarian control over Germany, an indispensable prerequisite for the preparation of aggressive warfare. Frick assumed responsibility for the realization of a large part of the Nazi Conspirators’ program both through administration and legislation.
I must explain very briefly the significance of the Ministry of the Interior in the Nazi State to show the contribution made by Frick to the conspiracy. I offer, as evidence of Frick’s extensive jurisdiction as Minister of the Interior, Document 3475-PS, Exhibit Number USA-710, which is part of the official German manual for administrative officials, dated 1943. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of Frick’s jurisdiction mentioned in this document. The names of the men who, according to this document, worked under Frick’s supervision, and I stress this point “worked under Frick’s supervision,” are symbolic. They are listed on Page 1 of the English translation. Here we find among the subordinates of Frick: Reich Health Leader, Dr. Conti; Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police, Heinrich Himmler; and Reich Labor Service leader, Hierl. This document shows Frick as supreme commander of three important pillars of the Nazi State: the Nazi health service, the Nazi police system, and the Nazi labor service.
The wide variety of Frick’s activities as Reich Minister of the Interior can be judged from the following catalogue of his functions, enumerated on the following pages of the manual. He had final authority over constitutional questions, drafted legislation, had jurisdiction over governmental administration and civil defense, and was final arbiter in all questions concerning race and citizenship. The manual also lists sections of the Ministry concerned with administrative problems for the occupied territories and annexed territories, the “New Order” in the Southeast, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and the “New Order” in the East. He also had full jurisdiction in the field of civil service, including such matters as appointment, tenure, promotion, and dismissal.
The Defendant Frick used his wide powers as Reich Minister of the Interior to advance the cause of the Nazi conspiracy. To accomplish this purpose, he drafted and signed the laws and decrees which abolished the autonomous state governments, the autonomous local governments, and the political parties in Germany other than the Nazi Party.
In 1933 and 1934, the first 2 years of the Nazi regime, Frick signed about 235 laws or decrees, all of which are published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. I should like to refer briefly to a few of the more important laws and decrees, such as the law of 14 July 1933 outlawing all political parties other than the Nazi Party, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933, Part I, Page 479, Document 1388(a)-PS; then the law of 1 December 1933 securing the unity of Party and State, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933, Part I, Page 1016, Document 1395-PS; the law of 30 January 1934 transferring the sovereignty of the German states to the Reich, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Part I, Page 75, Document 3068-PS; the German Municipality Act of 30 January 1935, which gave Frick’s Ministry of the Interior final authority to appoint and dismiss all mayors of municipalities throughout Germany, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, Part I, Page 49, Document 2008-PS; and, finally, the Nazi Civil Service Act of 7 April 1933 which provided that all civil servants must be trustworthy as defined by Nazi standards and also must meet the Nazi racial requirements, published in Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933, Part I, Page 175, Document 1397-PS.
One category of Frick’s activities, however, deserves special notice; that is, the crushing of opposition by legally camouflaged police terror. This is shown by the book Dr. Wilhelm Frick and His Ministry, our Document 3119-PS, which is in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-711, written by Frick’s undersecretary and co-conspirator, Hans Pfundtner, apparently written to establish Frick’s eternal contribution to the creation of the Nazis’ thousand-year Reich. It states, and I quote briefly from Page 4, paragraph 4, of the English translation:
“While Marxism in Prussia was crushed by the hard fist of the Prussian Prime Minister Hermann Göring and a gigantic wave of propaganda was initiated for the Reichstag elections of 5 March 1933, Dr. Frick prepared the complete seizure of power in all states of the Reich. All at once the political opposition disappeared. All at once the Main”—River—“line was eliminated; from this time on only one will and one leadership reigned in the German Reich.”
How was this done? On February 28, 1933, the day after the Reichstag fire, civil rights in Germany were abolished. This decree was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933, Page 83; and an English translation of it appears in the document book as 1390-PS. I refer to this decree at this time because it carries the signature of the Reich Minister of the Interior Frick. And now something important. It is stated at the beginning of the decree, which was published on the morning after the Reichstag fire, that the suspension of civil rights is decreed as a defense measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the State. At the time of publication of this decree, the Nazi Government announced that a thorough investigation had proven that the Communists had set fire to the Reichstag building. I do not intend to go into the controversial issue of who set fire to the Reichstag, but I should like to offer proof that the official Nazi statement that the Communists were responsible for the fire was issued without any investigation and that the preamble of the decree which had Frick’s signature was a mere subterfuge.
I offer in evidence a very short excerpt of an interrogation of Defendant Göring, dated October 13, 1945, our Document 3593-PS, Exhibit Number USA-712, and I should like to read the following brief portion, beginning on Page 4:
“My question to Göring: ‘How could you tell your press agent, 1 hour after the Reichstag caught fire, that the Communists did it, without investigation?’
“Göring’s answer: ‘Did the public relations officer say that at that time?’
“My answer: ‘Yes. He said you said it.’
“Göring: ‘It is possible when I came to the Reichstag the Führer and his gentlemen were there. I was doubtful at that time, but it was their opinion that the Communists had started the fire.’
“My question: ‘But you were the highest law enforcement official in a certain sense. Daluege was your subordinate. Looking back at it now, and not in the excitement that was there once, wasn’t it too early to say without any investigation that the Communists had started the fire?’
“Göring: ‘Yes, that is possible, but the Führer wanted it this way.’
“Question: ‘Why did the Führer want to issue at once a statement that the Communists had started the fire?’
“Answer: ‘He was convinced of it.’
“Question: ‘It is right when I say he was convinced without having any evidence or any proof of that at this moment?’
“Göring: ‘That is right, but you must take into account that at that time the Communist activity was extremely strong, that our new government as such was not very secure.’”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, what has that got to do with Frick?
DR. KEMPNER: He signed the decree, as I said before, abolishing civil liberties on the morning after, pointing out that there was a Communist danger. On the other side, this Communist danger was a mere subterfuge and was one of the things which finally led to the second World War.
The Defendant Frick not only abolished civil liberties within Germany, but he also became the organizer of the huge police network of the Nazi Reich.
Parenthetically, I may state that before this time there was no unified Reich police system; the individual German states had police forces of their own.
I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the decree of June 17, 1936, signed by Frick and published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1936, Page 487. An English translation of this decree is in the document book under Document Number 2073-PS.
Section 1 of this Frick decree reads as follows:
“For the unification of police duties in the Reich, a Chief of German Police is appointed in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, to whom is assigned the direction and conduct of all police affairs. . . .”
And from Section 2 we learn that it was the Defendant Frick and Hitler, the signers of the decree, who appointed Himmler as Chief of the German Police.
Paragraph 2 of Section 2 of the decree states that Himmler was, and I quote, “subordinated individually and directly to the Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior.” And of course that is Frick.
The official chart of the German Police system, Document 1852-PS, which has already been introduced into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-449, clearly shows the position of the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, as the supreme commander of the entire German Police system, including the notorious RSHA, of which the Defendant Kaltenbrunner became chief, under Frick, in January 1943.
The Defendant Frick used his authority over the newly centralized police system for the promotion of the Nazi conspiracy. The Tribunal may take judicial notice of Frick’s decree of September 20, 1936, published in the Ministerial Gazette of the Reich (Ministerialblatt des Reichs- und Preussischen Ministeriums des Innern), 1936, Page 1343, Document 2245-PS.
In this decree Frick reserved for himself the authority to appoint inspectors of the security police, subordinated them to his district governors, the Oberpräsidenten, and ordered them to have a close co-operation with the Party and the Armed Forces.
Another example of the use of his activities in the police sphere is in his ordinance of March 18, 1938, concerning the Austrian Anschluss, in which Frick authorized the Reichsführer of the SS and Police, Himmler, to take security measures in Austria without regard to previous legal limitations. This decree is published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, Page 262, and appears in the document book as Document Number 1437-PS.
I shall not here repeat the evidence concerning the criminal activities of the German police, over which the Defendant Frick had supreme authority. I should simply like to refer the Tribunal to the presentations already made on the subject of concentration camps and the Gestapo, two of the police institutions under Frick’s jurisdiction. But I should like to show that not only Himmler’s subordinate machine but also Frick’s ministry itself was familiar with these institutions. Therefore, I now offer into evidence Document 1643-PS, as Exhibit Number USA-713.
This document is a synopsis of correspondence between the Reich Ministry of the Interior and its field offices, from November 1942 through August 1943, on the subject of the legal aspects of the confiscation of property by the SS for the enlargement of the concentration camp at Auschwitz. At the bottom of Page 1 and the top of Page 2 of the English translation there appears a synopsis of the minutes of a meeting held on December 17 and 18, 1942, concerning the confiscation of this property. These minutes indicate that a further discussion was to be held on the subject on 21 December 1942, between the representatives of the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Reichsführer SS. On Page 2 there appears also a summary of a teletype letter dated January 22, 1943 from Dr. Hoffmann, representing the Reich Minister of the Interior, to the District Governor in Katowice.
The summary begins as follows, and I quote:
“The territory of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp will be changed into an independent estate”—which means an administrative territory of itself.
The fact that the Defendant Frick demonstrated personal interest in a concentration camp became known through the testimony of Dr. Blaha, to which I should like to refer the Tribunal, in which he testified that Frick visited the Dachau Camp in 1943.
The next aspect of the participation of the Defendant Frick in the Nazi conspiracy concerns his promotion of racial persecution and racism, involving the wiping out of the Jews.
In addition to the many other responsibilities of Frick, this vast administrative empire covered the entire area of the enactment and administration of racial legislation.
I refer again to Document 3475-PS, The Manual for German Administrative Officials, previously introduced, and I refer to Pages 2 and 4, showing that Frick was administrative and legislative guardian and protector of the German race.
In order to avoid any repetition, I shall not quote the various acts drafted by Frick’s ministry against the Jews. The presentation concerning persecution of the Jews made by Major Walsh before the Christmas recess listed a number of decrees signed by Frick, including the infamous Nuremberg Laws and the laws depriving Jews of their property, their rights of citizenship and stigmatizing them with the Yellow Star.
But the activities of Frick’s ministry were not restricted to the commission of such crimes, camouflaged in the form of legislation. The police field offices, subordinate to Frick, participated in the organization of such terroristic activities as the pogrom of November 9, 1938.
I refer to a series of Heydrich’s orders and reports concerning the organization of these pogroms or, as they were termed by Heydrich, “spontaneous riots,” Documents 3051-PS and 3058-PS, which are already in evidence as Exhibit Numbers USA-240 and 508.
Three days after this pogrom of 9 November 1938 Frick, his undersecretary Stuckart, and his subordinates, Heydrich and Daluege, participated in a conference on the Jewish question under the chairmanship of the Defendant Göring. At this meeting were discussed the various measures which the individual governmental departments should initiate against the Jews. A stenographic record of this meeting, Document 1816-PS, is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-261. May I briefly refer to the bottom of Page 23 of the English translation, where we find Göring’s concluding remarks:
“Also the Ministry of the Interior and the Police will have to think over what measures have to be taken.”
This remark shows that Göring regarded it as Frick’s duty to follow-up by administrative devices the pogrom, organized by Frick’s own subordinates.
In the foregoing presentation we have shown that the Defendant Frick, as a member of the conspiracy, devised the machinery of the State for Nazism. In the following presentation we will show that Frick actively supported the preparation of the Nazi State for war.
May we begin this portion by showing that Frick was in sympathy with the flagrant violations by Germany of her treaties of non-aggression. This is clearly shown by the affidavit of Ambassador Messersmith, Document 2385-PS, previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-68. I shall quote only one sentence from this affidavit, Page 4, line 10. It reads as follows:
“High-ranking Nazis with whom I had to maintain official contact, particularly men such as Göring, Goebbels, Ley, Frick, Frank, Darré, and others repeatedly scoffed at my position as to the binding character of treaties and openly stated to me that Germany would observe her international undertakings only so long as it suited Germany’s interests to do so.”
In May 1935, by his appointment as Plenipotentiary General for the administration of the Reich, Frick became one of the big three in charge of preparing Germany for war. The other two members of the triumvirate were the Chief of the OKW and the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, at that time the Defendant Schacht. Frick has admitted that he held the position of Plenipotentiary General since 21 May 1935, the date of the original secret Reich Defense Law. I refer to his statement of positions, Document 2978-PS, Exhibit Number USA-8.
His functions as Plenipotentiary General are outlined in the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, which was classified top military secret and appears in our document book as 2194-PS, Exhibit Number USA-36. Under this law of 1938, Paragraph 3, tremendous power was concentrated in the hands of Frick as Plenipotentiary General for Administration. In addition to the offices under his supervision as Minister of the Interior, the law made the following offices subordinate to Frick for the purpose of carrying out the directives of the law: Reich Minister of Justice, Reich Minister of Education, Reich Minister for Religious Matters, and the Reich Minister for Planning.
Frick admitted the significant part he played in the preparations for war as a member of the triumvirate in a speech made on 7 March 1940 at the University of Freiburg. Excerpts appear in the document book as Document Number 2608-PS, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-714. I think it would be helpful if the Tribunal would allow me to read two short paragraphs, beginning at the top of Page 1 of the English translation:
“The organization of the non-military national defense fits organically into the entire structure of the National Socialist Government and administration. This state of affairs is not exceptional, but a necessary and planned part of the National Socialist order. Thus, the conversion of our administration and economy to wartime conditions has been accomplished very quickly and without any friction—avoiding the otherwise very dangerous change of the entire structure of the State.
“The planned preparation of the administration for the possibility of a war has already been carried out during peacetime. For this purpose the Führer appointed a Plenipotentiary General for the Reich Administration and a Plenipotentiary General for War Economy.”
Many of Frick’s contributions to the preparation of the German State for war are outlined in detail in the book Dr. Wilhelm Frick and His Ministry, which is already in evidence as Document 3119-PS. May I quote two short sentences from the top of Page 3 of the English translation:
“Besides, the leading co-operation of the Reich Minister of the Interior in the important field of ‘military legislation,’ and thus in the establishment of our Armed Forces, has to be particularly emphasized. After all, the Reich Minister of the Interior is the civilian minister of the defense of the country, who in this capacity, together with the Reich War Minister, not only signed the military law of 21 May 1935 but, in his capacity as Supreme Chief of the General and Inner Administration as well as of the Police, has also received from the Führer and Reich Chancellor important powers in the fields of the recruitment system and of military supervision.”
I have previously mentioned that as Minister of the Interior Frick was responsible for the administrative policy in occupied and annexed territories. It was his ministry which introduced the new German order throughout the vast territory of Europe occupied by the German Armed Forces, and the Defendant Frick exercised these powers. I request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of three decrees signed by Frick, introducing German law into Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Government General of Poland respectively:
Decree of 13 March 1938, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, Part I, Page 237, Article 8, Document 2307-PS; decree of 1 October 1938, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, Part I, Page 1331, Paragraph 8, Document 3073-PS; decree of 12 October 1939, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1939, Part I, Page 2077, Paragraph 8 (1), Document 3079-PS.
Frick’s ministry also arranged the selection and assignment of hundreds of occupation officials for the Soviet territory even before the invasion. This fact appears in a report by the Defendant Rosenberg of April 1941 on preparations for the administration of occupied territory in the East. May I refer to Page 2, Paragraph 2, of Document 1039-PS, which has previously been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-146.
One category of Frick’s contribution to the planning of, and preparation for, aggressive war deserves special notice. This is the systematic killing of persons regarded as useless to the German war machine, such as the insane, the crippled, and aged, and foreign laborers who were no longer able to work. These killings were carried out in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. The Tribunal will recall that the Defendant Frick, in his capacity as Reich Minister of the Interior, had jurisdiction over public health and all institutions. May I refer again briefly to the Manual for German Administrative Officials, Document 3475-PS, this time to Pages 3, 4, and 7 of the English partial translation. There the following are mentioned as Frick’s jurisdictional areas: “Health Administration,” “Social Hygiene,” “Racial Improvement and Eugenics,” “Reich Plenipotentiary for Sanatoria and Nursing Homes.”
As proof that Frick’s jurisdiction covered the death cases in these institutions, I now offer in evidence Document 621-PS, Exhibit Number USA-715. This is a letter of 2 October 1940 from the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers, to the Reich Minister of Justice, informing the latter that material concerning the death of inmates of nursing homes had been transmitted to the Reich Minister of the Interior for further action. In fact, the Defendant Frick not only had jurisdiction of these establishments, but he was one of the originators of a secret law organizing the murdering.
I now offer Document 1556-PS, Exhibit Number USA-716. This is an official report, dated December 1941, of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission entitled, “Detailed Statement on the Murdering of Ill and Aged People in Germany.” I should like to quote very brief excerpts from this report. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 read as follows:
“1) The murdering can be traced back to a secret law which was released some time in the summer of 1940.
“2) Besides the Chief Physician of the Reich, Dr. L. Conti, the Reichsführer SS Himmler, the Reich Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick, as well as other men, the following participated in the introduction of this secret law:. . .”—Other names listed.
“3) As I have already stated, there were—after careful calculation—at least 200,000, mainly mentally deficient, imbeciles, besides neurological cases and medically unfit people—these were not only incurable cases—and at least 75,000 aged people.”
The most striking example of the continued killings in these institutions, which were under Frick’s jurisdiction and operated under the order of which Frick was a co-author, is the famous Hadamar case.
Your Honor, may I ask you whether I may have 10 more minutes to end this presentation, because the Chief Prosecutors agreed, as I understood, to start tomorrow morning the case of the French, and I have just 10 more minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. KEMPNER: Thank you, Your Lordship.
I refer to the Hadamar case. I now offer in evidence Document Number 615-PS, Exhibit Number USA-717.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What is this last report that you spoke about? Whose is it?
DR. KEMPNER: The Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission report. After I have shown the general scheme, of which Frick was a co-author, I would like to show that Frick’s ministry was acquainted with the things that were going on under his organizational authorship; and therefore I am quoting now a letter to the fact that he was acquainted with these killings and that these killings had even become public knowledge. For this reason I offer in evidence Document 615-PS, Exhibit number USA-717. This document is a letter from the Bishop of Limburg of 13 August 1941 to the Reich Minister of Justice. Copies were sent to the Reich Minister of the Interior—this means Frick—and to the Reich Minister for Church Affairs. I quote:
“About 8 kilometers from Limburg, in the little town of Hadamar, on a hill overlooking the town, there is an institution which had formerly served various purposes and of late had been used as a nursing home; this institution was renovated and furnished as a place in which, by consensus of opinion, the above-mentioned euthanasia has been systematically practiced for months, approximately since February 1941. The fact has become known beyond the administrative district of Wiesbaden, because death certificates from a Registry Hadamar-Moenchberg are sent to the home communities. . . .”
And I quote further:
“Several times a week buses arrive in Hadamar with a considerable number of such victims. School children of the vicinity know this vehicle and say, ‘There comes the murder-box again.’ After the arrival of the vehicle, the citizens of Hadamar watch the smoke rise out of the chimney and are tortured with the ever-present thought of the miserable victims, especially when repulsive odors annoy them, depending on the direction of the wind.
“The effect of the principles at work here, are: Children call each other names and say, ‘You’re crazy; you’ll be sent to the baking oven in Hadamar.’ Those who do not want to marry or find no opportunity say, ‘Marry, never! Bring children into the world so they can be put into the bottling machine!’ You hear old folks say, ‘Don’t send me to a state hospital! After the feeble-minded have been finished off, the next useless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.’
“. . . The population cannot grasp that systematic actions are carried out which, in accordance with Paragraph 211 of the German criminal code, are punishable with, death! . . .
“Officials of the Secret State Police, it is said, are trying to suppress discussion of the Hadamar occurrences by means of severe threats. In the interest of public peace this may be well intended. But the knowledge and the conviction and the indignation of the population cannot be changed by it; the conviction will be increased with the bitter realization that discussion is prohibited with threats but that the actions themselves are not prosecuted under penal law.”
I quote the last paragraph of the letter, the postscript:
“I am submitting copies of this letter to the Reich Minister for Church Affairs.” Initialed by above.
Nevertheless, the killings carried out in these institutions under the secret law created by Defendants Frick, Himmler, and others continued year after year.
THE PRESIDENT: Was any answer made to that letter?
DR. KEMPNER: No answer has been found. I have other letters which I am not able to quote here today which have the remark, “Please don’t answer.”
THE PRESIDENT: “Please don’t answer”?
DR. KEMPNER: That it should be unanswered.
Nevertheless, the killings carried out in these institutions under the secret law created by Defendants Frick, Himmler, and others continued year after year. I offer in evidence Document 3592-PS, Exhibit Number USA-718, which is a certified copy of the charge, specifications, findings, and sentence of the U.S. Military Commission at Wiesbaden, against the individuals who operated the Hadamar Sanatorium, where many Russians and Poles were murdered. In this particular proceeding seven defendants were charged with the murder in 1944 of 400 persons of Polish and Russian nationality, and three of the defendants were sentenced to be hanged; the other four were sentenced to confinement at hard labor.
Now I come to the last page of my presentation, the final case of Frick’s responsibility, which arises under his position as Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia for the period from August 20, 1943, until the end of the war. I think it is not necessary to say anything about the functions of the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia; these broad powers are known to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from 3592-PS, is it clear that that trial relates to the killing of Polish and Russian nationals in nursing homes or institutions of that sort?
DR. KEMPNER: It is absolutely clear in this document, the sentence of the Military Commission of Hadamar for Wiesbaden.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you show me where that is?
DR. KEMPNER: Document Number 3592-PS. I quote:
“Specification: In that Alfons Klein, Adolf Wahlmann, Heinrich Ruoff, Karl Willig, Adolf Merkle, Irmgard Huber, and Philipp Blum, acting jointly and in pursuance of a common intent and acting for and on behalf of the then German Reich, did, from or about July 1, 1944, until about April 1, 1945, at Hadamar, Germany, wilfully, deliberately, and wrongfully aid, abet, and participate in the killing of human beings of Polish and Russian nationality; their exact names and number being unknown, but aggregating in excess of 400, and who were then and there confined by the German Reich as an exercise of belligerent control.”
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn’t show that it came within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior.
DR. KEMPNER: Some time ago I referred to the manual of the German administrative officials. This manual points out very clearly that nursing homes, sanitaria, and similar establishments are under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior.
THE PRESIDENT: I follow that, but this document does not refer to nursing homes. That is what I was asking you.
DR. KEMPNER: Yes, it says only Hadamar. It is, in fact, the Hadamar Nursing Home. This portion wasn’t given by the Judge Advocate General, but I am willing to give later a more extended document that Hadamar is a common name for the so-called Hadamar killing mill, which is a nursing home.
Now I come to the last paragraph of my presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment, Dr. Kempner. Counsel for the Defense wishes to speak. There is a gentleman standing by your side.
DR. PANNENBECKER: From Document 3592-PS, which was just read, I cannot find that the Defendant Frick is connected with the document in any way.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely it is not necessary for you to get up and repeat what I have just said.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I would like to add something else.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I would like to add that the Defendant Frick since August 1943 was not Minister of the Interior, and for that reason this document cannot be used against him.
THE PRESIDENT: And it does not give the date of the death of these people. At any rate, until Dr. Kempner produces something to show that this was a nursing home and in a time during which the Defendant Frick was Minister of the Interior, the Tribunal will not treat it as being evidence which implicates Frick.
DR. KEMPNER: I quoted this killing in Hadamar for two reasons: First, because the Ministry of the Interior has become acquainted, as I said before, with the letter of the Bishop of Limburg, in 1941, when Frick was Minister of the Interior and knew about these facts; and I quoted the military decision for this reason, that these killings were still going on in 1944 and 1945 under a law of which the Defendant Frick was the co-author.
The final phase of Frick’s responsibility arises under his position as Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia for the period from 20 August 1943 until the end of the war. I have not to prove his function but I shall mention one example, and I offer in evidence Document Number 3589-PS, Exhibit Number USA-720, which is a supplement to an official Czechoslovak report on German crimes against Czechoslovakia. I would like to quote only the following brief passage from this report:
“During the tenure of office of Defendant Wilhelm Frick as Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia from August 1943 until the liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1945 many thousands of Czechoslovak Jews were transported from the Terezin ghetto in Czechoslovakia to the concentration camp at Oswieczim (Auschwitz) in Poland and were there killed in the gas chambers.”
Brought from the territory over which Frick was Protector to the gas chamber.
Thus, we submit, it has been shown that the Defendant Frick was a key conspirator from 1923 until the Allied armies crushed the resistance of the Nazi Armed Forces. Frick’s guilt rests on his own record and on the record of his co-defendants, for whom he is co-responsible under our Charter.
I would like to express my appreciation for the assistance rendered in connection with the preparation of this case by my colleagues Mr. Karl Lachmann, Lieutenant Frederick Felton, and Captain Seymour Krieger.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 17 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THIRTY-SIXTH DAY Thursday, 17 January 1946
Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon the Counsel for France.
M. FRANCOIS DE MENTHON (Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): The conscience of the peoples, who only yesterday were enslaved and tortured both in soul and body, calls upon you to judge and to condemn the most monstrous attempt at domination and barbarism of all times, both in the persons of some of those who bear the chief responsibility and in the collective groups and organizations which were the essential instruments of their crimes.
France, invaded twice in 30 years in the course of wars, both of which were launched by German imperialism, bore almost alone in May and June 1940 the weight of armaments accumulated by Nazi Germany over a period of years in a spirit of aggression. Although temporarily crushed by superiority in numbers, material, and preparation, my country never gave up the battle for freedom and was at no time absent from the field. The engagements undertaken and the will for national independence would have sufficed to keep France behind General De Gaulle in the camp of the democratic nations. If, however, our fight for freedom slowly took the shape of a popular uprising, at the call of the men of the Resistance, belonging to all social classes, to all creeds and to all political parties, it was because, while our soil and our souls were crushed by the Nazi invader, our people refused not only to submit to wretchedness and slavery, but even more they refused to accept the Hitlerian dogmas which were in absolute contradiction to their traditions, their aspirations, and their human calling.
France, which was systematically plundered and ruined; France, so many of whose sons were tortured and murdered in the jails of the Gestapo or in concentration camps; France, which was subjected to the still more horrible grip of demoralization and return to barbarism diabolically imposed by Nazi Germany, asks you, above all in the name of the heroic martyrs of the Resistance, who are among the greatest heroes of our national legend, that justice be done.
France, so often in history the spokesman and the champion of human liberty, of human values, of human progress, through my voice today also becomes the interpreter of the martyred peoples of western Europe, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, peoples more than all others devoted to peace, peoples who are among the noblest of humanity by their aspirations and their worship of the values of civilization, peoples who have shared our sufferings and have refused, like us, to give up liberty and to sacrifice their souls before the assault of Nazi barbarism. France here becomes their interpreter to demand that real justice be done.
The craving for justice of the tortured peoples is the basic foundation of France’s appearance before Your High Tribunal. It is not the only one, nor perhaps the most important one. More than toward the past, our eyes are turned toward the future.
We believe that there can be no lasting peace and no certain progress for humanity, which still today is torn asunder, suffering, and anguished, except through the co-operation of all peoples and through the progressive establishment of a real international society.
Technical procedures and diplomatic arrangements will not suffice. There can be no well balanced and enduring nation without a common consent in the essential rules of social living, without a general standard of behavior before the claims of conscience, without the adherence of all citizens to identical concepts of good and of evil. There is no domestic law which, in defining and punishing criminal violations, is not founded on criteria of a moral order which is accepted by all—in a word, without a common morality. There can be no society of nations tomorrow without an international morality, without a certain community of spiritual civilization, without an identical hierarchy of values; international law will be called upon to recognize and guarantee the punishment of the gravest violations of the universally accepted moral laws. This morality and this international criminal law, indispensable for the final establishment of peaceful co-operation and of progress on lasting foundations, are inconceivable to us today after the experience of past centuries and more especially of these last years, after the incredible and awesome sacrifices and the sufferings of men of all races and of all nationalities, except as built on the respect of the human person, of every human person whosoever he may be, as well as on the limitation of the sovereignty of states.
But in order that we may have the hope of founding progressively an international society, through the free co-operation of all peoples, founded on this morality and on this international law, it is necessary that, after having premeditated, prepared, and launched a war of aggression which has caused the death of millions of men and the ruin of a great number of nations, after having thereupon piled up the most odious crimes in the course of the war years, Nazi Germany shall be declared guilty and her rulers and those chiefly responsible punished as such. Without this sentence and without this punishment the people would no longer have any faith in justice. When you have declared that crime is always a crime, whether committed by one national entity against another or by one individual against another, you will thereby have affirmed that there is only one standard of morality, which applies to international relations as well as to individual relations, and that on this morality are built prescriptions of law recognized by the international community; you will then have truly begun to establish an international justice.
This work of justice is equally indispensable for the future of the German people. These people have been for many years intoxicated by Nazism; certain of their eternal and deep seated aspirations, under this regime, have found a monstrous expression; their entire responsibility is involved, not only by their general acceptance but by the effective participation of a great number of them in the crimes committed. Their re-education is indispensable. This represents a difficult enterprise and one of long duration. The efforts which the free peoples will have to make in order to reintegrate Germany into an international community cannot succeed in the end if this re-education is not carried out effectively. The initial condemnation of Nazi Germany by your High Tribunal will be a first lesson for these people and will constitute the best starting point for the work of the revision of values and of re-education which must be its great concern during the coming years.
This is why France sees fit to ask the Tribunal to qualify juridically as crimes, both the war of aggression itself and those acts in violation of the morality and of the laws of all civilized countries which have been committed by Germany in the conduct of the war, to condemn those who are chiefly responsible, and to declare criminal the members of the various groups and organizations which were the principal perpetrators of the crimes of Nazi Germany.
Your High Tribunal, established by the four nations signatory to the agreement of 8 August 1945, acting in the interests of all the United Nations, is qualified to mete out to Nazi Germany the justice of the free peoples, the justice of liberated humanity.
The establishment by our four governments of a Tribunal competent to judge the crimes committed by those principally responsible in Nazi Germany is based solidly on the principles and usage of international law. As an eminent British jurist has recently reminded us: The practice and the doctrine of international law have always given to belligerent states the right to punish enemy war criminals who fall into their power. It is an immutable rule of international law which no author has ever contested. It is not a new doctrine. It was born with the birth of international law. Francisco de Vittoria and Grotius laid its foundations. The German authors of the 17th and 18th century developed the doctrine.
Thus Johann Jacob Moser, a positivist writer of the 18th century said:
“Enemy soldiers who act in violation of international law, should they fall into the hands of their adversaries, are not to be treated as prisoners of war. They can suffer the same fate as thieves or murderers.”
The prosecutions which the United States, Great Britain, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and France are today carrying out against the men and the organizations appearing before Your High Tribunal under the Indictment read in Berlin on 18 October 1945, therefore have an unimpeachable juridical foundation: The right, universally recognized by international doctrine, of bringing war criminals before a punitive jurisdiction.
This right is strengthened by legal considerations that are perhaps even more irrefutable.
The principle of the territorial application of penal laws gives to every state the right to punish crimes committed on its territory. The application of the territorial principle covers the violations of international law in territory subject to military occupation; these violations are the chief source of war crimes. But the crimes committed by the defendants were not directed against any given state, in any given occupied territory. The National Socialist conspirators, against whom we ask that justice be done, directed the policy of the Third Reich. All the states which were occupied and temporarily enslaved by their armed forces have been equally victims both of the illicit war which they launched and of the methods used by them in the conduct of this war.
There is therefore no single state which could legitimately claim the privilege of trying these criminals. Only an International Tribunal, emanating from the combined United Nations, which were yesterday at war with Germany, can rightly claim this privilege. This is why the declaration on enemy atrocities made at the end of the Moscow Conference in October 1943 had provided that the leaders of Nazi Germany would, after the joint victory of the Allies, be brought before an international jurisdiction. There is, therefore, nothing new from a juridical point of view in the principle of justice which you are called upon to render. Far from being merely an affirmation of power on the part of the victors, your competence is founded on the recognition by international law of the territorial jurisdiction of sovereign states.
The transfer by these states of their juridical power to an international court constitutes a notable progress in the setting up of an inter-state punitive procedure. It does not constitute any innovation in the legal foundation of the justice which you are called upon to render.
The penal qualification of the facts may seem more open to juridical objections. This horrible accumulation and maze of Crimes against Humanity both include and go beyond the two more precise juridical notions of Crimes against Peace and War Crimes. But I think—and I will revert later separately to Crimes against Peace and War Crimes—that this body of Crimes against Humanity constitutes, in the last analysis, nothing less than the perpetration for political ends and in a systematic manner, of common law crimes such as theft, looting, ill treatment, enslavement, murders, and assassinations, crimes that are provided for and punishable under the penal laws of all civilized states.
No general objection of a juridical nature, therefore, appears to hamper your task of justice.
Moreover, the Nazis accused would have no ground to argue on alleged lack of written texts to justify the penal qualification that you will apply to their crimes.
Has not the juridical doctrine of National Socialism admitted that in domestic criminal law even the judge can and must supplement the law? The written law no longer constituted the Magna Charta of the delinquent. The judge could punish when, in the absence of a provision for punishment, the National Socialist sense of justice was gravely offended.
How could a judge under the Nazi regime supplement the law?
In his search for a semi-legal solution he acted in the manner of a legislator. Proceeding from the firm basis of the National Socialist program, he sought the rule which he would have proclaimed had he been a legislator. The Defendant Frank, in his speech at the Juristentag in 1936, declared:
“Say to yourself at each decision you have to make: How would the Führer decide in my place? For every decision which you have to make, ask yourself: Is this decision in accordance with the National Socialist conscience of the German people? Thus you will have a firm basis of conscience which will also bear for all time, in your own sphere of decisions, the authority of the Third Reich, based on the popular National Socialist unity and on the recognition of the will of the Führer Adolf Hitler.”
To those who tomorrow will render justice in the name of human conscience, the Defendant Frank and his accomplices would be ill advised to protest against a lack of written texts with appropriate sanctions, especially since, in addition to various international conventions, these texts, though they be not codified in an inter-state penal code, exist in the penal code of every civilized country.
Mr. Justice Jackson has given you the details of the various phases and aspects of the National Socialist plot, its planning and its development, from the first days of the conspiracy of Hitler and his companions to rise to power, until the unleashing of innumerable crimes in a Europe almost entirely at their mercy.
Sir Hartley Shawcross then enumerated the various breaches of treaties, of agreements, of promises which were the prelude to the many wars of aggression of which Germany was guilty.
I propose today to prove to you that all this organized and vast criminality springs from what I may be allowed to call a crime against the spirit, I mean a doctrine which, denying all spiritual, rational, or moral values by which the nations have tried, for thousands of years, to improve human conditions, aims to plunge humanity back into barbarism, no longer the natural and spontaneous barbarism of primitive nations, but into a diabolical barbarism, conscious of itself and utilizing for its ends all material means put at the disposal of mankind by contemporary science. This sin against the spirit is the original sin of National Socialism from which all crimes spring.
This monstrous doctrine is that of racialism: The German race, composed in theory of Aryans, would be a fundamental and natural concept. Germans as individuals do not exist and cannot justify their existence, except insofar as they belong to the race or Volkstum, to the popular mass which represents and amalgamates all Germans. Race is the matrix of the German people; proceeding therefrom this people lives and develops as an organism. The German may consider himself only as a healthy and vigorous member of this body, fulfilling within the collectivity a definite technical function; his activity and his usefulness are the exact gauge and justification of his liberty. This national body must be “moulded” to prepare it for a permanent struggle.
The ideas and the bodily symbols of racialism form an integral part of its political system. This is what is called authoritative or dictatorial biology.
The expression “blood” which appears so often in the writings of the Nazi theorists denotes this stream of real life, of red sap which flows through the circulatory system of every race and of all genuine culture as it flows through the human body. To be Aryan is to feel this current passing through oneself, this current which galvanizes and vivifies the whole nation. Blood is this region of spontaneous and unconscious life which reveals to each individual the tendencies of the race. The intellectual life must never, in extolling itself, separate us from this elemental basis of the sacred community. Let the individual go into himself and he will receive by direct revelation “the commandments of the blood.” Dreams, rites, and myths can lead to this revelation. In other words the modern German can and must bear in himself the call of the old Germany and find again its purity and its youthful primitiveness.
The body and soul unity (Leib Seele Einheit) of the individual must not be disputed. One reads in the Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte of September 1938 that the body belongs to the State and the soul to the Church and to God. It is no longer so. The whole of the individual, body and soul, belongs to the Germanic nation and to the Germanic State. National Socialism affirms, indeed, that the moral conscience is the result of ortho-genetic evolution, the consequence of the most simple physiological functions which characterize the individuality of the body. Therefore, the moral conscience is also subject to heredity and consequently subject to the postulate and to the demands of the race.
True, this pseudo-religion does not repudiate the means of reason and of technical activity, but subordinates them rigorously, brings them infallibly to the racial myth.
The individual has no value in himself and is important only as an element of the race. This affirmation is logical if one admits that not only physical and psychological characteristics, but also opinions and tendencies are bound, not to the individual but to the nation. Anyone whose opinions differ from the official doctrine is asocial or unhealthy. He is unhealthy because in the Nazi doctrine the nation is equivalent to the race. Now, the characteristics of the race are fixed. An exception in the formation from the spiritual or moral point of view constitutes a malformation in the same way as does a clubfoot or a harelip.
That is the totalitarian doctrine which reduces the individual to nonexistence save by the race and for the race, without freedom of action or any definite aim; totalitarian doctrine which excludes every other concept, every other aspiration or requirement save those connected with the race, totalitarian doctrine which eliminates from the individual every other thought save that of the interest of the race.
National Socialism ends in the absorption of the personality of the citizen into that of the state and in the denial of any intrinsic value of the human person.
We are brought back, as can be seen, to the most primitive ideas of the savage tribe. All the values of civilization accumulated in the course of centuries are rejected, all traditional ideas of morality, justice, and law give way to the primacy of race, its instincts, its needs and interests. The individual, his liberty, his rights and aspirations, no longer have any real existence of their own.
In this conception of race it is easy to realize the gulf that separates members of the German community from other men. The diversity of the races becomes irreducible, and irreducible, too, the hierarchy which sets apart the superior and the inferior races. The Hitler regime has created a veritable chasm between the German nation, the sole keeper of the racial treasure, and other nations.
Between the Germanic community and the degenerate population of an inferior variety of men there is no longer any common measure. Human brotherhood is rejected, even more than all the other traditional moral values.
How can one explain how Germany, fertilized through the centuries by classic antiquity and Christianity, by the ideals of liberty, equality, and social justice, by the common heritage of western humanism to which she had brought such noble and precious contributions, could have come to this astonishing return to primitive barbarism?
In order to understand it and to try to eradicate forever from the Germany of tomorrow the evil by which our entire civilization came so near to perishing, it must be recalled that National Socialism has deep and remote origins.
The mysticism of racial community was born of the spiritual and moral crises which Germany underwent in the 19th century and which abruptly broke out again in its economic and social structure through a particularly rapid industrialization. National Socialism is in reality one of the peaks of the moral and spiritual crisis of modern humanity, convulsed by industrialization and technical progress. Germany experienced this metamorphosis of economic and social life not only with an extraordinary brutality but at a time when she did not yet possess the political equilibrium and the cultural unity which the other countries of western Europe had achieved.
While the inner and spiritual life was weakening, a cruel uncertainty dominated human minds, an uncertainty admirably defined by the term “Ratlosigkeit,” which cannot be translated into French but which corresponds to our popular expression, “One no longer knows in what saint to believe.” This is the spiritual cruelty of the 19th century which so many Germans have described with a tragic evocative power. A gaping void opens before the human soul, disoriented by the search for new values.
The natural sciences and the sciences of the mind give birth to absolute relativism; to a deep scepticism regarding the lasting quality of values on which Western humanism has been nurtured for centuries. A vulgar Darwinism prevails, bewilders, and befuddles the brain. The Germans cease to see in human groups and races anything but isolated nuclei in perpetual struggle with one another.
It is in the name of decadence that the German spirit condemns humanism. It sees in the value of humanism and in the elements that derive from it only “maladies,” which it attributes to an excess of intellectualism and abstraction of everything that restrains men’s passions by subjecting them to common norms. From this point on, classic antiquity is no longer considered in its aspects of ordered reason or of radiant beauty. In it one sees only civilizations violently enamored of struggles and rivalries, linked especially to Germany through their so-called Germanic origin.
Sacerdotal Judaism and Christianity in all its forms are condemned as religions of honor and brotherhood, calculated to kill the virtues of brutal force in man.
A cry is raised against the democratic idealism of the modern era, and then against all the internationals.
Over a people in this state of spiritual crisis and of negations of traditional values the culminating philosophy of Nietzsche was to exercise a dominant influence. In taking the will to power as a point of departure, Nietzsche preached, certainly not inhumanity but superhumanity. If there is no final cause in the universe, man, whose body is matter which is at once feeling and thinking, may mould the world to his desire, choosing as his guide a militant biology. If the supreme end of humanity is a feeling of victorious fullness which is both material and spiritual, all that remains is to insure the selection of physical specimens, who become the new aristocracy of masters.
For Nietzsche the industrial evolution necessarily entails the rule of the masses, the automatism and the shaping of the working multitudes. The state endures only by virtue of an elite of vigorous personalities who, by the methods so admirably defined by Machiavelli, which alone are in accord with the laws of life, will lead men by force and by ruse simultaneously, for men are and remain wicked and perverse.
We see the modern barbarian arise. Superior by his intelligence and his wilful energy, freed of all conventional ethics, he can enforce upon the masses obedience and loyalty by making them believe in the dignity and beauty of labor and by providing them with that mediocre well-being with which they are so easily content. An identical force will, therefore, be manifest in the leaders, by the harmony between their elementary passions and the lucidity of their organizing reason, and in the masses, whose dark or violent instincts will be balanced by a reasoned activity imposed with implacable discipline.
Without doubt, the late philosophy of Nietzsche cannot be identified with the brutal simplicity of National Socialism. Nevertheless, National Socialism was wont to glorify Nietzsche as one of its ancestors. And justly so, for he was the first to formulate in a coherent manner criticism of the traditional values of humanism; and also, because his conception of the government of the masses by masters knowing no restraint is a preview of the Nazi regime. Besides, Nietzsche believed in the sovereign race and attributed primacy to Germany, whom he considered endowed with a youthful soul and unquenchable resources.
The myth of racial community which had arisen from the depths of the German soul, unbalanced by the moral and spiritual crises endured by modern humanity, allied itself with the traditional theses of Pan-Germanism.
Already Fichte’s speeches to the German nation exalting Germanism clearly reveal one of the main ideas of Pan-Germanism, namely, that Germany visualizes and organizes the world as it should be visualized and organized.
The apology for war is equally ancient. It dates back to Fichte and Hegel, who had affirmed that war, through its classifying of peoples, alone establishes justice among nations. For Hegel, in Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechtes, Page 433, states: “The moral health of nations is maintained thanks to war, just as the passing breeze saves the sea from stagnation.”
The living space theory appears right at the beginning of the 19th century. It is a well-known geographical and historical demonstration which such people as Ratzel, Arthur Dix, and Lamprecht will take up later on, comparing conflicts between peoples to a savage fight between conceptions and realizations of space and declaring that all history is moving towards German hegemony.
State totalitarianism also has ancient roots in Germany. The absorption of individuals by the State was hoped for by Hegel, who wrote:
“Individuals disappear in the presence of the universal substance”—that is the people or state idea—“and this substance itself shapes the individuals in accordance with its own ends.”
Therefore, National Socialism appears in present-day Germany neither as a spontaneous formation which might be due to the consequence of the defeat in 1918, nor as a mere invention of a group of men determined upon seizing power. National Socialism is the ultimate result of a long evolution of doctrines; the exploitation by a group of men of one of the most profound and most tragic aspects of the German soul. But the crime committed by Hitler and his companions will be precisely that of unleashing and exploiting to its extreme limit the latent force of barbarity, which existed before him in the German people.
The dictatorial regime instituted by Hitler and his companions carries with it for all Germans the “soldier-life,” that is to say, a kind and a system of life entirely different from that of the bourgeois West and the proletarian East. It amounted to a permanent and complete mobilization of individual and collective energies. This integral militarization presupposed complete uniformity of thoughts and actions. It is a militarization which conforms to the Prussian tradition of discipline.
Propaganda instils into the masses faith, drive, and a thirst for the greatness of the community. Those consenting masses find an artificial derivative for their moral anguish and their material cares in theories of race and in a mystical exaltation held in common. Souls which yesterday were wounded and rent asunder once more find themselves united in a common mould.
The Nazi educational system moulds new generations which show no trace of traditional moral teachings, those being replaced by the cult of race and of strength.
The race myth tends to become a real national religion. Many writers dream of substituting for the duality of religious confessions a world-wide dogma of German conception, which would amount to being the religion of the German race as a race.
In the middle of the 20th century Germany goes back, of her own free will, beyond Christianity and civilization to the primitive barbarity of ancient Germany. She makes a deliberate break with all universal conceptions of modern nations. The National Socialist doctrine, which raised inhumanity to the level of a principle, constitutes, in fact, a doctrine of disintegration of modern society.
This doctrine necessarily brought Germany to a war of aggression and to the systematic use of criminality in the waging of war.
The absolute primacy of the German race, the negation of any international law whatsoever, the cult of strength, the exacerbation of community mysticism made Germany consider recourse to war, in the interests of the German race, logical and justified.
This race would have the incontestable right to grow at the expense of nations considered decadent. Germany is about to resume even in the middle of the 20th century the great invasions of the barbarians. Moreover, most naturally and logically, she will wage her war in barbarous fashion, not only because National Socialist ethics are indifferent to the choice of means, but also because war must be total in its means and in its ends.
Whether we consider a Crime against Peace or War Crimes, we are therefore not faced by an accidental or an occasional criminality which events could explain without justifying it. We are, in fact, faced by systematic criminality, which derives directly and of necessity from a monstrous doctrine put into practice with deliberate intent by the masters of Nazi Germany.
From the National Socialist doctrine there arises directly the immediately pursued perpetration of Crimes against Peace. As early as February 1920, in the first program of the National Socialist Party, Adolf Hitler had already outlined the future basis of German foreign policy. But it was in 1924 in his Landsberg prison, while writing Mein Kampf, that he gave a fuller development to his views.
According to Mein Kampf the foreign policy of the Reich must have as its first objective to give back to Germany her “independence and her effective sovereignty” which is clearly an allusion to the articles of the Treaty of Versailles, referring to disarmament and the demilitarization of the Rhineland. It would then endeavor to reconquer the territories lost in 1919, and 15 years before the outbreak of the second World War the question of Alsace and Lorraine is clearly raised. It would also have to seek to extend German territories in Europe, the frontiers of 1914 being “insufficient” and it would be indispensable to extend them by including “all Germans” in the Reich, beginning with the Germans of Austria.
After having reconstituted Greater Germany, National Socialism will do everything necessary to “insure the means of existence” on this planet to the race forming the state, by means, of establishing a “healthy relation” between the size of the population and the extent of the territory. By “healthy relation” is meant a situation such that the subsistence of the people will be assured by the resources of its own territory. “A sufficient living space on this earth will alone insure to a people its liberty of existence.”
But so far that is but a stage.
“When a people sees its subsistence guaranteed by the extent of its territory, it is nevertheless necessary to think of insuring the security of that territory”—because the power of a state “arises directly out of the military value of its geographical situation.”
Those ends, Hitler adds, cannot be reached without war. It will be impossible to obtain the re-establishment of the frontiers of 1914 “without bloodshed.” How much more impossible it would be to acquire living space if one did not prepare for a “clash of arms.”
“It is in Eastern Europe, at the expense of Russia and the neighboring countries that Germany must seek new territories. We are stopping the eternal march of the Germans towards the South and the West of Europe and are casting our eyes towards the East.”
But before anything, declares Hitler, it is necessary to crush France’s tendency towards hegemony, and to have a “final settlement” with this “mortal enemy.” “The annihilation of France will enable Germany to acquire afterwards territories in the East.” The “settlement of accounts” in the West is but a prelude. “It can be explained only as the securing of our rear defenses in order to extend our living space in Europe.”
Henceforth, also, Germany will have to prevent the existence near her territory of a “military power” which might become her rival and to oppose “by all means” the formation of a state which possibly might acquire sufficient strength to do so; and if that state exists already, to “destroy” it is, for Germans, not only a right but a duty. “Never permit”—recommends Hitler to his compatriots, in a passage which he calls his political testament—“the formation in Europe of two continental powers. In every attempt to set up a second military power on Germany’s borders, even if it were in the shape of a state which might possibly acquire that power, you must see an attack on Germany.”
War to reconquer the territories lost in 1919, war to annihilate the power of France, war to acquire living space in eastern Europe, war, finally, against any state which would be or which might become a counter-weight to the hegemony of the Reich, that is the plan of Mein Kampf.
In this way, from the inception of National Socialism, he does not recoil from any of the certainties of war entailed by the application of his doctrines.
In fact, from the moment of his accession to power, Hitler and his companions devoted themselves to the military and diplomatic preparation of the wars of aggression which they had resolved to wage.
It is true that, even before the accession to power of the National Socialists, Germany had shown her determination to reconstruct her armed forces, notably in 1932 when, on the occasion of the Disarmament Conference, she demanded “equality of rights” as regards armament; and Germany had already secretly violated the articles of the Treaty of Versailles regarding disarmament. But after the arrival of Hitler to power, German rearmament was to be carried out at a vastly different rate.
On 14 October 1933 the Reich left the Disarmament Conference and made known 5 days later its decision to withdraw from the League of Nations under the pretext that it was not granted equality of rights in the matter of armament. France had, however, expressed her readiness to accept equality of rights if Germany would first consent to an international control which would enable the actual level of existing armaments to be determined. Germany very obviously did not wish to agree to this condition, for an international control would have revealed the extent of the rearmament already carried out in secret by the Reich in violation of the treaties. As a matter of fact, at a cabinet meeting which took place on 13 October 1933, the minutes of which have been found, Hitler had declared that he wished to “torpedo” the Disarmament Conference. Under these conditions it is not surprising that the attempts made to resume negotiations with Germany after her withdrawal ended in failure.
When 18 months later Hitler’s government decided to re-establish conscription and to create immediately an army which would, on a peace establishment, comprise 36 divisions, as well as to create a military air force, it was breaking the engagements which Germany had undertaken by the Treaty of Versailles. However, on 3 February 1935, France and Great Britain had suggested to the Reich that it resume its place in the League of Nations and prepare a general disarmament convention which would have been substituted for the military Articles of the Treaty. At the moment when Hitler was on the point of obtaining, by means of free negotiation, the abolition of the “unilateral burden” which, as he said, the Treaty of Versailles laid on Germany, he preferred to escape any voluntary limitation and any control of armaments by a deliberate violation of a treaty.
When it decided on 7 March 1936 to denounce the Treaty of Locarno and to reoccupy at once the demilitarized Rhineland area, thereby violating Articles 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Versailles, the German government alleged that in so doing it was replying to the pact concluded and signed on 2 May 1935, between France and the U.S.S.R., and ratified on 27 February 1936 by the French Chamber of Deputies. It alleged that this pact was contrary to the Treaty of Locarno. This was a mere pretext which was taken seriously by nobody. The Nazi leaders wanted to start building the Siegfried Line as soon as possible in the demilitarized Rhineland area, in order to thwart a military intervention which France might attempt in order to assist her Eastern allies. The decision of 7 March 1936 was the prelude to the aggressions directed against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
Internally, rearmament was achieved thanks to a plan of economic and financial measures which affected every aspect of national life. The entire economic system was directed towards the preparation of war. The members of the government proclaimed priority of armaments manufacture over all other branches of production. Policy took precedence over economics. The Führer declared:
“The people must be resigned for some time to having its butter, fats, and meat rationed in order that rearmament may proceed at the desired rate.”
The German people did not protest against this order. The state intervened to increase the production of substitute goods which would help to relieve the insufficiency of raw materials and would enable the Reich, in the event of war, to maintain the level of production necessary for the Army and Air Force, even if imports were to become difficult or impossible. The Defendant Göring, in September 1936, inspired the drawing up and directed the application of the Four Year Plan which put Germany’s economic system on a war footing. The expenses entailed by this rearmament were assured thanks to the new system of work treaties. The Defendant Schacht during the 3½ years he was at the head of the Reich Ministry of Economics brought into being this financial machinery and thereby played an outstanding role in military preparations as he himself recalled, after he left the Ministry, in a speech that he made in November 1938 at the Economic Council of the German Academy.
Germany thus succeeded in 3 years’ time in recreating a great army and in creating on the technical plane an organization entirely devoted to future war. On 5 November 1937, when expounding his plan for home policy to his collaborators, Hitler stated that rearmament was practically completed.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off? We will adjourn, then, for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
M. DE MENTHON: While Hitler’s government was giving to the Reich the economic and financial means for a war of aggression he was carrying on simultaneously the diplomatic preparation of that war by endeavoring to reassure the threatened nations during the period which was indispensable to him for rearmament and by endeavoring also to keep apart his eventual adversaries one from the other.
In a speech on 17 May 1933, Hitler, while asking for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles, declared that he had no intention of obtaining it by force. He stated that he admitted “the legitimate exigencies of all peoples” and asserted that he did not want to “germanize those who are not Germans.” He wished to “respect the rights of other nationalities.”
The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, concluded on 26 January 1934, which was to reassure for a time the Warsaw government and to lull it into a state of false security, was principally intended to bar French policy from any action. In a work published in 1939 entitled Deutschlands Aussenpolitik 1933-39, an official writer, Professor Von Freytagh-Loringhoven, wrote that the essential purpose of this pact was to paralyze the action of the Franco-Polish alliance and to “overthrow the entire French system.”
On 26 May 1935, 10 days after denouncing the military clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany started negotiations with Great Britain which were to result in the Naval Agreement of 18 June 1935, negotiations which were intended to reassure British public opinion by showing it that, while the Reich was desirous of becoming once more a great military power, it was not thinking of reconstituting a powerful fleet.
Immediately following the plebiscite of 13 January 1935 which decided the return of the Saar territory to the Reich, Hitler formally declared “that he would make no further territorial demands whatsoever on France.”
He was to use the same tactics towards France until the end of 1938. On 6 December 1938 Ribbentrop came to Paris to sign the Franco-German Declaration which recognized “the frontiers as definite” between the two countries, and which stated that the two governments were resolved:
“. . . under reservation of their particular relations with third powers, to engage in mutual consultation in the event of questions of common interests which might show a risk of leading to international difficulties. . . .”
He was then still hoping, to quote the French Ambassador in Berlin, to “stabilize peace in the West in order to have a free hand in the East.”
Did not Hitler make the same promises to Austria and Czechoslovakia? He signed, on 11 July 1936, an agreement with the Viennese government recognizing the independence of Austria, an independence which he was to destroy 20 months later. By means of the Munich Agreement on 29 September 1938, he promised subsequently to guarantee the integrity of the Czech territory which he invaded less than 6 months later.
Nevertheless, as early as 5 November 1937, in a secret conference held at the Reich Chancellery, Hitler had made known to his collaborators that the hour had come to resolve by force the problem of the living space required by Germany. The diplomatic situation was favorable to Germany. She had acquired superiority of armaments which ran the risk of being only temporary. Action should be taken without further delay.
Thereupon started the series of aggressions which have already been detailed before this Court. It has also been shown to you that these various aggressions have been made in violation of international treaties and of the principles of international law. As a matter of fact, German propaganda did not challenge this at the time. It merely stated that those treaties and those principles “had lost any reality whatever with the passage of time.” In other words, it simply denied the value of the word once pledged and asserted that the principles which formed the basis of international law had become obsolete. This is a reasoning which is in line with the National Socialist doctrines which, as we have seen, do not recognize any international law and state that any means is justifiable if it is of a nature to serve the interests of the German race.
However, it is worth while examining the various arguments which German propaganda made use of to justify the long-planned aggression.
Germany set forth, first of all, her vital interests. Can she not be excused for neglecting the rules of international law when she was engaged in a struggle for the existence of her people? She needed economic expansion. She had the right and the duty to protect the German minorities abroad. She was obliged to ward off the encirclement which the Western powers were directing against the Reich.
Economic expansion was one of the reasons which Hitler put forward, even to his direct associates, in the secret conferences he held in 1937 and 1939 in the Reich Chancellery. “Economic needs,” he said “are the basis of the policy of expansion of Italy and of Japan. They also guide Germany.”
But would not Hitler’s Germany have been able to seek to satisfy these needs by peaceful means? Did she think of obtaining new possibilities for her foreign commerce through commercial negotiations? Hitler did not stop at such solutions. To solve the German economic problems, he saw only one way—the acquisition of agricultural territories—undoubtedly because he was incapable of conceiving of these problems under any other form than that of “war economy.” If he affirmed the necessity of obtaining this “agricultural space”—to use his own words—it was because he saw therein the means of obtaining for the German population the food resources which would protect it against the consequences of a blockade.
The duty of protecting “the German minorities abroad” was the favorite theme which Germany’s diplomacy made use of from 1937 to 1939. It could obviously not serve as an excuse for the destruction of the Czechoslovakian State or for the establishment of the “German Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia.” The fate of the “Sudeten Germans,” that of the “Danzig Germans” was the Leitmotiv of the German press, of the Führer’s speeches, and of the publications of Ribbentrop’s propaganda. Thus, is it necessary to recall that in the secret conference of 5 November 1937, in which Hitler draws up for his associates the plan of action to be carried out against the Czechoslovakian State, he does not say one word about the “Sudeten Germans” and to recall that in the conference of 23 May 1939 he declares that Danzig is not the “principal point” of the German-Polish controversy? The “right of nationalities” was, therefore, in his mind only a propaganda method intended to mask the real design, which was the conquest of “living space.”
The encirclement directed by the Western Powers against the Reich is the argument which Hitler used when, on 28 April 1939, he denounced the Naval Agreement which he had concluded in 1935 with Great Britain. This thesis of encirclement occupied a great deal of space in the German White Book of 1939, relative to the origins of the war; but is it possible to speak of encirclement when Germany had, in May 1939, obtained the alliance with Italy and when, on 23 August 1939, she concluded the German-Russian Pact, and can we forget that the diplomatic efforts of France and of Great Britain in respect to Greece, Romania, Turkey, Poland, are subsequent both to the destruction of the Czechoslovakian State and to the beginning of the German-Polish diplomatic conflict. Had not the British Prime Minister declared on 23 March 1939 before the House of Commons that British policy had only two aims: To prevent Germany from dominating Europe and “to oppose a method which, by the threat of force, obliged the weak states to renounce their independence”? What Hitler Germany called “encirclement” was simply a fence, belatedly built in an attempt to check measureless ambitions.
But German propaganda did not limit itself to this. Did we not see one of its spokesmen point to the contrast between the passivity of France and Great Britain in September 1938 and the resistance which they showed in 1939 to the Hitler policy, wherefrom it was concluded that the peace would have been maintained if the Western Powers had exercised pressure on Poland to bring it to accept the German demands, as they had exercised pressure the previous year on Czechoslovakia? A strange argument, which is equivalent to saying that Germany would have been willing not to make war if all the Powers had yielded to her will! Is it an excuse for the perpetrators of these violations that France and Great Britain had for a long time opposed the violations of international law by Germany merely by platonic protests?
Public opinion in France and Great Britain, deceived by Hitler’s declarations, may have believed that the designs of National Socialism contemplated only settling the fate of German minorities; it may have hoped that there was a limit to German ambitions; and, ignorant as they were of the secret plans of which we have proof today, France and Great Britain allowed Germany to rearm and reoccupy the Rhineland at the very moment when, according to the testimony of Ribbentrop himself, a military reaction on their part would, in March 1936, have placed the Reich in a critical situation. They permitted the aggression of March and September 1938, and it required the destruction of the Czechoslovakian State to make the scope of the German plans clear to the Allies. How can one be astonished that their attitude then changed and they decided to resist the German plans? How could one still claim that the peace could have been “bought” in August 1939 by concessions, since the German secret documents prove that Hitler was determined to attack Poland as early as May 1939, and that he would have been “deeply disappointed” if she had yielded, and that he wished a general war?
In reality, the war was implied by the coming to power of the National Socialists. Their doctrine inevitably led to it.
As Sir Hartley Shawcross forcefully brought out before Your High Tribunal, a war of aggression is self-evidently a violation of international law and, more particularly, a violation of the General Treaty for the Renouncement of War of 27 August 1928, under the name of the Paris Pact, or the Kellogg-Briand Pact, of which Germany is one of the signatories. This pact continues to constitute a part of international law.
May I reread Article I of this Treaty?
“The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare, in the name of their respective peoples, that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their reciprocal relations.”
War of aggression thus ceased to be lawful in 1928.
Sir Hartley Shawcross told you, with eloquence, that the Paris Pact, a new law of civilized nations, was the foundation of a better European order. The Paris Pact, which remains the fundamental charter of the law of war, indeed marks an essential step in the evolution of the relations between states. The Hague Conventions had regulated the “law of the conduct of war.” They had instituted the obligation of recourse to arbitration as a preliminary to any conflict. They had, essentially, established a distinction between acts of war to which international law and custom allow recourse and those which it prohibits. The Hague Convention did not even touch upon the principle of war which remained outside the legal sphere. This is, in fact, what is brought into being by the Paris Pact, which regulates “the right of declaration of war.” Since 1928 the international law of war has emerged from its framework of regulations. It has gone beyond the empiricism of the Hague Convention to qualify the legal foundation of recourse to force. Every war of aggression is illegal, and the men who bear the responsibility for bringing it about place themselves by their own will beyond the law.
What does this mean, if not that all acts committed as a consequence of this aggression for the carrying on of the struggle thus undertaken will cease to have the juridical character of acts of war?
May I quote this well-known passage from Pascal?
“Why do you kill me? Don’t you live on the other side of the water? My friend, if you lived on this side, I would be an assassin, and it would be unjust to kill you as I am doing, but since you live on the other side, I am an honorable man, and this is just.”
Acts committed in the execution of a war are assaults on persons and goods which are themselves prohibited but are sanctioned in all legislations. The state of war could make them legitimate only if the war itself was legitimate. Inasmuch as this is no longer the case, since the Kellogg-Briand Pact, these acts become purely and simply common law crimes. As Mr. Justice Jackson has already argued before you with irrefutable logic, any recourse to war is a recourse to means which are in themselves criminal.
This is the whole spirit of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It was intended to deprive the states which accepted it of the right of having recourse, in their national interests, to a series of acts directed against the physical persons or against the properties of nationals of a foreign power. Given this formal commitment, those who have ignored it have given the order to commit acts prohibited by the common law of civilized states, and there is here involved no special rule of international law like that which existed previously and which left the said acts of war untouched by any criminal qualifications.
A war perpetrated in violation of international law no longer really possesses the juridical character of a war. It is truly an act of gangsterism, a systematically criminal undertaking.
This war, or this would-be-war, is in itself not only a violation of international law, but indeed a crime, since it signifies the launching of this systematically criminal enterprise.
Inasmuch as they could not legally have recourse to force, those who dictated it, and who were the very organs of the state bound by treaties, must be considered as the very source of the numerous assaults upon life and property that are severely punished by all penal law.
One cannot, of course, deduce from the preceding the individual responsibility of all the perpetrators of acts of violence. It is obvious that, in an organized modern state, responsibility is limited to those who act directly for the state, they alone being in a position to estimate the lawfulness of the orders given. They alone can be prosecuted and they must be prosecuted. International law is sufficiently powerful that the prestige of the sovereignty of states cannot reduce it to impotence. It is not possible to maintain that crimes against international law must escape repressive action because, on the one hand, the state is an entity to which one cannot impute criminal intention and upon which one cannot inflict punishment and, on the other, no individual can be held responsible for the acts of the state.
On the other hand, it cannot be objected that, despite the illegality of the principle of recourse to force by Germany, other states have admitted that war existed and speak of the application of international law in time of war. It must, in fact, be noted that, even in the case of civil war, the parties have often invoked these rules which, to a certain extent, canalize the use of force. This in no wise implies acquiescence in the principle of its use. Moreover, when Great Britain and France communicated to the League of Nations the fact that a state of war existed between them and Germany as of 3 September 1939, they also declared that in committing an act of aggression against Poland, Germany had violated its obligations, assumed not only with regard to Poland but also with regard to the other signatories of the Paris Pact. From that moment on, Great Britain and France took cognizance, in some way, of the launching of an illegal war by Germany.
Recourse to war implies preparation and decision; it would be futile to prohibit it, if one intended to inflict no chastisement upon those who knowingly had recourse to it, though they had the power of choosing a different path. They must, indeed, be considered the direct instigators of the acts qualified as crimes.
It seems to us that it is evident from all this that the Charter of 8 August only established a jurisdiction to judge what was already an international crime, not only before the conscience of humanity but also according to international law, even before the Tribunal was established.
If it is not contested that a crime has really been committed, is it possible to contest the competence of the International Tribunal to judge it?
There can, indeed, be no doubt that the states bound by the treaty of 1928 had assumed international responsibilities towards the co-signatories, should they act contrary to the agreements undertaken.
International responsibility normally involves the collective state, as such, without in principle exposing the individuals who have been the perpetrators of an illegal act. It is within the framework of the state, with which an international responsibility rests, that as a general rule the conduct of the men who are responsible for this violation of international law may be appraised. They are subject, as the case may be, to political responsibility or to penal responsibility before the assemblies or the competent jurisdictions.
The reason for this is that normally the framework of the state comprises the nationals: The order of the state assumes the exercise of justice over a given territory and with regard to the individuals whom it includes, and the failure of the state in the exercise of this essential mission is followed by the reaction and the protests of third powers, notably when their own nationals are involved.
But in the present situation there is no German State.
Since the Surrender Declaration of 5 May 1945 and until the day when a government shall have been established by the agreement of the four occupying Powers, there will be no organ representing the German State. Under these conditions, it cannot be considered that a German State juridical order exists, which is capable of bringing the consequences arising from a recognition of the responsibility of the Reich for the violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to bear upon those individuals who are, in fact, the perpetrators of this violation in their capacity as organs of the Reich.
Today supreme authority is being exercised over the whole German territory, in regard to the entire German population, by the Four Powers acting jointly. It must, therefore, be allowed that the states which exercise supreme authority over the territory and population of Germany can submit this guilt to a Court’s jurisdiction. Otherwise, the proclamation that Germany has violated the solemn covenant which it has undertaken, becomes meaningless.
There is also involved a penal responsibility incurred for a series of acts, qualified as crimes, which were committed against nationals of the United Nations. These acts, which are not juridically acts of war but which have been committed as such upon the instigation of those who bear the responsibility for the launching of the so-called war, who have committed aggression upon the lives and the property of nationals of the United Nations, may, by virtue of the territorial principle as we have shown above, be brought before a jurisdiction constituted for this purpose by the United Nations, even as war crimes, properly speaking, are now being brought before the tribunals of each country whose nationals have been victims hereof.
Crimes committed by the Nazis in the course of the war, like the war of aggression itself, will be, as Mr. Justice Jackson has demonstrated to you, the manifestation of a concerted and methodically executed plan.
These crimes flow directly, like the war itself, from the National Socialist doctrine. This doctrine is indifferent to the moral choice of means to attain a final success, and for this doctrine the aim of war is pillage, destruction, and extermination.
Total war, totalitarian war in its methods and its aims, is dictated by the primacy of the German race and the negation of any other value. The Nazi conception maintains selection as a natural principle. The man who does not belong to the superior race counts for nothing. Human life and even less liberty, personality, the dignity of man, have no importance when an adversary of the German community is involved. It is truly “the return to barbarism” with all its consequences. Logically consistent, National Socialism goes to the length of assuming the right, either to exterminate totally races judged hostile or decadent, or to subjugate or put to use individuals and groups capable of resistance, in the nations. Does not the idea of totalitarian war imply the annihilation of any eventual resistance? All those who, in any way, may be capable of opposing the New Order and the German hegemony will be liquidated. It will thus become possible to assure an absolute domination over a neighboring people that has been reduced to impotence and to utilize, for the benefit of the Reich, the resources and the human material of those people reduced to slavery.
All the moral conceptions which tended to make war more humane are obviously outdated, and the more so, all international conventions which had undertaken to bring some extenuation of the evils of war.
The conquered peoples must concur, willingly or by force, in the German victory by their material resources, as well as by their labor potential. Means will be found to subject them.
The treatment to which the occupied countries will be subjected is likewise related to this war aim. One could read in Deutsche Volkskraft of 13 June 1935 that the totalitarian war will end in a totalitarian victory. “Totalitarian” signifies the entire destruction of the conquered nation and its complete and final disappearance from the historic scene.
Among the conquered peoples distinctions can be made according to whether or not the National Socialists consider them as belonging to the Master Race. For the former, an effort is made to integrate them into the German Reich against their will. For the latter, there is applied a policy of weakening them and bringing about their extinction by every means, from that of appropriation of their property to that of extermination of their persons. In regard to both groups, the Nazi rulers assault not only the property and physical persons, but also the spirits and souls. They seek to align the populations according to the Nazi dogma and behavior, when they wish to integrate them in the German community; they apply themselves at least to rooting out whatever conceptions are irreconcilable with the Nazi universe; they aim to reduce to a mentality and status of slaves, those men whose nationality they wish to eradicate for the benefit of the German race.
Inspired by these general conceptions as to the conduct to be observed in occupied countries, the defendants gave special orders or general directives or deliberately identified themselves with such. Their responsibility is that of perpetrators, co-perpetrators, or accomplices in the War Crimes systematically committed between 1 September 1939 and 8 May 1945 by Germany at war. They deliberately willed, premeditated, and ordered these crimes, or knowingly associated themselves with this policy of organized criminality.
We shall expose the various aspects of this policy of criminality as it was pursued in the occupied countries of Western Europe, by dealing successively with Forced Labor, Economic Looting, Crimes against Persons, and Crimes against Mankind.
The conception of total war, which gave rise to all the crimes which were to be perpetrated by the Nazi Germans in the occupied countries, was the basis for the forced labor service. Through this institution, Germany proposed to utilize to the maximum the labor potential of the enslaved populations in order to maintain the German war production at the necessary level. Moreover, there can be no doubt that this institution was linked with the German plan of “extermination through labor” of the populations adjoining Germany which she regarded as dangerous or inferior.
A document of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of Germany, dated 1 October 1938, provided for the forced employment of prisoners and civilians for war labor. Hitler in his speech of 9 November 1941 “did not doubt for a moment that, in the occupied territories which we control at present, we shall make the last man work for us.” From 1942 on, it is under the admitted responsibility of the Defendant Sauckel, acting together with the Defendant Speer, under the control of the Defendant Göring, General Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan, that obligatory foreign labor, for the benefit of the war conducted by Germany, was developed to the full.
The most various methods of constraint were utilized simultaneously or successively:
First: Requisition of services under conditions incompatible with Article 52 of the Hague Convention.
Second: So-called voluntary labor, which consisted of bringing a worker under pressure to sign a contract to work in Germany.
Third: Conscription for obligatory labor.
Fourth: The forcing of war prisoners to work for the German war production and their transformation in certain cases into so-called free workers.
Fifth: The enrolling of certain foreign workers, notably French (from Alsace or Lorraine) and Luxembourgers in the German Labor Front.
All these procedures constitute crimes contrary to international law and in violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention.
These service requisitions were made under threat of death. Voluntary labor recruiting was accompanied by individual measures of constraint, obliging the workers of occupied territories to sign contracts. The duration of these pseudo-contracts was subsequently prolonged unilaterally and illegally by the German authorities.
The failure of these measures of requisition or the voluntary recruitment of labor led the German authorities everywhere to have recourse to conscription. Hitler declared on 19 August 1942 in a conference on the Four Year Plan, which was reported by the Defendant Speer, that Germany “had to proceed to forced recruiting if sufficient labor was not obtained on a voluntary basis.” On 7 November 1943 the Defendant Jodl declared in the course of a speech given in Munich before the Gauleiter:
“In my opinion the time has come to take vigorous, resolute, and hard measures in Denmark, in Holland, in France, and in Belgium in order to force thousands of idle men to carry out this most important work of fortification.”
Having accepted the principle of force, the Germans made use of two complementary methods: Legal constraint, consisting of promulgating laws regulating obligatory labor; and restraint in fact, consisting of taking necessary measures to oblige workers under penalty of grave sanctions to conform to the issued legislation.
The basis of the legislation on forced labor is the decree of 22 August 1942 of the Defendant Sauckel, who formulated the charter of forced recruiting in all the occupied countries.
In France, Sauckel got the so-called Government of Vichy to publish the law of 4 September 1942. This law effected the freezing of all manpower in industries and anticipated the possibility of a requisition of all Frenchmen who might be employed in any work useful to the enemy. All Frenchmen from 18 to 50 years of age, who did not have a job which occupied them more than 30 hours a week, had to prove that they were usefully employed to meet the needs of the country. A decree of 19 September 1942 and an enabling directive of 24 September regulated the various provisions of this announcement. The law of 4 September 1942 had been published by the so-called Government of Vichy, following strong pressure exercised by the occupation authorities. Specifically, Dr. Michel, Chief of the Administrative Staff of the German Military Command in France, wrote on 26 August 1942 a threatening letter to the Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations, requesting him that the law be published.
In 1943, Sauckel obtained from the de facto authority a directive under date of 2 February, stipulating a census of all male Frenchmen born between 1 January 1912 and 31 December 1921. He also obtained the passing of the law of 16 February, establishing the Bureau of Compulsory Labor for all young men from 20 to 22 years of age. On 9 April 1943, Gauleiter Sauckel requested the deportation of 120,000 workers for the month of May and another 100,000 for the month of June. To accomplish this, the so-called Government of Vichy proceeded to mobilize the entire military conscription class of 1942. On 15 January 1944 Sauckel requested the de facto French authorities to deliver 1 million men for the first 6 months of the year; and he caused the adoption of the regulation designated as the law of 1 February 1944, which extended the possibility of impressing all men from 16 to 60 years of age and women from the age of 18 to 45 for forced labor.
Similar measures were taken in all occupied countries.
In Norway, the German authorities imposed on the so-called Government of Quisling the publication of a law dated 3 February 1943, which established the compulsory registration of Norwegian citizens and prescribed their forced enrollment. In Belgium and in Holland, the Bureau of Compulsory Labor was organized directly by ordinances of the occupying power. In Belgium the ordinances were promulgated by the military command, and in Holland by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who was Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherland territories. In both of these countries the development of a compulsory labor policy followed the same pattern. Compulsory labor was at first required only within the occupied territories. It was soon extended in order to permit the deportation of workers to Germany. This was achieved, in the case of Holland, by the ordinance of 28 February 1941 and in Belgium by the ordinance of 6 March 1942 which established the principle of forced labor. The principle of deportation was formulated in Belgium by means of the ordinance of 6 October 1942, and in Holland by the ordinance of 23 March 1942.
In order to ensure the efficiency of these legal provisions, brutal compulsion was exercised in all countries; numerous round-ups in all large cities. For example, 50,000 persons were arrested in Rotterdam on 10 and 11 November 1944.
Even more serious than the forced labor of civilian population was the incorporation of laborers from occupied countries in the labor service of the Reich. This incorporation was not merely the conscription of laborers but the application of German legislation to the nationals of occupied countries.
In the face of the patriotic resistance of the workers of the different occupied countries, the important results which the German Labor Office had anticipated were far from being fulfilled. However, a large number of workers from the occupied countries were forced to work for the German war effort.
With regard to the Todt Organization, the laborers who were employed in the West in the construction of the Atlantic Wall totalled 248,000 at the end of March 1943. In the year 1942, 3,300,000 workers from occupied countries worked for Germany in their own country; among others, 300,000 of these were in Norway, 249,000 in Holland, 650,000 in France. The number of workers deported to Germany and coming from the occupied territories in the West increased in 1942 to the figure of 131,000 Belgians, 135,000 Frenchmen, 154,000 Hollanders. On 30 April 1943, 1,293,000 workmen, of whom 269,000 were women, from the occupied territories in the West were working for the German War Economy.
On 7 July 1944, Sauckel stated that the number of workers deported to Germany during these first 6 months of 1944 reached a total of 537,000, of which 33,000 were Frenchmen. On the 1st of March 1944 he acknowledged, during a conference held by the Central Office of the Four Year Plan, that there were in Germany 5 million foreign workers, of whom 200,000 were actually volunteers.
The report of the French Ministry for prisoners, deportees, and refugees, gives the figure of 715,000 for the total number of men and women who had been deported.
It should be added that, contrary to international law, the workers who were transported to Germany had to work under labor conditions and living conditions that were incompatible with the most rudimentary regard for human dignity. The Defendant Sauckel has himself stated that foreign workers, who could achieve substantial production, should be fed so that they could be exploited as completely as possible with the minimum of expense, adding that they should receive less food the moment their production began to decrease and that no concern should be given to the fate of those whose production capacity no longer presented any interest. Special reprisal camps were organized for those who sought to avoid the compulsion imposed on them. An order of 21 December 1942 stipulated that unwilling workers should be sent, without trial, to such camps. In 1943 Sauckel, during an inter-ministerial conference, stated that the co-operation of the SS was essential to him in order to fulfill the task with which he had been entrusted. Thus, the crime of forced labor and of deportation gave rise to a whole series of additional crimes against persons.
The work required of war prisoners did not remain within the legal limits authorized by international law any more than did that of the civilian laborers. National Socialist Germany obliged prisoners of war to work for the German war production, in violation of Articles 31 and 32 of the Geneva Convention.
National Socialist Germany, while exploiting to the fullest extent for the war effort prisoners as well as workers from occupied territories against all international conventions, was at the same time seizing, by every possible means, the wealth of these countries. German authorities applied systematic pillage in these countries. By economic pillage we mean both the taking away of goods of every type and the exploitation, on the spot, of the national resources for the benefit of Germany’s war.
This pillage was methodically organized.
The Germans began by making sure that they had in their possession, in all countries, the necessary means for payment. Thus, they insured that they could seize, with the appearance of legality, the wealth which they coveted. After freezing the existing purchasing power, they required enormous payments under the pretext of indemnity for the maintenance of occupation troops.
It should be recalled that, according to the terms of the Hague Convention, occupied countries may be obliged to assume the burden of the expenses caused by the maintenance of an army of occupation. But the amounts that were exacted under this by the Germans were only remotely related to the actual costs of occupation.
Moreover, they forced the occupied countries to accept a clearing system which operated practically for the exclusive profit of Germany. Imports from Germany were almost nonexistent; the goods exported to Germany by the occupied countries were subject to no regulation.
In order to maintain for the purchasing balance thus created a considerable purchasing power, the Germans endeavored everywhere to achieve the stabilization of prices and imposed a severe rationing system. This rationing system, which left the population with a quantity of inferior goods which was less than the minimum indispensable for their existence, afforded the additional advantage of preserving for the benefit of the Germans the greatest possible portion of the production.
Thus, the Germans seized a considerable part of the stocks and of the production as a result of operations which had the appearance of legality (requisitions, purchases made with German priority coupons, individual purchase). These transactions were completed by other operations of a clandestine character, which were carried out in violation of the official regulations imposed, frequently by the Germans themselves. Thus, the Germans had created a whole organization for black market purchases. For example, one may read in a report of the German Foreign Ministry of 4 September 1942 that the Defendant Göring had ordered that purchases on the black market should henceforth extend to goods which until then had not been included, such as household goods; and he prescribed further that all goods which could be useful to Germany should be collected, even if as a result certain signs of inflation appeared in the occupied countries.
While they were transporting to Germany the maximum quantity of goods of every description, after requisitioning without payment or by paying with bills which they had irregularly obtained by a simple entry in the clearing account, the Nazi leaders were at the same time endeavoring to impose the resumption of activity in industry for the benefit of Germany’s war.
German industrialists had received instructions ordering them to divide among themselves the enterprises in the occupied areas which had engaged in a production similar to their own. While having to carry out these orders, these industrialists were required to place such industries in occupied countries firmly under their control by means of different types of financial combinations.
The appearance of monetary legality or contractual legality could in no way hide the fact that economic looting was systematically organized, contrary to the stipulations of the International Convention of The Hague. If, according to the stipulations of this Convention, Germany had the right to seize whatever was indispensable for the maintenance of the troops necessary for the occupation, all seizures in excess of these requirements undoubtedly constitute a war crime, which brought about the economic ruin of the occupied countries, a long-range weakening of their economic potential and of their means of subsistence, as well as the general undernourishment of the populations.
Exact estimates of German transactions in the economic field cannot be formulated at this time. It would be necessary for this purpose to study in detail the activities of several countries over a period of more than 4 years.
Nevertheless it has been possible to bring out precisely certain facts and to give minimum estimates of German spoliations with respect to the different occupied countries.
In Denmark, which was the first country in western Europe to be invaded, the value of German seizures was nearly 8,000 million crowns. In Norway, Germany’s spoliations exceed a total value of 20,000 million crowns.
In the Netherlands, German pillage was effected to such an extent that although Holland is one of the richest countries in the world in relation to its population, it is today almost completely ruined and the financial charges imposed by the occupant exceed 20,000 million guilders.
In Belgium, through various schemes, notably the system of occupation indemnity and clearing, the Germans seized far more than 130,000 million Belgian francs of payment balances. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg also suffered important losses as a result of the action of the occupying power.
Finally in France the levying of taxes on means of payments reached a total of 745,000 million francs. In this sum we have not included the 74,000 million francs, which represents the maximum figure which Germany could legally demand for the maintenance of her army of occupation. (Moreover, the seizure of 9,500 million in gold was calculated according to the rate of 1939.)
In addition to the goods settled for in the occupied countries by Germany, by means of payment extorted from these countries, enormous quantities of goods of every character were purely and simply requisitioned without any indemnity, seized without any explanation, or else stolen. The occupying authorities not only took all raw materials and manufactured goods which could be useful to their war efforts, but they extended their seizures to everything that might help to procure them a credit balance in neutral countries, such as movables, jewels, luxury goods, and objects of all kinds. Finally, the art treasures of the countries of western Europe were likewise looted in the most shameful manner.
The considerable sums which Germany was able to obtain by abusing her power, contrary to all the principles of international law, without providing any compensation, enabled her to carry out with the appearance of legality, the economic looting of France and of the other countries of western Europe. The consequence for these countries, from the economic viewpoint, is a loss of their strength which will take long to repair.
But the most serious consequence of these practices affected the population itself. For more than 4 years the people of the occupied countries were exposed to a regime of slow starvation, which resulted in an increase in the death rate, a breaking down of the physical stamina of the population and, above all, an alarming deficiency in the growth of children and adolescents.
Such practices perpetrated and consummated systematically by the German leaders, contrary to international law and specifically contrary to the Hague Convention, as well as contrary to the general principles of criminal law in force in all civilized nations, constitute War Crimes for which they must answer before Your High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
M. DE MENTHON: Crimes against the physical person—arbitrary imprisonment, ill-treatment, deportations, murder committed by the Germans in the occupied countries—reached proportions beyond imagination, even in the course of a world conflict, and took the most odious forms.
These crimes spring directly from the Nazi doctrine and testify to the Reich leaders’ absolute disregard for the human individual, to the abolition of any sense of justice or even of pity, to a total subordination of any and all human consideration on the part of the German community.
All these crimes are linked to a policy of terrorism. Such a policy permits the subjugation of occupied countries without involving a large deployment of troops and their submission to anything that might be demanded of them. Many of these crimes are moreover tied up with the will to exterminate.
We shall examine in succession executions of hostages, police crimes, deportations, crimes involving prisoners of war, terroristic activities against the Resistance, and the massacre of civilian populations.
A. The execution of hostages constitutes in all countries the first act of terrorism on the part of German occupation troops. From 1940 on, the German command, notably in France, carried out numerous executions as reprisals for any crime against the German Army.
These practices, contrary to Article 50 of the Hague Convention which forbids collective sanctions, awaken everywhere a feeling of horror and frequently produce a result contrary to the one sought, by arousing the populations against the occupant.
The occupying authorities then endeavored to legalize such criminal practices, thus seeking to have them recognized by the populations as “the right” of the occupying power. Veritable “codes for hostages” were promulgated by the German military authorities.
Following the general order issued by the Defendant Keitel on 16 September 1941, Stülpnagel published in France his ordinance of 30 September 1941. According to the terms of this ordinance, all Frenchmen held by German authorities for any reason whatsoever were to be considered as hostages, as well as all Frenchmen who were in the custody of the French authorities on behalf of German organizations. The ordinance of Stülpnagel specifies:
“At the time of the burial of the bodies, burial in a common grave of a rather large number of persons in a particular cemetery must be avoided, since this would create a shrine for pilgrims which now or later might become a center for the stimulation of anti-German propaganda.”
In carrying out this ordinance the most infamous executions of hostages were committed.
Following the murder of two German officers, one in Nantes on 2 October 1941 and the other at Bordeaux a few days thereafter, the German authorities had 27 hostages shot at Châteaubriant and 21 at Nantes.
On 15 August 1942, 96 hostages were shot at Mon-Valérien.
In September 1942 an assault had been committed against German soldiers in the Rex motion picture house in Paris. One hundred sixteen hostages were shot.
Forty-six hostages were taken from the hostage depot of the Fortress at Romainville and 70 from Bordeaux.
In reprisal for the murder of a German official of the labor front 50 hostages were shot in Paris at the end of September 1943.
Threats of reprisals on the families of the patriots of the Resistance are related to the same odious policy of hostages. The Kommandantur published the following notice in the Pariser Zeitung of 16 July 1942:
“Near male relatives, brothers-in-law, and cousins of the ‘agitators’ above the age of 18 years will be shot.
“All female family members of the same degree of relationship shall be condemned to forced labor.
“Children less than 18 years of age of all above-mentioned persons shall be sent to a house of correction.”
The executions of hostages continued everywhere until the liberation, but in the last period they were no more than one additional feature in the methods of German terrorism, then grown more sweeping.
B. Among the crimes against persons of which the civilian populations of the occupied countries of the West were victims, those committed by the Nazi police organizations are the most revolting. The intervention of the German police who, in spite of certain appearances, did not belong to the armies of occupation, is in itself contrary to international law. Their crimes, particularly hateful in the complete disregard for human dignity that they imply, were multiplied during 4 years throughout all the territories of the West occupied by the German forces.
True, no definite order, no detailed directive emanating directly from one of the defendants or from one of their immediate subordinates and valid for all the German police or for the police of the occupied territories of the West, has been found. But these crimes were committed by a police that was a direct expression of the National Socialist ideology and the undeniable instrument of National Socialist policy for which all the defendants carry the full and entire responsibility.
Before the considerable mass of acts, their similarity, their simultaneousness, their generalization in time and place, no one would be able to deny that these acts are not only the individual responsibility of those who committed them here or there, but constitute as well the execution of orders from above.
The arrests took place without any of the elementary guarantees recognized in all civilized countries. On a simple, unverified denunciation, without previous investigation, and often on charges brought by persons not qualified to bring them, masses of arbitrary arrests took place in every occupied country.
During the first period of the occupation, the Germans nevertheless simulated a scrupulous respect for “legality” in the matter of arrests. This legality was that introduced by Nazism in the interior of Germany and did not respect any of the traditional guarantees to which the individuals in civilized countries are entitled. But, rapidly, even this pseudo-legality itself was abandoned and the arrests became absolutely arbitrary.
The worst treatments were applied to arrested persons even before the guilt of the accused had been examined. The use of torture in the interrogations was almost a general rule. The tortures usually applied were beating, whipping, chaining for several days without a moment of rest for nourishment or hygienic care, immersion in ice water, drowning in a bathtub, charging the bathwater with electricity, electrification of the most sensitive parts of the body, burns at certain places on the body, and the pulling out of fingernails. But, in addition, those who carried out these measures had every latitude for unleashing their instinct of cruelty and of sadism towards their victims. All those facts, which were of public knowledge in the occupied countries, never led to any punishment whatsoever of their authors on the part of the responsible authorities. It even seems that the torture was more severe when an officer was present.
It is undeniable that the actions of the German police towards the prisoners were part and parcel of a long premeditated system of criminality, ordered by the chiefs of the regime and executed by the most faithful members of the National Socialist organizations.
Aside from the general use of torture on prisoners, the German police perpetrated a considerable number of murders. It is impossible to know the conditions under which many of these murders were carried out. Nevertheless, we have enough information to permit us to discover in them a new expression of the general policy of the National Socialists in the occupied countries. Often the deaths were only the result of the tortures inflicted on the prisoners, but often the murder was deliberately desired and carried out.
C. The crime which will undoubtedly be remembered as the most horrible among those committed by the Germans against the civilian populations of the occupied countries was that of deportation and internment in the concentration camps of Germany.
These deportations had a double aim: To secure additional labor for the benefit of the German war machine; to eliminate from the occupied countries and progressively exterminate the elements most opposed to Germanism. They served likewise to empty prisons overcrowded with patriots and to remove the latter for all time.
The deportations and the methods employed in the concentration camps were a stupefying revelation for the civilized world. Nevertheless, they also are only a natural consequence of the National Socialist doctrine, according to which man, of himself, has no value except when he is of service to the German race.
It is not possible to give exact figures. It is probable that one would make an understatement when speaking of 250,000 for France; 6,000 for Luxembourg; 5,200 for Denmark; 5,400 for Norway; 120,000 for Holland; and 37,000 for Belgium.
The arrests are founded, now under a pretext of a political nature, now on a pretext of a racial nature. In the beginning they were individual; subsequently they took on a collective character, particularly in France since the end of 1941. Sometimes the deportation did not come until after long months of prison, but more often the arrest was made directly with a view to deportation under the system of “protective custody.” Everywhere imprisonment in the country of origin was accompanied by brutality, often by tortures. Before being sent to Germany, the deportees were, in general, concentrated in an assembly camp. The formation of a convoy was often the first stage of extermination. The deportees travelled in cattle cars, 80 to 120 per car, no matter what the season. There were few convoys where no deaths occurred. In certain transports the proportion of deaths was more than 25 percent.
The deportees were sent to Germany, almost always to concentration camps, but sometimes also to prisons.
Admitted to the prisons were those deportees who had been condemned or were awaiting trial. The prisoners there were crowded together under inhumane conditions. Nevertheless, the prison regime was generally less severe than conditions in the camps. The work there was less out of proportion to the strength of the prisoners, and the prison wardens were more humane than the SS in the concentration camps.
It appears to have been the plan, followed by the Nazis in the concentration camps, gradually to do away with the prisoners; but only after their working strength had been used to the advantage of the German war effort.
The Tribunal has been told of the almost inconceivable treatment inflicted by the SS on the prisoners. We shall take the liberty of going into still further detail during the course of the statement of the French Prosecution, for it must be fully known to what extent of horrors the Germans, inspired by National Socialist doctrine, could stoop.
The most terrible aspect was perhaps the desire to create moral degradation and debasement in the prisoner until he lost, if possible, all semblance of a human individual.
The usual living conditions imposed on the deportees in the camps were sufficient to ensure slow extermination through inadequate feeding, bad sanitation, cruelty of the guards, severity of discipline, strain of work out of proportion to the strength of the prisoner, and haphazard medical service. Moreover, you already know that many did not die a natural death, but were put to death by injections, gas chambers, or inoculations of fatal diseases. But more speedy extermination was often the case; it was often brought about by ill-treatment: communal ice-cold showers in winter in the open air, prisoners left naked in the snow, cudgelling, dog bites, hanging by the wrists.
Some figures will illustrate the result of these various methods of extermination. At Buchenwald, during the first 3 months of 1945, there were 13,000 deaths out of 40,000 internees. At Dachau, 13,000 to 15,000 died in the 3 months preceding the liberation. At Auschwitz, a camp of systematic extermination, the number of murdered persons came to several millions.
As to the total number of those deported from France, the official figure is as follows: Of 250,000 deported only 35,000 returned.
The deportees served as guinea pigs for numerous medical, surgical, or other experiments which generally led to their death. At Auschwitz, at Struthof, in the prison at Cologne, at Ravensbrück, at Neuengamme, numerous men, women, and children were sterilized. At Auschwitz the most beautiful women were set apart, artificially fertilized, and then gassed. At Struthof a special barrack, isolated from the others by barbed wire, was used to inoculate men in groups of 40 with fatal illnesses. In the same camp women were gassed while German doctors observed their reactions through a peephole arranged for this purpose. Extermination was often directly effected by means of individual or collective executions. These were carried out by shooting, by hanging, by injections, by gas vans, or gas chamber.
I should not wish to stress further the facts, already so numerous, submitted to Your High Tribunal during the preceding days by the American Prosecution, but the representative of France, so many of his people having died in these camps after horrible sufferings, could not pass in silence over this tragic example of complete inhumanity. This would have been inconceivable in the 20th century, if a doctrine of return to barbarism had not been established in the very heart of Europe.
D. Crimes committed against prisoners of war, although less known, bear ample testimony to the degree of inhumanity which Nazi Germany had attained.
To begin with, the violations of international conventions committed against prisoners of war are numerous. Many were forced to travel on foot, almost without food, for very long distances. Many camps had no respect for even the most elementary rules of hygiene. Food was very often insufficient; thus a report from the WFSt of the OKW dated 11 April 1945 and annotated by the Defendant Keitel, shows that 82,000 prisoners of war interned in Norway received the food strictly indispensable to the maintenance of life on the assumption that they were not working, whereas 30,000 of them were really employed on heavy work.
In agreement with the Defendant Keitel, acting at the request of the Defendant Göring, camps for prisoners belonging to the British and American Air Forces were established in towns which were exposed to air raids.
In violation of the text of the Geneva Convention, it was decided, at a conference held at the Führer’s headquarters on 27 January 1945, in the presence of the Defendant Göring, to punish by death all attempts to escape made by prisoners of war when in convoy.
Besides all these violations of the Geneva Convention, numerous crimes were committed by the German authorities against prisoners of war: Execution of captured allied airmen, murder of commando troops, collective extermination of certain prisoners of war for no reason whatsoever—for example the matter of 120 American soldiers at Malmédy on 27 January 1945. Parallel with “Nacht und Nebel,” an expression for the inhumane treatment inflicted on civilians, can be put down the “Sonderbehandlung,” a “special treatment” of prisoners of war, in which these disappeared in great numbers.
E. The same barbarism is found in the terroristic activity carried out by the German Army and Police against the Resistance.
The order of the Defendant Keitel of 16 September 1941, which may be considered as a basic document, certainly has as a purpose the fight against the Communist movements; but it anticipates that resistance to the army of occupation can come from other than Communist sources and decides that every case of resistance is to be interpreted as having a Communist origin.
As a matter of fact, in carrying out this general order to annihilate the Resistance by every possible means, the Germans arrested, tortured, and massacred men of all ranks and all classes. To be sure, the members of the Resistance rarely complied with the conditions laid down by the Hague Conventions, which would qualify them to be considered as regular combat forces; they could be sentenced to death as francs-tireurs and executed. But they were assassinated without trial in most cases, often after having been terribly tortured.
After the liberation, numerous charnel-houses were discovered and the bodies examined by doctors: They bore obvious traces of extreme brutal treatment, cranial tissue was pulled out, the spinal column had been dislocated, the ribs had been so badly fractured that the chest had been entirely crushed and the lungs perforated, hair and nails had been pulled out. It is impossible to determine the total number of the victims of German atrocities in the fight against the Resistance. It is certainly very high. In the department of the Rhône alone, for example, the bodies of 713 victims were discovered after the liberation.
An order of 3 February 1944 of the Commander-in-Chief of the forces in the West, signed “By order General Sperrle,” laid down for the fight against the terrorists immediate reply by fire-arms and the immediate burning down of all houses from which shots had come:
“It is of little importance”—the text adds—“that innocent people should suffer. It will be the fault of the terrorists. All commanders of troops who show weakness in repressing the terrorists will be severely punished. On the other hand, those who go beyond the orders received and are too severe will incur no penalty.”
The war diary of Von Brodowski, commanding Liaison Headquarters Number 588, at Clermont-Ferrand, gives irrefutable examples of the barbarous forms which the Germans gave to the struggle against the Resistance. The resisters caught were almost all shot on the spot. Others were turned over to the SD or the Gestapo to be subjected first to torture. The diary of Brodowski mentions “the cleaning up of a hospital” or “liquidation of an infirmary.”
The struggle against the Resistance had the same atrocious character in all the occupied territories of the West.
F. The last months of the German occupation were characterized in France by a strengthening of the policy of terrorism which multiplied the crimes against the civilian population. The crimes which we are going to consider were not isolated acts committed from time to time in this or that locality, but were acts perpetrated in the course of extensive operations, the high number of which can be explained only by general orders.
The perpetrators of these crimes were frequently members of the SS, but the military command shares responsibility for them. In a directive entitled “Fight against the Partisan Bands,” dated 6 May 1944, the Defendant Jodl states that:
“. . . the collective measures to be taken against the inhabitants of entire villages (including the burning down of these villages) are to be ordered exclusively by the division commanders or the heads of the SS and of the police.”
The war diary of Von Brodowski mentions the following: “It is understood that the leadership of the Sipo and of the SD shall be subordinate to me.”
These operations are supposedly measures of reprisal which were caused by the action of the Resistance. But the necessities of war have never justified the plundering and heedless burning down of towns and villages nor the blind massacres of innocent people. The Germans killed, plundered, burned down, very often without any reason whatsoever, whether in Ain, in Savoie, Lot, or Tarn-and-Garonne, in Vercors, Corréze, in Dordogne. Entire villages were burned down at a time when the nearest armed groups of the Resistance were tens of kilometers away and the population of these villages had not made a single hostile gesture towards the German troops.
The two most typical examples are those of Maillé (in Indre-et-Loire) where on 25 August 1944, 52 buildings out of 60 were destroyed and 124 people were killed; and that of Oradour-sur-Glane (in the Haute-Vienne). The war diary of Von Brodowski makes mention of the latter act in the following manner:
“All the male population of Oradour was shot. The women and children took refuge in the church. The church caught fire. Explosives were stored in the church. (This assertion has been shown to be false.) Also women and children perished.”
In the scale of criminal undertakings, perpetrated in the course of the war by the leaders of National Socialist Germany, we finally meet a category which we have called crimes against human status (la condition humaine).
First of all it is important that I should define clearly for the Tribunal the meaning of this term. This classical French expression belongs both to the technical vocabulary of law and to the language of philosophy. It signifies all those faculties, the exercising and developing of which rightly constitute the meaning of human life. Each of these faculties finds its corresponding expression in the order of man’s existence in society. His belonging to at least two social groups—the nearest and the most extensive—is translated by the right to family life and to nationality. His relations with the powers constitute a system of obligations and guarantees. His material life, as producer and consumer of goods, is expressed by the right to work in the widest meaning of this term. Its spiritual aspect implies a combination of possibilities to give out and to receive the expressions of thought, whether in assemblies or associations, in religious practice, in teachings given or received, by the many means which progress has put at the disposal for the dissemination of intellectual value: Books, press, radio, cinema. This is the right of spiritual liberty.
Against this human status, against the status of public and civil rights of the human beings in occupied territories, the German Nazis directed a systematic policy of corruption and demoralization. We shall treat this question last because it is this undertaking which presents a character of the utmost gravity and which has assumed the most widespread prevalence. Man is more attached to his physical integrity and to life than to his property. But in all high conceptions of life, man is even less attached to life than to that which makes for his dignity and quality, according to the great Latin maxim, “Et propter vitam, vivendi perdere causas.” On the other hand, if, in the territories occupied by them, the Germans did not, in spite of the importance and extent of their crimes, plunder all the property and goods and if they did not kill all the people, there remains not a single man whose essential rights they did not change or abolish and whose condition as a human being they did not violate in some way.
We can even say that in the entire world and as regards all people, even those to whom they reserved the privileges belonging to the superior race and even as regards themselves, their agents, and accomplices, the Nazi leaders committed a major offense against the conscience which mankind has today evolved from his status as a human being. The execution of the enterprise was preceded by its plan. This is manifest in the entire Nazi doctrine and we shall content ourselves by recalling a few of its dominant features. The human status expresses itself, we say, in major statutes, every one of which comprises a complex apparatus of very different provisions. But these statutes are inspired in the laws of civilized countries by a conception essential to the nature of man. This conception is defined in two complementary ideas: The dignity of the human being considered in each and every person individually, on the one hand; and on the other hand, the permanence of the human being considered within the whole of humanity. Every juridical organization of the human being in a state of civilization proceeds from this essential, two-fold conception of the individual, in each and in all, the individual and the universal.
Without doubt, to Occidentals this conception usually appears connected with the Christian doctrine; but, if it is exact that Christianity is bound up with its affirmation and diffusion, it would be a mistake to see in it only the teachings of one or even of certain religions. It is a general conception which imposes itself quite naturally on the spirit; It was professed since ancient pre-Christian times; and, in more recent times, the great German philosopher Kant expressed it in one of his most forceful formulas, by saying that a human being should always be considered as an end and never a means.
The role, as we have already exposed, of the zealots of the Hitlerian myth was to protest against the spontaneous affirmation of the genius of mankind and to pretend to break at this point the continuous progress of moral intelligence. The Tribunal is already acquainted with the abundant literature of this sect. Without a doubt, nobody expressed himself more clearly than the Defendant Rosenberg when he declared in the Myth of the 20th Century, Page 539:
“Peoples whose health is dependent on their blood do not know individualism as a criterion of values any more than they recognize universalism. Individualism and universalism in the absolute sense and historically speaking, are the ideological concepts of decadence.”
Nazism professes, moreover, that:
“The distance between the lowest human being still worthy of this name, and our higher races, is greater than that between the lowest type of mankind and the best educated monkey.” (Die Reden Hitlers, Reichsparteitag 1933, Page 33).
Thus, it is not only a question of abolishing the truly divine conception which religion sets forth as regards man, but even of setting aside all purely human conceptions and substituting for it an animalistic conception.
As a consequence of such a doctrine, the upsetting of the human status appears not only to be a means to which one has recourse in the presence of temporary opportunities, such as those arising from war, but also as an aim both necessary and desirable. The Nazis propose to classify mankind in three main categories: That of their adversaries, or persons whom they consider inadaptable to their peculiar constructions—this category can be bullied in all sorts of ways and even destroyed; that of superior men which they claim is distinguishable by their blood or by some arbitrary means; that of inferior men, who do not deserve destruction and whose vital power should be used in a regime of slavery for the well-being of the “overlords.”
The Nazi leaders proposed to apply this conception everywhere they could in territories more and more extended, to populations ever more numerous; and in addition they demonstrated the frightful ambition to succeed in imposing it on intelligent people, to convince their victims and to demand from them, in addition to so many sacrifices, an act of faith. The Nazi war is a war of fanatic religion in which one can exterminate infidels and equally as well impose conversion upon them. It should further be noted that the Nazis aggravated the excesses of those horrible times, for in a religious war converted adversaries were received like brothers, whereas the Nazis never gave their pitiable victims the chance of saving themselves, even by the most complete recantation.
It is by virtue of these conceptions that the Germans undertook the Germanization of occupied territories and had, without doubt, the intention of undertaking to germanize the whole world. This Germanization can be distinguished from the ancient theories of Pan-Germanism insofar as it is both a Nazification and an actual return to barbarism.
Racialism classifies occupied nations into two main categories; Germanization means for some a National Socialist assimilation, and for others disappearance or slavery. For human beings of the so-called “higher race,” the favored condition assigned to them comprises the falling-in with the new concepts of the Germanic community. For human beings of the so-called “inferior race” it was proposed either to abolish all rights while waiting or preparing their physical destruction, or to assign them to servitude. For both, racialism means acceptance of the Nazi myths.
This two-fold program of absolute Germanization was not carried out in its entirety nor in all the occupied countries. The Germans had conceived it as a lengthy piece of work which they intended to carry out gradually, by a series of successive measures. This progressive approach is always characteristic of the Nazi method. It fits in, apparently, with the variety of obstacles encountered, with the hypocritical desire of sparing public opinion, and with a horrid lust for experimenting and scientific ostentation.
When the countries were liberated, the state of the Germanization varied a great deal according to the different countries, and in each country according to such and such category of the population. At times the method was driven on to its extreme consequences; elsewhere, one only discovers signs of preparatory arrangements. But it is easy to note everywhere the trend of the same evil, interrupted at different moments in its development, but everywhere directed by the same inexorable movement.
As regards national status, the Germans proceeded to an annexation, pure and simple, in Luxembourg, in the Belgian cantons of Eupen and of Malmédy, and in the French departments of Alsace and of Lorraine. Here the criminal undertaking consisted both in the abolition of the sovereignty of the state, natural protector of its nationals, and in the abolition for those nationals of the status they had as citizens of this state, a status recognized by domestic and international law.
The inhabitants of these territories thereby lost their original nationality, ceasing to be Luxembourgers, Belgians, or French. They did not acquire, however, full German nationality; they were admitted only gradually to this singular favor, on the further condition that they furnish certain justifications therefor.
The Germans sought to efface in them even the memory of their former country. In Alsace and in Moselle the French language was banned; names of places and of people were germanized.
New citizens or mere subjects were equally subjected to the obligations relating to the Nazi regime: To forced labor, as a matter of course, and soon to military conscription. In case of resistance to these unjust and abominable orders, since it was a matter of arming the French against their allies and in reality against their own country, sanctions were brought to bear, not only against the parties concerned, but even against the members of their families, following the theses of Nazi law, which brush aside the fundamental principles of law against repression.
Persons who appeared recalcitrant to Nazification, or even those who seemed of little use to Nazi enterprises, became victims of large-scale expulsions, driven from their homes in a few short hours with their most scanty baggage, and despoiled of their property.
Yet this inhuman evacuation of entire populations, which will remain one of the horrors of our century, appears as favorable treatment when compared to the deportations which were to fill the concentration camps, in particular the Struthof Camp in Alsace.
At the same time that they oppressed the population by force and in contravention of all law, the Nazis undertook, according to their method, to convince the people of the excellence of their regime. The young people especially were to be educated in the spirit of National Socialism.
The Germans did not proceed to the annexation, properly speaking, of other areas than those we have named. It is beyond doubt, however, and confirmed by numerous indications, that they proposed to annex territories much more important by applying to them the same regime, if the war had ended in a German victory. But everywhere they prepared for the abolition or the weakening of the national status by debarring or damaging the sovereignty of the state involved and by forcing the destruction of patriotic feelings.
In all the occupied countries, whether or not there existed an apparent governmental authority, the Germans systematically disregarded the laws of occupation. They legislated, regulated, administered. Besides the territories annexed outright, the other occupied territories also were in a state that might be defined as a state of pre-annexation.
This leads to a second aspect which is the attack on spiritual security. Everywhere, although with variation in time and space, the Germans applied themselves to abolishing the public freedoms, notably the freedom of association, the freedom of the press; and they endeavored to trammel the essential freedoms of the spirit.
The German authorities subordinated the press to the strictest censorship, even in matters devoid of military character; a press, many of whose representatives, moreover, were inspired by them. Manifold restrictions were imposed on industry and on the moving picture business. Numerous works altogether without political character were banned, even textbooks. Religious authorities themselves saw their clerical realm invaded and words of truth could not be heard. After having curtailed freedom of expression even beyond the degree that a state of war and occupation justified, the Germans developed their National Socialist propaganda systematically through the press, radio, films, meetings, books, and posters. All these efforts achieved so little result that one might attempt today to minimize their importance. Nevertheless, the propaganda conducted by means most contrary to the respect due human intelligence and on behalf of a criminal doctrine, must go down in history as one of the disgraces of the National Socialist regime.
No less did the Germanization program compromise human rights in the other broad aspects that we have defined: Right of the family, right of professional and economic activity, juridical guarantees. These rights were attacked; these guarantees were curtailed. The forced labor and the deportations infringed the rights of the family, as well as the rights of labor. The arbitrary arrests suppressed the most elementary legal guarantees. In addition, the Germans tried to impose their own methods on the administrative authorities of the occupied countries and sometimes unfortunately succeeded in their attempts.
It is also known that racial discriminations were provoked against citizens of the occupied countries who were catalogued as Jews, measures particularly hateful, damaging to their personal rights and to their human dignity.
All these criminal acts were committed in violation of the rules of international law, and in particular the Hague Convention, which limits the rights of armies occupying a territory.
The fight of the Nazis against the human status completes the tragic and monstrous totality of war criminality of Nazi Germany, by placing her under the banner of the abasement of man, deliberately brought about by the National Socialist doctrine. This gives it its true character of a systematic undertaking of a return to barbarism.
Such are the crimes which National Socialist Germany committed while waging the war of aggression that she launched. The martyred peoples appeal to the justice of civilized nations and request Your High Tribunal to condemn the National Socialist Reich in the person of its surviving chiefs.
Let the defendants not be astonished at the charges brought against them and let them not dispute at all this principle of retroactivity, the permanence of which was guaranteed, against their wishes, by democratic legislation. War Crimes are defined by international law and by the national law of all modern civilizations. The defendants knew that acts of violence against the persons and property and human status of enemy nationals were crimes for which they would have to answer before international justice.
The Governments of the United Nations have addressed many a warning to them since the beginning of the hostilities.
On 25 October 1941 Franklin Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, announced that the war criminals would not escape just punishment:
“The massacres of France”—said Churchill—“are an example of what Hitler’s Nazis are doing in many other countries under their yoke. The atrocities committed in Poland, Yugoslavia, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and particularly behind the German front in Russia, exceed anything that has been known since the darkest and most bestial ages of humanity. The punishment of these crimes should now be counted among the major goals of the war.”
During autumn 1941 the representatives of the governments of the occupied countries met in London upon the initiative of the Polish and Czech Governments. They worked out an inter-Allied declaration which was signed on 13 January 1942. May I remind the Tribunal of its terms:
“The undersigned, representing the Governments of Belgium, of Czechoslovakia, the National Committee of Free France, the Governments of Greece, of Luxembourg, of the Netherlands, of Poland, and of Yugoslavia,
“Whereas Germany, from the beginning of the present conflict, which was provoked by her policy of aggression, set up in the occupied countries a regime of terror characterized, among other things, by imprisonment, mass expulsions, massacres, and execution of hostages;
“Whereas these acts of violence are committed equally by the allies and associates of the Reich, and in certain countries by citizens collaborating with the occupying power;
“Whereas international solidarity is necessary in order to prevent these deeds of violence from giving rise to acts of individual or collective violence, and finally in order to satisfy the spirit of justice in the civilized world;
“Recalling to mind that international law and, in particular, the Hague Convention signed in 1907, concerning the laws and customs of land warfare, do not permit belligerents to commit acts of violence against civilians in occupied countries, or to violate laws which are in force or to overthrow national institutions;
“1. Affirming that acts of violence thus committed against civilian populations have nothing in common with the conceptions of an act of war or a political crime as this is understood by civilized nations;
“2. Taking note of the declarations made in this respect on 25 October 1941, by the President of the United States of America and the British Prime Minister;
“3. Placing among their chief war aims, the punishment by means of organized justice of those guilty of, or responsible for, these crimes, whether they ordered, perpetrated, or shared in them;
“4. Having decided to see to it in a spirit of international solidarity that: a) Those guilty or responsible, whatever their responsibility, shall be sought out, brought to justice, and be judged; b) that the sentences pronounced shall be executed.
“In faith whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized, to this effect have signed this declaration.”
The leaders of National Socialist Germany received other warnings. I refer to the speech of General De Gaulle of 13 January 1942; that of Churchill of 8 September 1942; the note of Molotov, Commissar of the People for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, of 14 October 1942; and the second inter-Allied declaration of 17 December 1942. The latter was made simultaneously in London, Moscow, and Washington after receipt of information according to which the German authorities were engaged in exterminating the Jewish minorities in Europe. In this declaration, the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and the French National Committee which represented the continuation of France, solemnly reaffirmed their will to punish the war criminals who are responsible for this extermination.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time to break off for 10 minutes?
[A recess was taken.]
M. DE MENTHON: The premises for a just punishment are thus fulfilled. The defendants, at the time when they committed their crimes, knew the will of the United Nations to bring about their punishment. The warnings which were given to them contain a definition which precedes the punishment.
The defendants, moreover, could not be ignorant of the criminal nature of their activities. The warnings of these Allied governments in effect translated in a political form the fundamental principles of international and of national law which permit the punishment of war criminals to be established on positive precedents and positive rules.
The founders of international law had a presentiment of the concept of war crime, particularly Grotius who elucidated the criminal character of needless acts of war. The Hague Conventions, after the lapse of several centuries, established the first generally binding standards for laws of war. They regulated the conduct of hostilities and occupation procedures; they formulated positive rules in order to limit recourse to force and to bring the necessities of war into agreement with the requirements of human conscience. War Crimes thus received the first definition under which they may be considered; they became a violation of laws and customs of war as codified by the Hague Convention.
Then came the war of 1914. Imperial Germany waged the first World War with a brutality perhaps less systematic and frenzied than that of the National Socialist Reich, but just as deliberate. The deportation of workers, looting of public and private property, the taking and killing of hostages, the demoralization of the occupied territories constituted, in 1914 as in 1939, the political methods of German warfare.
The Treaty of Versailles was based on the Hague Convention in order to establish the suppression of War Crimes. Under the title “Sanctions” Chapter VII of the Treaty of Versailles discusses criminal responsibility incurred in the launching and waging of the conflict which was then the Great War. Article 227 accused William of Hohenzollern, previously Emperor of Germany, of a supreme offense against international morality and against the sacred character of treaties. Article 228 acknowledged the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring persons guilty of acts contrary to the laws and customs of war before military tribunals. Article 229 provided that criminals whose acts were not of precise geographical location were to be referred to inter-Allied jurisdiction.
The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were repeated in the conventions which were signed in 1919 and 1920 with the powers allied with Germany, in particular in the Treaty of Saint-Germain and in that of Neuilly. That is how the idea of war crime was affirmed in international law. The peace treaties of 1919 not only defined the concept of infraction, they formulated the terms of its repression. The defendants were aware of this, just as they were aware of the warnings of the governments of the United Nations. They no doubt hoped that the repetition of the factual circumstances, which hampered the punishment of the criminals in 1914, would permit them to escape their just punishment. Their presence before this Tribunal is the symbol of the constant progress which international law is making in spite of all obstacles.
International law had given a still more precise definition of the term “war crime.” This definition was formulated by the commission which the preliminary peace conference appointed on 25 January 1919 to disentangle the various responsibilities incurred in the course of the war. The report of the Commission of Fifteen of 29 March 1919 constitutes the historical basis of Articles 227 and following of the Treaty of Versailles. The Commission of Fifteen based its investigation of criminal responsibilities on an analysis of the crimes liable to involve them. A material element enters into the juridical settlement of any infraction. Its definition is, therefore, the more precise as it includes an enumeration of the facts which it encompasses. That is why the Commission of Fifteen set up a list of War Crimes. This list includes 32 infractions. These are particularly:
1. Murders, massacres, systematic terrorism; 2. killing of hostages; 3. torture of civilians; 8. confinement of civilians in inhuman conditions; 9. forced labor of civilians in connection with military operations of the enemy; 10. usurpation of sovereignty during the occupation of occupied territories; 11. forced conscription of soldiers among the inhabitants of the occupied territories; 12. attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territories; 13. looting; 14. confiscation of property; 17. imposition of collective fines; 18. wilful devastation and destruction of property; 25. violation of other rules concerning the Red Cross; 29. ill-treatment of wounded and prisoners of war; and 30. use of prisoners of war for unauthorized work.
This list, which already includes the grievances against the defendants enumerated in the Indictment and from which we have just quoted a few facts, is significant because the War Crimes which it encompasses all present a composite character. They are crimes against both international law and national law. Some of these crimes constitute attacks on the fundamental liberties and constitutional rights of peoples and of individuals; they consist in the violation of public guarantees which are recognized by the constitutional Charter of the Nations whose territories were occupied; violation of the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity which France proclaimed in 1789 and which the civilized states guarantee in perpetuity. These War Crimes are violations of public international law, since they represent a systematic refusal of acknowledgment of all respective rights of both occupying and occupied power; but they also may be analyzed as violations of public national law, since they mean forcibly transforming the constitutional institutions of the occupied territories and the juridical statute of their inhabitants.
More numerous are crimes which constitute attacks on the integrity of the physical person and of property. They are allied with war law regulations and include violations of international law and customs.
But the international conventions, it should be noticed, determine the elements constituting an infraction more than they actually establish that infraction itself. The latter existed before in all national legislatures; it was to some extent a part of the juridical inheritance common to all nations; governments agreed to affirm its international character and to define its contents. International penal law is thus superimposed on national law, which preserves its repressive basis because the war crime remains, after all, a crime of common law. National penal law gives the definition of this. All the acts referred to in Article 6 of the Charter of 8 August 1945, all the facts encompassed by the third Count of the Indictment of 18 October 1945 correspond to the infractions of common law provided for and punished by national penal legislation. The killing of prisoners of war, of hostages, and of inhabitants of occupied territories falls, in French law, under Articles 295 and following of the Penal Code, which define murder and assassination. The mistreatment to which the Indictment refers would come under the heading of bodily injuries caused intentionally or through negligence which are defined by Articles 309 and following. Deportation is analyzed, independently of the murders which accompany it, as arbitrary sequestration, which is defined by Articles 341 and 344. Pillage of public and private property and imposition of collective fines are penalized by Articles 221 and the following of our Military Code of Justice. Article 434 of the Penal Code punishes voluntary destruction, and the deportation of civilian workers may be compared with the forced conscription provided for by Article 92. The oath of allegiance is equivalent to the exaction of a false oath in Article 366, and the Germanization of occupied territories may be applied to a number of crimes, the most obvious of which is forced incorporation in the Wehrmacht in violation of Article 92. The same equivalents can be found in all modern legislative systems and particularly in German law.
The crimes against persons and property of which the defendants are guilty are provided for by all national laws. They present an international character because they were committed in several different countries; from this there arises a problem of jurisdiction, which the Charter of 8 August 1945 has solved, as we have previously explained; but this leaves intact the rule of definition.
A crime of common law, the war crime is, nevertheless, not an ordinary infraction. It has a character peculiarly intrinsic—it is a crime committed on the occasion or under the pretext of war. It must be punished because, even in time of war, attacks on the integrity of the physical person and or property are crimes if they are not justified by the laws and customs of war. The soldier who on the battlefield kills an enemy combatant commits a crime, but this crime is justified by the law of war. International law therefore intervenes in the definition of a war crime, not in order to give it essential qualification but in order to fix its outer limits. In other words, every infraction committed on the occasion or under the pretext of hostilities is criminal unless justified by the laws and customs of war. International law here applies the national theory of legitimate defense which is common to all codes of criminal law. The combatant is engaged in legitimate defense on the battlefield; his homicidal action is therefore covered by a justifying fact. But if this justifying fact is taken away the infraction, whether ordinary crime or war crime, remains in its entirety. To establish the justifying fact, the criminal action must be necessary and proportional to the threat to which it responds. The defendants, against whom justice is demanded of you, can plead no such justification.
Nor can they escape their responsibility by arguing that they were not the physical authors of the crimes. The war crime involves two responsibilities, distinct and complementary: that of the physical author and that of the instigator. There is nothing heterodox in this conception. It is the faithful representation of the criminal theory of complicity through instructions. The responsibility of the accomplice, whether independent or complementary to that of the principal author, is incontestable. The defendants bear the entire responsibility for the crimes which were committed upon their instructions or under their control.
Finally, these crimes cannot be justified by the pretext that an order from above was given by Hitler to the defendants. The theory of the justifying fact of an order from above has, in national law, definite fixed limits; it does not cover the execution of orders whose illegality is manifest. German law, moreover, assigns only a limited rule to the concept of justification by orders from above. Article 47 of the German Military Code of Justice of 1940, although maintaining in principle that a criminal order from a superior removes the responsibility of the agent, punishes the latter as an accomplice, when he exceeded the orders received or when he acted with knowledge of the criminal character of the act which had been ordered. Goebbels once made this juridical concept the theme of his propaganda. On 28 May 1944 he wrote in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, which was submitted to you by the American Prosecution, an article intended to justify the murder of Allied pilots by German mobs:
“The pilots cannot validly claim that as soldiers they obeyed orders. No law of war provides that a soldier will remain unpunished for a hateful crime by referring to the orders of his superiors, if their orders are in striking opposition to all human ethics, to all international customs in the conduct of war.”
Orders from a superior do not exonerate the agent of a manifest crime from responsibility. Any other solution would, moreover, be unacceptable, for it would testify to the impotence of all repressive policy.
All the more reason why orders from above cannot be the justifying fact for the crimes of the defendants. Sir Hartley Shawcross told you with eloquence that the accused cannot claim that the Crimes against Peace were the doing of Hitler alone and that they limited themselves to transmitting the general directives. War Crimes may be compared to the will for aggression; they are the common work of the defendants; the defendants bear a joint responsibility for the criminal policy which resulted from the National Socialist doctrine.
The responsibility, for German war criminality, because it constituted a systematic policy, planned and prepared before the opening of hostilities, and perpetrated without interruption from 1940 to 1945, rests with all the defendants, political or military leaders, high officials of National Socialist Germany, and leaders of the Nazi Party.
Nevertheless, some among them appear more directly responsible for the acts taken as a whole, particularly those facts connected with the French charges, that is to say, crimes committed in the Western occupied territories or against the nationals of those countries. We shall cite:
The Defendant Göring as Director of the Four Year Plan and President of the Cabinet of Ministers for Reich Defense; the Defendant Ribbentrop in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs in charge of the administration of occupied countries; the Defendant Frick in his capacity as Director of the Central Office for occupied territories; the Defendant Funk in his capacity as Minister of Reich Economy; the Defendant Keitel, inasmuch as he had command over the occupation armies; the Defendant Jodl, associated in all the responsibilities of the preceding defendant; the Defendant Seyss-Inquart in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the occupied Dutch territory from 13 May 1940 to the end of the hostilities.
We will examine more particularly among these defendants, or among others, those responsible for each category of acts, it being understood that this enumeration is in no wise restrictive.
The Defendant Sauckel bears the chief responsibility for compulsory labor in its various forms. As Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, he carried out the intensive recruiting of workers by every possible means. He is in particular the signer of the decree of 22 August 1942, which constitutes the charter for compulsory labor in all occupied countries. He worked in liaison with the Defendant Speer, Chief of the Todt Organization and Plenipotentiary General for Armament in the office of the Four Year Plan; as well as with the Defendant Funk, Minister of Reich Economy; and with the Defendant Göring, Chief of the Four Year Plan.
The Defendant Göring participated directly in economic looting in the same capacity. He appears often to have sought and derived a personal profit from it.
The Defendant Ribbentrop in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs was no stranger to these acts.
The Defendant Rosenberg, organizer and Chief of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, is particularly guilty of the looting of works of art in the occupied countries.
The chief responsibility for the murders of hostages lies with the Defendant Keitel, the drafter notably of the general order of 16 September 1941, with his assistant, the Defendant Jodl, and with the Defendant Göring who agreed to the order in question.
The Defendant Kaltenbrunner, Himmler’s direct associate and chief of all the foreign police and security offices, is directly responsible for the monstrous devices to which the Gestapo had recourse in all occupied countries, devices which are only the continuation of the methods originated in the Gestapo by its founder, in Prussia, the Defendant Göring. The Defendant Kaltenbrunner is likewise directly responsible for the crimes committed in deportation camps. Moreover, he visited these camps of deportation, as will be proved by the French Delegation in the case of the Mauthausen Camp. The Defendant Göring knew of and gave his approval to the medical experiments made on prisoners. The Defendant Sauckel forced prisoners by every possible means to work under conditions, which were often inhuman, for the German war production.
The Defendant Keitel and his assistant, the Defendant Jodl, are responsible for treatment contrary to the laws of war inflicted upon war prisoners, for murders and killings to which they were subjected, as well as for handing over great numbers of them to the Gestapo. The Defendant Göring shares their responsibility for the execution of Allied aviators and soldiers belonging to the commando groups. The Defendant Sauckel directed the work of war prisoners for the German war production in violation of international law.
The Defendant Keitel and the Defendant Kaltenbrunner both bear the chief responsibility for the terrorist actions carried out jointly by the German Army and the police forces in the various occupied countries and notably in France against the Resistance, as well as for the devastations and massacres carried out against the civilian population of several French departments. The Defendant Jodl shares in this responsibility, most particularly through his initial order, “Fight against Partisan Bands,” dated 6 May 1944, which provides for “collective measures against the inhabitants of entire villages.” These blows against mankind are the result of racial theories of which the Defendant Hess, the Defendant Rosenberg, and the Defendant Streicher are among the instigators or propagandists. The Defendant Hess participated notably in the elaboration of this subject, which is found in Mein Kampf.
The Defendant Rosenberg, one of the principal theorists of racial doctrine, exercised the function of special delegate for the spiritual and ideological training of the Nazi Party. The Defendant Streicher showed himself to be one of the most violent anti-Semitic agitators. In the execution of the policy of Germanization and Nazification responsibility is shared between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that is to say, the Defendant Ribbentrop; the General Staff, that is, the Defendants Keitel and Jodl; the Central Office for all the occupied territories, that is, the Defendant Frick.
The major National Socialist culprits had their orders carried out in the divers Nazi organizations, which we ask you to declare criminal, in order that each of their members may be then apprehended and punished.
The Reich Cabinet, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the General Staff, the High Command of the German Armed Forces represent only a small number of persons whose guilt and punishment must ultimately result from the evidence, since they participated personally and directly in the decisions, or ensured their execution through some eminent person in the political or military hierarchy, and without being able to ignore their criminal nature.
The leaders of the Nazi Party are unquestionably in the forefront of those who participated in the criminal enterprise, and around the Defendants Keitel and Jodl the military High Command directed the Army to the execution of hostages, to pillage, to wanton destruction, and to massacres.
But perhaps it will seem to you that the punishment of hundreds of thousands of men who belonged to the SS, to the SD, to the Gestapo, to the SA, will give rise to some objection. I should like to try, should this be the case, to do away with that objection by showing you the dreadful responsibilities of these men. Without the existence of these organizations, without the spirit which animated them, one could not understand how so many atrocities could have been perpetrated. The systematic War Crimes could not have been carried out by Nazi Germany without these organizations, without the men who composed them. It is they who not only executed but willed this body of crimes on behalf of Germany.
It may have seemed impossible to you that the monstrous barbarity of the National Socialist doctrine could have been imposed upon the German people, the heir, as are our people, of the highest values of civilization. The education by the Nazi Party of the young men who formed the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo, explains the hold Nazism exercised over all Germany. They incarnated National Socialism, and permitted it to accomplish, thanks to the guilty passiveness of the whole German population, a part of its purpose. This youth, those who carried out the tenets of the regime, were trained in a veritable doctrine of immoralism, which results from the ideology that inspired the regime. The myth of the race removed from war in the eyes of these disciples of Nazism its criminal character.
If it is proved that a superior race is to annihilate races and peoples that are considered inferior and decadent, incapable of living a life as it should be lived, before what means of extermination will they recoil? This is the ethics of immorality, the result of the most authentic Nietzscheism, which considers that the destruction of all conventional ethics is the supreme duty of man. The crime against race is punished without pity. The crime on behalf of race is exalted without limit. The regime truly creates a logic of crime which obeys its own laws, which has no connection whatsoever with what we consider ethical. With such a point of view, all horrors could have been justified and authorized. So many acts which appear incomprehensible to us, so greatly do they clash with our customary notions, were explained, were formulated in advance in the name of the racial community.
Add that these atrocities and these cruelties were perpetrated within the rigid framework created by the “esprit de corps,” by the soldierly solidarity which bound individuals and insured the legitimacy of the crime an unlimited field of action. The individuals who committed them would not only be covered by the regime itself, but spurred on by the discipline and the “camaraderie” of these corps, imbued with Nazi criminality.
The Nazi youth was invited to go through an extraordinary adventure. Having unlimited power at its disposal, thanks to the Party and its massive grip, it was first of all called upon to implement the grandiose dreams of National Socialist Pan-Germanism.
The Party exercised a rigid selection of its youth, and neglected no incentive. It solicited from its youth the desire to distinguish itself, to accomplish exploits beyond the common order and beyond nature. The young Nazis in the Gestapo and the SS knew that their acts, no matter how cruel or how inhumane they might be, would always be judged legitimate by the regime, in the name of the racial community, of its needs, and of its triumphs. The Nazi Party, thanks to the young men of the SS, of the SD, and of the Gestapo, had thus become capable of accomplishing in the field of criminality what no other person or nation could have committed.
The members of these organizations became voluntarily the authors of these innumerable crimes of all kinds, often executed with disconcerting cynicism and with artful sadism in the concentration camps of Germany as well as in the various occupied countries, and especially in those of Western Europe.
The crimes are monstrous. The crimes and the responsibility for them have definitely been established. There is no possible doubt. Nevertheless throughout these tranquil sessions of this Trial, extraordinary in the history of the world, in view of the exceptional nature of the justice which your High Tribunal is called upon to render before the United Nations and the German people and before all mankind a few objections may arise in our minds.
It is our duty to discuss this exhaustively, even if it is only sub-conscious in us, for soon a pseudo-patriotic propaganda may take hold of Germany, and even may echo in some of our countries.
“Who can say: I have a clean conscience, I am without fault? To use different weights and measures is abhorred by God.” This text from the Holy Scriptures (Proverbs XX, 9-10) has already been mentioned here and there; it will serve tomorrow as a theme of propaganda, but above all, it is profoundly written in our souls. Rising in the name of our martyred people as accusers of Nazi Germany, we have never for a moment repressed it as a distasteful reminder.
Yes, no nation is without reproach in its history, just as no individual is faultless in his life. Yes, every war in itself brings forth iniquitous evils and entails almost necessarily individual and collective crimes, because it easily unleashes in man the evil passions which always slumber there.
But we can examine our conscience fearlessly in the face of the Nazi culprits; we find no common measure between them and ourselves.
If this criminality had been accidental; if Germany had been forced into war, if crimes had been committed only in the excitement of combat, we might question ourselves in the light of the Scriptures. But the war was prepared and deliberated upon long in advance, and upon the very last day it would have been easy to avoid it without sacrificing any of the legitimate interests of the German people. And the atrocities were perpetrated during the war, not under the influence of a mad passion nor of a war-like anger nor of an avenging resentment, but as a result of cold calculation, of perfectly conscious methods, of a pre-existing doctrine.
The truly diabolical enterprise of Hitler and of his companions was to assemble in a body of dogmas formed around the concept of race, all the instincts of barbarism, repressed by centuries of civilization, but always present in men’s innermost nature, all the negations of the traditional values of humanity, on which nations, as well as individuals, question their conscience in the troubled hours of their development and of their life; to construct and to propagate a doctrine which organizes, regulates, and aspires to command crime.
The diabolical enterprise of Hitler and of his companions was also to appeal to the forces of evil in order to establish his domination over the German people and subsequently the domination of Germany over Europe and perhaps over the world. It planned to incorporate organized criminality into a system of government, into a system of international relations, and into a system of warfare, by unleashing within a whole nation the most savage passions.
Nationalism and serving their people and their country will perhaps be their explanation. Far from constituting an excuse, if any excuse were possible in view of the enormity of their crime, these explanations would make it still more serious. They have profaned the sacred idea of the fatherland by linking it to a willed return to barbarism. In its name they obtained—half by force, half by persuasion—the adherence of a whole country, formerly among the greatest in the order of spiritual values, and have lowered it to the lowest level. The moral confusion, the economic difficulties, the obsession with the defeat of 1918 and with the loss of might and the Pan-Germanic tradition are the basis of the empire of Hitler and of his companions over a people thrown off its balance; to abandon oneself to force, to renounce moral concern, to satisfy a love of collectivity, to revel in lack of restraint are the natural temptations strongly implanted in the German, which the Nazi leaders exploited with cynicism. The intoxication of success and the madness of greatness completed the picture and put practically all Germans, some without doubt unconsciously, in the service of the National Socialist doctrine by associating them with the diabolical enterprise of their Führer and his companions.
Opposing this enterprise men of various countries and different classes rose, all of them animated by the common bond of their human lot. France and Great Britain entered the war only to remain faithful to their given word. The peoples of the occupied countries, tortured in body and soul, never renounced their liberty nor their cultural values, and it was a magnificent epic of clandestine opposition and of Resistance which through a splendid heroism testifies to the spontaneous refusal of the populations to accept the Nazi myths. Millions and millions of men of the Soviet Union fell to defend not only the soil and independence of their country, but also their humanitarian universalism. The millions of British and American soldiers who landed on our unhappy continent carried in their hearts the ideal of freeing from Nazi oppression both the occupied countries and the peoples who willingly or by force had become the satellites of the Axis and the German people.
They were all of them together, whether in uniform or not, fighters for the great hope which throughout the centuries has been nourished by the suffering of the peoples, the great hope for a better future for mankind.
Sometimes this great hope expresses itself with difficulty or loses its way or deceives itself or knows the dread return to barbarism, but it persists always and finally constitutes the powerful lever which brings about the progress of humanity despite everything. These aspirations always reborn, these concerns constantly awakened, this anguish unceasingly present, this perpetual combat against evil form in a definitive manner the sublime grandeur of man. National Socialism only yesterday imperiled all of this.
After that gigantic struggle where two ideologies, two conceptions of life were at grips, in the name of the people whom we represent here and in the name of the great human hope for which they have so greatly suffered, so greatly fought, we can without fear and with a clean conscience rise as accusers of the leaders of Nazi Germany.
As Mr. Justice Jackson said so eloquently at the opening of this Trial, “Civilization could not survive if these crimes were to be committed again,” and he added, “The true plaintiff in this Court is civilization.”
Civilization requires from you after this unleashing of barbarism a verdict which will also be a sort of supreme warning at the hour when humanity appears still at times to enter the path of the organization of peace only with apprehension and hesitation.
If we wish that on the morrow of the cataclysm of war the sufferings of martyred countries, the sacrifices of victorious nations, and also the expiation of guilty people will engender a better humanity, justice must strike those guilty of the enterprise of barbarism from which we have just escaped. The reign of justice is the most exact expression of the great human hope. Your decision can mark a decisive stage in its difficult pursuit.
Undoubtedly even today, this justice and this punishment have become possible only because, as a first condition, free peoples emerged victorious from the conflict. This is actually the link between the force of the victors and the guilt of the vanquished leaders who appear before Your High Tribunal.
But this link signifies nothing else but the revelation of the wisdom of nations that justice, in order to impose itself effectively and constantly upon individuals and upon nations, must have force at its disposal. The common will to put force in the service of justice inspires our nations and commands our whole civilization.
This resolution is brilliantly confirmed today in a judicial case where the facts are examined scrupulously in all their aspects, the penal nature of the offense rigorously established, the competency of the Tribunal incontestable, the rights of the defense intact, total publicity insured.
Your judgment pronounced under these conditions can serve as a foundation for the moral uplift of the German people, first stage in its integration into the community of free countries. Without your judgment, history might incur the risk of repeating itself, crime would become epic, and the National Socialist enterprise a last Wagnerian tragedy; and new Pan-Germanists would soon say to the Germans:
“Hitler and his companions were wrong because they finally failed, but we must begin again some day, on other foundations, the extraordinary adventure of Germanism.”
After your judgment, if only we know how to enlighten this people and watch over their first steps on the road to liberty, National Socialism will be inscribed permanently in their history as the crime of crimes which could lead it only to material and moral perdition, as the doctrine which they should forever avoid with horror and scorn in order to remain faithful or rather become once more faithful to the great norms of common civilization.
The eminent international jurist and noble European, Politis, in his posthumous book entitled International Ethics reminds us that, like all ethical rules, those which should govern international relations will never be definitely established unless all peoples succeed in convincing themselves that there is definitely a greater profit to be gained by observing them than by transgressing them. That is why your judgment can contribute to the enlightenment of the German people and of all peoples.
Your judgment must be inscribed as a decisive act in the history of international law in order to prepare the establishment of a true international society excluding recourse to war and enlisting force permanently in the service of the justice of nations; it will be one of the foundations of this peaceful order to which nations aspire on the morrow of this frightful torment. The need for justice of the martyred peoples will be satisfied, and their sufferings will not have been useless to the progress of mankind.
THE PRESIDENT: M. De Menthon, would you prefer to continue the case on behalf of France this afternoon, or would you prefer to adjourn?
M. DE MENTHON: We are at the disposal of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, if that is so, then I think we better go on until 5 o’clock.
M. DE MENTHON: It might be preferable to adjourn, because M. Faure’s brief which is going to be presented will last at least an hour. Perhaps it is better to adjourn until tomorrow morning. However, we will remain at the disposal of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: When you said that the proof which will now be presented would take an hour, do you mean by that that it is an introductory statement or is it a part of the main case which you are presenting?
M. DE MENTHON: Your Honor, it is part of the general case.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it not be possible then to go on until 5 o’clock?
M. DE MENTHON: Yes, quite so.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President and Your Honor, I propose to submit to the Tribunal an introduction dealing with the first and the second part of the French case.
The first part relates to forced labor; the second part to economic looting. These two over-all questions are complementary to each other and form a whole. Manpower on the one hand and material property on the other constitute the two aspects of the riches of a country and the living conditions in that country. Measures taken with regard to the one necessarily react on the other, and it is understandable that in the occupied countries German policy with regard to manpower and economic property was inspired from the very beginning by common directing principles.
For this reason the French Prosecution has deemed it logical to submit successively to the Tribunal those two briefs corresponding to the letters “H” and “E” of the third Count of the Indictment. My present purpose is to define these initial directives covering the German procedure in regard to manpower and to material in the occupied territories.
When the Germans occupied the territories of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and part of continental France, they thereby assumed a material power of constraint with regard to the inhabitants and a material power of acquisition with regard to its property. They thus had in fact the possibility of utilizing these dual resources on behalf of the war effort.
On the other hand, legally they were confronted with precise rules of international law relating to the occupation of territories by the military forces of a belligerent state. These rules very strictly limit the rights of the occupant, who may requisition property and services solely for the needs of the army of occupation. I here allude to the regulation annexed to the Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War signed at The Hague on 18 October 1907, Section III, and in particular to the Articles 46, 47, 49, 52, and 53. If it please the Tribunal, I shall merely cite the paragraph of Article 52 which defines in a perfectly exact manner the lawful conditions of requisition of persons and property:
“Requisitions in kind and of services may be demanded of communities or of inhabitants only for the needs of the army of occupation. They will be proportionate to the resources of the country and of such a nature that they do not imply for the population the obligation of taking part in war operations against their native country.”
These various articles must, moreover, be considered in the general spirit defined in the preamble of the Convention, from which I take the liberty of reading the last paragraph to the Tribunal:
“Until such time as a more complete code of the laws of war can be enacted, the High Contracting Parties deem it opportune to state that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the safeguard and direction of the principles of the law of nations derived from the established usages among civilized nations, the laws of humanity, and the requirements of public conscience.”
From this point of view it is very evident that the total exploitation of the resources of occupied countries for the benefit of the enemy’s war economy is absolutely contrary to the law of nations and to the requirements of public conscience.
Germany signed the Hague Convention and it must be pointed out that she made no reservations at that time except with regard to Article 44, which relates to the supply of information to the belligerents. She made no reservation with regard to the articles which we have cited nor with regard to the preamble. These articles and the preamble, moreover, reiterate the corresponding text of the previous Hague Convention of 28 July 1899.
German official ratifications of the Conventions were given on 4 September 1900 and 27 November 1909. I have purposely recalled these well-known facts in order to emphasize that the Germans could not fail to recognize the constant principles of international law to which they subscribed on two occasions, long before their defeat in 1918 and consequently outside the alleged pressure to which they referred in regard to the Treaty of Versailles.
While on this subject of juridical theory, may I point out that in the arrangement signed at Versailles on 28 June 1919 in connection with the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine, reference is made in Article 6 to the Hague Convention in the following terms:
“The right of requisition in kind and in services as formulated by the Hague Convention of 1907 will be exercised by the allied and associate armies of occupation.”
Thus, the governing principles of the rights of requisition by the occupiers is confirmed by a third international agreement subscribed to by Germany, who in regard to the occupation of her own territory is here the beneficiary of this limitation.
What, then, will the conduct of the Germans be like, in view of this factual situation, which involves power and temptation, and in view of this legal situation which involves a limitation?
The Tribunal is already aware, by virtue of the general presentation of the American Prosecution, that the conduct of the Germans was to profit by the fact and to ignore the law.
The Germans systematically violated international rules and the law of nations, as far as we are concerned, both by forced labor and by spoliation. Detailed illustrations of these acts in the Western countries will be laid before you in the briefs which will follow my own. For my part I propose to concentrate for a moment on the actual concepts which the Germans had from the outset. In this connection I shall submit to the Tribunal three complementary propositions.
First Proposition: From the very beginning of the occupation, the Germans decided, in the interests of their war effort, to seize in any way possible all the resources, both material and human, of the occupied countries. Their plan was not to take any account of legal limitations. It is not under the spur of occasional necessity that they subsequently perpetrated their illicit acts, but in pursuance of a deliberate intention.
Second Proposition: However, the Germans took pains to mask their real intentions; they did not make known that they rejected international juridical rules. On the contrary, they gave assurance that they would respect them. The reasons for this camouflage are easy to understand. The Germans were anxious from the beginning to spare public opinion in the occupied territory. Brutal proceedings would have aroused immediate resistance which would have hampered their actions. They also wished to deceive world opinion, and more particularly American public opinion, since the United States of America had at that time not yet entered the war.
The third proposition which I lay before the Tribunal results from the first two. As the Germans contemplated achieving their aims and masking their intentions, they were of necessity bound to organize a system of irregular means, while maintaining an appearance of legality. The complexity and the technical character of the proceedings they used enabled them easily to conceal the real state of affairs from the uninitiated or the merely uninformed. These disguised means proved, in fact, just as efficient and perhaps even more so than would have been brutal seizure. They moreover enabled the Germans to have recourse to such brutal action the day they deemed that this would yield them more advantages than inconvenience.
We are of the opinion that this analysis of the German intentions is of interest to the Tribunal for, on the one hand, it demonstrates that the illicit acts were premeditated and that their authors were aware of their reprehensible character; and on the other hand, it enables one to understand the scope and extent of these acts, despite the precautions taken to mask them.
The evidence which the Prosecution will submit to the Tribunal refers chiefly to the second and third propositions, for as regards the first, that is to say, the criminal intention and premeditation, it is demonstrated by the discrepancy between the facade and reality.
I say in the first place that the Germans at the time of the occupation made a pretense of observing the rules of international law. Here is, by way of example, a proclamation to the French population, signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army. This is a public document which is reproduced in the Official Journal, containing the decrees issued by the military governor for French occupied territories, Number 1 dated 4 July 1940. I submit to the Tribunal this document, which will bear Number RF-1 of the French documentation; and from it I cite merely the following sentence:
“The troops have received the order to treat the population with regard and to respect private property provided the population remains calm.”
The Germans proceeded in identical manner in all the occupied countries. I also submit to the Tribunal the text of the same proclamation, dated 10 May 1940, which was published in the Official Journal of the Commander-in-Chief in Belgium and in the north of France, Number 1, Page 1, under the title “Proclamation to the Population of Belgium.” The German text, as well as the Flemish text, bear the more complete title, “Proclamation to the Population of Holland and Belgium.” In view of the identical nature of these texts, this copy may be considered as Document Number RF-1 (bis) of the French documentation.
I now submit another proclamation entitled, “To the Inhabitants of Occupied Countries!” dated 10 May 1940, and signed “The Commander-in-Chief of the Army Group.” This is likewise published in the Official Journal of German ordinances. This will be Document Number RF-2 of the French documentation. I will cite the first two paragraphs:
“The Commander-in-Chief of the German Army has given me authority to announce the following:
“I. The German Army guarantees the inhabitants full personal security and the safeguard of their property. Those who behave peacefully and quietly have nothing to fear.”
I also quote passages from Paragraphs V, VI, and VII:
“V. The administrative authorities of the state, communities, the police, and schools shall continue their activities. They therefore remain at the service of their own population. . . .
“VI. All enterprises, businesses, and banks will continue their work in the interest of the population. . . .
“VII. Producers of goods of prime necessity, as well as merchants, shall continue their activities and place their goods at the disposal of the public.”
The passages which I have just quoted are not the literal reproduction of international conventions, but they reflect their spirit. Repetition of the terms, “at the service of the population,” “in the interest of the population,” “at the disposal of the public” must necessarily be construed as an especially firm assurance that the resources of the country and its manpower will be preserved for that country and not diverted in favor of the German war effort.
We pass now Document under Number RF-2 (bis) to the next of the same proclamations signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Group and published in the Official Journal of the Commander-in-Chief in Belgium, numbered as above, Page 3.
Finally, on 22 June 1940, an armistice convention was signed between the representatives of the German Government and the representatives of the de facto authority which was at that time assuming the Government of France. This convention is likewise a public document. It will be submitted to the Tribunal at a later stage as the first document of the economic case. At this stage I merely wish to cite a sentence of Paragraph 3, which reads as follows: “In the occupied districts of France the German Reich exercises all the rights of an occupying power.”
This constitutes then a very definite reference to international law. Moreover, the German plenipotentiaries gave in this respect complementary oral assurances. On this matter I submit to the Tribunal, in the form of French Exhibit Number RF-3 (Document RF-3), an extract from the deposition made by Ambassador Leon Noel in the course of proceedings before the French High Court of Justice. This extract is reproduced from a book entitled Transcript in extenso of the Sessions of the Trial of Marshal Pétain, printed in Paris in 1945 at the printing office of the official journals and constitutes a document admissible as evidence in accordance with the Charter of the Tribunal, Article 21. This is the statement of M. Leon Noel, which I desire to cite to the Tribunal. M. Leon Noel was a member of the French Armistice Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to present this document to us?
M. FAURE: This document is presented to the Tribunal. We have given to the Tribunal the transcript of the proceedings, and in the book of documents the Tribunal will find the excerpt I am now quoting.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not in possession of it at present. I do not know where it is.
M. FAURE: I think that possibly this document was handed to the Secretariat of the Tribunal rather late, but it will be here immediately. May it please the Tribunal, I merely intend to read a short extract from this document today.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have it tomorrow, I hope?
M. FAURE: Certainly, Mr. President.
[Quoting.] “I have also obtained a certain number of replies from German generals which I believe could have been subsequently used—from General Jodl, who in the month of May last signed at Reims the unconditional surrender of Germany and from General (subsequently Marshal) Keitel, who a few weeks later was to sign in Berlin the ratification of this surrender. In this way I led them to declare in the most categorical manner that in no event would they interfere with administration, that the rights which they claimed for themselves under the convention were purely and simply those which in similar circumstances international law and international usage concede to occupation armies, that is to say, those indispensable for the maintenance of security, transportation, and the food supply needs of these armies.”
These assertions and promises on the part of the Germans were therefore formal. Now, even at that time, they were not sincere. Indeed, not only did the Germans subsequently violate them, but from the very beginning they organized a system whereby they were enabled to accomplish these violations in the most efficacious manner and at the same time in a manner which enabled them to some extent to mask them.
As far as economy and labor are concerned, this German system comes from a very simple idea. It consisted in supervising production at its beginning and its end. On the one hand, the Germans embarked immediately upon the general requisitioning of all raw materials and all goods in the occupied countries. Thenceforth, it would depend upon them to supply, or not to supply, raw material to the national industry. They were thus in a position to develop one branch of production rather than another, to favor certain undertakings, and, inversely, to oblige other undertakings to close down. As events and opportunities demanded, they organized this appropriation of raw materials, principally with a view to facilitating their distribution in their own interest but the principle was continuously maintained. They thus held, as it were, the key of entrance to production. On the other hand, they also held the exit key, that is to say, of finance. By securing the financial means in the form of the money of an occupied country, the Germans were able to purchase products and to acquire, under the pretense of legality, the output of the economic activity of the country. In point of fact, the Germans obtained for themselves from the outset such considerable financial means that they were easily able to absorb the entire productive capacity of each country.
If the Tribunal finds it suitable, I will interrupt at this point.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 18 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY Friday, 18 January 1946
Morning Session
M. FAURE: Mr. President, Your Honors. At yesterday’s session I explained to the Tribunal the principles of the provisions made by the Germans to ensure the seizure of raw materials and the control of finance in the occupied countries.
These provisions will be demonstrated by numerous documents which will be presented to the Tribunal in the course of the presentation of the case on economic spoliation and forced labor. I shall not quote these documents at this moment since, as I pointed out yesterday, the purpose of my introduction is limited to the initial concepts of the Germans in these matters. I shall cite only one document, which reveals the true intentions of the Germans in the very first period. This document bears our Document Number RF-3 (bis), and I offer it in evidence to the Tribunal.
It relates particularly to Norway. It consists of a photostatic copy, certified, of a transcript of a conference held in Oslo, 21 November 1940, under the presidency of the Reich Commissioner. I would point out to the Tribunal that we submit this document as being particularly significant, because Norway is a country which was occupied at a very early date by the Germans. The date of 21 November 1940, which you see, refers to the very earliest period of the German occupation, and moreover, in the text of the conference, allusion is made to the situation of the 7 months preceding.
You will find there the exact psychology of the occupation as it existed in this period of April 1940 to November 1940, that is to say, at the time, or even before, when the Germans, while invading other countries, made the reassuring proclamations which I read to the Tribunal yesterday.
There were 40 personages present at the conference, of whom State Secretary Dr. Landfried represented the Reich Ministry of Economics. This is how the Reich Commissioner expresses himself:
“Today’s conference is the continuation of a conference which was held in Berlin. On this occasion I should like, first of all, to stress and establish definitely that the collaboration between the Wehrmacht and the Reich Commissioner is exemplary. I must protest against the idea that the Wehrmacht carried out its financial task here in a muddled and irresponsible manner. We must also take into account the particular circumstances which then prevailed in Norway and which still partially prevail.
“Certain tasks were fixed by the Führer which were to be carried out within a given time.
“At the conference in Berlin the following points were settled, which we can take as a basis of today’s conference. There is no doubt that the country of Norway was utilized for the execution of the tasks of the Wehrmacht during the last 7 months in such a way that a further drain on the country without some compensation is no longer possible in view of the future tasks of the Wehrmacht.
“I considered it from the beginning my obvious duty in my capacity as Reich Commissioner to devote my activities to mobilizing all the economic and material forces of the country for the purposes of the Wehrmacht and not to call on the resources of the Reich as long as I am in a position to organize such resources in the country.”
I will stop quoting the words of the Reich Commissioner at this point, and now I shall cite the terms of the reply of Dr. Landfried, which you will find a little lower down in the document:
“I am very glad to be able to state that we have succeeded here in Norway . . . in mobilizing the economic forces of Norway for German needs to an extent which it has not been possible to attain in all the other occupied countries. I must thank you especially in the name of the Minister of Economics for having succeeded in inducing the Norwegians to achieve the greatest possible results.”
I think the Tribunal will have observed the series of expressions which are used in this document and which are quite characteristic. The Reich Commissioner says that from the very beginning, his duty was to mobilize all the economic and material forces of the country for the purposes of the Wehrmacht, and Dr. Landfried answers that they succeeded in mobilizing the economic forces to an extent which it has not been possible to attain in all the other occupied territories.
Thus we see that Dr. Landfried does not say that the Germans had, in Norway, a particular concept of occupation and that in the other countries they used a different procedure; he says that it was not possible to do as well in the other countries. The only limitation he recognizes is a limit of fact and opportunity, which will soon be overcome, but in no wise a limitation of law. The idea of a legal limitation never enters his mind, any more than it comes to the mind of any of the 40 personages present.
It is not here a question of an opinion or initiative of a regional administrative authority, but rather of the official doctrine of the Reich Cabinet and the High Command, since 40 high officials were present at this conference, and especially the representative of the Minister for Economy.
I should like to stress at this point that this German doctrine and these German methods for the mobilization of the resources of the occupied countries necessarily extend to the labor of the inhabitants.
I said yesterday that the Germans ensured for themselves from the very beginning the two keys of production. By that very fact they had within their power the working capital and the manpower. It depended on their decision whether labor worked or did not work, whether there should or should not be unemployment. This explains in a general way why the Germans took such brutal measures as the displacement and the mobilization of workers only after a certain time.
In the first period, that is to say, as long as there existed in the occupied countries stocks and raw materials, it was more in the interests of the Germans to utilize labor locally, at least to a great extent. This labor permitted them to produce for their benefit, with the wealth of these countries, finished products which they seized. Thus, besides the moral advantage of safeguarding appearances, they avoided the initial transportation of raw materials. The consideration of transport difficulties was always very important in the German war economy.
But when after a time, which was more or less long, the occupied countries were impoverished in their raw materials and really ruined, then the Germans no longer had any interest in permitting labor to work on the spot. They would, indeed, have had to furnish the raw materials themselves, and consequently that would involve double transportation—that of raw material in one direction and that of the finished products in the other direction. At that moment it became more advantageous for them to export workmen. This consideration coincided, moreover, with the needs resulting from the economic situation of Germany at that time and with political considerations.
On this question of the use of labor, I shall read to the Tribunal a few sentences of a document which I offer under Document Number RF-4. It is therefore the document following that from which I have just read. The note which you will find in the document book reproduces the sentences from an article which appeared in the newspaper Pariser Zeitung on 17 July 1942.
I offer at the same time to the Tribunal a certified photostatic copy of the page of the newspaper, which is from the collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale. This article is signed by Dr. Michel, who was the Chief of the Economic Administration in France. Its title is “Two Years of Controlled Economy in France.” It is then an article written for the purpose of German propaganda since it appeared in a German newspaper which published one page in French in Paris. Naturally I wish to point out to the Tribunal that we in no way accept all the ideas which are presented in this article, but we should like to point out several sentences of Dr. Michel’s as revealing the same sort of procedure about which I was speaking just now, which consisted of utilizing labor, first on the spot, as long as there was raw material, and then deporting that labor to Germany:
“In order to utilize the productive forces of French industry, the Reich began by transferring to France its orders for industrial articles for the war effort.
“One single figure is sufficient to show the success of this transfer of German orders: The value of the transactions to date is expressed in a figure surpassing hundreds of thousands of millions of francs. New blood is circulating in the veins of French economy, which is working to the utmost of its capacity. . . .”
Some sentences in the original are omitted here, as they are of no interest, and I would like to read the following sentence:
“As the stocks of raw materials tended to diminish on account of the length of the war, the recruitment of available French labor began.”
Dr. Michel uses here elegant ways of expressing himself, which cover the reality, that is to say, the beginning of the transfer of workmen at the moment when raw materials, which the Germans had appropriated from the beginning, had begun to be exhausted.
The conclusion which I would now like to give to my statement is the following: That the Germans have always considered labor, human labor, as a factor for their use. This attitude existed even before the official institution of compulsory labor, of which we will speak to you presently.
For Germans the work of others has always been compulsory and for their profit, and it was meant to remain so even after the end of the war.
It is this last point that I should like to emphasize, for it shows the extent and the gravity of the German conception and of the German projects. I shall quote in relation to this a document which will bear the Number RF-5 in our document book. Here is the document, which I submit to the Tribunal. It is a work published in French in Berlin in 1943, by Dr. Friedrich Didier, entitled Workers for Europe. It was issued by the central publishing house of the National Socialist Party. It begins with a preface by the Defendant Sauckel, whose facsimile signature is printed.
I shall quote to the Tribunal a paragraph from this work, which is the last page in my document book. It is Document Number RF-5 and this sentence is found on Page 23. I quote:
“A great percentage of foreign workers will remain, even after victory, in our territory, in order to complete then—having been trained in construction work—what the outbreak of war had prevented, and to carry out those planned projects which up to now had remained unrealized.”
Thus, in a work of propaganda, consequently written with great prudence and with intent to seduce, we nevertheless find this main admission by the Germans, that they intended to keep, even after the war, the workers of other countries in order to insure the greatness of Germany without any limitation of aim or time. Hence it is a matter of a policy of perpetual exploitation.
If it please the Tribunal, my introduction having come to an end, M. Herzog will present the brief relating to forced labor in France.
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President and Your Honors.
The National Socialist doctrine, by the pre-eminence which it gives to the idea of the State, by the contempt in which it holds individuals and personal rights, contains a conception of work which agrees with the principles of its general philosophy.
For it, work is not one of the forms of the manifestation of individual personalities; it is a duty imposed by the community on its members.
“The relationship of labor, according to National Socialist ideas,” a German writer has said, “is not a simple judicial relationship between the worker and his employer; it is a living phenomenon in which the worker becomes a cog in the National Socialist machine for collective production.” The conception of compulsory labor is thus, for National Socialism, necessarily complementary to the conception of work itself.
Compulsory labor service was first of all imposed on the German people. German labor service was instituted by a law of 26 June 1935 which bears Hitler’s signature and that of the Defendant Frick, Minister of the Interior. This law was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 769. I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-6 (Document Number 1389-PS).
From 1939 the mobilization of workers was added to the compulsory labor service. Decrees were promulgated to that effect by the Defendant Göring in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I do not stress this point; it arises from the conspiracy entered into by the accused to commit their Crimes against Peace, and which my American colleagues have already brought to the attention of the Tribunal. I merely point out that the mobilization of workers was applicable to foreigners resident in German territory, because I find in this fact the proof that the principle of compulsory recruitment of foreign workers existed prior to the war. Far from being the spontaneous result of the needs of German war industry, the compulsory recruitment of foreign workers is the putting into practice of a concerted policy. I lay before the Tribunal a document which proves this. It is Document C-2 of the French classification, which I offer as Exhibit Number RF-7. This is a memorandum of the High Command of the German Armed Forces of 1 October 1938. This memorandum, drawn up in anticipation of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, contains a classification of violations possible under international law. In connection with each violation appears the explanation which the High Command of the Armed Forces thinks it possible to give. The document appears in the form of a list in four columns. In the first is a statement of the violations of international law; the second gives a concrete example; the third contains the point of view of international law on the one hand and, on the other hand, the conclusions which can be drawn from it; the fourth column is reserved for the explanation of the Propaganda Ministry.
I read the passage which deals with the forced labor of civilians and prisoners of war, which is found on Page 6 of the German original, Page 7 of the French translation:
“Use of prisoners of war and civilians for war work, (construction of roads, digging trenches, making munitions, employment in transport, et cetera).”
Second column:
“Captured Czech soldiers or Czech civilians are ordered to construct roads or to load munitions.”
The third column:
“Article 31 of an agreement signed 27 July 1939 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war forbids their use in tasks directly related to war measures. Compulsion to do such work is in every case contrary to international law. The use of prisoners of war as well as civilians is allowed for road construction but forbidden for the manufacture of munitions.”
Last column:
“The use of these measures may be based on war needs or on the declaration that the enemy has acted in the same way first.”
The compulsory recruitment of foreign workers is thus in accordance with National Socialist doctrine, one of the elements of the policy of German domination. Hitler himself recognized this on several occasions. I quote in this connection his speech of 9 November 1941 which was printed in the Völkischer Beobachter of 10 November 1941, Number 314, Page 4, which I submit to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-8. I read the extract of this discourse, Columns 1 and 2, and the first paragraph below, in the German original:
“The territory which now works for us contains more than 250 million men, but the territory in Europe which works indirectly for this battle includes now more than 350 million.
“As far as German territory is concerned, the territory occupied by us and that which we have taken under our administration, there is no doubt that we shall succeed in harnessing every man for this work.”
The recruitment of foreign workers thus proceeds in a systematic manner. It constitutes the putting into practice of the political principles as applied to the territories occupied by Germany. These principles, the concrete development of which in other departments of German criminal activity will be pointed out to you by my colleagues, are essentially of two kinds: employment of all active forces of the occupied or dominated territories; extermination of all their non-productive forces.
These are the two reasons which the defendants gave in justification for the establishment of the recruitment of foreign workers. There are many documents to this effect; I confine myself to the most explicit.
The justification for the recruitment of foreign workers, because of the necessity of including the peoples of the enslaved states in the German war effort, is primarily a result of the explanatory statement of the decree of 21 March 1942, appointing the Defendant Sauckel as Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor. The decree was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1942, Part I, Page 179. I submit it and will read its complete text to the Tribunal, as Document Number RF-9.
“The decree of the Führer concerning the creation of a Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, dated 21 March 1942.
“The assurance of the required manpower for the whole war economy, and in particular for the armament industry, necessitates a uniform direction, meeting the needs of the war economy, of all available labor, including hired foreigners and prisoners of war, as well as the mobilization of all unused labor still in the Greater German Reich, including the Protectorate as well as the Government General and the occupied territories.
“This mission will be accomplished by Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel in the capacity of Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor. In this capacity he is directly responsible to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.”
I would like to point out here that the Defendant Sauckel developed the same theme at the Congress of Gauleiter and Reichsleiter held 5 and 6 February 1943 at Posen. He expressed himself in plain terms: He justified compulsory recruitment on the basis of National Socialist philosophy and on the basis of the necessity of drawing all the European peoples into the struggle carried on by Germany. His speech constitutes Document 1739-PS. I submit it under Exhibit Number RF-10, and I request the Court to take judicial notice of it and to accept the following passages in evidence against the Defendant Sauckel. First, Page 5 of the German text, fourth paragraph—this is found on the first page of the French translation:
“The remarkable violence of the war forces me to mobilize, in the name of the Führer, many millions of foreigners for labor for the entire German war economy and to urge them to effect the maximum production. The purpose of this utilization is to assure in the field of labor the war material necessary in the struggle for the preservation of the life and liberty, in the first place, of our own people, and also for the preservation of our Western culture for those peoples who, in contrast to the parasitical Jews and plutocrats, possess the honest will and strength to shape their life by their own work and effort.
“This is the vast difference between the work which was exacted through the Treaty of Versailles and the Dawes and Young Plans at one time—which took the form of slavery and tribute to the might and supremacy of Jewry—and the use of labor which I, as a National Socialist, have the honor to prepare and to carry out as a contribution by Germany in the fight for her liberty and for that of her allies.”
The compulsory recruitment of foreign workers did not have as its only object the maintenance of the level of German industrial production. There was also the conscious desire to weaken the human potential of the occupied countries.
The idea of extermination by work was familiar to the theorists of National Socialism and to the leaders of Germany. It constituted one of the bases of the policy of domination of the invaded territories. I lay before the Court the proof that the National Socialist conspirators envisaged the destruction by work of whole ethnical groups. A discussion which took place on 14 September 1942 between Goebbels and Thierack is significant. It constitutes Document 682-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-11, from which I take the following passage:
“Concerning the extermination of asocial elements, Doctor Goebbels is of the opinion that the following groups must be exterminated: All Jews and gypsies; Poles who have to serve 3 or 4 years penal servitude; Czechoslovakians and Germans who have been condemned to death or hard labor for life or placed in protective custody. The idea of extermination by work is best.”
The idea of extermination by work was not applied to ethnical groups alone, the disappearance of which was desired by the defendants; it also led to the employment of foreign labor in the German war industry up to the extreme limit of each man’s strength. I will revert to this aspect of the policy of forced labor when I lay before the Tribunal the treatment of foreign workers in Germany: The cruelty to which they were submitted sprang from this main conception of National Socialism, that the human forces of the occupied countries must be employed with no other limitation than that of their extermination, which is the final goal.
The defendants have not only admitted the principle of compulsory recruitment of foreign workers; they have followed a consistent policy of putting their principle into practice, applying it in the same concrete manner in the various occupied territories. To do this they resorted to identical methods of recruitment; they set up everywhere the same recruitment organizations to which they gave the same orders.
In the first place, it was a question of inducing foreign workers to work in their own countries for the army of occupation and the services connected with it. The German military and civil authorities organized yards and workshops in order to carry out on the spot work useful to their war policy. The yards and workshops of the Todt Organization, which were under the direction of the Defendant Speer after the death of their founder, and those of the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and the NSKK organization, employed numerous foreign workers in all areas of Western Europe.
But the essential undertaking of the German labor offices was the deportation of foreign workers to the munition factories of the Reich. The most varied means were used to this end. They were built up into a recruiting policy which can be analyzed as follows:
In the beginning, this policy took on the cloak of legality. The use of labor took the form of requisition as under the terms of Article 52 of the appendix to the fourth Hague Convention; it was also effected by means of the voluntary recruitment of workers, to whom the German recruiting offices offered labor contracts.
I shall provide the Tribunal with proof that the requisitions of labor effected by the National Socialist authorities were a deliberate misinterpretation of the letter and spirit of the international convention by virtue of which they were carried out. I shall show that the voluntary character of the recruitment of certain foreign workers was entirely fictitious; in reality their work contracts were made under the pressure which the occupation authorities brought to bear on their will.
The defendants lost no time in flinging aside their mask of legality. They compelled prisoners of war to do work forbidden by international conventions. I shall show how the work of prisoners of war was incorporated in the general plan for the Allocation of Labor from the occupied areas.
After all, it is through force that the defendants brought their recruitment plans to fruition. They did not hesitate to resort to violent methods. Thus they established compulsory labor service in the areas which they occupied. Sometimes they directly promulgated orders bearing the signature of military commanders or Reich commissioners; this is the case with Belgium and Holland. Sometimes they forced the actual authorities to take legislative measures themselves; this is particularly the case with France and Norway. Sometimes they simply took direct action, that is, they transferred foreign workers to factories in Germany without issuing regulations providing for such action; this happened in Denmark. Finally in certain occupied areas where they had carried out Germanization, the defendants incorporated the inhabitants of those territories in the labor service of the Reich. It happened thus in the French provinces of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin, Moselle, and in Luxembourg.
The policy of compulsory labor was asserted and systematized from the day when the Defendant Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor.