[Cover Illustration]
TRIAL
OF
THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
BEFORE
THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
N U R E M B E R G
14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946
[Illustration]
P U B L I S H E D A T N U R E M B E R G , G E R M A N Y
1 9 4 7
This volume is published in accordance with the
direction of the International Military Tribunal by
the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction
of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.
[Illustration: Nuremberg Seal]
Editor’s Note
In spite of the meticulous care given to this edition certain
inexactitudes may slip in, some originating with the speakers
themselves. In order to give a faithful rendering of the Record
we are avoiding alterations, but corrective notes will be
printed in the final volume.
The General Secretary’s Office would be grateful if the reader
would draw to his attention any errors or omissions, so that
they may also be included in the list of corrections.
_S. Paul A. Joosten_
Deputy General Secretary.
Address:
Lawrence Deems Egbert, Editor
International Military Tribunal Record
APO 696 A, United States Army.
VOLUME V
O F F I C I A L T E X T
I N T H E
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
P R O C E E D I N G S
9 January 1946 — 21 January 1946
CONTENTS
Thirtieth Day, Wednesday, 9 January 1946,
Morning Session 1
Afternoon Session 31
Thirty-first Day, Thursday, 10 January 1946,
Morning Session 65
Afternoon Session 100
Thirty-second Day, Friday, 11 January 1946,
Morning Session 131
Afternoon Session 159
Thirty-third Day, Monday, 14 January 1946,
Morning Session 197
Thirty-fourth Day, Tuesday, 15 January 1946,
Morning Session 230
Afternoon Session 260
Thirty-fifth Day, Wednesday, 16 January 1946,
Morning Session 296
Afternoon Session 329
Thirty-sixth Day, Thursday, 17 January 1946,
Morning Session 368
Afternoon Session 399
Thirty-seventh Day, Friday, 18 January 1946,
Morning Session 434
Afternoon Session 459
Thirty-eighth Day, Saturday, 19 January 1946,
Morning Session 489
Thirty-ninth Day, Monday, 21 January 1946,
Morning Session 520
Afternoon Session 547
THIRTIETH DAY
Wednesday, 9 January 1946
_Morning Session_
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
If the Tribunal please, when the Tribunal adjourned I had just dealt
with the last of the two Norway documents, which I how put in as
Exhibits GB-140 and GB-141. Their numbers are 004-PS and D-629.
My Lord, for convenience the first document, to which I shall refer in a
few minutes, will be Document Number 1871-PS.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I have that here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before I come to that, I just want to
say one word about the aggression against the Low Countries—Belgium,
the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
The facts as to the aggression against these countries, during the
period when this defendant was Foreign Minister, were stated in full by
my friend Mr. Roberts, and I think if I give the Tribunal the reference
to the transcript at Pages 1100 to 1125 (Volume III, Pages 289 to 307),
I do not need to detain the Tribunal on that part of the case. I only
remind the Tribunal that the action of this defendant as Foreign
Minister to which attention may be called is the making of a statement
on the 10th of May 1940 to representatives of the foreign press with
regard to the reasons for the German invasion of the Low Countries; and
these reasons were, in my respectful submission, demonstrated to be
false by the evidence called by Mr. Roberts, which appears in that part
of the transcript.
My Lord, I then proceed to the aggression in southeastern Europe against
Greece and Yugoslavia, and the first moment of time in that regard is
the meeting at Salzburg in August 1939, at which the Defendant Von
Ribbentrop participated, when Hitler announced that the Axis had decided
to liquidate certain neutrals. That is Document 1871-PS, which I now put
in as Exhibit GB-142, and the passage to which I should like to refer
the Tribunal is on Page 2 of the English version, two-thirds down the
page in the middle of the fifth paragraph, six lines from the top. Your
Lordship will find the words “Generally speaking.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I desire to quote from there:
“Generally speaking, it would be best to liquidate the
pseudo-neutrals one after the other. This is fairly easily done
if one Axis partner protects the rear of the other, as the
latter finishes off one of the uncertain neutrals. Italy may
consider Yugoslavia such an uncertain neutral. At the visit of
Prince Regent Paul he (the Führer) suggested, particularly with
regard to Italy, that Prince Paul clarify his political attitude
towards the Axis by a gesture. He had thought of a closer
connection with the Axis and the withdrawal of Yugoslavia from
the League of Nations. Prince Paul agreed to the latter.
Recently the Prince Regent was in London and sought reassurance
from the Western Powers. The same thing was repeated that
happened in the case of Gafencu, who was also very reasonable
during his visit to Germany and who denied any interest in the
aims of the Western Democracies. Afterwards it was learned that
he had later assumed a contrary standpoint in England. Among the
Balkan countries the Axis can completely rely only on Bulgaria,
which is, in a sense, a natural ally of Italy and Germany.”
Then missing a sentence:
“At the moment of a turn for the worse for Germany and Italy,
however, Yugoslavia would join the other side openly, hoping
thereby to give matters a final turn to the disadvantage of the
Axis.”
That demonstrates the policy with regard to uncertain neutrals.
Then, as early as September 1940 this defendant reviewed the war
situation with Mussolini. This defendant emphasized the heavy revenge
bombing raids in England and the fact that London would soon be in
ruins. It was agreed between the parties that only Italian interests
were involved in Greece and Yugoslavia and that Italy could count on
German support.
Then Von Ribbentrop went on further to explain to Mussolini the Spanish
plan for the attack on Gibraltar and Germany’s participation therein and
that he was expecting to sign the protocol with Spain, bringing the
latter country into the war, on his return to Berlin.
This is Document 1842-PS, which is the next document in the book to the
one at which the Tribunal has just been looking, and the passage with
regard to Greece and Yugoslavia occurs in the middle of the first
page—if I might just read a very short extract:
“With regard to Greece and Yugoslavia the Foreign Minister
stressed that it was exclusively a question of Italian
interests, the settling of which was a matter for Italy alone
and in which Italy would be certain of Germany’s sympathetic
assistance.”
I don’t think I need trouble the Tribunal with the rest.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, member for the United States): I think
you had better read the next paragraph.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “But it seemed to us to be better not to
touch on these problems for the time being, but instead to
concentrate on the destruction of England with all our forces.
Where Germany was concerned, she was interested in the northern
German districts (Norway, _et cetera_), and this was
acknowledged by the Duce.”
I am very grateful to you, Your Honor. That I put in as Exhibit GB-143.
A month or two later, in January 1941, at the meeting between Hitler and
Mussolini, in which this defendant participated, the Greek operation was
discussed. Hitler had stated that the German troops in Romania were for
use in the planned campaign against Greece. That document is C-134,
which was put in as Exhibit GB-119, and therefore I do not propose to
give it again but to give the Tribunal the reference to the points which
are mentioned at the foot of Page 3 of the English text.
With regard to that meeting there is a cross-reference in Count Ciano’s
diary, Count Ciano having attended as Italian Foreign Minister, and he
recalls his impression of that meeting in the diary for the 20th and
21st of January by saying:
“The Duce is pleased with the conversation on the whole. I am
less pleased. Above all, because Ribbentrop, who had always been
so boastful in the past, told me, when I asked him outright how
long the war would last, that he saw no possibility of its
ending before 1942.”
Despite that somewhat pessimistic statement to Count Ciano, a short time
later, 3 weeks later, when it was a question of encouraging the
Japanese, this defendant took a more optimistic line.
On the 13th of February 1941 he saw Ambassador Oshima, the Japanese
Ambassador, and that conversation appears in Document 1834-PS, which is
Exhibit USA-129. That was read previously, and again I simply give the
reference on Page 3 of the English version.
The second from the last paragraph dealt with the optimistic account of
the military position and the position of Bulgaria and Turkey. I do not
think I need read it further, but I will give the Tribunal the
reference.
Then after that, in March, this defendant put forth his efforts to get
Yugoslavia to join the Axis, and on the 25th of March the defendant, in
a note to the Prime Minister Cvetković—and this is Document 2450-PS,
which is Exhibit GB-123—gave the assurance:
“The Axis-Power Governments, during this war, will not direct a
demand to Yugoslavia to permit the march or transportation of
troops through the Yugoslav state or territory.”
After that, it is only fair to point out that there was the _coup
d’état_ in Yugoslavia. General Simovic took over the government; and two
days after the assurance which I just read, at the meeting of the 27th
of March 1941, at which this defendant was present, Hitler outlined the
military campaign against Yugoslavia and promised the destruction of
Yugoslavia and the demolition of Belgrade by the German Air Force. That
is contained in Document 1746-PS, which is Exhibit GB-120; and that was
read by my friend, Colonel Phillimore at an earlier stage so I do not
need to read it again.
The final action of this defendant with regard to Yugoslavia was that
after the invasion of Yugoslavia Von Ribbentrop was one of the persons
directed by Hitler to draw up the boundaries for the partition and
division of Yugoslavia. The preliminary directive for that is Document
1195-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-144.
We now come to the aggression against the Soviet Union, and the
first. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Has that been read, 1195?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it has not. I am much obliged, Your
Lordship. I will now read the relevant sentence with regard to this.
On Page 2, Section 2, Your Lordship will see the words “the drawing up
of boundaries.” And in Paragraph 1 it says:
“Insofar as the drawing up of boundaries has not been laid down
in the above Part I, it will be carried out by the Supreme
Command of the Armed Forces in agreement with the Foreign
Office,”—that is this defendant—“the Delegate for the Four
Year Plan,”—the Defendant Göring—“and the Reich Minister of
the Interior.”
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the Reich Minister of the Interior?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the Defendant Frick.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am grateful to Your Lordship. I had
forgotten that had not been read before.
Now then, as I say, we come to the aggression against the Soviet Union;
and the first document which has not been put in so far, which I now put
in as Exhibit GB-145, is TC-25, the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact.
On 23 August 1939 this defendant had signed the German-Soviet
Non-aggression Pact. Now the first point at which this defendant seems
to have considered special problems of aggression against the Soviet
Union was just after the 20th of April 1941, when the Defendant
Rosenberg and this defendant met or communicated to consider the
problems which were expected to arise in Occupied Eastern Territory.
This defendant appointed his Counselor, Grosskopf, to be his liaison man
with Rosenberg and also assigned a consul general called Bräutigam, who
had many years experience in the U.S.S.R., as collaborator with
Rosenberg. That is shown in Document 1039-PS, which is already Exhibit
USA-146. I did not propose to read it again, as it had been read. But
the passage to which I have referred is the first paragraph on the top
of Page 2, beginning, “After notification to the Reich Foreign
Minister.” It is that paragraph which I have just mentioned.
That was in April 1941. The following month, on 18 May 1941, the German
Foreign Office prepared a declaration setting forth operational zones in
the Arctic Ocean, the Baltic and the Black Seas, to be used by the
German Navy and the Air Force in the coming invasion of the Soviet
Union. That is the next document, C-77, which I now put in as Exhibit
GB-146, and it is very short. Therefore I think I should quote it; it
has not been read before:
“The Foreign Office has prepared for the use in ‘Barbarossa’ the
attached draft of a declaration of operational zones. The
Foreign Office, however, has reserved the decision as to the
date when the declaration will be issued as well as the
discussion of particulars.”
These last two documents show quite clearly that this defendant was
again implicated in the preparation for this act of aggression. Then, on
the 22d of June 1941, this defendant announced to the world that the
German armies were invading the U.S.S.R., as was seen by the Tribunal in
the film shown on the 11th of December. And how untrue were the reasons
given is shown by the report of his own Ambassador in Moscow who said
that everything was being done to avoid a conflict. The Tribunal will
find the reference to that in the speech of my learned friend, the
Attorney General, the transcript at Page 888 (Volume III, Page 143).
We now come to the aggression which involved Japan and was directed
against the United States of America. And there the initial document is
2508-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-147. That shows that on the
25th of November 1936, as a result of negotiations of this defendant as
Ambassador-at-large, Germany and Japan had signed the Anticomintern
Pact. I do not think that has been read, but if I might just read the
introduction, the recital that gives the purposes of the agreement:
“The Government of the German Reich and the Imperial Japanese
Government, recognizing that the aim of the Communist
International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and
subdue existing states by all the means at its command,
convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist
International in the internal affairs of the nations not only
endangers their internal peace and social well-being but is also
a menace to the peace of the world, desirous of co-operating in
the defense against Communist subversive activities, have agreed
as follows. . . .”
And then there follow the effective terms of the agreement under which
they will act together for 5 years. It is signed by this defendant.
On the 27th of September 1940 this defendant, as Foreign Minister,
signed the Tripartite Pact with Japan and Italy, thereby bringing about
a full-scale military and economic alliance for the creation of a “New
Order” in Europe and East Asia. That is 2643-PS, Exhibit USA-149, and
has been read.
Then, on the 13th of February of 1941—that is a month or two
later—this defendant was urging the Japanese to attack British
possessions in the Far East. And that is shown in Document 1834-PS,
which is Exhibit USA-129 and which has already been read by my friend,
Mr. Alderman. That was February.
Then, in April of 1941, at a meeting between Hitler and Matsuoka,
representing Japan, at which this defendant was present, Hitler promised
that Germany would declare war on the United States in the event of war
occurring between Japan and the United States as a result of Japanese
aggression in the Pacific. That is shown in Document 1881-PS, Exhibit
USA-33, which has already been read and which I did not intend to read
again.
Then the next document which reinforces that point is 1882-PS, which is
Exhibit USA-153. If I might trouble the Tribunal with just two short
paragraphs of that; it is interesting, showing the psychological
development of this defendant and his views at that time. They are the
first two paragraphs that are quoted, under the heading “Pages 2 and 3,”
where it begins “Matsuoka”; it is on the first page of the document:
“Matsuoka then spoke of the general high morale in Germany,
referring to the happy faces he had seen everywhere among the
workers during his recent visit to the Borsig works. He
expressed his regret that developments in Japan were not yet as
far advanced as in Germany and that in his country the
intellectuals still exercised considerable influence.
“The Reich Foreign Minister replied that at best a nation which
had realized its every ambition could afford the luxury of
intellectuals, some of whom are parasites, anyway.”
THE PRESIDENT: It is “most,” according to my document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, “most”; I beg Your Lordship’s pardon, it is
completely my fault, it should be “most,” “most of whom are parasites,
anyway.”
“A nation, however, which has to fight for a place in the sun
must give them up. The intellectuals ruined France; in Germany
they had already started their pernicious activities when
National Socialism put a stop to these doings; they will surely
be the cause of the downfall of Britain, which is to be expected
with certainty.”
Then it continues on the usual lines. That last document was on the 5th
of April.
Then, the next stage: Within a month after the German Armies invaded the
Soviet Union, the 22d of June 1941, Ribbentrop was urging his Ambassador
in Tokyo to do his utmost to cause the Japanese Government to attack the
Soviet in Siberia; and that is proved by two documents which have
already been put in—2896-PS, which is Exhibit USA-155, a telegram to
the German Ambassador, in Tokyo, one Ott; and 2897-PS, USA-156, which is
the reply from Ambassador Ott. Both of these were read by my friend, Mr.
Alderman, and I won’t trouble the Tribunal again.
But the next document, which is D-656, is a new document which I put in
as GB-148. That was captured from the Japanese, and it is a
message—intercepted—which was sent by the Japanese Ambassador in
Berlin just before the attack on the United States. If I might just read
one short extract from this defendant’s speech; on the 29th of November
1941, that is roughly a week before Pearl Harbor, this defendant was
saying—it is in Paragraph 1, and I will read it all because it is new:
“Ribbentrop opened our meeting by again inquiring whether I had
received any reports regarding the Japanese-United States
negotiations. I replied that I had received no official word.
“Ribbentrop: ‘It is essential that Japan effect the New Order in
East Asia without losing this opportunity. There never has been
and probably never will be a time when closer co-operation under
the Tripartite Pact is so important. If Japan hesitates at this
time and Germany goes ahead and establishes her European New
Order, all the military might of Britain and the United States
will be concentrated against Japan.
“‘As Führer Hitler said today, there are fundamental differences
in the very right to exist between Germany and Japan, and the
United States. We have received advice to the effect that there
is practically no hope of the Japanese-United States
negotiations being concluded successfully because of the fact
that the United States is putting up a stiff front.
“‘If this is indeed the fact of the case and if Japan reaches a
decision to fight Britain and the United States, I am confident
that will not only be to the interest of Germany and Japan
jointly but would bring about favorable results for Japan
herself.’”
Then the Ambassador replied:
“‘I can make no definite statement as I am not aware of any
concrete intentions of Japan. Is Your Excellency indicating that
a state of actual war is to be established between Germany and
the United States?’”
The Defendant Ribbentrop:
“‘Roosevelt’s a fanatic, so it is impossible to tell what he
would do.’”
Then:
“Concerning this point, in view of the fact that Ribbentrop has
said in the past that the United States would undoubtedly try to
avoid meeting German troops, and from the tone of Hitler’s
recent speech as well as that of Ribbentrop’s, I feel that the
German attitude toward the United States is being considerably
stiffened. There are indications at present that Germany would
not refuse to fight the United States if necessary.”
Then the next part, Section 2, is an extremely optimistic prognosis of
the war against the Soviet Union. I do not think, in view of the date in
which we are reading it, that I need trouble the Tribunal with that.
There are then a few remarks about the intended landing operations
against England, which is also _vieux jeu_ at this time.
If the Tribunal would go to Part 3, there again we get the international
attitude of mind of this defendant—at the foot of Page 2, Part 3; and I
am quoting:
“‘In any event Germany has absolutely no intention of entering
into any peace with England. We are determined to remove all
British influence from Europe. Therefore, at the end of this
war, England will have no influence whatsoever in international
affairs. The island empire of Britain may remain, but all of her
other possessions throughout the world will probably be divided
three ways by Germany, the United States and Japan. In Africa,
Germany will be satisfied with, roughly, those parts which were
formerly German colonies. Italy will be given the greater share
of the African colonies. Germany desires, above all else, to
control European Russia.’”
And after hearing this defendant, the Ambassador said; and I quote:
“‘I am fully aware of the fact that Germany’s war campaign is
progressing according to schedule smoothly. However, suppose
that Germany is faced with the situation of having not only
Great Britain as an actual enemy but also all of those areas in
which Britain has influence, and those countries which have been
aiding Britain as actual enemies, as well. Under such
circumstances, the war area will undergo considerable expansion,
of course. What is your opinion of the outcome of the war under
such an eventuality?’”
The Defendant Ribbentrop:
“‘We would like to end this war during next year.’”—that is,
1942—“‘However, under certain circumstances it is possible that
it will have to be continued into the following year.
“‘Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United
States. . .’”
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, I am sorry. I will go
back to the paragraph I have just finished.
The Defendant Ribbentrop—and I am still quoting:
“‘We would like to end this war during next year. However, under
certain circumstances it is possible that it will have to be
continued into the following year.
“‘Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United
States, Germany, of course, would join the war immediately.
There is absolutely no possibility of Germany’s entering into a
separate peace with the United States under such circumstances.
The Führer is determined on that point.’”
That document associates this defendant with the aggression by Japan
against the United States in the closest possible way.
Another new document, which is also an intercepted Japanese diplomatic
message, is the next one, D-657, which I put in as Exhibit GB-149; and
if I might read the first two sentences that show what it is—and I
quote—the Japanese Ambassador says:
“At 1:00 p. m. today”—the 8th of December—“I called on Foreign
Minister Ribbentrop and told him our wish was to have Germany
and Italy issue formal declarations of war on America at once.
Ribbentrop replied that Hitler was then in the midst of a
conference at general headquarters, discussing how the
formalities of declaring war could be carried out so as to make
a good impression on the German people, and that he would
transmit your wish to him at once and do whatever he could to
have it carried out promptly. At that time Ribbentrop told me
that on the morning of the 8th”—that is before the declaration
of war—“Hitler issued orders to the entire German Navy to
attack American ships whenever and wherever they might meet
them.
“It goes without saying that this is only for your secret
information.”
Then, as a matter of fact, as the Tribunal are aware, on the 11th of
December 1941 this Defendant Ribbentrop, in the name of the German
Government, announced a state of war between Germany and the United
States.
The next stage concerns his attempt to get Japan to attack the Soviet
Union.
In Ribbentrop’s conversations with Oshima, the Japanese Ambassador, in
July 1942 and in March and April 1943, he continued to urge Japanese
participation and aggression against the Soviet Union. This is shown in
Document 2911-PS, which has been put in as Exhibit USA-157 and already
read, and Document 2954-PS, which I now put in as GB-150. That is a new
document; and if I might just indicate the effect of it by a very short
quotation—it is a discussion between the Defendant Ribbentrop and
Ambassador Oshima. It begins:
“Ambassador Oshima declared that he has received a telegram from
Tokyo; and he is to report, by order of his Government, to the
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs the following:
“The suggestion of the German Government to attack Russia was
the object of a common conference between the Japanese
Government and the Imperial headquarters, during which the
question was discussed in detail and investigated exactly. The
outcome is the following: The Japanese Government thoroughly
recognize the danger which threatens from Russia and completely
understand the desire of their German ally that Japan on her
part also enter the war against Russia. However, it is not
possible for the Japanese Government, considering the present
war situation, to enter the war. They are rather of the
conviction that it would be in the common interest not to start
the war against Russia now. On the other hand, the Japanese
Government will never lose sight of the Russian question.”
And then, in the middle of the next paragraph, this defendant returns to
the attack. The third sentence—it begins on the fourth line—says:
“However, it would be more correct that all powers allied in the
Three Power Pact, would combine their forces to strike together
at not only England and America, but also Russia. It is not good
if one part must fight alone.”
Then the pressure on Japan to attack Russia is shown again in the next
document, 2929-PS, which was put in as Exhibit USA-159. And, if I might
just close this part of the case, if I might read that—it is very
short:
“The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs then stressed again that
without any doubt this year presented the most favorable
opportunity for Japan, if she felt strong enough and had
sufficient antitank weapons at her disposal to attack Russia,
which certainly would never again be as weak as at the
moment”—the moment being 18 April 1943.
If the Tribunal please, that concludes my evidence on the second
allegation dealing with aggressive war; and I submit that that
allegation in the Indictment is more than amply proved.
The third allegation is that the Defendant Ribbentrop authorized,
directed, and participated in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
Of course, I am considering this from the point of view of planning
these crimes only. The execution of the crimes will be dealt with by my
friends and Soviet colleagues, but it is relevant to show how this
defendant participated in the planning of such crimes. I deal, first,
with the killing of Allied aviators; secondly, with the destruction of
peoples in Europe; and thirdly, with the persecution of the Jews.
First, the killing of Allied aviators:
With the increasing air raids on German cities in 1944 by Allied Air
Forces, the German Government proposed to undertake a plan to deter
Anglo-American fliers from further raids on the Reich cities. In a
report of a meeting at which a definite policy was to be established,
there is stated what was the point of view that this Defendant
Ribbentrop had been urging. That is in Document 735-PS, which I now put
in as Exhibit GB-151. That is a discussion of a meeting at the Führer’s
headquarters on the 6th of June 1944. If I might read the first
paragraph:
“Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner informed the Deputy Chief of
Operations Staff”—WFSt—“in Klessheim on the afternoon of the
6th of June that a conference on this question had been held
shortly before by the Reich Marshal”—the Defendant Göring—“the
Reich Foreign Minister”—the Defendant Von Ribbentrop—“and the
Reichsführer SS.”—Himmler—“Contrary to the original suggestion
made by the Reich Foreign Minister, who wished to include every
type of terror attack on the German civilian population,
including bombing attacks on cities, it was agreed in the above
conference that merely those attacks carried out with aircraft
armament aimed directly at the civilian population and their
property should be taken as the standard for the evidence of a
criminal action in this sense. Lynch law would have to be the
rule, there was no mention of trial by court-martial or handing
over to the police.”
That is, this defendant was pressing that even where there was an attack
on a German city, the airmen should be handed over to be lynched by the
crowd. The others were saying that that should be restricted to cases
where there were attacks by machine guns, and the like, on the civilian
population.
I do not think we need trouble with Paragraph (a) of the statement of
the Deputy Chief of WFSt. The importance of (a) goes because
Kaltenbrunner says that there were no such cases as were mentioned.
If you look at (b):
“The Deputy Chief of the WFSt pointed out that, besides the
lynch law, a procedure must be worked out for segregating such
enemy aviators who are suspected of criminal action of this kind
by sending them to the reception camp for aviators at Oberursel
and, if the suspicion was confirmed, handing them over to the SD
for special treatment.”
As I understand that, it is that if they were not lynched under the
first scheme, by the crowd, then they were to be kept from prisoners of
war, where they would, of course, be subject to the protecting power’s
intervention. And if the suspicion was confirmed, they would be handed
over to the SD to be killed.
Then in Paragraph 3 we have what was decided to justify the lynch law.
Paragraph 3 says:
“At a conference with Colonel Von Brauchitsch (Colonel of the
Air Force) on the 6th of June, it was settled that the following
actions are to be regarded as terror actions justifying lynch
law:
“Low-level attacks with aircraft armament on the civilian
population, single persons as well as crowds.
“Shooting in the air our own (German) men who had bailed out.
“Attacks with aircraft armament on passenger trains in the
public service.
“Attacks with aircraft armament on military hospitals,
hospitals, and hospital trains, which are clearly marked with
the red cross.”
These were to be the subject of lynching and not, as this defendant had
suggested, a case where there was the bombing of a city.
Then on the next page, the last page of this document, we have a
somewhat curious comment from the Defendant Keitel:
“Remarks by the Chief of the OKW on the agenda dated 6 June
1944.”
The number is that of the document at which the Tribunal has just been
looking.
“Most secret; Staff officers only.
“If one allows the people to carry out lynch law, it is
difficult to enforce rules.
“Ministerial Director Berndt got out and shot the enemy aviator
on the road. I am against legal procedure. It doesn’t work
out.”—Signed—“Keitel.”
Then the Defendant Jodl’s comment appears:
“This conference is insufficient. The following points must be
decided quite definitely in conjunction with the Foreign Office:
“1. What do we consider as murder? Is the Foreign Office in
agreement with point 3b?
“2. How should the procedure be carried out? a. By the people?
b. By the authorities?
“3. How can we guarantee that the procedure will not be also
carried out against other enemy aviators?
“4. Should some legal procedure be arranged or
not?”—Signed—“Jodl.”
It is important, I respectfully submit, to note that this defendant and
the Foreign Office were fully in on these breaches of the laws and
usages of war, and indeed the clarity with which the Foreign Office
perceives that there were breaches of the laws and usages of war, is
shown by the next document, which is 728-PS, which I now put in as
GB-152. That is a document from the Foreign Office, approved of by the
Defendant Ribbentrop and transmitted by one of his officials called
Ritter; and the fact that it is approved by this defendant is
specifically stated in the next Document 740-PS, which I put in as
GB-153. I do not think this Document 728-PS has been read before, and
therefore, again, I would like to read just one or two passages in it.
It begins:
“In spite of the obvious objections, based on international law
and foreign policy, the Foreign Office is basically in agreement
with the proposed measures.
“In the examination of the individual cases a distinction must
be made between the cases of lynching and the cases of special
treatment by the SD.
“I. In the cases of lynching, the precise establishment of the
facts involving punishment, according to points 1 through 4 of
the communication of 15 June, is not very essential. First, the
German authorities are not directly responsible, since the death
will have occurred before a German official becomes concerned
with the case. Furthermore, the accompanying circumstances will
be such, that it will not be difficult to represent the case in
an appropriate manner upon publication. Hence, in cases of
lynching it will be of primary importance correctly to handle
the individual case upon publication.
“II. The suggested procedure for special treatment by the SD,
including subsequent publication, would be feasible only if
Germany would at the same time openly repudiate the commitments
of international law, at present in force and still recognized
by Germany. When an enemy aviator is seized by the Army or by
the Police and is delivered to the reception camp for aviators
at Oberursel, he has acquired by this very fact the legal status
of a prisoner of war.
“The Prisoner-of-War Agreement of 27 July 1929 established
definite rules for the prosecution and sentencing of prisoners
of war and the execution of the death penalty, as for example in
Article 66: Death sentences may be carried out only 3 months
after the Protecting Power has been notified of the sentence. In
Article 63: A prisoner of war will be tried only by the same
courts and under the same procedure as members of the German
Armed Forces. These rules are so specific that it would be
futile to try to cover up any violation of them by clever
wording of the publication of an individual incident. On the
other hand, the Foreign Office cannot recommend on this occasion
a formal repudiation of the Prisoner-of-War Agreement.
“An emergency solution would be to prevent suspected enemy
fliers from ever attaining a legal prisoner-of-war status, that
is, that immediately upon capture they be told that they are not
considered prisoners of war but criminals, that they would not
be turned over to the agencies having jurisdiction over
prisoners of war, hence not go to a prisoner-of-war camp, but
that they be delivered to the authorities in charge of the
prosecution of criminal acts, and that they be tried in summary
proceedings. If the evidence at the trial should reveal that the
special procedure is not applicable to a particular case, the
fliers concerned may subsequently be given the status of
prisoner of war by transfer to the reception camp for aviators
at Oberursel.
“Naturally, not even this expedient will prevent the possibility
of Germany’s being accused of violation of existing treaties or
even the adoption of reprisals upon German prisoners of war. At
any rate this solution would enable us to follow a clearly
defined course, thus relieving us of the necessity of openly
having to renounce the present agreements or of the need of
having to use excuses which no one would believe, upon the
publication of each individual case.”
I do not want to take this in detail, but I ask the Tribunal to look at
the first sentence of Section III:
“It follows from the above that the main weight of the action
will have to be placed on lynchings. Should the campaign be
carried out to such an extent that the purpose, to wit: the
deterrence of enemy aviators, is actually achieved, which goal
is favored by the Foreign Office, then the strafing attacks by
enemy fliers directing the fire of their weapons upon the
civilian population must be stressed in a completely different
propagandist manner than heretofore.”
I don’t think I need trouble the Tribunal, but that shows quite clearly
the defendant’s point of view. If the Tribunal would look at the next
document, it is stated at the beginning of the second paragraph:
“Ambassador Ritter has advised us by telephone on 29 June that
the Minister for Foreign Affairs has approved this draft. . . .”
That is the position as to the treatment of aviators, where there is, in
my suggestion, a completely cold-blooded and deliberate adoption of a
procedure evading international law.
The second section is the destruction of the peoples in Europe. With
regard to Poland, again I want scrupulously to avoid going into details;
but I remind the Tribunal of the evidence of the Witness Lahousen, which
appears in the transcript, Pages 618 and 619 (Volume II, Pages 448-449)
on the 30th of November of last year, and on Pages 713 to 716 (Volume
III, Pages 20-25), when he was cross-examined on the 1st of December.
Secondly, Bohemia and Moravia: On the 16th of March 1939 there was
promulgated the decree of the Führer and Reich Chancellor, signed by
Ribbentrop, concerning the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. That is
already in as Exhibit GB-8, Document TC-51. The effect of that was to
place the Reich Protector in a remarkable position of supremacy under
the Führer. The only part which I would like the Tribunal to have in
mind is Article 5 and Subarticle 2:
“2. The Reich Protector, as representative of the Führer and
Chancellor of the Reich and as Commissioner of the Reich
Government, is charged with the duty of seeing to the observance
of the political principles laid down by the Führer and
Chancellor of the Reich.
“3. The members of the Government of the Protectorate shall be
confirmed by the Reich Protector. The confirmation may be
withdrawn.
“4. The Reich Protector is entitled to inform himself of all
measures taken by the Government of the Protectorate and to give
advice. He can object to measures calculated to harm the Reich
and, in cases of danger, issue ordinances required for the
common interest.
“5. The promulgation of laws, decrees, and other legal
provisions and the execution of administrative measures and
legal judgments shall be suspended if the Reich Protector enters
an objection.”
As a result of this law, the two Reich Protectors of Bohemia and Moravia
and their various deputies were appointed; and then there were committed
the various crimes which will be detailed by my Soviet colleague.
Similarly, with regard to the Netherlands on the 18th of May 1940, a
decree of the Führer was signed by Ribbentrop concerning the exercise of
governmental authority in the Netherlands, and that—Document 639-PS,
which I put in as Exhibit GB-154, Section 1—says:
“The Occupied Netherlands Territories shall be administered by
the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories
. . . the Reich Commissioner is guardian of the interests of the
Reich and vested with supreme civil authority.
“Dr. Arthur Seyss-Inquart is hereby appointed Reich Commissioner
for the Occupied Netherlands Territories.”
On the basis of this decree, the Reich Commissioner—the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart—promulgated such orders as that of the 4th of July 1940,
dealing with the confiscation of property of those who had, or might
have, furthered activities hostile to the German Reich; and tentative
arrangements were made for the resettlement of the Dutch population. But
all this will also be dealt with fully by my French colleagues.
I simply for the moment put in as a matter of reference the general
order of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, which is GB-155, the document
being 2921-PS. I do not intend to read it. I have summarized the effect
of it and it will be dealt with more fully by my French colleagues.
I want the Tribunal to appreciate, with regard to these two matters,
Bohemia and the Netherlands, that the charge against this defendant is
laying the basis and procuring the governmental structure under which
the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity were directed.
I should also put in formally Exhibit GB-156, the discussion on the
question of the Dutch population, which is contained in Document
1520-PS. Again I have explained it generally and I do not want to occupy
time by reading it in full now.
Then coming to the Jews: In December 1938 the Defendant Ribbentrop, in a
conversation with M. Bonnet, who was then Foreign Minister of France,
expressed his opinion of the Jews. That was reported by the United
States Ambassador, Mr. Kennedy, to the State Department. The report of
Mr. Kennedy is Document L-205, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-157. If
I might read to the Tribunal the second paragraph, which concerns this
point:
“During the day we had a telephone call from Berenger’s office
in Paris. We were told that the matter of refugees had been
raised by Bonnet in his conversation with Von Ribbentrop. The
result was very bad. Ribbentrop, when pressed, had said to
Bonnet that the Jews in Germany, without exception, were
pickpockets, murderers, and thieves. The property they possessed
had been acquired illegally. The German Government had therefore
decided to assimilate them with the criminal elements of the
population. The property which they had acquired illegally would
be taken from them. They would be forced to live in districts
frequented by the criminal classes. They would be under police
observation like other criminals. They would be forced to report
to the police as other criminals were obliged to do. The German
Government could not help it if some of these criminals escaped
to other countries which seemed so anxious to have them. It was
not, however, willing for them to take the property which had
resulted from illegal operations with them. There was in fact
nothing that it could or would do.”
That succinct statement of this defendant’s views on Jews is elaborated
in a long document which he had sent out by the Foreign Office, which is
numbered 3358-PS, which I put in as Exhibit GB-158. I do not want to
read the whole of that document because it is excessively dreary; it is
also an excessively clear indication of the defendant’s views on the
treatment of Jews. But if the Tribunal would look at, first of all, Page
3—it is headed, “The Jewish Question as a Factor in German Foreign
Policy in the Year 1938”; after the four divisions the document goes on
to say:
“It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 has
brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question
simultaneously with the realization of the ‘idea of Greater
Germany,’ since the Jewish policy was both the basis and
consequence of the events of the year 1938.”
That is elaborated. If the Tribunal will turn over to Page 4 at the
beginning of the second paragraph, they will see the first sentence:
“The final goal of German Jewish policy is the emigration of all
the Jews living in Reich territory.”
Then that is developed at great length through a large number of pages.
The conclusion which is—if the Tribunal would turn to the foot of Page
7 and examine it—it goes on this way:
“These examples from reports from authorities abroad can, if
desired, be amplified. They confirm the correctness of the
expectation that criticism of the measures for excluding Jews
from German Lebensraum, which were misunderstood in many
countries for lack of evidence, would be only temporary and
would swing in the other direction the moment the population saw
with its own eyes and thus learned what the Jewish danger was to
them. The poorer and therefore the more burdensome the immigrant
Jew is to the country absorbing him, the stronger this country
will react and the more desirable is this effect in the interest
of German propaganda. The object of this German action is to be
a future international solution of the Jewish question, dictated
not by false compassion for the ‘United Religious Jewish
Minority’ but by the full consciousness of all peoples of the
danger which it represents to the racial composition of the
nations.”
The Tribunal will appreciate that this document was circulated by the
defendant’s ministry, widely circulated to all senior Reich authorities
and to numerous people before the war, on the 25th of January 1939, just
after the statement to M. Bonnet. Apparently the anti-Semitism of the
defendant went from—I was going to say from strength to strength, if
that is the correct term, or at any rate from exaggeration to
exaggeration, for in June 1944 the Defendant Rosenberg made arrangements
for an international anti-Jewish congress to be held in Kraków on the
11th of July 1944. The honorary members were to be Von Ribbentrop,
Himmler, Goebbels, and Frank—I think the Defendant Frank. The Foreign
Office was to take over the mission of inviting prominent foreigners
from Italy, France, Hungary, Holland, Arabia, Iraq, Norway, et cetera,
in order to give an international aspect to the congress. However, the
military events of June 1944 prompted Hitler to call off the congress
which had lost its significance by virtue of the landings in Normandy.
That is contained in Document 1752-PS, GB-159. At the foot of Page 1 the
Tribunal will see the following had been entered as honorary members:
Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. So that there is no doubt
that this defendant was behind the program against the Jews which
resulted in the placing of them in concentration camps with anyone else
who opposed the Nazi way of life; and it is submitted that he must, as a
minister in special touch with the head of the government, have known
what was going on in the country and in the camps. One who preached this
doctrine and was in a position of authority cannot, I submit to anyone
who has had any ministerial experience, suggest that he was ignorant of
how the policy was carried out.
That is the evidence on the third allegation and it is submitted that by
the evidence which I have recapitulated to the Tribunal the three
allegations are proved.
With regard to the second, Hitler’s own words were:
“In the historic year of 1938 the Foreign Minister, Von
Ribbentrop, was of great help to me by virtue of his accurate
and audacious judgment and admirably clever treatment of all
problems of foreign policy.”
During the course of the war this defendant was in close liaison with
the other Nazi conspirators. He advised them and made available to them,
in his embassies and legations abroad, information which was required
and at times participated, as I have shown, in the planning of War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
It is submitted that all the allegations which I read from Appendix A of
the Indictment are completely proved against this defendant. I want, if
the Tribunal will allow me, to add only one fact on behalf of the
British Delegation. In the preparation of these briefs we have received
great assistance from certain of our American colleagues; and I should
like to thank once, but nonetheless heartily, on behalf of us all, Dr.
Kempner’s staff: Captains Auchincloss, Claggett, and Stoll, Lieutenants
Felton and Heller, and Mr. Lachmann for the great help they have been to
us.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Frank): May it please the
Tribunal, I have a motion to make.
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of whom?
DR. SEIDL: I want to make a motion which concerns the indictment of
Frank.
The Charter of the Tribunal contains, in Part IV, regulations for a fair
trial, and Article 16 prescribes that for the purpose of safeguarding
the right of the defendants the following procedure shall be followed.
“The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the
charges against the defendant. A copy of the Indictment, and of all the
documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which
he understands, shall be furnished to the defendant at a reasonable time
before the Trial.”
At the beginning of the Trial the Defendant Frank was handed a copy of
the Indictment. This is the Indictment which was read on the first day.
This is, if I may say so, a general indictment. All actions are listed
therein which, according to the opinion of the Signatories of the London
Agreement, are regarded as Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes
against Humanity. The Indictment does not contain in detail the criminal
actions of each defendant. I am now thinking about positive actions or
concrete actions or omissions.
This morning I received a document. It has the title, “The Individual
Responsibility of the Defendant Hans Frank for Crimes against Peace, War
Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity”—or in German “Die persönliche
Verantwortlichkeit des Angeklagten Frank für Verbrechen gegen den
Frieden, für Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit.” This
document is without any table of contents. It consists of 30 typewritten
pages. In addition to this document, or indictment, as I should like to
call it, another document book has been given to me, namely, “Document
Book Hans Frank.” The first document, as well as the second document is
not in German but in English. This first document is in reality what I
should call the indictment against Frank, because here in this document
of 30 pages for the first time those individual activities of Frank are
listed which are to be regarded as criminal actions. At least one ought
to say that this document is an essential part of the Indictment. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Forgive me for interrupting you. The Tribunal has already
expressed its desire that a motion such as this should be made in
writing. The Tribunal considers that a motion of the sort which you are
now making orally is a waste of the Tribunal’s time and it therefore
desires you to put your motion in writing. It will then be considered.
DR. SEIDL: I regret myself that I must make this motion now, but I was
not able to make this motion in writing before receiving this document
only two and a half hours ago. My motion is that the Prosecution should
submit these two documents to the Defendant Frank in the German
language.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not got the documents to which you are
referring. It is quite impossible for us to understand the motion you
are making unless you make it in writing and attach the documents or in
some other way describe or explain to us what the documents are. We have
not got the documents that you are referring to.
DR. SEIDL: Then I shall make my motion in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, can you explain to me what the counsel who
has just spoken is complaining about?
MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): I gather he
was complaining that the trial brief and the document book which had
been served on his client, Frank, were in English and not in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is dealing with the case against Frank?
MR. ROBERTS: It is being dealt with by the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better ask Colonel Storey then.
COLONEL ROBERT G. STOREY (Executive Trial Counsel for the United
States): If the Tribunal please, I think what counsel is referring to is
the practice we have made of delivering in advance a copy of the
document book and a copy of the trial brief. In this particular instance
I happen to know that what counsel refers to is the trial address, which
is to be read over the microphone, and as a courtesy to counsel they
have been delivered in advance of the presentation, just like all the
other document books and briefs against the other individual defendants.
That’s what it is, as I understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents which will be presented against the
Defendant Frank will be all translated?
COL. STOREY: I am sure they are; yes, Sir. I don’t know about the
individual case, but the instructions are that the documents will have
two photostats, each one in German, plus the English translation, for
counsel, and that is what has been delivered, plus the trial address, if
Your Honor pleases. We handed that to him in advance—what the attorney
will read over the microphone.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, I thought the Tribunal ordered, after
consulting the prosecutors as to the feasibility of the scheme, that
sufficient translators should be supplied to the defendants’ counsel so
that such documents as trial briefs, if in the English language, might
be translated to defendants’ counsel. You will remember it was suggested
that at least four translators, I think, should be supplied to the
defendants’ counsel.
COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal will recall, I think this is what was
finally determined; that document books and briefs could be submitted in
English and the photostatic copies submitted to defendants’ counsel and
that if they wanted additional copies of the German, then they should
request them and they would be furnished. I think that is what the final
order was.
THE PRESIDENT: There was, at any rate, a suggestion that translators
should be ordered to translate such documents as trial briefs.
COL. STOREY: That is correct; yes, Sir, and whenever counsel wanted more
copies, then they would request them and they would be available for
them. The translators or translations or photostats would be available
if they requested them.
Were there any other questions, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that translators have not been supplied to
defendants’ counsel?
COL. STOREY: If Your Honor pleases, as I understand, the defendants’
Information Center is now under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and my
information is—I would like to check it—that when they want extra
copies all they have to do is ask for them and they may obtain them and
sufficient translators are available to provide the extra copies if they
want them. That is my information. I have not checked it in the last few
days, but sufficient copies in English are furnished for all the
counsel; and these briefs and document books are furnished to them in
advance. In this case I am told that the document book and the briefs
were furnished.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Funk and Von Schirach): Your
Honor, you may be assured that we Defense Counsel do not like to take up
the time of the Tribunal for such discussions which we ourselves would
rather avoid. But the question just raised by a colleague of mine is
really very unpleasant for us Defense Counsel and makes our work
extremely difficult for us.
You see, it does not help us if agreements are made or regulations are
issued and in actual practice it is entirely different.
Last night, for example, we received a big volume of documents all of
which were in English. Now, in the evening in the prison we are supposed
to spend hours discussing with our clients the results of the
proceedings, a task which has now been rendered still more difficult by
the installation of wire screens in the consultation room. In addition
we are also required to talk over whole volumes of documents written in
English, and that is practically impossible. Time and again these
documents are not received until the evening before the day of the
proceedings; and it is not possible, even for one who knows English
well, to make the necessary preparation.
The same thing is true of the individual trial briefs; and I do not know
whether the actual trial briefs, such as we receive for each defendant,
have also been submitted to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Nearly every document which has been referred to in this
branch of the case, which has been presented by Mr. Albrecht and by Sir
David Maxwell-Fyfe, are documents which have been referred to previously
in the Trial and which must have been before the defendants’ counsel for
many days—for weeks—and therefore there can be no lack of familiarity
with those documents. The documents which have been referred to, which
are fresh documents, are very few indeed and the passages in them which
are now being put in evidence are all read over the microphone and,
therefore, are heard by defendants’ counsel in German and can be studied
by German counsel tomorrow morning in the transcript of the shorthand
notes; and I do not see, therefore, what hardship is being imposed upon
German counsel by the method which is being adopted.
You see, the Counsel for the Prosecution, out of courtesy to Counsel for
the Defense, have been giving them their trial briefs in English
beforehand. But there is no strict obligation to do that; and insofar as
the actual evidence is concerned, all of which is contained in
documents, as I have already pointed out to you, the vast majority of
those documents have already been put in many days ago and have been in
the hands of German counsel ever since, in the German language—and also
the documents which are now put in.
DR. SAUTER: No, this is not true, Your Honor. This is the complaint
which we of the Defense Counsel, because we dislike to approach the
Tribunal with such complaints, have been discussing among ourselves—the
complaint that we do not receive German documents. You may be assured,
Mr. President, that if things were as you believe, none of us would
complain but we would all be very grateful; but in reality it is
different.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, surely when you have a reference to a
German document, that German document is available to you in the
Information Center; and as these documents have been put in evidence,
some of them as long ago as the 20th of November or shortly thereafter,
surely there must have been adequate time for defendants’ counsel to
study them.
DR. SAUTER: Suppose, for instance, I receive this morning a volume on
Funk. I know, for instance, when Funk’s case comes on—perhaps tomorrow.
It is quite impossible for me to study this volume of English documents
upon my return from the prison at 10 o’clock in the evening. That simply
overtaxes the physical strength of a Defense Counsel. I could go through
it if it were in German, but even so, it is impossible for me after
finishing my visit to the prison at 9 or 10 o’clock in the evening to go
through such a volume. We absolutely cannot do it.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Sauter, it is not as though you had to
cross-examine witnesses immediately after the evidence is given. The
documents are put in and it is not for you then to get up and argue upon
the interpretation of those documents. You have, I regret to say, a
considerable time before you will have to get up and call your own
evidence and ultimately to argue upon the documents which are now being
put in. Therefore, it is not a question of hours, it is a question of
days and weeks before you will have to deal with these documents which
are now being put in. And I really do not see that there is any hardship
upon defendants’ counsel in the system which is being adopted.
And you will not forget that the rule, which, in a sense, penalizes the
Prosecution, is that every document which is put in evidence and every
part of the document which is put in evidence, has to be read in open
court, in order that it should be translated over the earphones and then
shall get into the shorthand notes. I am told that the shorthand notes
are not available in German the next morning but are available only some
days afterwards. But they are ultimately available in German. And
therefore every defendant’s counsel must have a complete copy of the
shorthand notes, at any rate up to the recess; and that contains all the
evidence given against the defendants, and it contains it in German.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President, what we are most anxious to have done
and what we have been asking for many weeks is that the documents, or at
least those parts of the document which come into question, should be
given to us in German translation. It is very difficult for us, even if
we know English, to translate the documents in the time which is at our
disposal. It is practically impossible for any of us to do this. It is
for this reason that we regret that our wish to get the documents in
German is not being taken into consideration. We are conscious of the
difficulties and we are very grateful for any assistance given. We
assure you we are very sorry to have to make such requests, but the
conditions are really very difficult for us. The last word I wish to say
is that the conditions are really very difficult for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I am most anxious and the other members of
the Tribunal are most anxious that every reasonable facility should be
afforded to the defendants and their counsel. But, as I have pointed out
to you, it is not necessary for you, for any of you, at the present
moment, to get up and argue upon these documents which are now being put
in. By the time that you have to get up and argue upon the documents
which are now being put in, you will have had ample time in which to
consider them in German.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Sir.
HERR GEORG BOEHM (Counsel for the SA): I have repeatedly asked to
receive copies of everything presented in English. The accusation
against the SA was presented on the 19th or 18th of December, and at the
same time a document book was presented. Today I received a few
photostats, but I have not received the greater part of the photostats
or other pertinent translations. This shows that we do not receive the
German translations immediately after the presentation. Nor are we ever
able to read the transcript of the proceedings on the next day or on the
day after that. The minutes of the session. . .
THE PRESIDENT: We are not dealing with the SA or the organizations at
the present moment. If you have any motion to make, you will kindly make
it in writing, and we will now proceed with the part of the Trial with
which we are dealing.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, will you permit me one more remark? The
minutes of December 17 and 18, 1945 I have received today.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean the transcript of it?
HERR BOEHM: I received today the German transcript for the 18th and 19th
of December 1945. You see, it is not a fact that we receive the
transcript the day after or a few days after the session. I received it
weeks later, after I asked for it repeatedly. I have asked the
appropriate offices repeatedly to give me a copy of the document book in
German, and I have still not received it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will inquire into that. One moment.
[_There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will the last counsel who was speaking stand up?
I am told that the reason for the delay in the case you have mentioned
was that there had been an error in the paging and therefore the
transcripts of those shorthand notes had to be recopied. I understand
that the delay ordinarily is not anything like so long as that delay.
HERR BOEHM: But I hardly believe that in the case of the translation of
the document book the delay is due to those reasons. But even if the
delay in this particular case should be justified, it means that week
after week I am hampered in my defense. I do not know the day before
what is going to be presented, and I do not know until weeks afterwards
what has been presented. I am therefore not in a position to study the
evidence from the standpoint of a Defense Counsel. I do not even know
what is contained in the document book. I am thus obviously handicapped
in my defense in every way. The Prosecution keeps saying that it will
furnish the documents on time. This is apparently not the case.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will kindly make your complaint in writing
and give the particulars of it. Do you understand that?
HERR BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present the
evidence against Keitel and also against the Defendant Jodl and I would
ask the Tribunal for permission, if it is thought right, that those two
cases should be presented together in the interest of saving time, a
matter which I know we all have at heart.
The story with regard to Keitel and Jodl runs on parallel lines. For the
years in question they marched down the same road together. Most of the
documents affect them both, and in those circumstances, I submit, it
might result in a substantial saving of time if I were permitted to
present the cases against both of them together.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Then I shall proceed, if I may, on that basis.
My Lords, may I say that I fully recognize that the activities of both
these defendants have been referred to in detail many times and quite
recently by Colonel Telford Taylor, and my earnest desire is to avoid
repetition as far as I possibly can. And may I say I welcome any
suggestions, as I travel the road, which the Tribunal have to make, to
make my presentation still shorter.
There is a substantial document book, Document Book Number 7, which is a
joint document book dealing with both the defendants. Practically all
the documents in that book have already been referred to. They nearly
all, of course, have a German origin. I propose to read passages from
only nine new documents and those nine documents, I think, are shown in
Your Lordship’s bundle and in the bundles of your colleagues.
May I commence by referring, as shortly as may be, to the part of the
Indictment which deals with the two defendants. That will be found on
Page 33 (Volume I, Page 77) of the English translation. It begins with
“Keitel” in the middle of the page, and it says, “The Defendant Keitel
between 1938 and 1945” was the holder of various offices. I only want to
point out there that although the commencing date is 1938 the
Prosecution rely on certain activities of the Defendant Keitel before
1938, and we submit that we are entitled so to do because of the general
words appearing on Page 28 of the Indictment (Volume I, Page 68) at the
head of the appendix:
“The statements hereinafter set forth following the name of each
individual defendant constitute matters upon which the
Prosecution will rely _inter alia_ as establishing the
individual responsibility. . . .”
And then the Tribunal will see:
“. . . Keitel used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a
manner that: He promoted the military preparations for war set
forth in Count One. . . .”
If I may read it shortly—he participated in the planning and
preparation for wars of aggression and in violation of treaties, he
executed the plans for wars of aggression and wars in violation of
treaties, and he authorized and participated in War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity.
Then, “The Defendant Jodl between 1932 and 1945 was” the holder of
various positions. He “used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such a
manner”—and this is not to be found in the text relating to
Keitel—“that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi
conspirators and the consolidation of their control over Germany. . . .”
May I say, My Lords, here, that I know of no evidence at the moment to
support that allegation that he promoted the Nazi rise to power before
1933. There is plenty of evidence that he was a devoted, almost a
fanatical admirer of the Führer, but that, I apprehend, would not be
enough.
And then it is alleged against Jodl that he promoted the preparations
for war, that he participated in the planning and preparation of the
war, and that he authorized and participated in War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity.
My Lords, with regard to the position of the Defendant Keitel, it is
well-known that in February of 1938 he became Chief of the OKW, Supreme
Commander of all the Armed Forces, and that Jodl became Chief of the
Operations Staff; and that is copiously proved in the shorthand notes
and in the documents. Perhaps I ought to refer to his position in 1935,
at the time when the reoccupation of the Rhineland was first envisaged.
Keitel was head of the Wehrmachtsamt in the Reich War Ministry, and that
is proved by a Document 3019-PS, which is to be found in _Das Archiv_;
and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that. It is not in the
bundle.
Jodl’s positions have been proved by his own statement, Document
2865-PS, which is also Exhibit USA-16; and in 1935 he held the rank of
lieutenant colonel, Chief of the Operations Department of the
Landesverteidigung.
May I just refer to the pre-1938 period—that is, the pre-OKW period—to
two documents, one of which is new. The first document I desire to
mention without reading is EC-177. I do not want to read it. It is
Exhibit USA-390. My Lords, those are the minutes, shortly after the Nazi
rise to power, of the working committee of the Delegates for Reich
Defense. The date is the 22d of May 1933. Keitel presided at that
meeting. The minutes have been read. There is a long discussion as to
the preliminary steps for putting Germany on a war footing. Keitel
regarded the task as most urgent, as so little had been done in previous
years; and perhaps the Tribunal will remember the most striking passage
where Keitel impressed the need for secrecy: Documents must not be lost;
oral statements can be denied at Geneva.
And I submit, if I may be allowed to make this short comment, it is
interesting to see in those very early days of 1933 that the heads of
the Armed Forces of Germany contemplated using lying as a weapon.
My Lord, the next document I desire to refer to is a new one, and it is
EC-405, Exhibit GB-160. I desire to refer to this shortly because, in my
submission, it fixes Jodl with knowledge of, and complicity in, the plan
to reoccupy the Rhineland country, contrary to the Versailles Treaty.
The Tribunal will see that these are the minutes of the working
committee of the Reich Defense Council, dated the 26th of June 1935.
The Court will see that, a quarter of the way down the page,
Subparagraph F, Lieutenant Colonel Jodl gives a dissertation on
mobilization preparation; and it is only the fourth and fifth paragraphs
on that same page, the last paragraph but one from the bottom, that I
desire to read:
“The demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his
speech of the 21st of May and other utterances, the Führer has
stated that the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and the
Locarno Pact regarding the demilitarized zone are being
observed. To the _aide-mémoire_ of the French _chargé
d’affaires_ on recruiting offices in the demilitarized zone, the
Reich Government has replied that neither civilian recruiting
authorities nor other offices in the demilitarized zone have
been entrusted with mobilization tasks, such as the raising,
equipping, and arming of any kind of formations for the event of
war or in preparation therefor.
“Since political complications abroad must be avoided at
present”—I stress the “at present”—“under all circumstances,
only those preparatory measures that are urgently necessary may
be carried out. The existence of such preparations or the
intention of making such preparations must be kept in strictest
secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich.”
My Lord, I need not read more. I submit that fixes Jodl clearly with
knowledge of the forthcoming breach of Versailles.
My Lord, the day before the Rhineland was reoccupied on the 7th of March
1936, the Defendant Keitel issued the directive which has been read
before, Document C-194, Exhibit USA-55, ordering an air reconnaissance
and certain U-boat movements in case any other nation attempted to
interfere with that reoccupation.
My Lords, I pass now to the 4th of February 1938, when the OKW was
formed. My Lords, shortly after its formation there was issued a
handbook, which is a new exhibit, from which I want to read short
passages. The number of the exhibit is L-211. It is Document GB-161.
Now, this is dated 19 April 1938; “top secret; Direction of War as a
Problem of Organization.” I read only from the appendix which is
entitled, “What is the War of the Future?”; and if the Court will kindly
turn over to the second page, I am going to read, 12 lines from the
bottom of the page, the line beginning “Surprise”:
“Surprise as the requisite for quick initial success will often
require hostilities to begin before mobilization has been
completed or the armies are fully in position.
“A declaration of war is no longer necessarily the first step at
the start of a war.
“According to whether the application of the rules of warfare
create greater advantages or disadvantages for the warring
nations, will the latter consider themselves at war or not at
war with the neutral states.”
It may, of course, be said that those were only theoretical words and
they might apply to any other nation which might be minded to make war
on Germany. The Court can use its judicial notice of the conditions of
things in Europe in 1938 and ask itself whether Germany had any
potential aggressor against her.
But, My Lord, I emphasize that passage because I submit it so clearly
envisages exactly the way in which Germany did make war in 1939 and in
the subsequent years.
My Lord, I now start to tread the road which has been trodden so many
times and which will be trodden so many times again, the road from 1938
to 1941: the final act of aggression. My Lord, I believe that I can
treat this, so far as Keitel and Jodl are concerned, in a very few
sentences, because I submit that the documents which are already in,
which have been read and reread into the record, demonstrate quite
clearly that Keitel, as would only be expected, he being Chief of the
Supreme Command of all the Armed Forces, and Jodl, as only would be
expected also, he being Chief of the Operations Staff, were vitally and
intimately concerned with every single act of aggression which took
place successively against the various victims of Nazi aggression.
My Lord, Your Lordship has in front of you the document book and perhaps
the trial brief in which those documents are set out under the heading.
If I might take first the aggression against Austria, Your Lordship will
remember, in Jodl’s diary on the 12th of February 1938, how Keitel, who
was something more than a mere soldier, put heavy pressure upon
Schuschnigg—that is Document 1780-PS, Jodl’s diary—how on the
following day Keitel writes to Hitler—Document 1775-PS, Exhibit
USA-75—suggesting the shamming of military action and the spreading of
false but quite credible news.
Then the actual operation orders for “Operation Otto,” Exhibits USA-74,
75, and 77, all of the 11th of March 1938, are OKW orders for which
Keitel is responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the numbers of them?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, Documents C-102, C-103, and C-182. One of them is
actually signed or initialed by Keitel, and two are initialed by Jodl.
Those are the operation orders for the advance into Austria, the
injunction, if the Tribunal remembers, to treat Czech soldiers as
hostile and to treat the Italians as friends.
My Lord, that is the first milestone on the road, the occupation of
Austria. My Lord, the second is, is it not. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps if you are going to pass on to another, we
had better adjourn now until 2 o’clock.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, I had got to the commencement
of the alleged aggression against Czechoslovakia; and the Tribunal will
remember that the leading exhibit on that matter is the file 388-PS,
Exhibit Number USA-26, the “Fall Grün” file. My Lords, that file, in my
submission, contains copious evidence against both Keitel and Jodl,
showing that they were taking the natural part of the Chief of the
Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the head of the Operations
Staff.
May I remind the Tribunal of Item 2. I do not want to read any of these.
I might just refer to the notes of a meeting on the 21st of April 1938.
The important thing to notice is that Keitel and the Führer met alone,
showing the intimate connection between Keitel and the Führer. And it
was at that meeting that preliminary plans were discussed, including the
possibility of an incident, namely, the murder of the German Ambassador
at Prague.
Item 5 in that file, dated the 20th of May 1938, shows the plans for the
political and the military campaign against Czechoslovakia, issued by
Keitel.
Item 11, dated the 30th of May 1938, is the directive signed by Keitel
for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, with the date given as the 1st of
October 1938.
There are many items which are initialed by Jodl—Item 14 and Item 17,
to mention only two.
Perhaps, for the purpose of the note, I should mention the others: Items
24, 36, and 37.
There is the directive, Items 31 and 32, dated the 27th of September
1938, signed by Keitel, enclosing orders for secret mobilization.
Jodl’s diary, Document 1780-PS, contains many references to the
forthcoming aggression, particularly the 13th of May and the 8th of
September; and there is a very revealing entry on the 11th of September
in Jodl’s diary, 1780-PS, in which he says. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the date?
MR. ROBERTS: I beg Your Lordship’s pardon; 11th of September 1938.
“In the afternoon conference with Secretary of State Hahnke,
from the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, on the
imminent common tasks. The joint preparations for refutation of
our own violations of international law and the exploitation of
its violations by the enemy were considered particularly
important.”
I emphasize those words, “our own violations of international law.”
My Lords, as a result of that conference the Document C-2, which was
referred to by my learned leader, Sir David, was prepared, which the
Tribunal will remember has in parallel columns the possible breach of
international law and the excuse which is then going to be given for it.
It was referred to so recently that I need not refer to it again.
My Lords, I respectfully submit on that branch of the case that there is
an overwhelming case that Keitel and Jodl played an important, indeed a
vital part, in the aggression against Czechoslovakia which led up to the
Pact of Munich.
My Lords, after the Pact of Munich was signed, as has been pointed out
many times, the Nazi conspirators at once set about preparations for
annexing the remainder of Czechoslovakia.
My Lords, at this point Jodl disappears from the scene for a time,
because he goes to do some regimental soldiering as artillery general in
Austria—artillery general of the 44th Division—and so it cannot be
said that there is any evidence against him from the Munich Pact until
the 23rd of August 1939, when he is recalled on the eve of the Polish
invasion to take up his duties once more as chief of the operational
staff of OKW.
So far as Keitel is concerned, on the 21st of October 1938, less than a
month after the Munich Pact, he countersigned Hitler’s order to
liquidate the rest of Czechoslovakia and to occupy Memel—Document
C-136, Exhibit Number USA-104.
On the 24th of November 1938, Document C-137, Exhibit Number GB-33,
Keitel issues a memorandum about the surprise occupation of Danzig.
On the 17th of December 1938, Document C-138, Exhibit Number USA-105, he
signs an order to the lower formations: “Prepare for the liquidation of
the rest of Czechoslovakia.” Those preparations were made.
On the 15th of March 1939 Keitel, who—I again repeat—was more than a
mere soldier, was present at the midnight conference between the Führer
and Hacha, President of Czechoslovakia, when, under a threat of bombing
Prague, Hacha surrendered the rest of his country to the Germans. I
refrain from referring to the contents of the minutes, which have been
read many times already.
My Lords, so that milestone is past. And again I submit, in all that
aggression it is clear that Keitel was playing a vital part as Hitler’s
right-hand man, commanding all the armed forces under him.
I now pass to the Polish aggression. Keitel was present at the meeting
at the chancellery on the 23rd of May 1939, Document L-79, Exhibit
Number USA-27, when it was said—just a few words so familiar: Danzig
was not the subject of the dispute; Poland was to be attacked at the
first suitable opportunity; Dutch and Belgian air bases must be
occupied; declarations of neutrality were to be ignored.
The directive for “Fall Weiss”, the invasion of Poland, is Document
C-120(a), Exhibit GB-41. The date is the 3rd of April 1939. The Tribunal
will remember the plans were to be submitted to OKW by the 1st of May,
and the forces were to be ready for invasion by the 1st of September.
And that directive is signed by Keitel.
Document C-126, Exhibit GB-45, is a follow-up of that previous
directive. It is dated the 22d of June 1939. The need for camouflage is
emphasized; and it is stated, “Do not disquiet the population.” That is
signed by Keitel.
On the 17th of August 1939, Document 795-PS, Exhibit GB-54, Keitel has a
conference with Admiral Canaris about the supplying of Polish uniforms
to Heydrich; and it will be noticed in the last paragraph of the note
that Admiral Canaris is against the war, and Keitel argues in favor of
it. And Keitel made the prophecy that Great Britain would not enter the
war.
I submit that Keitel’s vital part, again, in the preparation for the
aggression against Poland is clearly established beyond possibility of
dispute.
Jodl, as I have said to the Tribunal, was recalled on the 23rd of
August, as seen in his diary entry, Document 1780-PS, where he says that
he is recalled to take charge of the Operations Staff. He says:
“Received order from armed forces high command to proceed to
Berlin and take over position of Chief of Armed Forces Executive
Office.”—And then—“1100 hours to 1330 hours—discussion with
Chief of Armed Forces High Command. X-Day has been announced for
the 26th of August. Y-Time has been announced for 0430 hours.”
And I submit that the Tribunal can infer the importance of Jodl to this
conspiracy from the fact that on the eve of the war he is recalled to
Berlin to take his place at the head of the operational staff of the
Supreme Command.
So Poland was invaded, and before I pass to the next aggression may I
just point out that, according to the evidence of General Lahousen, if
the Tribunal accepts it on this point, Keitel and Jodl were in the field
with Hitler on the 10th of September 1939. That is in the shorthand
notes, Pages 617 and 618 (Volume II, Pages 447 and 448). I don’t suppose
there will be any dispute that the head of the High Command and the
Chief of his Operational Staff were in the field.
My Lord, I pass now to Norway and Denmark. So far as both are concerned
we see from Document C-64, Exhibit GB-86, that on the 12th of December
1939 Keitel and Jodl were both present at Hitler’s conference with
Raeder when the invasion of Norway was discussed; and Keitel’s direct
responsibility to those operations is shown in my submission by Document
C-63, Exhibit GB-87, in which Keitel says that the operations against
Norway will be “under my direct and personal guidance.” And he sets up a
planning staff of OKW for the carrying out of those operations.
Jodl’s knowledge and complicity, in my submission, are clearly shown
also from the entries in his own diary—Document 1809-PS. That is the
second part of his diary. And the Tribunal will remember the entry of
the 13th of March 1940, in which he records that the Führer was still
looking for an excuse for the “Weser” operations. That is the 13th of
March, My Lord, 1809-PS:
“The Führer does not give the order yet for Weser. He is still
looking for an excuse.”
And then, on the 14th of March, “Führer has not yet decided what reason
to give for Weser Exercise,” which, in my submission, if I may be
allowed to make a short comment, shows up in a lurid light the code of
honor of the military leaders of Germany—still looking for an excuse.
My Lord, then, as we know, Norway was attacked unawares; and then
subsequently lying excuses were given.
My Lord, the invasion of the Low Countries and Luxembourg equally, in my
submission, is clearly shown by the documents to have been controlled
and directed by Keitel with Jodl’s assistance. The Tribunal already have
a note of the conference in May of the lands to be occupied—Document
L-79. Document C-62, Exhibit GB-106, is a directive, signed “Hitler,” on
the 9th of October 1939 and another directive, signed “Keitel,” on the
15th of October. C-62 comprises two documents, the 9th of October and
15th of October—two directives, one signed “Hitler” and one signed
“Keitel”—both giving orders for the occupation of Holland and Belgium.
My Lord, Document C-10, Exhibit GB-108, dated the 8th of November, is
Keitel’s operation orders for the 7th Parachute Division to make an
airborne landing in the middle of Holland.
Document 440-PS, Exhibit GB-107, dated the 20th of November 1939, signed
“Keitel,” is a further directive for the invasion of Holland and
Belgium.
Document C-72, Exhibit GB-109, 7th of November 1939, the 10th of May
1940, 18 letters—11 signed by Keitel, 7 signed by Jodl: “The Führer is
postponing A-Day because of the weather.”
My Lord, Jodl’s diary is also eloquent on that subject. That is Document
1809-PS. Several entries—perhaps I need not refer to them
again—relating to these forthcoming operations, culminating with the
one on the 8th of May, which perhaps the Tribunal will remember, when
Jodl says, “Alarming information from Holland,” and he expresses
righteous indignation that the wicked Dutchmen should erect roadblocks
and make mobilization preparations.
My Lord, and so those three neutral countries were invaded, and I submit
there is copious and overwhelming evidence that these men were in charge
of the military organizations which made those invasions possible.
My Lord, I pass now to the planning for the aggression against Greece
and Yugoslavia. Document PS-1541, Exhibit GB-117, dated 13th of December
1940, Hitler’s order for “Marita,” the operation against Greece, signed
by Hitler, and a copy to Keitel, namely, OKW.
Document 448-PS, Exhibit GB-118, 11th of January 1941: Keitel initialed
a Hitler order for the Greek operation.
Document C-134, Exhibit GB-119, 20th of January 1941: Both Keitel and
Jodl are present at the conference with Hitler, Mussolini, and others
when the operations against Greece and Yugoslavia are discussed.
Document C-59, Exhibit GB-121, 19th of February 1941: The dates of the
operations against Marita are filled in by Keitel.
Document 1746-PS, Exhibit GB-120, 27th of March 1941: A conference with
Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl present; the decision to attack and destroy
Yugoslavia is announced, and the Führer said: “I am determined to
destroy Yugoslavia. I shall use unmerciful harshness to frighten other
neutrals”—and these two soldiers were present when that was said.
My Lord, I submit that on that the complicity of these two men for that
aggression is amply proved.
My Lord, I pass to Barbarossa—Document 446-PS, Exhibit USA-131, dated
18th of December 1940—Hitler’s order for the Barbarossa operation,
initialed by Keitel and Jodl. Hitler says, the Tribunal will remember,
that he intends to overthrow Russia in a single rapid campaign.
Document 872-PS, Exhibit USA-134, 3rd of February 1941: A discussion
with Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl re: Barbarossa and “Sonnenblume”—North
African suggestions. Hitler said, “When Barbarossa commences, the world
will hold its breath and make no comments.”
Then, Document 447-PS, Exhibit USA-135, dated 13th of March 1941: That
is an operation order signed by Keitel re: the administration of the
areas which were to be occupied; showing again that Keitel was more than
a mere soldier; this is civil administration.
Document C-39, Exhibit USA-138, 6th of June 1941: Timetable for
Barbarossa, signed by Keitel, and Jodl gets a sixth copy.
Document C-78, Exhibit USA-139, 9th of June 1941, is Hitler’s order to
Keitel and Jodl to attend the pre-Barbarossa conference on the 14th of
June 1941, 8 days before the operation.
My Lord, on those facts and documents on the position of these two
defendants, again I respectfully submit their participation in this
aggression is overwhelmingly proved.
My Lord, the last aggression is with regard to the provoked persuasion
of Japan to commit an aggression against the United States of America.
My Lord, there are two key documents; and both Keitel and Jodl are
implicated by both of them. My Lord, the first is Document C-75, Exhibit
USA-151, dated 5th of March 1941. It is an OKW order signed by Keitel,
copy to Jodl. “Japan must be induced to take positive action as soon as
possible” is a quotation from it.
Document C-152, Exhibit GB-122, 18th of March 1941: The meeting between
Hitler, Raeder, Keitel, and Jodl—Japan to seize Singapore. That is the
relevant extract on that.
My Lord, on those acts of aggression and those preparations for
aggression, I submit that the case against these two men is
overwhelming. It is clear, in my submission, that there could be no
defense open to them except that they were obeying the orders of a
superior. That defense is not open to them under this Charter. No doubt
all these wicked schemes germinated in the wicked brain of Hitler, but
he could not carry them out alone. He wanted men nearly as wicked and
nearly as unscrupulous as himself.
My Lord, I now pass very rapidly to the question of War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity. My Lord, it has already been proved that Keitel
signed the “Nacht und Nebel” decrees, committing persons to
incarceration in Germany where all trace of them was lost. That is
Document L-90, Exhibit USA-503.
There is one fresh document that I desire to put in. Colonel Telford
Taylor put in Document C-50, Keitel’s order as to ruthless action in the
Barbarossa campaign. There is one complementary document to that,
Document C-51, which is Exhibit GB-162, Keitel’s order dated the 27th of
July 1941:
“In accordance with the regulations concerning classified
material the following offices will destroy all copies of the
Führer’s decree of 13 May 1941”—that is C-50, the Barbarossa
decree—“in the communication mentioned above:
“a) All offices up to the rank of ‘general commands’
inclusive;”—My Lord, that means that corps commanders and
downwards should destroy copies—“b) group commands of the
armored troops”—that again means offices of the armed corps
below the rank of corps commanders should destroy the
copies—“c) army commands and offices of equal rank, if there is
an inevitable danger that they might fall into the hands of
unauthorized persons.”
That is to say that even higher generals, if the war approaches closely
to them, should destroy these documents rather than risking any chance
of their being captured.
“The validity of the decree is not affected by the destruction
of the copies. In accordance with Paragraph III, it remains the
personal responsibility of the commanding officers to see to it
that the offices and legal advisers are instructed in time and
that only these sentences are confirmed which correspond to the
political intentions of the Supreme Command.”
That was with regard to German soldiers not being tried by court-martial
for offenses against Soviet troops: “This order will be destroyed
together with the copies of the Führer’s decree.”
My Lord, I submit that the anxiety on the part of the OKW, presided over
by Keitel, to destroy that—I suggest an illegal order; a barbarous
order—is significant.
My Lord, I desire now to put in another document which is almost the
last document in the bundle, UK-20. Your Lordship will find it flagged
at the end of the bundle. It is from the Führer’s headquarters, 26th of
May 1943. It says:
“Re: Treatment of supporters of De Gaulle who fight for the
Russians.
“French airmen serving in the Soviet forces have been shot down
on the Eastern Front for the first time. The Führer has ordered
that employment of French troops in the Soviet forces is to be
counteracted by the strongest means.
“It is therefore ordered:
“1) Supporters of De Gaulle who are taken prisoner on the
Eastern Front will be handed over to the French Government for
proceedings in accordance with OKW order. . . .”
And then I read Paragraph 3:
“Detailed investigations are to be made in appropriate cases
against relatives of Frenchmen who fight for the Russians, if
these relatives are resident in the occupied area of France. If
the investigation reveals that relatives have given assistance
to facilitate escape from France, then severe measures are to be
taken.”
My Lord, I offer that as Exhibit GB-163.
My Lord, there is a document which I feel I should put in, which is the
next document in the bundle. It is Document UK-57, Exhibit GB-164. This
is the last document, I think, in the bundle. My Lord, it is from the
Ausland Abwehr—I believe it is from the intelligence foreign
department. It is to the OKW and it is signed the 4th of January 1944.
My Lord, the heading is “Re: Counteraction to Kharkov ‘trial.’”
Paragraph 2 is all that I read:
“The documents concerning ‘commandos’ have been asked for and
thoroughly investigated by the Reich Security Main Office. In
five cases members of the British Armed Forces were arrested as
participants. Thereupon they were shot in compliance with the
order from the Führer. It would be possible to attribute to them
breaches of international law and to have them posthumously
sentenced to death by a Tribunal. Up to the present no breaches
of international law could be proved against commando
participants.”
My Lord, I read no more, and I submit that that is clearly an admission
of murder, not warfare at all.
My Lord, Keitel’s comments are to be found in the top left-hand corner
of that document:
“We want documents on the basis of which we can institute
similar proceedings. They are reprisals which have no connection
with battle actions. Legal justifications are superfluous.”
THE PRESIDENT: Is that not at the top signed by Keitel?
MR. ROBERTS: It is typewritten in the office copy which is the original.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no actual signature?
MR. ROBERTS: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How does it connect with Keitel then?
MR. ROBERTS: “Vermerk Chef OKW”—that is “note of the Chief of OKW.”
Now, that is the first minute. My Lord, the second minute is on the same
subject, and it is dated the 6th of January 1944; and there is a large
red Keitel “K” initialed on the top of this letter, showing that he got
it. My Lord, the first paragraph deals with two officers who were then
at Eichstätt Camp in Bavaria. My Lord, there is no importance in that
paragraph, because those two officers are still alive.
The second paragraph:
“Attempted attacks on the battleship _Tirpitz_.
“At the end of October ’42 a British commando that had come to
Norway in a cutter had orders to carry out an attack on the
battleship _Tirpitz_ in Drontheim Fjord by means of a two-man
torpedo. The action failed since both torpedoes which were
attached to the cutter were lost in the stormy sea. From the
crew consisting of six Englishmen and four Norwegians, a party
of three Englishmen and two Norwegians were challenged on the
Swedish border. However, only the British seaman Robert Paul
Evans, born 14 January ’22 at London, could be arrested . . .
the others escaped into Sweden.
“Evans had a pistol pouch in his possession such as are used to
carry weapons under the armpit and also a knuckle-duster.
Violence, representing a breach of international law, could not
be proved. He has made extensive statements about the operation.
In accordance with the Führer’s order he was shot on 19 January
’43.”
Again I submit, that is murder. Violence representing a breach of
international law could not be proved.
My Lord, then the third paragraph:
“Blowing up of the Glomfjord power station.
“On 16 September ’42, 10 Englishmen and two Norwegians landed on
the Norwegian coast dressed in the uniform of the British
Mountain Rifle Regiment, heavily armed and equipped with
explosives of every description. After negotiating difficult
mountain country they blew up important installations in the
power station Glomfjord on 21 September ’42. The German sentry
was shot dead on that occasion. Norwegian workmen were
threatened that they would be chloroformed should they resist.
For this purpose the Englishmen were equipped with morphia
syringes. Several of the participants have been arrested while
the others escaped into Sweden.
“Those arrested are: Captain Graeme Black, born 9 May ’11 in
Dresden; Captain Joseph Houghton, born 13 June ’11 at
Bromborough; Sergeant-major Miller Smith, born 2 November ’15 at
Middlesborough; Corporal William Chudley, born 10 May ’22 at
Exeter; Rifleman Reginald Makeham, born 28 January ’14 at
Ipswich; Rifleman Cyril Abram, born 20 August ’22 in London;
Rifleman Eric Curtis, born 24 October ’21 in London. They were
shot on 30 October ’42.”
Again there is no suggestion that there was any breach of international
law. They were British seamen and they were in uniform.
Then Paragraph 4:
“The sabotage attack against German ships off Bordeaux.
“On 12 December ’42, a number of German ships off Bordeaux were
seriously damaged by explosives below water-level. The adhesive
mines had been fixed by five English sabotage gangs working from
canoes. Of the 10 participants the following were arrested after
a few days. . . .”
Then there followed six names, six British names—one an Irishman; a
lieutenant, a petty officer, a sergeant, and three marines.
“A seventh soldier named Moffett was found drowned; the
remainder apparently escaped into Spain.
“The participants proceeded in pairs from a submarine in canoes
upstream into the mouth of the River Gironde. They were wearing
olive grey special uniforms. After effecting the explosions they
sank the boats, and attempted to escape into Spain in civilian
clothes, with the assistance of the French civilian population.
No special criminal actions during the flight have been
discovered. All the arrested, in accordance with orders, were
shot on 23 March 1943.”
Keitel initialed that document. That document, read by my learned leader
Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe not so long ago, is Document Number 735-PS,
quoting Keitel as saying, “I am against legal procedure. It does not
work out.”
THE PRESIDENT: Would you read the Page 5 which follows that?
MR. ROBERTS: If it will please the Tribunal, that is what I shall do.
Page 5:
“The Führer’s headquarters, 9 January 1944. The Chief of OKW has
handed the Deputy Chief”—that ought to be WFSt, that is
Jodl—“the enclosed letter with the following account:
“It is of no importance to establish documentary proof of
breaches of international law. What is important, however, is
the collection of material suitable for a propaganda
presentation of a display trial. A display trial as such is
therefore not meant actually to take place but merely to be a
propaganda presentation of cases of breaches of international
law by enemy soldiers, who will be mentioned by name and who
have already either been punished with death or are awaiting the
death penalty. The Chief of the OKW asks the Chief of the
Foreign Department to bring with him pertinent documents for his
next visit to the Führer’s headquarters.”
As the Tribunal heard from my learned friend, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe,
when he read Document 735-PS earlier today, Keitel said, “I am against
legal procedure. It does not work out.”
One can agree with Keitel after having read that record of what, in my
submission, is cold-blooded murder of brave men, brave soldiers and
sailors who were fighting for their country; and although this Trial has
a record of the death of brave men, of the murder of brave men, there
are few cases which are more poignant than those shown in the documents
to which I have just referred.
I have finished my presentation of the case against Keitel and against
Jodl. So far as Jodl’s part in the War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity is concerned, he figures much less than Keitel. Of course, he
had no power of giving orders or directives, but we see that he at any
rate signed and circulated an infamous order of the Führer saying that
commandos ought to be shot and are not to be treated as prisoners of war
at all.
In my submission the evidence against these two men is overwhelming and
their conviction is demanded by the civilized world.
Your Lordships, Mr. Walter W. Brudno of the American Delegation will
present the case against Alfred Rosenberg.
MR. WALTER W. BRUDNO (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States):
May it please the Tribunal, in connection with the case against the
Defendant Rosenberg, I wish to offer the document book designated as
United States Exhibit EE. This book contains the English translation of
all the documents which I will offer into evidence, as well as the
English translation of those documents previously offered to which I
will refer. The documents are arranged by series in the order of C, L,
R, PS, and EC, and they are arranged numerically within each series.
Your Honors will note that on the first four pages of the document book
there appears a descriptive list of documents. This list is a tabulation
of all the documents directly implicating Rosenberg, including those
previously offered, and those which I will offer into evidence. Those
previously offered are keyed to the transcript page of the Record, and
to their exhibit numbers. The list is included in the document books.
The list is included in the document books made available to the
Defense. This list will gather together in one place all references to
the Defendant Rosenberg which are in the Record up to this point. In
order to avoid repetition, I will not refer to a great many of the
documents previously introduced.
The Indictment at Page 29 (Volume I, Page 70) charges the Defendant
Rosenberg under all four Counts of the Indictment. In the presentation
which follows, I will show that as charged in Count One, Section IV,
Subparagraph D, Rosenberg played a particularly prominent role in
developing and promoting the doctrinal techniques of the conspiracy, in
developing and promoting beliefs and practices incompatible with
Christian teaching, in subverting the influence of the churches over the
German people, in pursuing the program of relentless persecution of the
Jews, and in reshaping the educational system in order to make the
German people amenable to the will of the conspirators and to prepare
the people psychologically for waging an aggressive war.
I will also show that Rosenberg played an important role in preparing
Germany for the waging of aggressive war through the direction of
foreign trade, as charged in Count One, Subparagraph E, of the
Indictment, and that his activities in the field of foreign policy
contributed materially toward the preparation for the aggression charged
in Subparagraph F in the Indictment and the Crimes against Peace, as
charged in Count Two.
Finally I will show that Rosenberg participated in the planning and
direction of the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, as specified in
Paragraph G of Count One of the Indictment. Particularly, he
participated in the planning and direction of the spoliation of art
treasures in the western countries and in the numerous crimes committed
in that part of the eastern countries formerly occupied by the U.S.S.R.
The political career of the Defendant Rosenberg embraced the entire
history of National Socialism and permeated nearly every phase of the
conspiracy with which we are concerned. In order to obtain a full
conception of his influence upon and participation in the conspiracy, it
is necessary to review briefly his political history, and to consider
each of his political activities in their relation to the thread of the
conspiracy which stretches from the inception of the Party in 1919 to
the defeat of Germany in 1945.
It is both interesting and revealing to note that for Rosenberg the 30th
of November 1918 marked the “beginning of political activities with a
lecture about the ‘Jewish Problem.’” That statement is found at Line 2
of the translation of Document 2886-PS, which is an excerpt from a book
entitled, _The Work of Alfred Rosenberg_, a biography, and I offer this
book as Exhibit Number USA-591.
From the Document 3557-PS, which has excerpts from an official pamphlet
entitled _Dates in the History of the NSDAP_, and which I offer as
Exhibit Number USA-592, we learn that Rosenberg was a member of the
German Labor Party, afterwards the National Socialist German Workers
Party, in January 1919 and that Hitler joined forces with Rosenberg and
his colleagues in October of the same year. Thus, Rosenberg was a member
of the National Socialist movement even before Hitler himself.
Now I wish to offer Document 3530-PS, which is an extract from _Das
Deutsche Führer Lexikon_, the year of 1934-35, and I offer it as Exhibit
Number USA-593. In this document we obtain additional biographical data
on Rosenberg as follows:
“From 1921 until the present he was editor of the _Völkische
Beobachter_; editor of the _N. S. Monatshefte_; in 1930, he
became member of the Reichstag and representative of the foreign
policies for the Party . . . since April 1933 he was leader of
the foreign political office of the NSDAP, then designated
Reichsleiter; in January 1934, deputized by the Führer for the
supervision of the ideological education of the NSDAP, the
German labor front, and all related organizations.”
The Document 2886-PS, which I have just referred to, offered as Exhibit
Number USA-591, adds that in July 1941 Rosenberg was appointed Reich
Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
With this general background information in mind the first phase of
proof will deal with Rosenberg as official National Socialist
ideologist. The proof which I will present will show the nature and
scope of the ideological tenets he expounded, and the influence he
exerted upon the unification of German thought, a unification which was
an essential part of the conspirators’ program for the seizure of power
and preparation for aggressive war.
Rosenberg wrote extensively on, and actively participated in, virtually
every aspect of the National Socialist program. His first publication
was the _Nature, Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP_. This
publication appeared in 1922. Rosenberg spoke of this book in a speech
which we have seen and heard delivered in the motion picture previously
introduced as Exhibit Number USA-167. On Page 2, Part 1, of the
transcription of the speech, which is our Document Number 3054-PS,
Rosenberg stated as follows:
“During this time”—that is, during the early phase of the
Party—“I wrote a short thesis which nevertheless is significant
in the history of the NSDAP.”—This is Rosenberg speaking.—“It
was always being asked what points of program the NSDAP had and
how they were to be interpreted. Therefore I wrote the _Nature,
Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP_, and this writing made
the first permanent connection for Munich and local
organizations being created and friends within the Reich.”
We thus see that the original draftsman of, and spokesman on, the Party
program was the Defendant Rosenberg. Without attempting to survey the
entire ideological program advanced by the Defendant Rosenberg in his
various writings and speeches, which are very numerous, I wish to offer
into evidence certain of his statements as an indication of the nature
and broad scope of the ideological program which he championed. It will
be seen that there was not a single basic tenet of the Nazi philosophy
which was not given authoritative expression by Rosenberg. Rosenberg
wrote the book entitled _Myth of the Twentieth Century_, published in
1930. This book has already been offered as Exhibit USA-352. At Page
479, which Your Honor will find on the second page of Document 3553-PS,
Rosenberg wrote on the race question as follows:
“The essence of the contemporary world revolution lies in the
awakening of the racial type; not in Europe alone but on the
whole planet. This awakening is the organic counter movement
against the last chaotic remnants of the liberal economic
imperialism, whose objects of exploitation out of desperation
have fallen into the snare of Bolshevik Marxism, in order to
complete what democracy had begun, the extirpation of the racial
and national consciousness.”
Rosenberg expounded the Lebensraum idea, which idea was the chief
motivation, the dynamic impulse behind Germany’s waging of aggressive
war. In his journal, the _National Socialist Monatshefte_, for May 1932,
which I wish to offer as Exhibit Number USA-594, our Document Number
2777-PS, he wrote at Page 199:
“The understanding that the German nation, if it is not to
perish in the truest sense of the word, needs ground and soil
for itself and its future generations; and the second sober
perception that this soil can no more be conquered in Africa,
but in Europe and first of all in the East—these organically
determine the German foreign policy for centuries.”
Rosenberg expressed his theory as to the place of religion in the
National Socialist State in his _Myth of the Twentieth Century_,
additional excerpts from which are cited in Document 2891-PS. At Page
215 of the “Myth” he wrote as follows:
“We now realize that the central supreme values of the Roman and
the Protestant Churches being a negative Christianity do not
respond to our soul, that they hinder the organic powers of the
people designated as a Nordic race, that they must give way to
them, that they have to be remodelled to conform to a Germanic
Christianity. Therein lies the meaning of the present religious
search.”
In the place of traditional Christianity, Rosenberg sought to implant
the neo-pagan myth of the blood.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to break off here for a recess?
MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make to the defendants’
counsel. In view of the applications which were made to the Tribunal
this morning, I immediately ordered on behalf of the Tribunal that an
investigation should be made of the complaints made by defendants’
counsel about the delay in the delivery of the transcript of the
shorthand notes and such delay will be remedied at once. The
investigation shows that transcripts of the sessions up to and including
the 20th of December can be completed by this afternoon. The transcripts
for the sessions held since the resumption of the Trial will be
distributed, up to and including the 8th of January, by tomorrow
evening. Hereafter, the German transcripts will be regularly distributed
to the Defense Counsel within a period of 48 hours after the session.
MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honors please, when the Court rose I had just read a
quotation of Rosenberg, in which he expressed his views on Christianity.
In the place of traditional Christianity, Rosenberg sought to implant
the neo-pagan myth of the blood. At Page 114 in the _Myth of the
Twentieth Century_ he stated as follows:
“Today, a new faith is awakening; the myth of the blood, the
belief that the divine being of mankind generally is to be
defended with the blood. The faith embodied by the fullest
realization that the Nordic blood constitutes that mystery which
has supplanted and overwhelmed the old sacraments.”
Rosenberg’s attitudes on religion were accepted as the only philosophy
compatible with National Socialism. In 1940 the Defendant Bormann wrote
to Rosenberg in Document 098-PS, which has been previously introduced as
Exhibit Number USA-350; and I quote:
“The churches cannot be conquered by a compromise between
National Socialism and Christian teachings but only through a
new ideology, whose coming you, yourself, have announced in your
writings.”
Rosenberg actively participated in the program for elimination of church
influence. The Defendant Bormann frequently wrote Rosenberg in this
regard, furnishing him information as to proposed action to be
instituted against the churches; and, when necessary, requesting that
action be taken by Rosenberg’s department. I refer to documents
introduced in connection with the case against the Leadership Corps,
such documents as 070-PS, Exhibit Number USA-349, which deals with
abolition of religious services in the schools; Document 072-PS, Exhibit
Number USA-357, dealing with confiscation of religious property;
Document 064-PS, Exhibit Number USA-359, which deals with the inadequacy
of anti-religious material being circulated to the soldiers; Document
089-PS, Exhibit Number USA-360, dealing with curtailment of the
publication of Protestant periodicals; and Document 122-PS, which is
Exhibit Number USA-362, dealing with the closing of theological
faculties.
Rosenberg was particularly avid in his pursuit of what he called the
“Jewish question.” On the 28th of March 1941, on the occasion of the
opening of the Institute for the Exploration of the Jewish Question, he
set the keynote for its activities and indicated the direction which the
exploration was to take. I would like to quote from Document 2889-PS,
which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-595. This is an excerpt from the
_Völkischer Beobachter_, 29th of March 1941. This is a statement made by
Rosenberg on the occasion of the opening of the institute.
“For Germany the Jewish question is only then solved when the
last Jew has left the Greater German space.
“Since Germany with its blood and its folkdom has now broken for
always this Jewish dictatorship for all Europe and has seen to
it that Europe as a whole will become free from the Jewish
parasitism once more, we may, I believe, also say for all
Europeans: For Europe the Jewish question is only then solved
when the last Jew has left the European continent.”
It has already been seen that Rosenberg did not overlook any opportunity
to put these anti-Semitic beliefs into practice. Your Honors will recall
that in Document 001-PS, which was introduced as Exhibit Number USA-282
in connection with the case on persecution of the Jews, Rosenberg
recommended that instead of executing 100 Frenchmen as retaliation for
attempts on lives of members of the Wehrmacht, there be executed 100
Jewish bankers, lawyers, et cetera. The recommendation was made with the
avowed purpose of awakening the anti-Jewish sentiment.
Document 752-PS, which was introduced this morning by Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe as Exhibit GB-159, discloses that Rosenberg had called an
anti-Semitic congress in June 1944, although this congress was cancelled
due to military events.
In the realm of foreign policy, in addition to demanding Lebensraum,
Rosenberg called for elimination of the Versailles Treaty and cast aside
any thought of revision of that treaty. In his book _The Nature, Basic
Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP_, written by Rosenberg in 1922, he
expressed his opinions regarding the Treaty of Versailles. Excerpts from
this book are translated in Document 2433-PS, and I offer the book as
Exhibit Number USA-596. He stated as follows:
“The National Socialists reject the popular phrase of the
‘Revision of the Peace of Versailles’ as such a revision might
perhaps bring a few numerical reductions in the so-called
‘obligations’; but the entire German people would still be, just
as before, the slave of other nations.”
Then he goes on to expound the second point of the Party:
“We demand equality for the German people with other nations,
the cancellation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St.
Germain.”
Rosenberg conceived of the spread of National Socialism throughout the
world and, as will be subsequently shown, took an active part in
promoting the infection of other nations with his creed. In the _Nature,
Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP_ he states:
“But National Socialism still believes that its principles and
ideology—though in individual methods of fight according to
various racial conditions—will be directives far beyond the
borders of Germany for the inevitable fights for power in other
countries of Europe and America. There too a clear line of
thought must be drawn, and the racial-nationalistic fight
against the everywhere-similar loan-capitalistic and
Marxist-internationalism must be taken up. National Socialism
believes that once the great world battle is concluded, after
the defeat of the present epoch, there will be a time when the
swastika will be woven into the different banners of the
Germanic peoples as the Aryan symbol of rejuvenation.”
This statement was made in 1922. It is thus seen that the Defendant
Rosenberg gave authoritative expression to the basic tenets upon which
National Socialism was founded and through the exploitation of which the
conspiracy was crystallized in action.
Rosenberg’s value to the conspiratorial program found official
recognition with his appointment in 1934 as the Führer’s delegate for
the entire spiritual and philosophical education and supervision of the
NSDAP. His activities in this capacity were vast and varied.
I now offer in evidence the _National Socialist Year Book_ for the year
1938 as Exhibit Number USA-597. At Page 180 of this book, which is our
Document Number 3531-PS, the functions of Rosenberg’s office as the
Führer’s delegate are described as follows:
“The sphere of activity of the Führer’s delegate for the entire
spiritual and ideological instruction and education of the
movement, its organizations, including the ‘Strength through
Joy,’ extends to the uniform execution of all the educational
work of the Party and of the affiliated organizations. The
office set up by Reichsleiter Rosenberg has the task of
preparing the ideological education material, of carrying out
the teaching program, and is responsible for the education of
those teachers suited to this educational and instructional
work.”
As the Führer’s delegate, Rosenberg thus supervised all ideological
education and training within the Party.
It was Rosenberg’s personal belief that upon the performance of his new
functions as ideological delegate depended the future of National
Socialism. I offer Document 3532-PS as Exhibit Number USA-598. This is
an excerpt from an article by Rosenberg appearing in the March 1934
issue of _The Educational Letter_. At Page 9 of this publication
Rosenberg states:
“The focus of all our educational work from now on is the
service for this ideology; and it depends on the result of these
efforts, whether National Socialism will die with our fighting
generation or whether, as we believe, it really represents the
beginning of a new era.”
In his capacity as the Führer’s delegate for the spiritual and
ideological training, Rosenberg assisted in the preparation of the
curriculum for the Adolf Hitler schools. These schools, it will be
recalled, selected the most suitable candidates from the Hitler Jugend
and trained them for leadership within the Party. They were the elite
schools of National Socialism. The next document, entitled “Documents of
German Politics” is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-365.
Translations of excerpts from this document are found in 3529-PS, Page
389, and read as follows:
“As stated by Dr. Ley, Reich Organization Leader, on 23 November
1937 at Ordensburg Sonthofen, these Adolf Hitler Schools, as the
first step of the principle of selecting a special elite, form
an important branch in the educational system of the National
Socialist training of future leaders. . . .
“‘The curriculum has been laid down by Reichsleiter Rosenberg,
together with the Reich Organization Leader and the Reich Youth
Leader.’”
Rosenberg exercised further influence in the education of Party members
in the establishment of community schools for all organizations of the
Party. Document 3528-PS is a translation of Page 297 of the 1934 edition
of _Das Dritte Reich_, which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-599. It reads
as follows:
“We support the request of the Führer’s delegate for the
supervision of the entire spiritual and ideological education
and instruction of the NSDAP, Party member Alfred Rosenberg, to
organize community schools of all organizations of the NSDAP
twice a year, in order to show by this common effort the
ideological and political unity of the NSDAP and the
steadfastness of the National Socialist will.”
This program was endorsed by the Defendant Schirach as well as by
Himmler, Ley, and others.
THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you dealing with this rather in a cumulative way?
Isn’t it possible to summarize this evidence against Rosenberg more than
you are doing?
MR. BRUDNO: I will try to, Your Honor. However, although the Indictment
charges, and there is already substantial proof to show that the
defendant conspirators used ideological training as an implement in
achieving their rise to power and in consolidating their control, there
seems to be little evidence as to Rosenberg’s position; and I am
introducing this evidence in order to show that he played a dominant
role in this connection. However, I will try to summarize these
documents if I can.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve taken down about 20 documents that you have
alluded to, all of which deal with Rosenberg’s ideological theories.
MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor. I was merely trying to show the scope of
his activities.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BRUDNO: Your Honors will recall that it was in his capacity as
Führer’s delegate that Rosenberg established the Institute for the
Exploration of the Jewish Question in Frankfurt. This institute,
commonly known as the “Hohe Schule,” has been referred to in connection
with the exposition of art plunders. Into its library there flowed
books, documents, and manuscripts which were looted from virtually every
country of occupied Europe. Further evidence on this score will be
introduced by the prosecutor of the Republic of France.
Your Honors will also recall, and the Record shows at Pages 1671 to 1687
(Volume IV, Pages 81 to 92), that it was as ideological delegate that
Rosenberg conducted the fabulous art looting activities of the
Einsatzstab Rosenberg, activities which extended to virtually every
country occupied by the Germans. I will not attempt to summarize the
extent of the plunder and merely refer the Tribunal to Document
1015(b)-PS, which has already been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-385,
and Document L-188, which has been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-386.
Document 1015(b)-PS details the looting of 21,000 objects of art;
Document L-188, the looting of the contents of over 71,000 Jewish homes
in the West. This subject, too, will be further developed by the French
Prosecutor.
The importance of Rosenberg’s activities as official ideologist of the
Nazi Party was not overlooked. In Document 3559-PS, which I wish to
introduce as Exhibit Number USA-600—this document, incidentally, is the
Hart biography of Rosenberg, entitled _Alfred Rosenberg, The Man and His
Work_—it is stated that Rosenberg won the German National Prize in
1937. The creation of this prize, Your Honors will recall, was the
Nazis’ petulant reply to the award of the Nobel Prize to Karl von
Ossietzki, an inmate of a German concentration camp. The citation which
accompanied the award to Rosenberg reads as follows:
“Alfred Rosenberg has helped with his publications to lay the
scientific and intuitive foundation and to strengthen the
ideology of National Socialism in the most excellent way. . . .
The National Socialist movement, and beyond that, the entire
German people will be deeply gratified that the Führer has
distinguished Alfred Rosenberg as one of his oldest and most
faithful fighting comrades by awarding him the German National
Prize.”
The contribution which Rosenberg’s book, the _Myth of the Twentieth
Century_, the foundation of all his ideological propaganda, made in the
development of National Socialism, was appraised in a publication Bücher
Kunde in 1942. This publication is our Document Number 3554-PS, dated
November 1942. I offer it as Exhibit Number USA-601. The first page sets
forth an appraisal of the _Myth of the Twentieth Century_.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Brudno, you referred us to the _Myth of the Twentieth
Century_ on several occasions.
MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We really don’t want to hear any more about it.
MR. BRUDNO: I wish to show that this book is regarded as being one of
the pillars of the movement and I wish to show also, Sir, that it had a
circulation of over a million copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is absolutely clear from the evidence
which has already been given that Rosenberg was enunciating doctrines of
the ideology of the Nazi Party; and I don’t think that it is necessary
to go any further into details about it.
MR. BRUDNO: Very well. If the Tribunal is satisfied that Rosenberg’s
ideas formed the foundation for the National Socialist ideological
movement, I will pass on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have already brought out the fact that he was
appointed the Führer’s deputy for that purpose; wasn’t he?
MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor. I shall pass on from that point. I would
merely like to make reference, however, to Document 789-PS, which has
already been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-23. This document records
a meeting between Hitler and his supreme commanders, on which occasion
Hitler said, “The building up of our Armed Forces was possible only in
connection with the ideological education of the German people by the
Party.”
We submit that the contribution which Rosenberg made through formulation
and dissemination of National Socialist ideology was fundamental to the
conspiracy. As the apostle of neo-paganism, the exponent of the drive
for Lebensraum, and the glorifier of the myth of Nordic superiority and
as one of the oldest and most energetic Nazi proponents of
anti-Semitism, he contributed materially to the unification of the
German people behind the swastika. He provided the impetus and the
inspiration for the National Socialist movement. His doctrines were
responsible for the sublimation of morality and the crystallization of
the Nordic dream in the minds of the German people, thereby making them
useful tools in the hands of the conspirators and willing collaborators
in the prosecution of their criminal plan.
I now pass to the second phase of Rosenberg’s criminal activities—his
active contribution toward the preparation for aggressive war through
the international activities of the APA, the Foreign Policy Office of
the Party.
As previously indicated in my quotation from _Das Führer Lexikon_, which
is Exhibit Number USA-593, Rosenberg became a Reichsleiter, the highest
level of rank in the Leadership Corps, and was made chief of the foreign
policy office of the Party in April 1933. The organization manual of the
Party, Document 2319-PS, which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-602,
describes the functions of the APA as including the influencing of
public opinion abroad so as to convince foreign nations that Germany
desired peace. The far-flung activities of the APA are indicated at Page
14 of the translation of this document and are stated as follows:
“1. The APA is divided into three main offices:
“A. Office for Foreign Areas with its main sections: a) England
and Far East; b) Near East; c) southeast; d) north; e) old
Orient; f) controls, personnel questions, _et cetera_.
“B. Office of the German Academic Exchange Service. . . .
“C. Office of Foreign Commerce.
“2. Moreover, there is in the APA a main office for the press
service and an educational office.”
The press activities of the APA were designed to influence world opinion
in such a manner as to conceal the conspirators’ true purposes and thus
facilitate the preparation for waging aggressive war. The activities
were carried on, on an ambitious scale. I offer into evidence Document
003-PS, which is entitled _A Short Report on the Activities of the APA
of the NSDAP_. It is Exhibit Number USA-603. The last paragraph on Page
5 of the translation describes the press activities as follows:
“The Press Division of the APA is staffed by persons conversant
with all languages to be considered. They examine approximately
300 newspapers daily and deliver to the Führer, the Führer’s
deputy, and all other interested offices the condensations of
the important trends of the entire world press. . . . The Press
Division furthermore maintains an exact record on the prestige
of the most important papers and journalists of the world. Many
embarrassments during conferences in Germany could have been
avoided had one consulted these archives. . . . Further, the
Press Division was able to arrange a host of interviews with me
as well as conducting a great number of unobjectionable foreign
journalists to the various official representatives of Germany.”
And then:
“Hearst then personally asked me to write often about the
position of German foreign policy in his papers. This year five
detailed articles have appeared under my name in Hearst papers
all over the world. Since these articles, as Hearst personally
let me know, presented well-founded arguments, he asked me to
write further articles for his paper.”
Thus, Rosenberg used his foreign policy office to influence world
opinion on behalf of National Socialism.
It is interesting to note in passing that Rosenberg states, at Page 4 of
this document, that the Romanian anti-Semitic leader, Cuza, followed his
suggestions as—in Rosenberg’s words—“he had recognized in me an
unyielding anti-Semite.” We will hear more of this affair shortly.
The nature and extent of the activities of the APA are amply disclosed
in a single document. This is the principal document to which I will
refer in this phase of the case against Rosenberg. This document bears
our Number 007-PS and is entitled, “Report on the Activities of the
Foreign Affairs Bureau of the Party from 1933 to 1943.” It is signed by
Rosenberg. Portions of Annex 1, attached to the report, have already
been read into evidence as Exhibit GB-84. The body of the report and
Annex 2 have not been referred to heretofore. As will be seen the
document contains a recital of widespread activities in foreign
countries. These activities range from the promotion of economic
penetration to fomentation of anti-Semitism; from cultural and political
infiltration to the instigation of treason. Activities were carried on
throughout the world and extended to such widely separated points as the
Middle East and Brazil.
Many of the APA’s achievements were brought about through the subtle
exploitation of personal relationships. Reading from the middle of the
first paragraph on Page 2 of the translation, which refers to activities
in Hungary, we learn that:
“The first foreign state visit after the seizure of power took
place through the mediation of the foreign policy office. Julius
Gömbös, who in former years had himself pursued anti-Semitic and
racial tendencies and with whom the office maintained a personal
connection, had reached the Hungarian Premier’s chair. . . .”
The APA endeavored to strengthen the war economy by shifting the source
of food imports to the Balkans, as stated in Paragraph 3 on Page 2 of
the translation:
“Motivated by reasons of war economy, the office advocated the
transfer of raw material purchases from overseas to the areas
accessible by overland traffic routes.”
Then he goes on to point out that they had successfully shifted the
source of food imports, particularly fruit and vegetable imports, to the
Balkans as a result of the activities of the offices.
Activities in Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg were confined, according
to the report, to “observation of existing conditions”—a phrase which
may have broad connotations—and “to the establishment of relations,
especially of a commercial nature.”
In Iran the APA achieved a high degree of economic penetration, in
addition to promoting cultural relations. I quote from the middle of the
third paragraph on Page 3:
“The office’s initiative in developing, with the help of
commercial circles, entirely new methods for the economic
penetration of Iran found expression, in an extraordinarily
favorable way, in reciprocal trade relations. Naturally, in
Germany, too, this initiative encountered a completely negative
attitude and resistance on the part of the competent State
authorities, an attitude that at first had to be overcome. In
the course of a few years, the volume of trade with Iran was
multiplied five-fold and in 1939 Iran’s trade turnover with
Germany had attained first place.”
In the last sentence on Page 3. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Mr. Brudno, will you kindly explain to the
Tribunal how the paragraph that you just read bears upon the guilt of
Rosenberg in this Trial?
MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honor pleases, we submit that the conspirators used,
as one of the tools of conspiracy, the economic penetration of those
countries which they deemed strategically necessary to have within the
Axis orbit. The activities of Rosenberg in the field of foreign trade
contributed materially, we submit, to the advancement of the conspiracy,
as charged in the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that it is a crime to try and
stimulate trade in foreign countries?
MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honor pleases, the expression of ideological
opinions or the advancement of foreign trade do not, in themselves,
constitute a crime, we agree.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing here about ideological considerations.
It is simply a question of trade.
MR. BRUDNO: Further on, Your Honor, he mentions the cultural activities.
THE PRESIDENT: I was confining myself, in order to try to get on, to the
particular paragraph that you had just cited.
MR. BRUDNO: I see, Your Honor; we are merely trying to show, Sir, that
the Germans used the foreign trade weapon as a material part of the
conspiratorial program.
THE PRESIDENT: As I have said before, it is not possible for me or for
any member of this Tribunal to conduct the case of the Prosecution for
them. We can only tell them when we think they are being irrelevant and
cumulative and ask them to try to cut down their presentation. It is for
you to cut it down.
MR. BRUDNO: Rosenberg goes on to state, if Your Honor please, at Page 3
of the translation, that “Afghanistan’s neutral position today is
largely due to the office’s activity.”
In connection with Arabia, he says:
“The Arab question, too, became part of the work of the office.
In spite of England’s tutelage of Iraq, the office established a
series of connections to a number of leading personalities of
the Arab world, smoothing the way for strong bonds to Germany.
In this connection, the growing influence of the Reich in Iran
and Afghanistan did not fail to have repercussions in Arabia.”
Rosenberg concluded his report with the statement that, with the
outbreak of war, he was entitled to consider his task as terminated, and
then he says, “The exploitation of the many personal connections in many
lands can be resumed under a different guise.”
I now turn to Annex 2 of the report, which is found at Page 9 of the
translation. This annex deals with activities in Romania. Here the APA’s
intrigue was more insidious, its interference in the internal affairs of
a foreign nation more pronounced. After describing the failure of what
Rosenberg terms a “basically sound anti-Semitic tendency,” due to
dynastic squabbles and Party fights, Rosenberg describes the APA’s
influence in the unification of conflicting elements. I quote, beginning
with the ninth line of the translation:
“What was lacking was the guiding leadership of a political
personality. After manifold groping trials the office believed
such a personality to have been found in the former Minister and
poet, Octavian Goga. It was not difficult to convince this poet,
pervaded by instinctive inspiration, that a greater Romania,
though it had to be created in opposition to Vienna, could be
maintained only together with Berlin. Nor was it difficult to
create in him the desire to link the fate of Romania with the
future of the National Socialist German Reich in good time. By
bringing continuing influence to bear, the office succeeded in
inducing Octavian Goga as well as Professor Cuza to amalgamate
the parties under their leadership on an anti-Semitic basis.
Thus they could carry on with united strength the struggle for
Romania’s renascence internally and her Anschluss with Germany
externally. Through the office’s initiative both parties, which
had heretofore been known by distinct names, were merged as the
National Christian Party, under Goga’s leadership and with Cuza
as Honorary President.”
Rosenberg’s man, Goga, was supported by two splinter parties, which had
not joined the anti-Semitic trend, and Rosenberg states: “Through
intermediaries, the office maintained constant contact with both
tendencies.”
Goga, the man supported by Rosenberg, was appointed Prime Minister by
the King in December 1937. The pernicious influence of Rosenberg’s
ideology had achieved a major triumph, for he states:
“Thus a second government on racial and anti-Semitic foundations
had appeared in Europe, in a country in which such an event had
been considered completely impossible.”
I will not deal at any length with the details of the political turmoil
that plagued Romania during the ensuing period.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Brudno, I think the Tribunal are satisfied that
Rosenberg—I mean satisfied, subject to what Rosenberg himself or his
counsel may say—that Rosenberg tried to spread his ideology abroad, and
we don’t require any further detailed proof of that, and we are also
satisfied that we have heard enough of the activities of the APA.
MR. BRUDNO: Certainly, Your Honor. We feel that if the Tribunal is
satisfied, we can pass on.
THE PRESIDENT: Subject, as I said, to anything that Rosenberg may prove.
MR. BRUDNO: Surely. I would merely like to conclude with the statement
that the activities of the APA were, as indicated in this Document
007-PS, primarily responsible for Romania’s joining the Axis. It was a
vital link in Germany’s chain of military strategy.
I would further like to call to Your Honor’s attention the evidence
which has already been submitted on the activities of the APA in Norway,
activities which led to the treason of Quisling and Hagelin, for which
they have been condemned.
I come now to the final phase of the case against the Defendant
Rosenberg. We have seen how he aided the Nazi rise to power and directed
the psychological preparation of the German people for waging of
aggressive war. I will now offer proof of his responsibility for the
planning and execution of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
committed in the vast areas of the occupied East, which he administered
for over 3 years. These areas included the Baltic States, White
Ruthenia, the Ukraine, and the eastern portion of Poland.
I will not endeavor here to chronicle again the tale of mass murder,
spoliation, and brutality. We feel that that has already been
sufficiently evidenced, and further evidence on this point will be
presented by the Prosecution for the U.S.S.R. and for the Republic of
France.
We anticipate, however, that Rosenberg will contend that some of these
crimes were committed against his wishes, and, indeed, there is some
evidence that he protested on occasion—not out of humanitarian reasons
but on grounds of political expediency.
We also anticipate that Rosenberg will attempt to place the blame for
these crimes on other agencies and on other defendants. The evidence
will prove, however, that he himself formulated the harsh policies, in
the execution of which the crimes were committed; that the crimes were
committed for the most part by persons and agencies within his
jurisdiction and control; that any other agencies which participated in
the commission of these crimes were invited by Rosenberg to co-operate
in the administration of the East, although the brutal methods
customarily employed by them were common knowledge; and, finally, his
Ministry lent full co-operation to their activities, despite the
criminal methods that were employed.
Rosenberg was actively participating in the affairs of the East as early
as 20 April 1941, 2 months prior to the German attack upon the Soviet
Union. On that date he was designated by Hitler as commissioner for the
central control of questions connected with the East European region.
The Hitler order by virtue of which he received this appointment has
been read into the record in its entirety as Exhibit Number USA-143, our
Document Number 865-PS.
The initial preparations undertaken by Rosenberg for fulfillment of his
task indicated the extent to which he co-operated in promoting the
military plans for aggression. They also show that he understood his
task at the inception as requiring the assistance of a multitude of
Reich agencies and that he invited their co-operation.
Shortly after his appointment by Hitler, Rosenberg conducted a series of
conferences with representatives of various Reich agencies, conferences
which are summarized in Document 1039-PS, previously offered as Exhibit
Number USA-146. This document indicated the co-operation of the
following agencies. It indicated that the co-operation of these agencies
was both contemplated and solicited by Rosenberg. The agencies are as
follows: OKW, OKH, OKM, Ministry of Economics, Commissioner for the Four
Year Plan, the Ministry of the Interior, Reich Youth Leadership, the
German Labor Front, Ministry of Labor, the SS, the SA, and several
others.
These arrangements, it should be noted, were made by Rosenberg in his
capacity as commissioner on Eastern questions, before the attack on the
Soviet Union, before he was appointed as Reich Minister for the occupied
East, in fact, before there was any occupied East for Germany to
administer.
I would like to refer briefly to some of Rosenberg’s basic attitudes
regarding his new task and the directives which he knew he would be
expected to follow.
Your Honor will recall that on 29 April 1941, in Document 1024-PS,
previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-278, Rosenberg stated that:
“A general treatment is required for the Jewish problem for
which a temporary solution will have to be determined (forced
labor for the Jews, creation of ghettos, _et cetera_).”
On May 8, 1941 he prepared instructions for all Reich commissioners in
the Occupied Eastern Territories. These instructions are found in
Document 1030-PS, previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-144. The
last paragraph, which has not been called to Your Honors’ attention,
reads as follows:
“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is
in a position to promote and direct national culture and science
in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an
uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks will have to
be effected.”
In Document 1029-PS, which has been introduced as Exhibit Number
USA-145, Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part
of the Greater German Reich by germanizing racially possible elements,
colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements.
In a speech which Rosenberg made on 20 June 1941, Your Honors will
recall, he stated the job of feeding Germans was the top of Germany’s
claim on the East; that there was no obligation to feed the Russian
peoples; that this was a harsh necessity bare of any feelings; that a
very extensive evacuation will be necessary; and that the future will
hold many hard years in store for the Russians. This speech, Your
Honors, is in the record as Document 1058-PS, Exhibit Number USA-147.
On July 4, 1941, still prior to Rosenberg’s appointment as Reich
Minister for the occupied East, a representative of Rosenberg’s office
attended a conference on the subject of utilization of labor, and
especially of the labor of Soviet prisoners of war. Document 1199-PS is
a memorandum of this conference, and I offer it into evidence as Exhibit
Number USA-604. It states that the participants were, among others,
representatives of the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, of the Reich
Labor Ministry, of the Reich Food Ministry, and of the Rosenberg office.
The first sentence states, and I quote:
“After an introduction by Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Krull,
Lieutenant Colonel Breyer of the PW Department explained that
actually there was a prohibition in effect by the Führer against
bringing Russian PW’s into the Reich for employment, but that
one might count on this prohibition being relaxed a little.”
The last paragraph records that, and I quote:
“The chairman summarized the results of the discussion as
indicating that all the bureaus concerned unqualifiedly
advocated and supported the demand for utilization of PW’s
because of manpower needs in the Reich.”
On 16 July 1941, the day before Rosenberg’s appointment as Minister of
the occupied East, he attended a conference at the Führer’s
headquarters, the minutes of which have been introduced as Document
L-221, Exhibit Number USA-317. At that time Hitler stated, “The Crimea
has to be evacuated by all foreigners and to be settled by Germans
alone.”
He further stated that Germany’s objectives in the East were three-fold:
first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; third, to exploit it.
Thus, the character of the administration which was contemplated for the
occupied East was well established before Rosenberg took office as
Minister. He knew of these plans and was in accord with them.
Persecution of the Jews, forced labor of prisoners of war, Germanization
and exploitation, were all basic points of policy which Rosenberg knew
of at the time he assumed office.
On July 17, 1941, Rosenberg was appointed Reich Minister for the
Occupied Eastern Territories. The decree by which he was appointed is in
evidence as Document 1997-PS, Exhibit Number USA-319.
I would like now to examine the organizational structure and the chain
of responsibility which existed within the Ministry for the occupied
East.
The organizational structure of the East was such as we will show that
Rosenberg was not merely a straw man. He was the supreme authority with
full control.
Document 1056-PS is a mimeographed treatise entitled, “The Organization
of the Administration of the Occupied Eastern Territories.” It is
undated and unsigned, but we can obtain further information regarding it
by reference to EC-347, which is Göring’s Green Folder, already in
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-320.
It is noted that Part II, Subsection A, of Document EC-347 is entitled,
and I quote: “Excerpts from the Directives of the Reich Minister for the
Occupied Eastern Territories and for the Civil Administration,” and then
in parenthesis, “Brown Folder, Part I, Pages 25 to 30.”
The two paragraphs which follow are identical to two paragraphs found at
the top of Page 9 of the translation of Document 1056-PS. Thus Document
1056-PS is identified as being a mimeograph of Part I of the Brown
Folder which was mentioned in the Green Folder, and was issued by the
Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
I now offer Document 1056-PS as Exhibit Number USA-605. I offer this
document for the purpose of proving, from the directives issued by the
Rosenberg Ministry itself, the extent of Rosenberg’s authority; that he
was the supreme civilian authority in the Eastern territories. The
document will show that there was a continuous chain of command from
Rosenberg down to the regional administrative officials, a chain of
command which extended even to the local prison warden.
The document also will show the relationship which existed between the
Rosenberg Ministry and other German agencies, a relationship which
varied from full control by Rosenberg to full co-operation with them,
made mandatory by his directives and by Hitler’s orders.
Finally, the document will show that the various subdivisions of the
Ministry were required to submit periodic reports of the situation
within their jurisdiction, so that the numerous reports of unspeakable
brutality which Rosenberg received, and which are already in the record,
were submitted to him pursuant to his orders.
The first paragraph of this significant document states as follows:
“The newly occupied Eastern territories are subordinated to the
Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. By
direction of the Führer he establishes a civil administration
there, upon withdrawal of the military administration. He heads
and supervises the entire administration of this area and
represents the sovereignty of the Reich in the Occupied Eastern
Territories.”
At the top of Page 2 of the translation is stated, and I quote:
“To the Reich Ministry is assigned a deputy of the Reich Leader
SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the
Interior.”
Roman numeral III on Page 2 of the translation defines the
responsibility of the Reich commissioners as, and I quote:
“In the Reich commissariats, Reich commissioners are responsible
for the entire civil administration under the supreme authority
of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
According to the instructions of the Reich Minister for the
Occupied Eastern Territories, the Reich Commissioner, as a
functionary of the Reich, heads and supervises, within his
precincts, the entire civil administration. Within the scope of
these instructions he acts on his own responsibility.”
And then the chain of command is outlined: Subordinate offices, general
commissariats, main commissariats, district commissariats, _et cetera_.
In the second last paragraph on Page 3 of the translation it is stated
again:
“The Higher SS and Police Leader is directly subordinated to the
Reich Commissioner. However, the Chief of Staff has the general
right to secure information from him also. . . .
“Great stress is to be placed on close co-operation between him,
the Chief of Staff, and the other main department heads of the
office of the Reich Commissioner, particularly with the one for
policies.”
To digress from this document a moment, I ask that the Court take
judicial notice of the decree signed by Rosenberg, dated July 17, 1941,
and found in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of the Reich Minister for the
occupied East, 1942, Number 2, Pages 7 and 8.
This decree provides for the creation of summary courts for decisions on
crimes committed by non-Germans in the East. The courts are to be
presided over by a police officer or an SS leader, who have authority to
order the death sentence or confiscation of property, and those
decisions are not subject to appeal. The general commissar is given the
right to reject a decision. Thus, the determination of the SS, of these
summary courts, is made subordinate to the authority of a representative
of the Rosenberg Ministry.
At Page 4 of the translation of Document 1056-PS, the position of the
Commissioner General is defined. It is stated here that: “The
Commissioner General forms the administrative office of intermediate
appeal.”
Three paragraphs down it is stated, and I quote:
“The SS and Police Leader assigned to the Commissioner General
is directly subordinated to him. However, the Chief of Staff has
the general right of requiring information from him.”
The document goes on to describe the function of the various
subdivisions of the Ministry, concluding with regional commissioners who
preside over the local administrative districts. They, too, have police
units assigned to them and directly subordinated to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Brudno, surely that could have been stated in a
sentence without referring us to all these passages in this document. I
mean, Rosenberg was the Minister for the Eastern Territories. He had
under him Reich commissioners and SS units, who had the full
administration—civil administration—of the Eastern Territories. If you
had stated that, surely that would have been sufficient.
MR. BRUDNO: Very well, Your Honor.
I will proceed from that point, then, merely to point out that the
economic exploitation of the territory was undertaken in the fullest
co-operation with the Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, as shown by
Paragraph 2 of Page 7 of the translation. It is stated there that the
economic inspectorates of the Commissioner of the Four Year Plan will be
substantially absorbed in the agencies of the civil administration after
the establishment of the civil administration.
I also wish to call Your Honors’ attention to the first paragraph on
Page 6, which reads as follows:
The various commissioners, it says, “are, aside from the
military agencies, the only Reich authorities in the Occupied
Eastern Territories. Other Reich authorities may not be
established alongside them. They handle all questions of
administration of the area which is subordinate to their
sovereignty and all affairs which concern the organization and
activity of the administration, including those of the police,
in the supervision of the autonomous agencies and organizations
and of the population.”
I now turn briefly to the second section of the document which is
entitled, “Working Directives for the Civil Administration.” The first
two paragraphs on Page 9 have been read into the record as part of
Document EC-347, Exhibit Number USA-320. I call particular attention to
the statement that the “Hague Rules of Land Warfare, which deal with the
administration of a country occupied by a foreign armed power, are not
valid.”
I continue quoting at the last paragraph on Page 9:
“The handling of cases of sabotage is a concern of the Higher SS
and Police Leader, of the SS and Police Leader, or of the Police
leaders of the lower echelon. Insofar as collective measures
against the population appear appropriate, the decision about
them rests with the competent commissar.
“To inflict penalties in cash or kind, as well as to order the
seizure of hostages and the shooting of inhabitants of the
territory in which the acts of sabotage have taken place, rests
only with the Commissioner General, unless the Reich
Commissioner himself intervenes.”
I conclude with this document by quoting the first sentence at the top
of Page 13:
“The district commissioners are responsible for the supervision
of all prisons, unless the Reich commissioners intervene.”
I will not take the time of the Tribunal, nor burden the Record, with a
detailed account of the manner in which Rosenberg’s plenary authority
and power were wielded. There is evidence in the Record, and there will
be additional evidence presented by the Soviet prosecutor, as to the
magnitude of the War Crimes and the Crimes against Humanity perpetrated
against the peoples of the occupied East.
However, merely to illustrate the manner in which Rosenberg participated
in the criminal activities conducted within his jurisdiction, I would
like to refer briefly to a few examples.
I call your attention to the document numbered R-135, which was
previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-289. In this document the
prison warden of Minsk reports that 516 German and Russian Jews had been
killed, and called attention to the fact that valuable gold had been
lost due to the failure to knock out the fillings of the victims’ teeth
before they were done away with.
These activities took place in the prison at Minsk, a prison which, Your
Honors will recall from Document 1056-PS, was directly under the
supervision of the Ministry for the occupied East.
For my next illustration I wish to offer Document 018-PS. This document
has already been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-186. I would like to
read to the Tribunal the first paragraph of Document 018-PS, which has
not yet been read into the Record. The document reveals that Rosenberg
wrote Sauckel on 21 November 1942, in the following terms:
“I thank you very much for your report on the execution of the
great task given to you; and I am glad to hear that in carrying
out your mission you have always found the necessary support,
even on the part of the civilian authorities in the Occupied
Eastern Territories. For myself and the officials under my
command, this collaboration was and is self-evident, especially
since both you and I have, with regard to the solution of the
labor problem in the East, represented the same points of view
from the beginning.”
As late as 11 July 1944 the Rosenberg Ministry was actively concerned
with the continuation of the forced labor program, in spite of the
retreat from the East.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): After making this generality, Rosenberg goes
on to object, at the last here, to the methods used. You haven’t
mentioned that.
MR. BRUDNO: Quite right, Your Honor. Those objections are already in the
record, Sir, and I was merely referring to this document to show that
Rosenberg favored recruitment from the East, that his civilian
administrators co-operated with the recruitment in spite of the methods
used, the methods which were known to Rosenberg as he reports in the
letter himself.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): High Tribunal, in
this connection I must protest that the Prosecutor did not finish
reading this Paragraph 1 he has just quoted. For then comes the sentence
in which he states that an agreement existed between Sauckel and
Rosenberg regarding. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you can have heard that the United States
Member of the Tribunal has just made this very point, which you are now
making to Counsel for the United States, and has pointed out to him that
he ought to have read there, or drawn attention at any rate, to the
other paragraphs in this document which showed that Rosenberg was
objecting to the methods used.
DR. THOMA: High Tribunal, I would like to point out that the prosecutor
quoted just the first two sentences of a specific paragraph. The same
paragraph ends, however, where it is stated that “there was an agreement
between Sauckel and me according to which workers were to be treated
well in Germany, and for this purpose welfare organizations were to be
created”. The presentation of the prosecutor creates the impression that
the Defendants Sauckel and Rosenberg had agreed only on the use of
forced labor without restraint and on the deportation of the workers
from the East.
THE PRESIDENT: As Counsel for the United States pointed out, the other
passages in the document have already been read. And, naturally, the
whole document will be treated as being in evidence.
The Tribunal fully realizes the point you are making, that it is not
fair to read one passage of a document when there are other passages in
the document which show that the passage read is not a full or proper
statement of the document.
MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honor pleases, I was not attempting to delude the
Tribunal; it was merely in the interest of time that I did not read the
balance. The rest is in the Record.
THE PRESIDENT: I realize that.
We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 10 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]
THIRTY-FIRST DAY
Thursday, 10 January 1946
_Morning Session_
MR. BRUDNO: May it please the Tribunal, when the Tribunal rose yesterday
I had finished the submission of proof as to Rosenberg’s responsibility
and authority in the Occupied Eastern Territories and was about to
conclude my presentation with four brief examples as to the manner in
which his authority was exercised. I was in the middle of the third
example, which, Your Honors will recall, dealt with Rosenberg’s
participation in the forced labor program. I wish to conclude that
illustration with reference to Document 199-PS, which we offer as
Exhibit Number USA-606. This document is a letter from Alfred Meyer,
Rosenberg’s deputy, and is addressed to Sauckel, dated July 11, 1944.
This time, Your Honors will note, it is Rosenberg’s Ministry that is
urging action. I wish to quote Item Number 1 of this letter, which reads
as follows:
“The War Effort Task Force Command formerly stationed in Minsk
must continue, under all circumstances, the calling up of young
White Ruthenian and Russian men for military employment in the
Reich. In addition the Command has the mission of bringing young
boys of 10-14 years of age into the Reich.”
My third illustration deals with Rosenberg’s exercise of his legislative
powers, and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of the decree signed
by Lohse, who was Reich Commissar for Ostland. This decree is published
in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of the Reich Commissar for Ostland, 1942,
Number 38, Pages 158 and 159. It provides for the seizure of the entire
property of the Jewish population in the Ostland, including the claims
of Jews against third parties. The seizure is made retroactive to the
day of occupation of the territory by German troops. This sweeping
decree was issued and published by Rosenberg’s immediate subordinate,
and it must be assumed that Rosenberg knew of it and acquiesced in it.
I now come to my final illustration. This illustration is derived from
Document 327-PS, which is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-338.
It is a copy of a secret letter from Rosenberg to Bormann dated 17
October 1944. It furnishes a graphic account of Rosenberg’s activities
in the economic exploitation of the occupied East. I wish to quote from
the first paragraph on Page 1, which has not been read into the Record.
I quote:
“In order not to delay the liquidation of companies under my
supervision, I beg to point out that the companies concerned are
not private firms but business enterprises of the Reich, so that
directives with regard to them, just as with regard to
Government offices, are reserved to the highest authorities of
the Reich. I supervise the following companies. . . .”
There follows a list of nine companies: A trading company, an
agricultural development company, a supply company, a pharmaceutical
company, and five banking concerns. On Page 3 of the translation at Item
1 (a) the mission of the trading company is stated to be, and I quote:
“Seizure of all agricultural products as well as commercial
marketing and transportation thereof. (Delivery to Armed Forces
and the Reich).”
I now call your attention to Item 5 of the same page. It describes the
activities of the companies as follows:
“During this period, the Z.O.”—that is, the Central Trading
Corporation East—“together with its subsidiaries has seized:
“Grain 9,200,000 tons, meat and meat products 622,000 tons,
linseed 950,000 tons, butter 208,000 tons, sugar 400,000 tons,
fodder 2,500,000 tons, potatoes 3,200,000 tons, seeds 141,000
tons, other agricultural products 1,200,000 tons, and
1,075,000,000 eggs.
“The following was required for transportation: 1,418,000
freight cars and 472,000 tons shipping space.”
In conclusion we submit that the evidence has shown that the Defendant
Rosenberg played a leading role in the Nazi Party’s rise to power by
moulding German thought so as to promote the conspirators’ ambitions;
that he played a leading role in spreading propaganda and intrigue, and
in instigating treason in foreign countries, so as to pave the way for
the waging of wars of aggression; and that he bears full responsibility
for the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity which were perpetrated in
the Occupied Eastern Territories and which will be further developed by
the prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.
This completes the presentation of the case against the Defendant
Rosenberg. The next presentation will be that of the case against the
Defendant Frank, which will be presented by Lieutenant Colonel Baldwin.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL WILLIAM H. BALDWIN (Assistant Trial Counsel for the
United States): May it please the Tribunal, we wish now to deal with the
individual responsibility of the Defendant Frank. In accordance with the
expressed desire of the Tribunal, this presentation has been strictly
limited; and, of course, I should welcome any direction from the
Tribunal as to length or method as I proceed.
First, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to Miss Harriet Zetterberg, of
our legal staff, and to Dr. Pietrowski, of the Polish Delegation, for
their invaluable work—Dr. Pietrowski and the Polish Delegation,
naturally, having a special interest in the Defendant Frank.
Aspects of the criminal complicity of the Defendant Hans Frank under
Count One of the Indictment have been placed before this Tribunal on
several occasions. There remain, however, certain matters for
discussion—either novel in presentation or in development—concerning
this defendant as an individual, before the United States’ portion of
the Prosecution’s case against him is completed. Our Soviet colleagues
will carry further the heavy complaint against the Defendant Frank in
their treatment of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity in the East.
We wish here merely to touch upon that evidence which, we believe,
irrefutably discloses Frank to have been a tremendously important cog in
the machine which conceived, promoted, and executed the Nazi Common Plan
or Conspiracy. Documents relating to this point have been assembled in a
document book bearing the letters “FF.” I am informed that these books,
as well as explanatory briefs, have been distributed for the use of the
members of the Tribunal.
Reference will be made in the course of this argument to the so-called
Frank diary, portions of which have already been brought to the
attention of the Tribunal. It seems appropriate that brief mention
should here be made of the content and source of this diary. It is a set
of some 38 volumes, most of which are on the table at the front of the
courtroom, detailing the activities of the Defendant Frank from 1939 to
the end of the war in his capacity as Governor General of Occupied
Poland. It is a record, in short, of each day’s business, hour by hour,
appointment by appointment, conference by conference, speech by speech,
and—in truth we believe—crime by crime. Each volume, excepting the
last few, is now handsomely bound; and in those volumes, which deal with
the conferences of Frank and his underlings in the Government General,
the name of each person attending the meeting is inscribed in his own
handwriting on a page preceding the minutes of the conference itself. It
is incredibly shocking to the normal conscience that such a neat history
of murder, starvation, and extermination should have been maintained by
the individual responsible for such deeds, but by now the Tribunal is
well aware that the Nazi leaders were sentimentally fond of elaborately
documenting their exploits, as witness the Rosenberg volumes displaying
the looted art treasures and the album reporting on the extermination of
Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The complete set of the Frank diary was found
in Bavaria, at Neuhaus, near Schliersee, on 18 May 1945, by the 7th
American Army. It was taken to the 7th Army document center at
Heidelberg and on or about 20 September 1945 the collection was sent to
the Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel here at Nuremberg. It is here in
court in its entirety; and now its tones, we submit, are those of
accusation rather than boastful narration.
That the Defendant Frank held a position of leadership in the Nazi Party
and in the German Government is undeniable. Even, presumably, it would
be unfair to the Defendant Frank to underestimate his importance in the
Nazi hierarchy and the Third Reich. Like the other defendants in this
case, he was a man of far-reaching influence and position; and his
office-holding record is already before this Court. It is an affidavit
signed by the Defendant Frank and identified as Exhibit Number USA-7.
This document contains a listing of 11 important positions held by Frank
in the Party and in the Government and supports the assertion of
influence and position which I have just made, especially since this
Tribunal has been fully apprised of the criminal activities of the Nazi
organizations and formations.
The machinations of Frank divide themselves logically into two periods.
In the one, from 1920 to 1939, he was by his own admission the leading
Nazi jurist, although parenthetically the word “jurist” loses its
reputable content when modified by the word “Nazi”. In the other period,
extending from 10 October 1939 until the end of the war, he was Governor
General of occupied Poland. While he is most notorious for his
persecutions and carrying out of the conspiracy in the latter capacity,
it is the opinion of the United States Prosecution that the Defendant
Frank’s contributions to the Nazi rise to power as the leading Nazi
jurist should not pass without mention. It is with this aspect that I
shall first deal—the Defendant Frank’s furtherance of the realization
of the conspirators’ program in the field of law, his knowledge of the
criminal purpose of the program, and his active participation therein.
The Defendant Frank, himself, described his role in the Nazi struggle
for power in the following words, which were remarks he ordered his
secretary to place in the Frank diary on 28 August 1942. The remarks
appear in the diary and are translated in our Document 2233(x)-PS,
which, if the Court please, is at Page 54 in the document book before
it.
The numbers of the pages of the document book will be found in the upper
right-hand corner in colored pencil, either red or blue. The original of
this document I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607. In the
German text these extracts appear in Part 3 of the 1942 diary volume on
Pages 968, 969, and 983. Frank says:
“I have since 1920 continually dedicated my work to the NSDAP.
As a National Socialist I was a participant in the events of
November 1923, for which I received the Order of the Blood.
After the resurrection of the movement in the year 1925, my
really greater activity in the movement began, which made me,
first gradually, later almost exclusively, the legal adviser of
the Führer and of the Reich Party Directorate of the NSDAP. I
was thus the representative of the legal interests of the
growing Third Reich in a legal-ideological as well as in a
practical way.”
He goes on to say:
“The culmination of this work I see in the Leipzig army trial,
in which I succeeded in having the Führer admitted to the famous
oath of legality, a circumstance which gave the Movement legal
grounds to expand on a large scale. The Führer, indeed,
recognized this achievement and in 1926 made me leader of the
National Socialist Lawyers’ League; in 1929, Reichsleiter of the
Reich Legal Office of the NSDAP; in March 1933, Bavarian
Minister of Justice; in the same year, Reich Commissioner for
Justice; in 1934, President of the Academy of German Law,
founded by me; and in December 1934, Reich Minister without
Portfolio. And in 1939, I was finally appointed Governor General
for the occupied Polish territories.
“So I was, am, and will remain the representative jurist of the
struggle period of National Socialism. . . .
“I profess myself now and always, as a National Socialist and a
faithful follower of the Führer, Adolf Hitler, whom I have now
served since 1919. . . .”
It is indeed significant and worth mentioning to the Court. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is this an extract from his diary?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir; it is.
THE PRESIDENT: And are the words “Present: Dr. Hans Frank and others”
written by him in his diary?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir; they are. Before each of these excerpts, if
Your Honor pleases, if it was in conference it was indicated which
members of the Government General were present or who made the address.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: It is indeed significant and worth mentioning to the
Court that the Defendant Frank assumes responsibility for the so-called
oath of legality at the Leipzig army trial. At that trial, in 1930,
three army officers were accused of—curiously enough—conspiracy to
high treason. The charge was that the defendants in that trial, in their
capacity as members of the German Army, tried to form National Socialist
cells in the German Army and to influence the German Army to such an
extent that, in the case of a Putsch by the National Socialists, the
army would not fire at the National Socialists, but would stand at ease
instead. All three of the officers were found guilty and sentenced to 18
months’ confinement. At that trial, however, Hitler was a witness; and
during the course of the trial, testified under oath that the term
“revolution,” used by him, meant only spiritual revolution in Germany
and that the expression “heads would roll in the sand” meant only that
they would do so as a result of legal procedure through state tribunals,
if the National Socialists came to power. This, if the Court please, was
the so-called oath of legality, the lie that the Defendant Frank
provided his Führer as a facade for the conspiracy and which he, at
least in 1942, considered the culmination of his efforts.
As the “representative jurist of the struggle period of National
Socialism” and in various juridical capacities listed in his affidavit
of positions held, Defendant Frank was, between 1933 and 1939, the most
prominent policy-maker in the field of German legal theory. For example,
Defendant Frank founded the Academy of German Law in 1934 and he was
president of this once potent body until 1942. The statute defining the
functions of this Academy conferred upon it wide power to initiate and
co-ordinate juridical policies.
This statute appears in the translation at Page 5 in the document book
as our Document 1391-PS and appears in the 1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_ at
Page 605. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of it. I now quote
briefly from the decree:
“It is the task of the Academy for German Law to further the
reorganization of legal procedure in Germany. Closely connected
with the agencies competent for legislation, it shall further
the realization of the National Socialist program in the realm
of the law. This task shall be carried out by approved
scientific methods.
“The Academy’s task shall cover primarily:
“1. The formulation, initiation, judging, and preparing of
drafts of law; 2. collaboration in rejuvenating and unifying the
training in jurisprudence and political science; 3. the editing
and supporting of scientific publications; 4. financial
assistance for work and research in specific fields of law and
political economy.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you have to read all this? We will take
judicial notice of it.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Among the early tasks which Defendant Frank set for
himself, as policy-maker in the field of law, were the unification of
the German State, the promotion of racial legislation, and the
elimination of political organizations other than the Nazi Party. In a
radio address given on 20 March 1934 he announced success in these
matters. Our partial English translation of this speech appears as
Document 2536-PS, at Page 64 in the document book. The official text of
this speech appears in _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_, Volume II
(first edition), Pages 294-298. In the German text the extracts which I
shall quote appear at Pages 296 and 298, and I will ask the Court to
take judicial notice of these passages:
“The first task was that of uniting all Germans into one State.
It was an outstanding historical and legislative accomplishment
on the part of our Führer that by boldly grasping historical
development he eliminated the sovereignty of the various German
states. At last we have now, after 1,000 years, again a unified
German State in every respect. It is no longer possible for the
world, based on the spirit of resistance inherent in small
states, which are set up on an egoistical scale and solely with
a view to their individual interest, to make calculations to the
detriment of the German people. That is a thing of the past for
all times to come.”
I pass on now to the second excerpt:
“The second fundamental law of the Hitler Reich is racial
legislation. The National Socialists were the first in the
entire history of human law to elevate the concept of race to
the status of a legal term. The German Nation, unified racially
and nationally, will in the future be legally protected against
any further disintegration of the German race stock.”
I pass now to the mention of the sixth law:
“The sixth fundamental law was the legal elimination of those
political organizations which within the State, during the
period of the regeneration of the people and the reconstruction
of the Reich, were once able to place their selfish aims ahead
of the common good of the nation. This elimination has taken
place entirely legally. It is not the coming to the fore of
despotic tendencies, but it was the necessary legal consequence
of a clear political result of the 14 years’ struggle of the
NSDAP.
“In accordance with these unified legal aims”—Frank
continues—“in all spheres, particular efforts have for months
now been made regarding the work of the great reform of the
entire field of German law.
“As the leader of the German jurists, I am convinced that,
together with all strata of the German people, we shall be able
to construct the legal state of Adolf Hitler in every respect
and to such an extent that no one in the world will at any time
be able to dare to attack this constitutional state as regards
its laws.”
In his speech on the occasion of the day of the Reich University
Professors of the National Socialist Lawyers’ League on 3 October 1936,
the Defendant Frank explained to the gathering of professors the
elimination of Jews from the legal field, in accordance with the Nazi
plan. Our partial translation of this speech appears as Document
2536-PS, at Page 62 of the document book. The official text appears
likewise in _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_, in Volume IV, Pages 225
to 230. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. It deals, to
summarize. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need it because we have already had
documents of the same sort.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: As the leading Nazi jurist, the Defendant Frank
accepted, condoned, and promoted the system of concentration camps and
of arrest without warrant. He apparently had no hesitancy in subverting
his professional ethics, if any he had, while subverting the legal
framework of the German State to Nazi ends. He explains the outrageous
departure from civilization that were concentration camps in an article
on “Legislation and Judiciary in the Third Reich,” published in 1936 in
the official journal of the Academy of German Law, of which, of course,
he was the editor. The partial translation of this article appears as
our Document 2533-PS, at Page 61 of the document book. The official
German text of the extract appears in _Zeitschrift der Akademie für
Deutsches Recht_, 1936, at Page 141, and I will ask the Tribunal to take
judicial notice of this. Since the extract is short, I will ask
permission to read it. Frank says:
“Before the world we are blamed again and again because of the
concentration camps. We are asked: Why do you arrest without a
warrant of arrest? I say: Put yourselves into the position of
our nation. Don’t forget that the very great and still untouched
world of Bolshevism cannot forget that here on our German soil
we have made final victory for them impossible in Europe.”
It can be seen, therefore, that just as other defendants mobilized the
military, economic, and diplomatic resources for aggressive war, the
Defendant Frank, in the field of legal policy, geared the German
juridical machine for a war of aggression, which war of aggression, as
he explained in 1942 to the NSDAP political leaders of Galicia at a mass
meeting in Lvov—and I now quote from the Frank diary, our Document
2233(s)-PS, at Page 50 in the document book, the original of which I
offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607—had for its purpose, and I
quote: “. . . to expand the living space for our people in a natural
manner.”
The distortions and warpings of German law, which Defendant Frank
engineered for the Party, gave him, if not the world, vast satisfaction.
He reported this to the powerful Academy for German Law in November
1939, 1 month after becoming Governor General of occupied Poland. This
speech is partially translated in our Document 3445-PS, at Page 73 in
the document book. The official text of the speech appears in _Deutsches
Recht_, 1939, Volume 2, the week of 23-30 December 1939, beginning at
Page 2121; and we ask the Court to take judicial notice of this, but
would ask permission to read the excerpt, as it is very short. Frank
stated:
“Today we are proud of having formulated our legal principles
from the very beginning in such a way that they need not be
changed in the case of war. For the maxim—that which serves the
Nation is right, and that which harms it is wrong, which stood
at the beginning of our legal work and which established this
idea of the community of the people as the only standard of the
law—this maxim shines out also in the social order of these
times.”
If this sentiment has a familiar ring to it, it is because it is a
restatement of a Party commandment tailored and furnished by the Party
lawyer to fit the Party’s concept of law. I allude, of course, to the
Party commandment, commented upon at Page 1608 (Volume IV, Page 38) of
the official English transcript of these proceedings in the treatment of
the Leadership Corps, which commandment stated and I quote, “Right is
that which serves the Movement and thus Germany.”
It follows, I think, that the Prosecution conceives the Defendant Frank
to be jointly responsible for all those cruel and discriminatory
enabling acts and decrees through which the Nazis crushed minorities in
Germany and consolidated their control over the German State and
prepared it for its early entry upon aggression. It matters not, in our
view, that the signature of this lawyer does not appear at the foot of
every decree. Enough has been shown, in our submission, to indicate
culpability in this regard. There is sufficient, we believe, now in this
Record—and I refer to decrees cited by Major Walsh in his treatment of
the persecution of the Jews and by Colonel Storey in his treatment of
the Reich Cabinet—to demonstrate that type of enactment and the
consequences thereof, for which we hold the Defendant Frank liable. In
following this theory, may it please the Tribunal, we are only arriving
at conclusions already arrived at for us by the Defendant Frank himself.
I now pass to that second and well-known phase of the Defendant Frank’s
official life, wherein he for 5 years, as chief Party and Government
agent, was bent upon the elimination of a whole people. He was appointed
Governor General of the occupied Polish territory by a decree signed by
his then Führer on 12 October 1939. The decree defined the scope of
Frank’s executive power and is contained in our Document 2537-PS, at
Page 66 in the document book. I shall ask the Tribunal to take judicial
notice of this, since it appears in _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1939, Part I,
Page 2077.
It merely states that Dr. Frank is appointed as Governor General of the
occupied Polish territory; that Dr. Seyss-Inquart is appointed as Deputy
Governor General, and that “the Governor General shall be directly
responsible to me”—meaning Hitler, he having signed the decree.
While some of the outside world was prone in earlier days to wonder at
the apparent efficiency of Nazi administration, we now know that it was
often riddled with the petty jealousies of small men in positions of
some authority and with jurisdictional fractiousness. No such difficulty
existed with the Defendant Frank, however, for though he was not without
the threat of divided authority, he insisted upon, and was granted, the
favor of supreme command within the territorial confines of the
Government General. Only two references from his diary, one in 1940 and
one in 1942, are necessary to show the all-inclusiveness of his
direction and authority.
At a meeting of department heads of the Government General on 8 March
1940 in the Bergakademie, the Defendant Frank clarified his status as
Governor General; and these remarks appear in the diary and in our
Document 2233(m)-PS, at Page 42 in the document book, the original of
which I offer into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-173.
In the German text, the extracts appear in the meetings of department
heads, Volume 2 for 1939-1940, at Pages 5, 6, 7, and 8. Frank says:
“One thing is certain. The authority of the Governor General as
the representative of the will of the Führer and the will of the
Reich in this territory is certainly strong, and I have always
emphasized that I would not tolerate misuse of this authority. I
have made this known anew at every office in Berlin, especially
after Herr Field Marshal Göring on 12. 2. 1940, from Karin Hall,
had forbidden all administrative offices of the Reich, including
the Police and even the Wehrmacht, to interfere in
administrative matters of the Government General. . . .”
He goes on to say:
“There is no authority here in the Government General which is
higher as to rank, stronger in influence, and of greater
authority than that of the Governor General. Even the Wehrmacht
has no governmental or official functions here of any kind; it
has only security functions and general military duties—it has
no political power whatsoever. The same applies to the Police
and the SS. There is here no state within a state, but we are
representatives of the Führer and of the Reich.”
Later, in 1942, at a conference of the district political leaders of the
NSDAP in Kraków on 18 March, Defendant Frank further explained the
relationship between the administration and the Reichsführer SS Himmler.
These remarks appear in the diary and in our Document 2233(r)-PS and at
Page 48 of the document book, the original of which I offer into
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-608. In the German text, the extract to
be quoted appears at Pages 185 and 186 of diary Volume 18, 1942, Part I.
I quote:
“As you know”—says Frank—“I am a fanatic as to unity in
administration. . . . It is therefore clear that the Higher SS
and Police Leader is subordinated to me, that the Police is a
component of the Government, that the SS and Police Leader in
the district is subordinated to the Governor, and that the
district chief has the authority of command over the gendarmerie
in his district. This the Reichsführer SS has recognized; in the
written agreement all these points are mentioned word for word
and signed. It is also self-evident that we cannot establish a
closed shop here which can be treated in the traditional manner
of small states.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you think all this has to be read?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: It is considered important, Sir, by the United States
Prosecution, in view of the fact that this is the later extract from the
diary and indicates that 2 years later even Frank considered himself to
be the supreme authority in the Government General. This is a point
which we conceive to be of importance, Sir. May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: “It would, for instance, be ridiculous if we
would build up here a security policy of our own against our
Poles in the country, while knowing that the Poles in West
Prussia, in Posen, in Warthegau, and in Silesia have one and the
same movement of resistance. So the Reichsführer SS and Chief of
the German Police must be able to carry out, with his agencies,
his police measures concerning the interests of the Reich as a
whole. This, however, will be done in such a way that the
measures to be adopted will first be submitted to me and carried
out only when I give my consent. In the Government General the
Police are the armed forces. Consequently the leader of the
Police will be called by me into the Government of the
Government General; he is subordinate to me, or to my deputy, as
a state secretary for security.”
At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention that the man who filled
the position of State Secretary for Security in the Government General
was Frank’s Higher SS and Police Leader, Krüger.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the next page?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: May it please the Tribunal; I shall come to that
excerpt later.
THE PRESIDENT: In the same document?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. It seems more appropriate at another point.
The Tribunal may recall that the reports of the extermination of Jews in
the Warsaw ghetto were made in the spring of 1943 by SS Leader Stroop,
who immediately supervised the operation, to this same Krüger, who was
still at that time one of the two most influential members of Frank’s
Cabinet, as State Secretary for Security.
It was inevitable that the grand conspiracy or common plan should have
as its component parts a host of small plans each dealing with a
particular sphere of activity. These plans, differing from the master
plan only in size, are the blueprints for a specific action drawn from
the broad policies. Occupied Poland was no exception to this rule. The
plan for the administration of Poland was contained in a top secret
memorandum of a conference between Hitler and the Chief of the OKW,
Defendant Keitel, entitled “Regarding Future Relations of Poland to
Germany” and dated 20 October 1939. This report was initialed by General
Warlimont. It is our Document 864-PS and may be found at Page 3 of the
document book, and I shall offer it into evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-609.
I shall quote, if the Court please, only from Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 6:
“1) The Armed Forces will welcome it if they can dispose of
administrative questions in Poland. On principle, there cannot
be two administrations. . . .
“3) It is not the task of the administration to make Poland into
a model province or a model state of the German order or to put
her economically or financially on a sound basis.
“The Polish intelligentsia must be prevented from forming a
ruling class. The standard of living in the country is to remain
low; we want only to draw labor forces from there. Poles are
also to be used for the administration of the country. However,
the forming of national political groups may not be allowed.
“4) The administration has to work on its own responsibility and
must not be dependent on Berlin. We do not want to do there what
we do in the Reich. The responsibility does not rest with the
Berlin Ministries since there is no German administration unit
concerned.
“The accomplishment of this task will involve a hard racial
struggle which will not allow any legal restrictions. The
methods will be incompatible with the principles otherwise
adhered to by us.
“The Governor General is to give the Polish nation only bare
living conditions and is to maintain the basis for military
security. . . .
“6). . . . Any tendencies towards the consolidation of
conditions in Poland are to be suppressed. The ‘Polish muddle’
must be allowed to develop. The Government of the territory must
make it possible for us to purify the Reich territory from Jews
and Poles too. Collaboration with new Reich provinces (Posen and
West Prussia) only for resettlements (compare Himmler mission).
“Purpose: Shrewdness and severity must be the maxims in this
racial struggle in order to spare us from going to battle on
account of this country again.”
The Defendant Frank was the chosen executor of this program. He knew its
aims, approved of them, and actively carried out the scheme. The
Tribunal’s attention has already been invited to Exhibit Number USA-297
wherein—this may be found at Page 1512 of the English text of the
official transcript—(Volume III, Pages 576, 577) the Defendant Frank
expounded the mission which his Führer assigned to him and according to
which he intended to administer in Poland. It contemplated, in brief,
ruthless exploitation, deportation of all supplies and workers,
reduction of the entire Polish economy to an absolute minimum necessary
for bare existence of the population, and the closing of all schools. No
more callous statement exists than the one Frank made in this report,
wherein he said, “Poland shall be treated as a colony; the Poles shall
be the slaves of the Greater German world empire.”
In December 1940 Frank submitted to his department heads that the task
of administering Poland did truly involve a hard racial struggle which
would not allow any legal restrictions. I refer to our Document
2233(o)-PS, which may be found at Page 45 in the document book. It is
taken from the Frank diary, and I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-173. In the German text the extract to be quoted appears in the
volume of the diary entitled, “Department Heads Meetings 1939-1940,” on
Pages 12 and 13. I now quote:
“In this country the force of a determined leadership must rule.
The Pole must feel here that we are not building him a legal
state, but that for him there is only one duty, namely, to work
and to behave himself. It is clear that this leads sometimes to
difficulties; but you must, in your own interest, see that all
measures are ruthlessly carried out in order to become master of
the situation. You can rely on me absolutely in this.”
As for the Poles and Ukrainians, Defendant Frank’s attitude was clear.
They were to be permitted to slave for the German economy as long as the
war emergency continued. Once the war was won, even this cynical
interest would cease. I refer to a speech before German political
leaders at Kraków on 12 January 1944. It appears in the Frank diary and
as our Document 2233(bb)-PS at Page 60 in the document book. It is the
first passage on that page. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-295. In the diary, the German text will be found in the loose-leaf
volume covering the period from 1 January to 28 February 1944, at the
entry for 14 January 1944, at Page 24. “Once the war is won” Frank tells
these leaders—and here we have, may it please the Court, the classic
example of the completely brutal statement:
“Once the war is won, then, for all I care, mincemeat can be
made of the Poles and the Ukrainians and all the others who run
around here; it doesn’t matter what happens.”
In accordance with the racial program of the Nazi conspirators, the
Defendant Frank makes it quite clear in his diary that the complete
annihilation of Jews was one of his cherished objectives. In Exhibit
Number USA-271, Frank stated in late 1940 in his diary that he could not
eliminate all lice and Jews in a year’s time. In Exhibit Number USA-281,
he notes in his diary in the year 1942 that a program of starvation
rations sentencing, in effect, 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger, should
be noted only marginally. In Exhibit Number USA-295, he confided to a
secret press conference that in the year 1944—and this, too, is from
the diary—there were still in the Government General perhaps 100,000
Jews.
These facts, if the Tribunal please, are from the diary of the man
himself. We do no more here than to tabulate the results. The supreme
authority within a certain geographic area admits that in a period of 4
years’ time up to 3,400,000 persons from that area have been annihilated
pursuant to an official policy and for no crime, but only because of
having been born a Jew. No words could possibly reveal the inferences of
death and suffering which must needs be drawn from these stark facts.
It was a Nazi policy that the population of occupied countries should
endure terror, oppression, impoverishment, and starvation. The Defendant
Frank succeeded so well in this regard that he was forced to report to
his Führer in 1943 that, in effect, Poles did not regard the Government
General with affection. This report to Hitler was a summarization of the
first 3½ years of the Defendant Frank’s administration. It, better than
anything else, can show the conditions as they then existed as a result
of the conspiratorial efforts of the defendants.
The report is contained in our Document 437-PS, at Page 2 of the
document book, and I now offer the original in evidence as Exhibit
Number USA-610. In the German text, the extract to be quoted appears at
Pages 10 and 11 of this report by Frank to Hitler dated 19 June 1943,
regarding the situation in Poland. I now quote. Frank says:
“In the course of time, a series of measures, or of consequences
of the German rule, have led to a substantial deterioration of
the attitude of the entire Polish people to the Government
General. These measures have affected either individual
professions or the entire population and frequently also—often
with crushing severity—the fate of individuals.”
He goes on:
“Among these are in particular:
“1. The entirely insufficient nourishment of the population,
mainly of the working classes in the cities, the majority of
which are working for German interests.
“Until the war of 1939 their food supplies, though not varied,
were sufficient and were generally assured owing to the agrarian
surplus of the former Polish State and in spite of the
negligence on the part of their former political leadership.
“2. The confiscation of a great part of the Polish estates,
expropriation without compensation, and evacuation of Polish
peasants from maneuver areas and from German settlements.
“3. Encroachments and confiscations in the industries, in
commerce and trade, and in the field of other private property.
“4. Mass arrests and shootings by the German Police who applied
the system of collective responsibility.
“5. The rigorous methods of recruiting workers.
“6. The extensive paralyzing of cultural life.
“7. The closing of high schools, colleges, and universities.
“8. The limitation, indeed the complete elimination, of Polish
influence from all spheres of State administration.
“9. Curtailment of the influence of the Catholic Church,
limiting its extensive influence—an undoubtedly necessary
move—and, in addition, until quite recently, often at the
shortest notice, the closing and confiscation of monasteries,
schools, and charitable institutions.”
Indeed, the Nazi plan for Poland succeeded all too well.
THE PRESIDENT: This is only an extract here. Was he saying that these
measures were inevitable or that he justified them, or what was he
saying in the report?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: He was saying, Sir, that the Polish people’s attitude
to the Government General had substantially deteriorated. The reasons
for that deterioration are the listings I gave to the Court. In other
words. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all he said?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: No, Sir; that is just taken from Pages 10 and 11 of
the report. The report is an extremely long one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose you know what the general tenor of the
report was.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: The general tenor of the report, Sir, was in the
nature of a complaint to Hitler, that he, Frank, was having an extremely
difficult time in the Government General because of these measures and
because of these happenings in the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: In order to illustrate how completely the Defendant
Frank is identified with the policies. . .
DR. SEIDL: [_Interposing._] As the Tribunal has already asked the
Prosecution what the purpose of this document is, I would like to point
out here that it concerns a document of 40 typewritten pages addressed
to Hitler and that Frank condemns the conditions which the Prosecution
has brought forward and that in this document he makes far-reaching
proposals to remedy the situation which he severely criticizes.
I shall, when my turn comes, read the whole document.
THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. You will have full opportunity, when it is your
turn, to explain this document; but it is not your turn at the moment.
DR. SEIDL: I only mention it now because the Tribunal itself drew my
attention to this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Lieutenant Colonel Baldwin, I asked you what was the
whole content of the document from which you were reading this
paragraph. According to counsel for Frank, the document, which is a very
long document, shows that Frank was suggesting remedies for the
difficulties which he here sets out. Is that so?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: That is so, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the. . .
LT. COL. BALDWIN: May it please the Tribunal, I did not cite this
portion of that document, as I will later demonstrate, to show that
Frank did or did not suggest remedies for these conditions; but only to
explain that these conditions existed as of a certain period.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, when you cite a small part of the document, you
should make sure that what you cite is not misleading as compared to the
rest of the document.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: I see, Your Honor. I had not considered it to be such,
in view of the purpose for which I introduced it, which, as I suggested,
was only to indicate a set of conditions which existed at a certain
time. I naturally assumed that the Defense, as Dr. Seidl has indicated,
will carry on with the rest of the document as a matter of defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course, that is all very well, but the Defendant
Frank’s counsel will speak at some remote date; and it is not a complete
answer to say that he will have an opportunity of explaining the
document at some future date. It is for Counsel for the Prosecution to
make sure that no extracts which they read can reasonably make a
misleading impression upon the mind of the Tribunal.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: I shall now state, then, that the extract which was
just read was read solely for the purpose of indicating that at a
certain period, namely, June 1943, those conditions existed in Poland,
as the result of statements by the Governor General of Poland.
Would that be satisfactory to the Tribunal?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what is not satisfactory to the
Tribunal is that you did not give us the real purport of the document.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Well, Sir, I don’t have the complete document before
me now. Therefore, I can’t read all of it.
THE PRESIDENT: What we would like, would be, if possible, that when an
extract is made from a document, counsel who are presenting that extract
should instruct themselves as to the general purport of the document so
as to make certain that the part that is read is not misleading.
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir.
In order to illustrate how completely the Defendant Frank is identified
with the policies, the execution of which is reported in this document,
and how thoroughly they were his own policies; and this, if the Tribunal
please, regardless of what remedies he may have had in 1943, it is
proposed in this last section to take passages from Frank’s own diary in
proof of his early espousal and execution of these self-same policies.
As to the insufficient nourishment of the Polish population, there was
no need for the Defendant Frank to have waited until June 1943 to have
reported this fact to Hitler. In September 1941 Defendant Frank’s own
chief medical officer reported to him the appalling Polish health
conditions. This appears in Frank’s diary and in our Document
2233(p)-PS, at Page 46 in the document book, which I now offer in
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-611. The German text is to be found in
the 1941 diary volume at Page 830. I quote:
“Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Walbaum expresses his opinion of the
health condition of the Polish population. Investigations which
were carried out by his department proved that the majority of
Poles had only about 600 calories allotted to them, whereas the
normal requirement for a human being was 2,200 calories. The
Polish population was weakened to such an extent that it would
fall an easy prey to spotted fever.”—Parenthetically, I think
we know that as typhus.
“The number of diseased Poles has amounted to date to 40
percent. During the last week alone, 1,000 new spotted fever
cases were officially recorded. That is so far the highest
figure. This health situation represents a serious danger for
the Reich and for the soldiers coming into the Government
General. A spreading of that pestilence into the Reich is very
possible. The increase in tuberculosis, too, is causing anxiety.
If the food rations were to be diminished again, an enormous
increase of the number of illnesses could be predicted.”
While it was crystal-clear from this report that in September 1941
disease affected 40 percent of the Polish population, nevertheless the
Defendant Frank approved, in August 1942, a new plan which called for a
much larger contribution of foodstuffs to Germany at the expense of the
non-German population of the Government General. Methods of meeting the
new quotas out of the grossly inadequate rations of the Government
General and the impact of the new quotas on the economy of the country
were discussed at a cabinet meeting of the Government General on 24
August 1942 in terms which leave no possible doubt that not only was the
proposed requisition beyond the resources of the country, but its force
was to be distributed on a grossly discriminatory basis. This appears
from Frank’s diary and in our Document 2233(e)-PS, which is at Page 30
in the document book, which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-283. The German text appears in the 1942 conference volume at the
conference entry for 24 August 1942. I quote the following extract:
“Before the German people”—said Frank—“suffer starvation, the
occupied territories and their people shall be exposed to
starvation. In this moment, therefore, we here in the Government
General must have the iron determination to help the great
German people, that is our fatherland.
“The Government General, therefore, must do the following: The
Government General has undertaken to send 500,000 tons of bread
grain to the fatherland in addition to the foodstuffs already
being delivered for the relief of Germany or consumed here by
troops of the Armed Forces, Police, or SS. If you compare this
with our contributions of last year you can see that this means
a six-fold increase over that of last year’s contribution by the
Government General.
“The new demand will be fulfilled exclusively at the expense of
the foreign population. It must be done cold-bloodedly and
without pity.”
Defendant Frank was not only responsible for reducing the Government
General to starvation level, but was proud of the contribution he
thereby made to the Reich. I refer to a statement made to the political
leaders of the NSDAP on 14 December 1942 at Kraków. It is contained in
the Frank diary and is our Document 2233(z)-PS, at Page 57 in the
document book; and I now offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-612.
In the German text the extract appears in the 1942 diary volume, Part
IV, at Page 1331. Defendant Frank is speaking:
“I will endeavor to get out of the reservoir of this territory
everything that is yet to be had out of it.”
He continues:
“When you consider that it was possible for me to deliver to the
Reich 600,000 tons of bread grain and in addition 180,000 tons
to the Armed Forces stationed here; further, an abundance
amounting to many thousands of tons of other commodities, such
as seed, fats, vegetables, besides the delivery to the Reich of
300 million eggs, _et cetera_, you can estimate how important
the work in this territory is for the Reich. In order to make
clear to you the significance of the consignment from the
Government General of 600,000 tons of bread grain, you are
referred to the fact that the Government General, by this
achievement alone, covers the raising of the bread ration in the
Greater German Reich by two-thirds for the present rationing
period. This enormous achievement can rightfully be claimed by
us.”
Now, as to the resettlement of Polish peasants which Defendant Frank
mentions secondly in the report to Hitler—although Himmler was given
general authority in connection with the conspirators’ project to
resettle various districts in the conquered Eastern territories with
racial Germans, the projects relating to resettling districts in the
Government General were submitted to and approved by the Defendant
Frank. The plan to resettle Zamosc and Lublin, for example, was reported
to him at a meeting to discuss special problems of the district Lublin
by his infamous State Secretary for Security, Higher SS and Police
Leader, Krüger, on 4 August 1942. It is contained in Frank’s diary and
in our Document 2233(t)-PS, at Page 51 in the document book, which I now
offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607. The German text appears in
the 1942 volume of the diary, Part III, Pages 830, 831, and 832.
I now quote from the report of the conference:
“State Secretary Krüger then continues, saying that the
Reichsführer’s next immediate plan until the end of the
following year would be to settle the following German racial
groups in the two districts”—Zamosc and Lublin—“1,000 peasant
homes (1 homestead per family of about 6) for Bosnian Germans;
1,200 other kinds of homes; 1,000 homesteads for Bessarabian
Germans; 200 for Serbian Germans; 2,000 for Leningrad Germans;
4,000 for Baltic Germans; 500 for Wolhynia Germans; and 200
homes for Flemish, Danish, and Dutch Germans; in all 10,000
homes for 50,000 to 60,000 persons.”
Upon hearing this, the Defendant Frank directed that—and I quote:
“. . . the resettlement plan is to be discussed co-operatively
by the competent authorities and he declares his willingness to
approve the final plan by the end of September after
satisfactory arrangements had been made concerning all the
questions appertaining thereto—in particular the guaranteeing
of peace and order—so that by the middle of November, as the
most favorable time, the resettlement can begin.”
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
LT. COL. BALDWIN: May it please the Tribunal, the way in which the
resettlement at Zamosc was carried out was described to Defendant Frank
by Krüger at a meeting at Warsaw on January 25, 1943. The report is
contained in the Frank diary and is our Document 2233(aa)-PS, and
appears at Page 58 in the document book. I offer the original of it in
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-613. The German text appears in the labor
conference volume for 1943, at Pages 16, 17, and 19. Krüger in this
excerpt reports that they had settled the first 4,000 in the Kreis
Zamosc shortly before Christmas; that, understandably, friends were not
made of the Poles in the resettlement program; and that the Poles had to
be chased out. He then stated to Frank, and I quote:
“We are removing those who constitute a burden in this new
colonization territory. Actually, they are the asocial and
inferior elements. They are being deported; first brought to a
concentration camp and then sent as labor to the Reich. From a
Polish propaganda standpoint, this entire first action has an
unfavorable effect. For the Poles say: ‘After the Jews have been
destroyed, then they will employ the same methods to get the
Poles out of this territory and liquidate them just like the
Jews.’”
Krüger went on to mention that there was a great deal of unrest in the
territory as a result; and Frank informed him, that is, Krüger, that
each individual case of resettlement would be discussed in the future
exactly as that one of Zamosc had been.
Although the illegality of this dispossession of Poles to make room for
Germans was evident and although the fact that the Poles who were not
only being dispossessed but sent off to concentration camps became
increasingly difficult to handle, the resettlement projects continued in
the Government General.
The third item mentioned by Frank—the encroachments and confiscations
of industry and private property—was again an early Frank policy. He
explained this to his department heads in December 1939. The report is
from his diary and is our Document 2233(k)-PS, and it appears at Page 40
in the document book. I now offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-173. The German text appears in the department heads conference
volume for 1939-40 at the entry for 2 December 1939 at Pages 2 and 3.
Dr. Frank states:
“Principally it can be said regarding the administration of the
Government General: This territory in its entirety is booty for
the German Reich, and thus it will not do for this territory to
be exploited in separate individual parts; but the territory in
its entirety shall be economically used and its entire economic
worth redound to the benefit of the German people.”
Reference is made to Exhibit Number USA-297, if any further support of
an early policy of ruthless exploitation is deemed necessary by the
Tribunal. In addition, the decree permitting sequestration in the
Government General heretofore pointed out to the Tribunal
(_Verordnungsblatt für das Generalgouvernement_, Number 6, 27 January
1940, Page 23), which decree was signed by the Defendant Frank,
permitted and empowered the Nazi officials to engage in wholesale
seizure of property. This was made the easier by the undefined criteria
of the decree. The looting of the Government General under this and
other decrees has already been presented to the Tribunal on 14 December
1945, under the subject heading, “Germanization and spoliation of
occupied territories,” and the Tribunal is respectfully referred to that
portion of the record and in particular to that segment dealing with the
Government General.
The Defendant Frank mentioned mass arrests and mass shooting and the
application of collective responsibility as the fourth reason for the
apparent deterioration of the attitude of the entire Polish people. In
this, too, he is to blame, for it was no part of Defendant Frank’s
policy that reprisal should be commensurate with the gravity of the
offense. He was, on the contrary, an advocate of the most drastic
measures. At a conference of district political leaders at Kraków, on 18
March 1942, Frank stated his policy. This extract is from the diary and
is our Document 2233(r)-PS and will be found at Page 49 in the document
book. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-608. The German text
may be found in the diary volume for 1942, Part I, Pages 195 and 196. I
quote Frank’s statement:
“Incidentally, the struggle for the achievement of our aims will
be pursued cold-bloodedly. You see how the state agencies work.
You see that we do not hesitate at anything, and stand dozens of
people up against the wall. This is necessary because a simple
reflection tells me that it cannot be our task at this period,
when the best German blood is being sacrificed, to show regard
for the blood of another race; for out of this, one of the
greatest dangers may arise. One already hears today in Germany
that prisoners of war, for instance, in Bavaria or Thuringia,
are administering large estates entirely independently, while
all the men in a village fit for service are at the front. If
this state of affairs continues, then a gradual retrogression of
Germanism will result. One should not underestimate this danger.
Therefore, everything revealing itself as a Polish power of
leadership must be destroyed again and again with ruthless
energy. This does not have to be shouted abroad; it will happen
silently.”
And on 15 January 1944 Defendant Frank assured the political leaders of
the NSDAP that reprisals would be made for German deaths. These remarks
are to be found in the Frank diary, in our Document 2233(bb)-PS at Page
60 in the document book, the second quote on that page, the original of
which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-295. The German text
appears in the loose-leaf volume of the diary covering the period from 1
January 1944 to 28 February 1944, and appears at Page 13. Frank says
quite simply—“I have not hesitated to declare that when a German is
shot, up to 100 Poles shall be shot too.”
The whole tragic history of slave-labor and recruitment of workers has
been placed before this Tribunal in great detail. When the Defendant
Frank refers to these methods as his fifth reason for disaffection in
Poland in his report to Hitler, he once more cites policies which he
executed. Force, violence, and economic duress were all supported by him
as means for recruiting laborers for deportation to slavery in Germany.
This was an announced policy, and I have already alluded to Exhibit
Number USA-297, which contains verification of this fact.
While in the very beginning recruitment of laborers in the Government
General may have been voluntary, these methods soon proved inadequate.
In the spring of 1940 the question of utilizing force came up and the
matter was discussed at an official meeting at which the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart was also present. I refer to the Frank diary and our
Document 2233(n)-PS, which the Tribunal will find at Page 43 in the
document book. I offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-614. The German text appears in the diary volume for 1940, Part II,
at Page 333. I quote the conference report:
“The Governor General stated that all means in the form of
proclamations, _et cetera_, not having succeeded, one is led to
the conclusion that the Poles, out of malevolence and with the
intention of harming Germany by not putting themselves at its
disposal, refuse to enlist for labor service. Therefore, he asks
Dr. Frauendorfer if there are any other measures not as yet
employed to win the Poles on a voluntary basis.
“Reichshauptamtsleiter Dr. Frauendorfer answered the question in
the negative.
“The Governor General emphasized the fact that he will now be
asked to take a definite attitude towards this question.
Therefore, the question will arise whether any form of coercive
measures should now be employed.
“The question put by the Governor General to SS Lieutenant
General Krüger as to whether he sees possibilities of calling
Polish workers by coercive means, is answered in the affirmative
by SS Lieutenant General Krüger.”
In May 1940, at an official conference—and this record is already
before the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-173—Defendant Frank stated
that compulsion in recruitment of labor could be exercised, that Poles
could be snatched from the streets and that the best method would be
organized raids.
As in the case of persecution of the Jews, the forced labor program in
the Government General is almost beyond belief. I refer to the Frank
diary and to our Document 2233(w)-PS, which will be found at Page 53 in
the document book, the original of which I offer into evidence as
Exhibit Number USA-607. This excerpt is a record, if the Court please,
of a discussion between the Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant Frank at
Kraków on 18 August 1942; and it appears in the diary volume for 1942,
Part III, at Pages 918 and 920. Dr. Frank speaks:
“I am pleased to report to you officially, Party Comrade
Sauckel, that we have up to now supplied 800,000 workers for the
Reich. . . .”
He continues:
“Recently you have requested us to supply a further 140,000. I
have pleasure in informing you officially that in accordance
with our agreement of yesterday, 60 percent of the newly
requested workers will be supplied to the Reich by the end of
October and the balance of 40 percent by the end of the year.”
Dr. Frank continues:
“Beyond the present figure of 140,000 you can, however, next
year reckon upon a higher number of workers from the Government
General, for we shall employ the Police to conscript them.”
How this recruitment was carried out—by wild and ruthless manhunts—is
clearly shown in Exhibit Number USA-178, which is in evidence before the
Tribunal. Starvation, violence, and death, which characterized the
entire slave-labor program of the conspirators, was thus faithfully
reflected in the administration of the Defendant Frank.
There were, of course, other grounds for uneasiness in occupied Poland
which the Defendant Frank did not mention in his report to Hitler. He
does not mention the concentration camps, perhaps because as a
representative jurist of National Socialism, the Defendant Frank had
himself defended the system in Germany. As Governor General the
Defendant Frank, we feel, must be held responsible for all concentration
camps within the boundaries of the Government General. These include,
among others, the notorious camp at Maidanek and the one at Lublin and
at Treblinka outside of Warsaw. As indicated previously, the Defendant
Frank knew and approved that Poles were taken to concentration camps in
connection with resettlement projects. He had certain jurisdiction as
well in relation to the extermination camp Auschwitz, to which Poles
from the Government General were committed by his administration. In
February 1944 Embassy Counsellor Dr. Schumberg suggested a possible
amnesty of Poles who had been taken to Auschwitz for trivial offenses
and kept there for several months. This conference, if the Court please,
is reported in the Frank diary and is contained in our Document
2233(bb)-PS, at Page 60 in the document book. It is the third quote on
that page. I offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-295.
THE PRESIDENT: You go too fast. Did you say Page 70?
LT. COL. BALDWIN: Page 60, Sir. The German text appears in the
loose-leaf volume covering the period 1 January 1944 to 28 February
1944, at the conference on 8 February 1944, on Page 7. I quote:
“The Governor General will take under consideration an amnesty
probably for 1 May of this year. Nevertheless, one must not lose
sight of the fact that the German leadership of the Government
General must not now show any sign of weakness.”
This, then, was and is the conspirator Hans Frank. The evidence is by no
means exhausted, but it is our belief that sufficient proof has been
given to this Tribunal to establish his liability under Count One of the
Indictment.
As legal adviser of Hitler and the Leadership Corps of the NSDAP,
Defendant Frank promoted the conspirators’ rise to power. In his various
juridical capacities, both in the NSDAP and in the German Government,
Defendant Frank certainly advocated and promoted the political monopoly
of the NSDAP, the racial program of the conspirators, and the terror
system of the concentration camps and of arrest without warrant. His
role, early in the Common Plan, was to realize “the National Socialist
program in the realm of the law” and to give the outward form of
legality to this program of terror, persecution, and oppression which
had as its ultimate purpose mobilization for aggressive war.
As a loyal adherent of Hitler and the NSDAP, Defendant Frank was
appointed Governor General in 1939 of that area of Poland known as the
Government General. Defendant Frank had defined justice as that which
benefited the German nation. His 5 years’ administration of the
Government General illustrates the most extreme extension of that
principle.
It has been shown that Defendant Frank took the office of Governor
General under a program which constituted in itself a criminal plan or
conspiracy, as Defendant Frank well knew and approved, to exploit the
territory ruthlessly for the benefit of Nazi Germany, to conscript its
nationals for labor in Germany, to close its schools and colleges, to
prevent the rise of a Polish intelligentsia, and to administer the
territory as a colonial possession of the Third Reich in total disregard
of the duties of an occupying power towards the inhabitants of occupied
territory.
Under Defendant Frank’s administration this criminal plan was
consummated, but the execution went even beyond the plan. Food
contributions to Germany increased to the point where the bare
subsistence reserved for the Government General under the plan was
reduced to a level of mass starvation. The savage program of
exterminating Jews was relentlessly executed. Resettlement projects were
carried out with reckless disregard of the rights of the local
population and the terror of the concentration camp followed in the wake
of the Nazi invaders.
This statement of evidence has been compiled in large part from
statements by the Defendant Frank himself, from the admission found in
his diary, official reports, reports of conferences with his colleagues
and subordinates, and his speeches. It is therefore appropriate that a
passage from his diary should be quoted in conclusion. It is our
Document 2233(aa)-PS. It appears at Page 59 in the document book. I
offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-613. The German
text appears in the 1943 volume of labor conference meetings at the 25
January 1943 entry on Page 53. In his address Defendant Frank,
prophetically enough, told his colleagues in the Government General that
their task would grow more difficult. “Hitler”, he said, “could help
them only as a kind of ‘administrative pill box.’” They must depend on
themselves.
“We are now duty bound to hold together”—and I quote Frank—“We
must remember that we who are gathered together here figure on
Mr. Roosevelt’s list of war criminals. I have the honor of being
Number One. We have, so to speak, become accomplices in the
world historic sense.”
This concludes the presentation on the Defendant Frank.
May it please the Tribunal, Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones of the
British Delegation will now deal with the individual responsibility of
the Defendant Streicher.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL M. C. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the United
Kingdom): If the Tribunal please, it is my duty to present the case
against the Defendant Julius Streicher.
Appendix A of the Indictment, that paragraph of the Appendix relating to
Streicher, sets out the positions which he held and which I shall prove.
It then goes on to allege that he used those positions and his personal
influence and his close connection with the Führer in such a manner that
he promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany, as set forth in Count One
of the Indictment; that he authorized, directed, and participated in the
Crimes against Humanity, set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including particularly the incitement of the persecution of the Jews,
set forth in Count One and Count Four of the Indictment.
My Lord, the case against this defendant can be, perhaps, described by
the unofficial title that he assumed for himself as “Jew-baiter Number
One.” It is the Prosecution’s case that for the course of some 25 years
this man educated the whole of the German people in hatred and that he
incited them to the persecution and to the extermination of the Jewish
race. He was an accessory to murder, perhaps on a scale never attained
before.
With the Tribunal’s permission I propose to prove quite shortly the
position and influence that he held and then to refer the Tribunal to
several short extracts from his newspapers and from his speeches and
then to outline the part that he played in the particular persecutions
that occurred against the Jews between the years 1933 and 1945.
My Lord, perhaps before I start, I might say that the document book
before the members of the Tribunal is arranged in the order in which I
intend to refer to the documents. They are paged and there is an index
at the beginning of the book and if the Tribunal have got what is called
the trial brief, it is in effect a note of the evidence to which I shall
refer and again in the order in which I shall refer to it, which may be
of some assistance.
My Lord, this defendant was born in 1885. He became a school teacher in
Nuremberg and formed a party of his own, which he called the German
Socialist Party. The chief policy of that party, again, was
anti-Semitism. In 1922 he handed over his party to Hitler; and there is
a glowing account of his generosity which appears in Hitler’s _Mein
Kampf_, which I do not think it worth occupying the time of the Tribunal
in reading. It appears as Document M-3, and is the first document in the
Tribunal’s document book. The copy of _Mein Kampf_ is already before the
Tribunal as Exhibit GB-128.
The appointments that he held in the Party and State were few. From 1921
until 1945 he was a member of the Nazi Party. In 1925 he was appointed
Gauleiter of Franconia, and he remained as such until about February of
1940; and from the time that the Nazi Government came into power in 1933
until 1945, he was a member of the Reichstag. In addition to that he
held the title of Obergruppenführer in the SA. All that information
appears in Document 2975-PS, which is already exhibited as Exhibit
Number USA-9, and is the affidavit that he made himself.
The propaganda that he carried out throughout those years was chiefly
done through the medium of his newspapers. He was the editor and
publisher of the paper called Der Stürmer, which was a weekly journal,
from 1922 until 1933; and thereafter the publisher and owner of the
paper.
In 1933 he also founded and thereafter, I think, published—certainly
was responsible for—the daily newspaper called the _Fränkische
Tageszeitung_.
There were, in addition to that and particularly later, several others,
mostly local journals, that he published from Nuremberg.
Those are the positions that he held; and now if I may, I shall quite
briefly trace the course of his incitement and propaganda more or less
in chronological order by referring the Tribunal to the short extracts.
I would say this: These extracts are really selected at random. They are
selected with a view to showing the Tribunal the various methods that he
employed to incite the people against the Jewish race; but his
newspapers are crowded with them, week after week, day after day. It is
impossible to pick up any copy without finding the same kind of stuff in
the headlines and in the articles.
If I might quote from four speeches and articles showing his early
activities from 1922 until 1933—at Page 3 of the Tribunal’s document
book, Document M-11—that is an extract from a speech that he made in
1922 in Nuremberg, and—after abusing the Jews in the first paragraph—I
refer only to the last two lines: “We know that Germany will be free
when the Jew has been excluded from the life of the German people.”
I pass to the next document, which is M-12, on Page 4. The first
document was Exhibit GB-165. That is the book, I understand, that is
being given that number, so that the next document, which is taken from
the same book, will be the same. Perhaps I might be allowed to read that
short extract. It is an extract from a speech:
“I beg you and particularly those of you who carry the cross
throughout the land, to become somewhat more serious when I
speak of the enemy of the German people, namely, the Jew. Not
out of irresponsibility or for fun do I fight against the Jewish
enemy, but because I bear within me the knowledge that the whole
misfortune was brought to Germany by the Jews alone.
“. . . I ask you once more, what is at stake today? The Jew
seeks domination not only among the German people but among all
peoples. The Communists pave the way for him. . . . Do you not
know that the God of the Old Testament ordered the Jews to
devour and enslave the peoples of the earth? . . .
“The Government allows the Jew to do as he pleases. The people
expect action to be taken. . . . You may think about Adolf
Hitler as you please, but one thing you must admit. He possessed
the courage to attempt to free the German people from the Jew by
a national revolution. That was a great deed.”
The next short extract appearing on the next page is taken from a speech
in April of 1925:
“You must realize that the Jew wants our people to perish. . . .
That is why you must join us and leave those who have brought
you nothing but war and inflation and discord. For thousands of
years the Jew has been destroying the nations.”
I ask the Tribunal to note now these last few words:
“Let us start today, so that we can annihilate the Jews.”
My Lord, so far as I have been able to find, that is the earliest
expression of annihilation of the Jewish race. Perhaps it gave birth to
what was 14 years later to become the official policy of the Nazi
Government.
And one further passage from this period. This is in April 1932,
Document M-14, taken from the same book. He starts by saying, “For 13
years I have fought against Jewry.” I quote the last paragraph only:
“We know that the Jew, whether he is baptized as a Protestant or
as a Catholic, remains a Jew. Why can you not realize this, you
Protestant clergymen, you Catholic priests! You are blinded and
serve the God of the Jews who is not the God of love but the God
of hate. Why do you not listen to Christ, who said to the Jews,
‘You are the children of the Devil.’”
That, then, was the kind of performance he was putting up during those
early years. When the Nazi Party came to power, they officially started
their campaign against the Jews by the boycott of 1 April 1933. Now, of
that boycott the Tribunal have already had evidence; and I would do no
more now than to remind the Tribunal in a word what happened.
The boycott was agreed on and approved of by the whole Government, as
was shown in a document which is already before you, Document 2409-PS,
Exhibit Number USA-262, which was Goebbels’ diary.
Streicher was appointed the chairman of the central committee for the
organization of that boycott, which appears in Document 2156-PS, Exhibit
Number USA-263. It was then said that he started his work on Wednesday,
the 29th.
On that same day the central committee issued a proclamation in which
they said that the boycott would start on Saturday at 10:00 a. m. sharp.
“Jewry will realize whom it has challenged.” That short quotation
appears in Document 3389-PS, which is USA-566, which is a volume—in
actual fact, it is a copy of _Der Stürmer_ which is already before the
Court.
I would refer the Tribunal to one short passage from an article in the
_Nationalsozialistische Partei Korrespondenz_ which the defendant wrote
on the 30th of March, before the boycott was due to start. It is
Document 2153-PS and appears on Page 12 of the Tribunal’s book, which
becomes Exhibit GB-166. There he writes, under the title, “Defeat the
enemy of the world!—by Julius Streicher, official leader of the central
committee to combat the Jewish atrocity and boycott campaign.”:
“Jewry wanted this battle. It shall have it until it realizes
that the Germany of the brown battalions is not a country of
cowardice and surrender. Jewry will have to fight until we have
won victory.
“National Socialists! Defeat the enemy of the world. Even if the
world is full of devils, we shall succeed in the end.”
As head of the central committee for that boycott, Streicher outlined in
detail the organization of the boycott in orders which the committee
published on the 31st of March 1933, which is the next document in the
book, Document 2154-PS, Exhibit GB-167. I can summarize those.
The committee stressed that no violence is to be employed against the
Jews on the occasion of that boycott, but not perhaps for humane
reasons; it is because, if there is no violence employed, then Jewish
employers will have no grounds for discharging their employees without
notice; and they will have no ground for refusing to pay them any wages.
The Jews were also reported apparently to be transferring businesses to
German figureheads in order to alleviate the results of this
persecution, and the committee laid it down that any property to be
transferred was to be considered as Jewish for the purpose of the
boycott.
I do not think I need go into that any further. It does show that at
that date he was taking a leading part, and a leading part as appointed
by the Government, in the persecution of the Jews.
I would now refer the Court again to a few further extracts to show the
form that this propaganda developed as the years went on. At Page 18 of
the document book, Document M-20, we have an article in the New Year’s
issue of a new paper that he had just founded. It was a semi-medical
paper called _German People’s Health Through Blood and Soil_, edited by
himself; and it is an example of the really remarkable lengths to which
he went in putting over this propaganda against the Jews. I quote:
“For the initiated it is established for all time: ‘alien
albumen’ is the sperm of a man of alien race. The male sperm in
cohabitation is partially or completely absorbed by the female,
and thus enters her bloodstream. One single cohabitation of a
Jew with an Aryan woman is sufficient to poison her blood
forever. Together with the ‘alien albumen’ she has absorbed the
alien soul. Never again will she be able to bear purely Aryan
children, even when married to an Aryan. They will all be
bastards, with a dual soul and a body of a mixed breed. Their
children, too, will be crossbreeds; that means, ugly people of
unsteady character and with a tendency to illnesses. . . .
“Now we know why the Jew uses every artifice of seduction in
order to ravish German girls at as early an age as possible; why
the Jewish doctor rapes his female patients while they are under
anaesthesia. . . . He wants the German girl and the German woman
to absorb the alien sperm of the Jew. She is never again to bear
German children!
“But the blood products of all animal organisms right down to
bacteria, thus serum, lymph, extracts from internal organs, _et
cetera_, are also ‘alien albumen.’ They have a poisonous effect
if directly introduced into the bloodstream either by
vaccination or by injection.
“The worst is that by these products of sick animals the blood
is defiled, the Aryan is impregnated with an alien species.
“The author and abettor of such action is the Jew. He has been
aware of the secrets of the race question for centuries, and
therefore plans systematically the annihilation of the nations
which are superior to him. Science and ‘authorities’ are his
instruments for the enforcing of pseudoscience and the
concealment of truth.”
That becomes, My Lord, Exhibit GB-168.
The next document, also at the beginning of 1935, an extract from his
own paper _Der Stürmer_, is entitled “The Chosen People of the
Criminals”:
“And all the same, or let us say, just because of this, the
history book of the Jews, which is usually called the Holy
Scriptures, impresses us as a horrible criminal romance, which
makes the 150 shilling-shockers of the British Jew, Edgar
Wallace, grow pale with envy. This ‘holy’ book abounds in
murder, incest, fraud, theft, and indecency.”
On the 4th of October 1935—and the Tribunal will remember that that was
the month after the Nuremberg Decrees had been made—he made a speech
which is reported in the _Völkischer Beobachter_ and is entitled in that
newspaper, “Safeguard of German Blood and German Honor.” I read the
report in that article: “Gauleiter Streicher speaks at a German Labor
Front mass demonstration for the Nuremberg laws.” Then the first line of
the actual article says that he spoke for the second time within a few
weeks. I quote only the last two lines of that first large paragraph:
“. . . we have therefore to unmask the Jew, and that is what I have been
doing for the past 15 years.” That remark apparently was met with
tempestuous applause. That document, M-34, becomes Exhibit GB-169.
And, My Lord, I think it unnecessary to quote from the next document in
the Tribunal’s book. It is very much the same type of thing. On Page 22
of the document book, Document M-6, there is a leading article by
Streicher in his _Der Stürmer_ of which I would refer only to the last
half of the last paragraph where again he emphasizes the part that he
himself has taken in this campaign.
“The _Stürmer’s_ 15 years of work of enlightenment has already
led an army of initiated—millions strong—to National
Socialism. The continued work of _Der Stürmer_ will help to
ensure that every German down to the last man will, with heart
and hand, join the ranks of those whose aim it is to crush the
head of the serpent Pan-Juda beneath their heels. He who helps
to bring this about helps to eliminate the devil, and this devil
is the Jew.”
That document becomes Exhibit GB-170.
The next document—I include it in the document book again only to show
the extraordinary length to which he went in his propaganda; and it
consists of a photograph of the burning hull of the airship _Hindenburg_
when it went on fire in June 1937 in America. Underneath it the caption
includes the comment:
“The first radio picture from the United States of America shows
quite clearly that a Jew stands behind the explosion of our
airship _Hindenburg_. Nature has depicted quite clearly and
quite correctly that devil in human guise.”
And although it is not at all clear from that photograph, I think the
meaning of that comment is that the cloud of smoke in the air is in the
shape of a Jewish face.
On the next page Document M-4 is a speech he made in September 1937 at
the opening of a bridge in Nuremberg. I will quote only the last
paragraph on Page 24. The bridge in question is called the Wilhelm
Gustloff bridge, and he says:
“The man who murdered Wilhelm Gustloff must have come from the
Jewish people, because the Jewish textbooks teach that every Jew
has the right to kill a non-Jew; and indeed, that it is pleasing
to the Jewish God to kill as many non-Jews as possible.
“Look at the road the Jewish people have been following for
thousands of years past; everywhere murder, everywhere mass
murder! Neither must we forget that behind present-day wars
there stands the Jewish financier who pursues his aims and
interests. The Jew always lives on the blood of other nations;
he needs such murder and such victims. For us who know, the
murder of Wilhelm Gustloff is the same as ritual murder.”
And then on the next page:
“It is our duty to tell the children at school and the bigger
ones what this memorial means. . . .”
I go to the next paragraph:
“The Jew no longer shows himself among us openly as he used to.
But it would be wrong to say that victory is ours. Full and
final victory will have been achieved only when the whole world
is rid of Jews.”
That becomes Exhibit GB-171.
Now the next two documents in your document books are simply extracts
from the correspondence columns of his _Der Stürmer_, showing again one
of the methods he employed in this propaganda. I do not need to read
them. The correspondence columns of all his issues are full of letters
coming in from Germans saying that some German has been buying her shoes
from a Jewish shop and so on, and in that way assisting in the general
boycott of the Jews. In other words, they really are a weekly column of
libels against the Jews all over Germany.
I pass then to another and particular form of propaganda that he
employed and which he called “ritual murder.” The Tribunal may well
remember that some years ago—I think it started in 1934—this _Der
Stürmer_ began publishing accounts of Jewish ritual murder which
horrified the whole world to such an extent that even the Archbishop of
Canterbury eventually wrote to the _Times_ protesting, as indeed did
people from every country in the world, protesting that any Government
should allow matter like this to be published in their national
newspapers.
He takes his ritual murder, I understand, from a medieval belief that
during their Eastertide celebrations the Jews were in the habit of
murdering Christian children; and he enlarges upon this and
misrepresents this belief, this medieval belief, to show that not only
did they do it in the Middle Ages, but that they are still doing it and
still want to do it. And if I might just quote one or two passages from
his newspapers and show one or two pictures which he published in
connection with his campaign of ritual murder, it will illustrate to the
Court the type of teaching and propaganda that he was putting up. On
Page 29 of the Tribunal’s document book, I will quote from the third but
last paragraph:
“This the French front-line soldier should take with him to
France: The German people have taken a new lease on life. They
want peace, but if anybody should attack them, if anyone should
try to torture them again, to throw them back into the past,
then the world would witness another heroic epic; then may
Heaven decide where righteousness lies—here with us, or where
the Jew has the whiphand and where he instigates massacres, one
could almost say the biggest ritual murders of all times. If the
German people are to be slaughtered according to the Jewish
rites, the whole world will be thus slaughtered at the same
time.”
And the last paragraph:
“Just as you have drummed morning and evening prayers into your
children’s heads, so now drum this into their heads, so that the
German people may gain the spiritual power to convince the rest
of the world which the Jews desire to lead against us.”
That Document is M-2, Exhibit GB-172.
And on the following page of the document book there is a reproduction
of a photograph taken from _Der Stürmer_ of April 1937 which illustrates
three Jews ritually murdering a girl by cutting her throat and shows the
blood pouring out into a bucket on the ground. The caption underneath
that photograph is as follows:
“Ritual Murder at Polna. Ritual murder of Agnes Hruza by the
Jews Hilsner, Erdmann, and Wassermann (taken from a contemporary
postcard.)”
That is Exhibit Number USA-258. It is already in a copy of _Der
Stürmer_, which has been put in.
There appears on the next page of the document book an extract from that
same _Der Stürmer_, April 1937. I will not read it now, because it has
been put in and has all been read to the Court. It describes what
happens when ritual murder takes place, and the blood is mixed with the
bread and drunk by the Jews having their feast. The Tribunal will
remember that during the feast the head of the family exclaims, “May all
gentiles perish—as the child whose blood is contained in the bread and
wine.”
That is already Exhibit Number USA-258, and it has been read in the
transcript at Page 1437 (Volume III, Pages 522, 523).
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a good time to break off?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If My Lordship pleases.
[_A recess was taken until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: May it please the Tribunal, if I might just
refer to two further copies of _Der Stürmer_ on the subject of “ritual
murder,” the first of which appears on Page 32 of the document book,
2700-PS. It is the copy in Exhibit USA-260. It is an article in _Der
Stürmer_ for July 1938:
“Whoever has had the occasion to be an eyewitness to the
ritualistic slaughtering of animals or at least to see a
truthful film on this method of slaughtering will never forget
this gruesome experience. It is horrifying. And instinctively he
is reminded of the crimes which the Jews have committed for
centuries on human beings. He will be reminded of the ritual
murder. History offers hundreds of cases in which non-Jewish
children were tortured to death by Jews. They, too, received the
same gash in the throat as is found on ritualistically
slaughtered animals. They, too, were slowly bled to death while
fully conscious.”
My Lord, on special occasions, or when he had some particular subject
matter to put before the world, he was in the habit of issuing special
editions of his newspaper _Der Stürmer_. Ritual murder was such a
special subject that he issued one of these special editions dealing
solely with it. The Tribunal will have a photostatic copy of the
complete issue for May 1939.
Now I have not attempted to have translated all, or indeed any, of the
articles which appear in that edition. It is perhaps sufficient to look
at the pictures, the illustrations, and for me to read the captions
which appear underneath the photographs; and I regret the translations
of the captions have not been attached to the Tribunal’s copy but
perhaps I may be permitted to refer to the pictures and read the
captions for the Tribunal.
The pages are marked in red pencil on the right-hand corner. On Page 1 I
see a picture of a child having knives stuck into its side, blood
spurting from it, and below the pedestal on which it stands are five
presumably dead children lying on the ground. The caption to that
picture is as follows:
“In the year 1476 the Jews in Regensburg murdered six boys. They
drew their blood and tortured them to death. In an underground
vault which belonged to the Jew Josfol, the judges found the
bodies of the murdered boys. A bloodstained earthen bowl stood
on an altar.”
On the next page there are two pictures, and the captions explain them.
The one at the top left-hand corner:
“For the Jewish New Year celebrations in 1913, World Jewry
published this picture as a postcard. On the Jewish New Year and
on the Day of Atonement the Jews slaughter a so-called ‘kapores
cock,’ that is to say, dead cock, whose blood and death is
intended to purify the Jews. In 1913 the ‘kapores cock’ had the
head of the Russian Czar Nicholas II. By publishing this
postcard the Jews intended to say that Nicholas II would be
their next political purifying sacrifice. On the 16th of July
1918 the Czar was murdered by the Jews Jurovsky and
Goloschtschekin.”
The picture at the bottom of the page, again, has a Jew holding a
similar bird:
“The ‘kapores cock’ has the head of the Führer. The Hebrew
script says that one day Jews will ‘kill all Hitlerites.’ Then
they, the Jews, will be delivered from all misfortunes. But in
due course the Jews will realize that they have reckoned without
an Adolf Hitler.”
The next page of the newspaper contains reproductions of a lot of
previous articles on ritual murder, with a picture of the Defendant
Julius Streicher at the top.
On the fourth page, a picture at the bottom of the right-hand corner has
the caption:
“Jew at the Passover Meal. The wine and matzoth,”—unleavened
bread—“contain non-Jewish blood. The Jew ‘prays’ before the
meal. He ‘prays’ for death to all non-Jews.”
On the fifth page are reproductions from some of the European and
American newspaper articles and letters which had been received by those
newspapers during the course of the last years in protest to this
propaganda on the subject of ritual murder, and in the center of it you
will see the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury written to the
editor of the _Times_ in protest.
On the next page, Page 6, is another ghastly picture of a man having his
throat cut—again the usual spurt of blood falling into a basin on the
floor—and the caption to that is as follows:
“The Ritual Murder of the Boy Heinrich. In the year 1345 the
Jews in Munich slaughtered a non-Jewish boy. The martyr was
beatified by the Church.”
On Page 7 appears a picture representing three ritual murders. On Page 8
there is another photo-picture:
“St. Gabriel. This boy was crucified and tortured to death by
the Jews in the year 1690. The blood was drawn from him.”
I think we can pass Page 9 and Page 10.
On Page 11 there is shown a piece of sculpture which appears on the wall
of the Wallfahrts Chapel in Wesel and it represents the ritual murder of
a boy, Werner. It is a somewhat disgusting picture of the boy strung up
by his feet and being murdered by two Jews.
Page 12 reproduces another picture taken from the same place. The
caption is:
“The Embalmed Body of ‘Simon of Trent’ Who Was Tortured to Death
by the Jews.”
Page 13 has another picture—somebody else having a knife stuck into
him, more blood coming out into a basin.
On Page 14 are two pictures. The one at the top is said to be the ritual
murder of the boy Andreas, and the one at the bottom is the picture of a
tombstone, the caption of which reads as follows:
“The Tombstone of Hilsner. This is the memorial to a Jewish
ritual murderer, Leopold Hilsner. He was found guilty of two
ritual murders and was condemned in two trials to death by
hanging. The emperor was bribed and pardoned him. Masaryk, the
friend of the Jews, liberated him from penal servitude in 1918.
Even on his tombstone lying Jewry calls this two-fold murderer
an innocent victim.”
The next page again reproduces the picture of a woman being murdered by
having her throat cut in the same way; and perhaps I might refer to Page
17, which reproduces a picture of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a
picture of an old Jewish man, and the caption says:
“Dr. Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Highest Dignitary
of the English Church. His ally, a typical example of the Jewish
race.”
The last page, Page 18, reproduces a picture called, “St. Simon of
Trent, Who Was Tortured to Death.”
My Lord, it is my submission that that document is nothing but an
incitement to the people of Germany who read it, an incitement to
murder. It is filled with pictures of murder, murder alleged to be
against the German people, and is an encouragement to all who read it to
revenge themselves, and to revenge themselves in the same way. That
document, M-10, becomes Exhibit GB-173.
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): The Defendant Julius
Streicher has just called my attention to the fact that he has not been
given the opportunity to prove from where these pictures, which the
Prosecution referred to just now, were taken. It is, in the opinion of
the Defense, necessary that the origin of these pictures should be made
clear to the Tribunal; otherwise one might think that these pictures had
been especially borrowed for _Der Stürmer_ from some obscure source. The
Defendant Streicher, however, points out that these pictures came from
recognized historical sources. I should therefore like to suggest that
the Prosecution make this material also available. I think that the
articles of _Der Stürmer_ which have been referred to must show what the
sources are from which Streicher was supplied.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the articles show the sources? Do the articles
themselves indicate the sources?
DR. MARX: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I should have said so. There wasn’t any
intention to misrepresent the matter, that these pictures are taken from
original pictures. These were not invented by the newspaper, and in some
cases the sources are shown in the caption. This is a collection of
medieval pictures and frescoes dealing with this matter. In actual fact
the papers show in almost all cases where they come from.
DR. MARX: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already given us the dates of them, which
indicated they were medieval.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is so. My Lord, in January 1938—and it
will be remembered that in 1938 the persecution of the Jews became more
and more severe—in January 1938, for some reason or other, another
special issue of _Der Stürmer_ was published. If the Tribunal would look
at Page 34 of their document book I will quote a short passage from the
leading article in that paper—an article written by the defendant:
“The supreme aim and highest task of the State is therefore to
preserve People, Blood, and Race. But if this is the supreme
task, any crime against this law must be punished with the
supreme penalty. _Der Stürmer_ takes therefore the view that
there are only two punishments for the crime of polluting the
race: 1. Long-term penal servitude for attempted race pollution.
2. Death for the completed crime.”
And again, indeed if it is now still necessary to show the type of paper
this was, if the Tribunal will turn over to the next page they will see
the headlines set out for some of the articles that are contained in
that edition:
“Jewish Race Polluters at Work.”
“Fifteen-Year-Old Non-Jewess Violated.”
“A Dangerous Race Polluter. He regards German women as fair game
for himself.”
“The Jewish Sanatorium. A Jewish institution for the cultivation
of race pollution.”
“Rape of a Feeble-Minded Girl.”
“The Jewish Butler. He steals from his Jewish masters and
commits race pollution.”
The copy of that paper is already in as Exhibit USA-260.
On the next page of the document book I will quote only the last two
lines. It is an article appearing in _Der Stürmer_; and it is true that
it is not an article actually written by the Defendant Streicher but by
his then editor, Karl Holz:
“Revenge will break loose one day and will exterminate Jewry
from the face of the earth.”
And again on Page 37, in September 1938, _Der Stürmer_ has written an
article in which the last two lines read as follows:
“. . . a parasite, a mischief maker, an evil-doer, a
disseminator of disease, who must be destroyed in the interest
of mankind.”
It is my submission to the Tribunal that this is no longer propaganda
for the persecution of the Jews; this is propaganda for the
extermination of Jews, for the murder not of one man but of millions.
The next document in the document book, on Page 38, has already been put
in evidence and read to the Tribunal. It is Exhibit USA-260. It appears
in the document book and was read into the transcript at Page 1438
(Volume III, Page 523). This is a short article appearing in December
1938, Number 50 of _Der Stürmer_.
I would draw the Tribunal’s attention to the next document which is a
picture taken from that same copy. It shows the upper part of a girl’s
body being strangled by the arms of a man with his hands around her neck
and the shadow of the man’s face is shown against the background, quite
obviously with Jewish features. The caption under that picture is as
follows:
“Castration for Race Polluters. Only heavy penalties will
preserve our womenfolk from a tighter grip from the loathsome
Jewish claws. The Jews are our misfortune.”
I pause for the moment from _Der Stürmer_ to a particular incident that
occurred, in which the Defendant Streicher took a leading part. It will
be remembered that the organized demonstrations against the Jews took
place the 9th and 10th of November 1938. All this propaganda, as I say,
was becoming fiercer and more ferocious. In the autumn of that year the
Defendant Streicher organized the breaking up of the Nuremberg
synagogues on the occasion of a meeting of press representatives in
Nuremberg. That incident has in fact been referred to previously in this
case and the documents in connection with it are 1724-PS, which were put
in as Exhibit USA-266 and were referred to and read in the transcript at
Page 1443 (Volume III, Page 526).
Gauleiter Julius Streicher was personally to set the crane in motion
with which the Jewish symbols were to be torn down from the synagogue.
From another document which also was put in, 2711-PS, which became
USA-267, and also was read in the transcript at Page 1443 (Volume III,
Page 526), I quote two lines:
“. . . the Synagogue is demolished! Julius Streicher himself
inaugurates the work by a speech lasting an hour and a half. By
his order then—so to speak as a prelude of the demolition—the
tremendous Star of David came off the cupola.”
The defendant, of course, took active part in the November
demonstrations of that year. I do not suggest that he was responsible
for the idea of them. The evidence against him is confined only to the
part that he took in his Gau in Franconia.
On Page 43 of the document book, Document M-42 is an account of the
Nuremberg demonstrations as they were reported in the _Fränkische
Tageszeitung_, which of course was his paper, on the 11th of November. I
quote:
“In Nuremberg and Fürth there were demonstrations by the crowd
against the Jewish murderers. These lasted until the early hours
of the morning. Long enough had one watched the doings of the
Jews in Germany.”
And then I go to the last three lines of that paragraph:
“After midnight the excitement of the populace reached its peak
and a large crowd marched to the synagogues in Nuremberg and
Fürth and burned these two Jewish buildings where the murder of
Germans had been preached.
“The fire brigades, which had been notified immediately, saw to
it that the fire was confined to the original outbreak. The
windows of the Jewish shopkeepers, who still had not given up
hope of selling their rubbish to the stupid Gojim, were smashed.
Thanks to the disciplined behaviour of the SA-men and the
police, who rushed to the scene, there was no plundering.”
That becomes Exhibit GB-174.
The following document in the document book is the report of Streicher’s
speech on the 10th of November, the day of the demonstration. I will
quote from two paragraphs on that page—or rather, starting in the
middle of the first paragraph:
“From the cradle the Jew is not taught, as we are, such texts as
‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘Whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ No,
he is told ‘With the non-Jew you can do whatever you like.’ He
is even taught that the slaughtering of a non-Jew is an act
pleasing to God. For 20 years we have been writing about this in
_Der Stürmer_; for 20 years we have been preaching it throughout
the world, and we have made millions recognize the truth.”
I go to the last paragraph:
“The Jew slaughtered in one night 75,000 Persians; when he
emigrated from Egypt he killed all the first-born, that is, a
whole future generation of Egyptians. What would have happened
if the Jew had succeeded in driving the nations into war against
us, and if we had lost the war? The Jew, protected by foreign
bayonets, would have fallen on us and would have slaughtered and
murdered us. Never forget what history teaches.”
My Lord, after the November demonstrations irregularities occurred in
the Gau of Franconia in connection with the organized Aryanization of
Jewish property. Aryanization of Jewish property was, of course,
regulated by the State; and under a decree it had been laid down that
the proceeds, or any proceeds that there might be, from taking over
Jewish properties and giving them to Aryans—all such proceeds were to
go to the State. What apparently happened in Franconia was that a good
deal of the proceeds never found their way as far as the State, and as a
result Göring set up a commission to investigate what had taken place.
We have the report of that commission, and I would refer the Tribunal to
certain short passages in it. On Page 45, we see from that report
exactly what had been taking place in this Defendant Streicher’s Gau. I
quote from the paragraph, opposite where it says “Page 13”. . .
DR. MARX: As proof of the irregularities which occurred in connection
with the Aryanization in Nuremberg after the 9th of November, the
prosecutor intends to quote a report which the Deputy Gauleiter Holz
made when he was interrogated before the examining commission. I wish to
protest against making use of this report. Between Streicher and the
Deputy Gauleiter Holz there existed real tension if not enmity. The
Deputy Gauleiter Holz was the very person responsible for the measures
of Aryanization. It is not at all proved that Streicher had agreed to
these measures being undertaken. It is rather to be assumed that Holz,
in order to cover himself, made statements here which he himself could
not answer for if he were to appear here as witness today. Therefore, in
this report of Holz it is a question of statements made by a man who was
deeply involved in this matter, a man who participated in these deeds,
and a man who was an enemy of the Defendant Streicher. Holz incriminated
Streicher because Streicher did not protect him in front of the
commission and from the then Minister President Göring. Therefore I do
not think that this report should be used.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you said what you wished to say?
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that this document, being an
official document, is admissible under Article 21 and that the
objections which you have made to it are not objections which go to its
admissibility as evidence but go to its weight; and as to that, you will
have an opportunity to develop your objections at a later stage when you
come to speak. The Tribunal rules that the document is admissible.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I read from the center of that Page 45
of the document book:
“After the November demonstrations the Deputy Gauleiter Holz
took up the Jewish question. His reasons can be given here in
detail on the basis of his statement of 25th March 1939:
“The 9th and 10th of November 1938. During the night of the 9th
to the 10th of November and on the 10th of November 1938, events
took place throughout Germany which I”—and I emphasize that
that is Holz speaking—“considered to be the signal for a
completely different treatment of the Jewish question in
Germany. Synagogues and Jewish schools were burnt down and
Jewish property was smashed both in shops and in private houses.
Besides this, a large number of prominent Jews were taken to
concentration camps by the police. Towards midday we discussed
these events in the Gauleiter’s house. All of us were of the
opinion that we now faced a completely new state of affairs on
the Jewish question. By the great action against the Jews
carried out in the night and morning of the 10th of November all
precedents and all laws on this subject had been made
meaningless. We were of the opinion (particularly I myself) that
we should now act on our own initiative in this respect. I
proposed to the Gauleiter that in view of the great existing
lack of housing the best thing would be to put the Jews into a
kind of internment camp. Then the houses would become free at
once; and the housing shortage would be relieved, at least in
part. Besides that, we should have the Jews under control and
supervision! I added ‘The same thing happened to our prisoners
of war and war internees.’
“The Gauleiter said that this suggestion was for the time being
unfeasible. Thereupon I made a new proposal to him. I said to
him that I considered it unthinkable that, after the Jews had
had their property smashed, they should still be able to own
houses and land. I proposed that these houses and this land
ought to be taken away from them, and declared myself ready to
carry through such an action. I declared that by the
Aryanization of Jewish land and houses a large sum could accrue
to the Gau out of the proceeds. I named some millions of marks.
I stated that, in my opinion, this Aryanization could be carried
out as legally as the Aryanization of shops. The Gauleiter’s
answer was something to this effect: ‘If you think you can carry
this out, do so. The sum gained will then be used to build a Gau
school.’”
I go down now to where it says “Page 18”:
“The Aryanization was accomplished by the alienation of
properties, the surrender of claims, especially mortgage claims,
and reductions in buying price.
“The payment allowed the Jews was basically 10 percent of the
nominal value or nominal sum of the claim. As a justification
for these low prices, Holz claimed, at the Berlin meeting of the
6th of February 1939, that the Jews had mostly bought their
property during the inflation period for less than a tenth of
its value. As has been shown by investigating a large number of
individual cases selected at random, this claim is not true.”
My Lord, I would turn to Page 48 of the document book, which appears in
the second part of this report, and that part of the report is really
the part containing the findings of the commission. I quote from the top
of the page, Page 48 of the document book . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is this still part of the report?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: This is still part of the report. It is, in
fact, as I say, the findings of the commission.
“Gauleiter Streicher likes to beat people with a riding whip but
only if he is in the company of several persons assisting him.
In most cases the beatings are carried out with sadistic
brutality.
“The best known case is that of Steinruck, whom he beat in the
prison cell until the blood came, together with Deputy Gauleiter
Holz and SA Oberführer König. After returning from this scene to
the Deutscher Hof he said, ‘Now I am relieved. I needed that
again!’ Later he also stated several times that he needed
another Steinruck case in order to ‘relieve’ himself.
“In August 1938 he beat the editor Burker at the Gauhaus
together with District Office Leader Schöller and his adjutant,
König.”
To show the authority and power that he held in his Gau, I refer to the
last paragraph on that page:
“According to reports of reliable witnesses, Gauleiter Streicher
is in the habit of pointing out on the most varied occasions
that he alone gives orders in the district of Franconia. For
instance, at a meeting in the Colosseum in Nuremberg in 1935 he
said that nobody could remove him from office. In a meeting at
Herkules Hall, where he described how he had beaten Professor
Steinruck, he emphasized that he would not let himself be beaten
by anybody, not even by an Adolf Hitler. . . .
“For, this also must be stated here, in Franconia the Gau acts
first and then orders the absolutely powerless authorities to
approve.”
My Lord, both of those volumes of that report, Document 1757-PS, will
become Exhibit GB-175.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal isn’t altogether satisfied that that has any
bearing on the case against Streicher.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, it is the object of that document to
show the kind of treatment and persecution which the Jews were receiving
in the district or Gau over which this defendant ruled and, secondly, to
show the absolute authority with which this defendant acted in his
district. That is the purpose of that document.
As a result either of that investigation or of some other matter the
defendant was relieved of his position as Gauleiter in February 1940,
but he did not cease from his propaganda or from the control of his
newspaper. I would only quote one further short extract from _Der
Stürmer_. An article written by him on the 4th of November 1943, which
appears in the document book on Page 53, is Document 1965-PS and becomes
Exhibit GB-176; and it is an extract of importance:
“It is actually true that the Jews have so to speak disappeared
from Europe and that the Jewish ‘Reservoir of the East,’ from
which the Jewish pestilence has for centuries beset the peoples
of Europe, has ceased to exist. But the Führer of the German
people at the beginning of the war prophesied what has now come
to pass.”
My Lord, that article was signed by Streicher, and it is my submission
that it shows that he had knowledge of what was going on in the East, of
which this Court has had such evidence. That was written November 1943.
In April ’43, the Tribunal will remember, the Warsaw ghetto was
destroyed. Between April 1942 and April 1944, 1,700,000-odd Jews were
killed in Auschwitz and Dachau—I quote now from the transcript—and
throughout the whole of that period millions of Jews were to die. It is
my submission that that article appearing on the 4th of November and
signed by him shows that he knew what was happening, perhaps not the
details, but that he knew that the Jews were being exterminated.
I leave _Der Stürmer_ and I would draw the attention of the Tribunal
quite shortly to a matter which is perhaps as evil as any other aspect
of this man’s activity, and that is the particular attention that he
paid to the instruction—if you can call it that—or the perversion of
the children and the youth of Germany. He was not content with inciting
the German population. He seized the children as early as he could at
their schools, and he started to poison their minds at the earliest
possible date. Already in some of the extracts to which I have referred,
the Tribunal will remember that there are mentions of children and the
need for teaching them anti-Semitism. I refer now to Page 54 of the
document book, and I would quote four or five lines from the last
paragraph, starting in the middle of the last paragraph. It is a report
of a speech by Streicher as early as June 1925, when he says:
“I repeat, we demand the transformation of the school into an
ethno-German institution of education. If German children are
taught by German teachers, then we shall have laid the
foundations for the ethno-German school. This ethno-German
school must teach racial doctrine.”
I now go to the last line of the first paragraph on the following page:
“We demand, therefore, the introduction of racial doctrine into
the school.”
That is in a copy of _Der Stürmer_ which has already been put in. It is
Exhibit GB-165 (Document M-30).
The following Document, M-43, is an extract from the _Fränkische
Tageszeitung_ of the 19th of March 1934, when he addressed the pupils at
a girls’ school at Preisslerstrasse after their finishing their
vocational course. He was continually holding children’s meetings and
attending children’s schools. I quote the third paragraph:
“Then Julius Streicher spoke about his life and told them about
a girl who had at one time been a pupil of his and who had
fallen a victim to a Jew and was finished for the rest of her
life.”
I need not read the rest. It is all in the same tone. That becomes
Exhibit GB-177.
Every summer they celebrated in Nuremberg what they called their
solstice celebration, some pagan rite where the youth of Nuremberg
rallied—organized or at least encouraged by the Defendant Streicher.
On Page 58 of the document book is a report taken from his paper,
_Fränkische Tageszeitung_, of his speech to the Hitler Youth on what
they called the “Holy Mountain” near Nuremberg, on the 22d of June 1935.
“Boys and girls, look back a little more than 10 years ago. A
great war—the World War—had raged over the peoples of the
earth and had left in the end a heap of ruins. Only one people
remained victorious in that dreadful war, a people of whom
Christ said that its father is the Devil. That people had ruined
the German Nation in body and soul. At that time Adolf Hitler,
an unknown man, arose from among the people and became a voice
which proclaimed a holy war and struggle. He cried to the people
to take courage again and to rise and join in liberating the
German people from the Devil, so that mankind might again be
free from that race which has roamed the globe for centuries and
millennia, marked with the brand of Cain.
“Boys and girls, even if it is said that the Jews were once the
chosen people do not believe it, but believe us when we say that
the Jews are not a chosen people. Because it cannot be that a
chosen people should act among the peoples as the Jews do
today.”
And so on, with similar kind of propaganda. That Document, M-1, will be
Exhibit GB-178.
The next Document, M-44, from which I will not read now, becomes Exhibit
GB-179. The Tribunal will see that it was a report of Streicher’s
address to 2,000 children at Nuremberg at Christmastime 1936. Underlined
it says:
“‘_Do you know who the Devil is?_’ he asked his breathlessly
listening audience. ‘The Jew, the Jew,’ resounded from a
thousand children’s voices.”
But he wasn’t content only with writing and talking. He actually issued
a book for teachers, a book which he published from his _Der Stürmer_
offices, called _The Jewish Question and School Instruction_.
I have not had the whole of that book translated. It is addressed to
school teachers. It is intended for their benefit, and it emphasizes the
necessity of anti-Semitic teaching in schools, and it suggests ways in
which the subject can be introduced and handled.
On Page 60 of the document book, M-46, the Tribunal will see a few
extracts which have been taken from that book. The preface part of it is
as follows:
“The National Socialist State has brought fundamental changes
into all spheres of life of the German people.
“It has also presented the German teacher with new duties. The
National Socialist State demands that its teachers instruct
German children on racial questions. As far as the German people
is concerned the racial question is a Jewish question. Those who
want to teach the child about the Jew must themselves have a
thorough knowledge of the subject.”
I will quote from the paragraph opposite “Page 5” in the margin. The
whole of the rest of the extracts are really suggestions for teachers as
to how to introduce the Jewish subject into their teaching, and at Page
5 of the introduction:
“Racial and Jewish questions are the fundamental problems of the
National Socialist ideology. The solution of these problems will
secure the existence of National Socialism and with this the
existence of our nation for all time. The enormous significance
of the racial question is recognized almost without exception
today by all the German people. In order to come to this
realization, our people had to travel through a long road of
suffering.”
DR. MARX: I should like to point out the following: The prosecutor
omitted in his presentation to state that the book he referred to was
not written by the Defendant Streicher but by the school inspector Fink.
If the prosecutor had read the next sentence, the Tribunal would have
known about this fact. My client has called my attention to this point.
I noticed it myself also because the next sentence reads as follows:
“Schulrat Fritz Fink desires to help German teachers on the road
to information and knowledge with his book: _The Jewish Question
in the Schools_.”
There can thus be no doubt that this School Inspector Fink is the author
of the book. It is, after all, an essential thing to know that Fink and
not Streicher was the author of this book.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished what you wish to say?
DR. MARX: Yes; that is what I wanted to say.
THE PRESIDENT: I would point out to you that although the book does
appear to have been written by Fritz Fink, which is stated in the
paragraph at the top, it has a preface by Streicher, so we may presume
that Streicher authorized it; and it was published and printed by _Der
Stürmer_.
DR. MARX: That is correct. I just wanted to point out to the Tribunal
that it did not appear to be understood, that just that particular
sentence was not read. One might have thought that an original work of
Streicher’s was concerned, in which case the question of whether
Streicher agreed with that work would appear of minor importance.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see, Dr. Marx, counsel was reading actually from
the preface by Streicher. The last passage that he read, or almost the
last, was the preface by Streicher. The last passage I have got marked
is the passage on Page 60, which is headed “Preface” and is signed by
Julius Streicher, which says in terms that the book was written by
School Inspector Fritz Fink.
Let us not take any further time about it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I think I have reached. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the last words of that preface on Page 60
there: “Those who take to heart . . .”?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If Your Lordship pleases, I read towards the
end of the paragraph—the first paragraph of the preface:
“Those who take to heart all that has been written with such
feeling by Fritz Fink, who for many years has been greatly
concerned about the German people, will be grateful to the
creator of this outwardly insignificant publication.”—Then it
is signed—“Julius Streicher, City of the Reich Party rallies,
Nuremberg, in the year 1937.”
I omitted that last part only in the interest of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That book is Exhibit GB-180. I would just read
the last two lines, which I was not able to read before Dr. Marx
interposed. The last three lines of the paragraph under “Introduction”:
“No one should be allowed to grow up in the midst of our people
without this knowledge of the frightfulness and dangerousness of
the Jew.”
I will not occupy the time of the Tribunal by reading further from that
book. The nature of the book I hope is clear. I would only refer to the
last three lines on the next page in the document book, taking another
extract from it:
“One who has reached this stage of understanding will inevitably
remain an enemy of the Jews all his life and will instill this
hatred into his own children.”
_Der Stürmer_ also published some children’s books, although I make it
quite clear that I am not alleging that the defendant himself wrote the
books. But they were published from his publishing business; and they
are, of course, on the same line as everything else that was published
and issued from that business.
The first of them to which I would call attention was entitled in
English—or the English translation is—as follows: Don’t Trust the Fox
in the Green Meadow Nor the Jew on His Oath. It is a picture book for
children. There are pictures, all of them offensive pictures depicting
Jews, of which a variety of selections appears in the Tribunal’s book.
And opposite each picture there is a little story.
On Page 62 of the document book the Tribunal will see the kind of thing
which appears opposite each picture. Opposite the picture in the
Tribunal’s document book appears the following:
“Jesus Christ says, ‘The Jew is a murderer through and through.’
And when Christ had to die the Lord didn’t know of any other
people that would torture him to death, so he chose the Jews.
That is why the Jews pride themselves on being the chosen
people.”
The writing opposite the first picture, which depicts a very unpleasant
looking Jewish butcher cutting up meat, is as follows:
“The Jewish butcher: He sells half-refuse instead of meat. A
piece of meat lies on the floor, the cat claws another. This
doesn’t worry the Jewish butcher since the meat increases in
weight. Besides, one mustn’t forget, he won’t have to eat it
himself.”
Again in the interest of time, it is not worth quoting the contents of
that book any further. The Tribunal can see the type of book it is, the
type of teaching it was instilling into the minds of the children. The
pictures speak for themselves.
The second picture is a rather beastly picture of a girl being led away
by a Jew. On the next page we see the defendant smiling benignly at a
children’s party, greeting the little children. The next picture depicts
copies of _Der Stürmer_ posted on a wall with children looking at them.
The next picture perhaps requires a little explanation. It is a picture
of Jewish children being taken away from an Aryan school, led away by an
unpleasant looking father; and all the Aryan children shouting and
dancing and enjoying the fun very much.
That book, Document M-32, becomes Exhibit GB-181.
THE PRESIDENT: You won’t be able, will you, to finish in a short time?
Perhaps we’d better adjourn now.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have about another 20 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; we will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I had finished describing that one
children’s book. There is a similar book called _The Poisonous Fungus_,
which has, in fact, been put in evidence already as Exhibit USA-257, but
it was not read to the Tribunal; and I would like to read one of the
short stories from that book because it shows, perhaps more strikingly,
I think, than any other extract to which we have referred, the revolting
way in which this man poisoned the minds of his listeners and readers.
It is a book of pictures again with short stories, and Page 69 of the
document book shows one of the pictures, a girl sitting in a Jewish
doctor’s waiting room.
My Lord, it is not a very pleasant story, but he is not a very pleasant
man; and it is only by reading these things that it becomes possible to
believe the kind of education that the German children have been
receiving during these years, led by this man.
I quote from the story:
“Inge”—that is the girl—“Inge sits in the reception room of
the Jew doctor. She has to wait a long time. She looks through
the journals which are on the table. But she is much too nervous
to read even a few sentences. Again and again she remembers the
talk with her mother. And again and again her mind reflects on
the warnings of her leader of the League of German Girls. A
German must not consult a Jew doctor. And particularly not a
German girl. Many a girl that went to a Jew doctor to be cured
met with disease and disgrace.
“When Inge had entered the waiting room, she experienced an
extraordinary incident. From the doctor’s consulting room she
could hear the sound of crying. She heard the voice of a young
girl, ‘Doctor, doctor, leave me alone.’
“Then she heard the scornful laughter of a man. And then, all of
a sudden it became absolutely silent. Inge had listened
breathlessly.
“‘What can be the meaning of all this?’ she asked herself, and
her heart was pounding. And again she thought of the warning of
her leader in the League of German Girls.
“Inge had already been waiting for an hour. Again she takes the
journals in an endeavor to read. Then the door opens. Inge looks
up. The Jew appears. She screams. In terror she drops the paper.
Horrified she jumps up. Her eyes stare into the face of the
Jewish doctor. And this face is the face of the Devil. In the
middle of this devil’s face is a huge crooked nose. Behind the
spectacles gleam two criminal eyes. Around the thick lips plays
a grin, a grin that means, ‘Now I have you at last, you little
German girl!’
“And then the Jew approaches her. His fat fingers snatch at her.
But now Inge has got hold of herself. Before the Jew can grab
hold of her, she smacks the fat face of the Jew doctor with her
hand. One jump to the door. Breathlessly Inge runs down the
stairs. Breathlessly she escapes from the Jew house.”
Comment is almost unnecessary on a story like that, read by children of
the age of those who are going to read the books you have seen.
Another picture which I have included in the book is a picture, of
course of the defendant, and the script opposite that picture, which
appears on Page 70 of the document book, includes the words—and I quote
from the last but one paragraph: “Without a solution of the Jewish
question there will be no salvation for mankind.”
The page itself contains an account of how some boys attended one of his
speeches:
“That is what he shouted to us. We all understood him. And when,
at the end, he shouted, ‘Sieg-Heil for the Führer,’ we all
acclaimed him with tremendous enthusiasm. Streicher spoke for
two hours that time. To us it seemed to have been but a few
minutes.”
One can begin to see the effect that all this was having from the
columns of _Der Stürmer_ itself. In April 1936 there appears only one
letter—many others appear in other copies from children of all ages—I
quote the third paragraph of this letter, the letter signed by the boys
and girls of the National Socialist Youth Hostel at Gross-Möllem:
“Today we saw a play on how the Devil persuades the Jew to shoot
a conscientious National Socialist. In the course of the play
the Jew did it, too. We all heard the shot. We would have all
liked to jump up and arrest the Jew. But then the policeman came
and after a short struggle took the Jew along. You can imagine,
dear _Stürmer_, that we heartily cheered the policeman. In the
whole play not one name was mentioned, but we all knew that this
play represented the murder by the Jew Frankfurter. We were very
sad when we went to bed that night. None felt like talking to
the others. This play made it clear to us how the Jew sets to
work.”
My Lord, that book is already in evidence as I have stated. It is
Exhibit GB-170 (Document M-25).
To conclude, I would draw the attention of the Tribunal again only to
his authority as a Gauleiter. It appears in the _Organization Book of
the NSDAP_ for 1938—which is already in as Exhibit USA-430—in the
description of the duties and authority of Gauleiter: The Gauleiter
bears over-all responsibility to the Führer for the sector of
sovereignty entrusted to him. The rights, duties, and jurisdiction of
the Gauleiter result primarily from the mission assigned by the Führer
and, apart from that, from detailed direction.
His association with the Führer and with the other defendants—or some
of the other defendants—can be seen from the newspapers. On the
occasion of his 50th birthday Hitler paid a visit to Nuremberg to
congratulate him. That was on the 13th of February 1935. The account of
that meeting is published in the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of that date,
and I quote as follows:
“Adolf Hitler spoke to his old comrade in arms and the latter’s
followers in words which went straight to their hearts. By way
of introduction he remarked that it was a special pleasure for
him to spend, on this day of honor to Julius Streicher, a short
while in Nuremberg, the town of battle-steeled National
Socialist solidarity, within the circle of the veteran
standard-bearers of the National Socialist idea.
“Just as they all, during the years of misery, had unshakeably
believed in the victory of the Movement, so his friend and
comrade in arms, Streicher, had stood faithfully at his side at
all times. It had been this unshakeable belief that had moved
mountains.
“For Streicher it would surely be an inspiring thought that this
50th anniversary meant to him not only the turn of a half
century, but also of a thousand years of German history. He had
in Streicher a comrade of whom he could say that here in
Nuremberg was a man who would never waver for a single second
and who would unflinchingly stand behind him in every
situation.”
That is Document M-8 and becomes Exhibit GB-182.
The next document (M-22) is a letter from Himmler published in _Der
Stürmer_ of April 1937. That edition is already Exhibit USA-258.
“When in future years the history of the reawakening of the
German people is written and the next generation is already
unable to understand that the German people were once friendly
to the Jews, it will be recognized that Julius Streicher and his
weekly paper _Der Stürmer_ contributed a great deal toward the
enlightenment regarding the enemy of mankind.”—Signed—“The
Reichsführer SS, H. Himmler.”
That is Exhibit USA-258. A number of these documents are already in
evidence in the bound volumes.
Lastly, we have a letter from Baldur von Schirach, the Reich Youth
Leader, published in _Der Stürmer_ of March 1938 (Document M-45, Exhibit
USA-260):
“It is the historical merit of _Der Stürmer_ to have enlightened
the broad masses of our people in a popular way as to the Jewish
world danger. _Der Stürmer_ is right in not carrying out its
task in a purely aesthetic manner, for Jewry has shown no regard
for the German people. We have, therefore, no reason for being
considerate toward our worst enemy. What we fail to do today,
the youth of tomorrow will have to suffer for bitterly.”
My Lord, it may be that this defendant is less directly involved in the
physical commission of the crimes against Jews, of which this Tribunal
have heard, than some of his co-conspirators. The submission of the
Prosecution is that his crime is no less the worse for that reason. No
government in the world, before the Nazis came to power, could have
embarked upon and put into effect a policy of mass extermination in the
way in which they did, without having a people who would back them and
support them and without having a large number of people, men and women,
who were prepared to put their hands to their bloody murder. And not
even, perhaps, the German people of previous generations would have lent
themselves to the crimes about which this Tribunal has heard, the
killing of millions and millions of men and women.
It was to the task of educating the people, of producing murderers,
educating and poisoning them with hate, that Streicher set himself; and
for 25 years he has continued unrelentingly the education—if you can
call it so—or the perversion of the people and of the youth of Germany.
And he has gone on and on as he saw the results of his work bearing
fruit.
In the early days he was preaching persecution. As persecutions took
place he preached extermination and annihilation; and, as we have seen
in the ghettos of the East, as millions of Jews were being exterminated
and annihilated, he cried out for more and more.
That is the crime that he has committed. It is the submission of the
Prosecution that he made these things possible—made these crimes
possible—which could never have happened had it not been for him and
for those like him. He led the propaganda and the education of the
German people in those ways. Without him the Kaltenbrunners, the
Himmlers, the General Stroops would have had nobody to carry out their
orders. And, as we have seen, he has concentrated upon the youth and the
childhood of Germany. In its extent his crime is probably greater and
more far-reaching than that of any of the other defendants. The misery
that they caused finished with their incarceration. The effects of this
man’s crime, of the poison that he has injected into the minds of
millions and millions of young boys and girls and young men and women
lives on. He leaves behind him a legacy of almost a whole people
poisoned with hate, sadism, and murder, and perverted by him. That
German people remains a problem and perhaps a menace to the rest of
civilization for generations to come.
My Lord, I submit that the Prosecution’s case against this man as set
out in the Indictment is proved.
My Lord, Lieutenant Brady Bryson, of the United States Delegation, will
present to the Court the case against Schacht.
LIEUTENANT BRADY O. BRYSON (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United
States): May it please the Tribunal, a document book has been prepared
and filed and the appropriate number of copies has been delivered to the
defendants.
We ask the Tribunal’s permission to file within the next few days a
trial brief which now is in the process of preparation.
Our proof against the Defendant Schacht is confined to planning and
preparation of aggressive war.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it you said about the trial brief?
LT. BRYSON: We ask permission to file a trial brief within the next few
days, as our brief is not yet ready.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
LT. BRYSON: Our proof against the Defendant Schacht is limited to
planning and preparation for aggressive war and to membership in a
conspiracy for aggressive war.
The extent of Schacht’s criminal responsibility as a matter of law,
under the Charter of the Tribunal, will be developed in our brief. Only
a few of our 50-odd documents have been previously submitted in
evidence. We have taken special pains to avoid repetition and cumulative
proof; but for the sake of continuity we would like, in several
instances, simply to draw the Tribunal’s attention to evidence
previously received, with an appropriate reference to the transcript of
the Record.
Before commencing our proof, we wish to state our understanding that the
Defendant Schacht’s control over the German economy was on the wane
after November 1937, and that by the time of the aggression on Poland
his official status had been reduced to that of Minister without
Portfolio and personal adviser to Hitler. We know too that he is
sometimes credited with opposition to certain of the more radical
elements of the Nazi Party; and I further understand that at the time of
capture by United States forces he was under German detention in a
prison camp, having been arrested by the Gestapo in July 1944.
Be this as it may, our proof will show that at least up until the end of
1937 Schacht was the dominant figure in the rearming of Germany and in
the economic planning and preparation for war, that without his work the
Nazis would not have been able to wring from their depressed economy the
tremendous material requirements of armed aggression, and that Schacht
contributed his efforts with full knowledge of the aggressive purposes
which he was serving.
The details of this proof will be presented in four parts:
First, we will very briefly show that Schacht accepted the Nazi
philosophy prior to 1933 and supported Hitler’s rise to power.
Second, proof of the contribution of Schacht to German rearmament and
preparation for war will be submitted. This evidence will also be brief,
since the facts in this respect are well-known and have already been
touched upon by Mr. Dodd in his presentation of the case on economic
preparation for war.
Third, we will show that Schacht assisted the Nazi conspiracy purposely
and willingly with knowledge of, and sympathy for, its illegal ends.
And last, we will prove that Schacht’s loss of power in the German
Government did not in any sense imply disagreement with the policy of
aggressive war.
We turn now to our proof that Schacht helped Hitler to power.
Schacht met Göring for the first time in December 1930, and Hitler early
in January 1931 at Göring’s house. His impression of Hitler was
favorable. I offer in evidence Exhibit USA-615 (Document 3725-PS),
consisting of an excerpt from a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht under
date of 20 July 1945, and quote two questions and answers related to
this meeting, near the middle of the first page of the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to give us the Exhibit number? You haven’t
given us the other number?
LT. BRYSON: This is an interrogation, Sir, and it will not have two.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a number for it?
LT. BRYSON: You will find it in your document book in the back, labeled
“Schacht Interrogation of 20 July 1945.” I quote from the middle of the
first page:
“Q: ‘What did he’”—that is, Hitler—“‘say?’
“A: ‘Oh, ideas he expressed before, but it was full of will and
spirit.’”
And near the bottom of the page:
“Q: ‘What was your impression at the end of that evening?’
“A: ‘I thought that Hitler was a man with whom one could
co-operate.’”
After this meeting Schacht allied himself with Hitler; and at a crucial
political moment in November 1932, he lent the prestige of his name,
which was widely known in banking, financial, and business circles
throughout the world, to Hitler’s cause. I offer in evidence Exhibit
USA-616 (Document 3729-PS) consisting of excerpts from a pre-trial
interrogation of Schacht on 17 October 1945. I wish to quote, beginning
at the top of Page 36 of this interrogation. This is the interrogation
of 17 October 1945, at Page 36. I may say that when I refer to the page
numbers, I speak of the page of the document book:
“Q: ‘Yes, and at that time’”—referring to January 1931—“‘you
became a supporter, I take it, of. . .’
“A: ‘In the course. . .’
“Q: ‘Of Hitler’s coming to power?’
“A: ‘Especially in the course of the years 1931 and 1932.’”
And I quote further from the lower half of Page 37 of the same
interrogation:
“Q: ‘But what I mean—to make it very brief—did you lend the
prestige of your name to help Hitler come to power?’
“A: ‘I have publicly stated that I expected Hitler to come to
power; for the first time, if I remember, in November ’32.’
“Q: ‘And you know, or perhaps you don’t, that Goebbels in his
diary records with great affection. . .’
“A: ‘Yes.’
“Q: ‘. . . the help that you gave him at the time?’
“A: ‘Yes, I know that.’
“Q: ‘November 1932?’
“A: ‘From the Kaiserhof to the Chancellery and back.’
“Q: ‘That’s right. You have read that?’
“A: ‘Yes.’
“Q: ‘And you don’t deny that Goebbels was right?’
“A: ‘I think his impression was that that was correct at that
time.’”
I now refer the Tribunal to this statement of Goebbels, set forth in
2409(a)-PS. The entire diary of Goebbels is in evidence as Exhibit
Number USA-262. The entry I wish to read, which appears in 2409(a)-PS,
was made on 21 November 1932:
“In a conversation with Dr. Schacht I assured myself that he
absolutely shares our point of view. He is one of the few who
stand immovable behind the Führer.”
It is believed that Schacht joined the Party only in the sense that he
allied himself with the cause. Dr. Franz Reuter, whose biography of
Schacht was officially published in Germany in 1937, has stated that
Schacht refrained from formal membership in order to be of greater
assistance to the Party. I offer in evidence Document Number EC-460,
Exhibit Number USA-617, consisting of an excerpt from Reuter’s
biography, and I quote the last sentence of the excerpt:
“By not doing so, he was able eventually to help more toward the
final victory than if he had become an enrolled Party member.”
It was Schacht who organized the financial means for the decisive March
1933 election, at a meeting of Hitler with a group of German
industrialists in Berlin. Schacht acted as the sponsor or host of this
meeting, and a campaign fund of several million marks was collected.
Without reading therefrom, I offer in evidence Document Number EC-439,
Exhibit Number USA-618, an affidavit of Von Schnitzler under date of 10
November 1945, and refer the Tribunal to the transcript for 23 November,
Pages 282-283 (Volume II, Pages 223, 224), where the text of the
affidavit already appears in the Record.
Further evidence on this point is also contained in the excerpt from the
interrogation of Schacht on 20 July 1945, from which I read a part a
moment ago. Schacht lent his support to Hitler not only because he was
an opportunist, but also because he shared Hitler’s ideological
principles. Apart from the entry in Goebbels’ diary, this may be seen
from Schacht’s own letter to Hitler, under date of 29 August 1932,
pledging continued support to Hitler after the latter’s poor showing in
the July 1932 elections. I offer this letter in evidence as Document
Number EC-457, Exhibit Number USA-619, and quote from the middle of the
first paragraph and further from the next to the last paragraph:
“But what you could perhaps do with in these days is a kind
word. Your movement is carried internally by so strong a truth
and necessity that victory in one form or another cannot elude
you for long.”
And further down—and keep in mind that neither Hitler nor Schacht was
then in the German Government—Schacht says:
“Wherever my work may take me in the near future, even if you
should see me one day behind stone walls, you can always count
on me as your reliable assistant.”
THE PRESIDENT: What do those words mean at the top: “The President of
the Reichsbank in Retirement”? Are they on the letter?
LT. BRYSON: Yes, they are, Sir. Dr. Schacht had previously been a
president of the Reichsbank. At this time he was in retirement. You will
remember, this is prior to Hitler’s accession to power.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.
LT. BRYSON: And then Hitler reinstated Dr. Schacht as President of the
Reichsbank after the Nazis had taken over.
THE PRESIDENT: And he put that at the top of his letter, did he?
LT. BRYSON: That I cannot say.
I will also point out that Schacht signed this letter, “With a vigorous
Heil.”
We turn now to the second part of our proof, relating to Schacht’s
contribution to preparation for war.
The detailed chronology of Schacht’s official career in the Nazi
Government, as set forth in Document 3021-PS, has already been submitted
in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-11. However, it may be helpful at the
outset to remind the Tribunal that Schacht was recalled to the
Presidency of the Reichsbank by Hitler on 17 March 1933, which office he
continuously held until 20 January 1939; that he was Acting Minister and
then Minister of Economics from August 1934 until November 1937; and
that he was appointed Plenipotentiary General for War Economy in May
1935. He resigned as Minister of Economics and Plenipotentiary General
for War Economy in November 1937, when he accepted appointment as
Minister without Portfolio, which post he held until January 1943. His
position as virtual economic dictator of Germany in the 4 crucial years
from early 1933 to the end of 1936 is practically a matter of common
knowledge.
Schacht was the guiding genius behind the Nazi expansion of the German
credit system for rearmament purposes. From the outset he recognized
that the plan for the German military supremacy required huge quantities
of public credit. To that end a series of measures was adopted which
subverted all credit institutions in Germany to the over-all aim of
supplying funds for the military machine. I will briefly mention some of
these measures.
By Cabinet decree of 27 October 1933 the statutory reserve of 40 percent
in gold and foreign exchange required against circulating Reichsbank
notes was permanently abandoned. By the Credit Act of 1934 the
Government assumed jurisdiction of all credit institutions, and control
over the entire banking system was centralized in Schacht as Chairman of
the Supervisory Board for the Credit System and President of the
Reichsbank. This act not only enabled Schacht to control the quantity of
credit but also its use. On 29 March 1934 a system of forced corporate
lending to the Reich was imposed on German business. And on 19 February
1935 the Treasury was authorized to borrow funds in any amounts approved
by the Reich Chancellor, that is, by Hitler.
On these points I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the
_Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1933, Part II, Page 827; _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1934,
Part I, Page 1203; _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1934, Part I, Page 295; and
_Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1935, Part I, Page 198.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they found here in the document book?
LT. BRYSON: They’re not in the document book, Sir.
I asked only that judicial notice be taken of them as published laws of
Germany.
These measures enabled Schacht to embark upon what he himself has termed
a “daring credit policy,” including the secret financing of a vast
amount of armaments through the so-called ‘mefo’ bill, a description of
which appears in the transcript for 23 November at Page 295 (Volume II,
Page 232). I offer in evidence Document Number EC-436, Exhibit Number
USA-620, consisting of a statement, dated 2 November 1945, by Emil Puhl,
a director of the Reichsbank during Schacht’s presidency, and quote the
second paragraph thereof as follows:
“In the early part of 1935 the need for financing an accelerated
rearmament program arose. Dr. Schacht, President of the
Reichsbank, after considering various techniques of financing,
proposed the use of mefo bills to provide a substantial portion
of the funds needed for the rearmament program. This method had
as one of its primary advantages the fact that secrecy would be
possible during the first years of the rearmament program; and
figures indicating the extent of rearmament, that would have
become public through the use of other methods, could be kept
secret through the use of mefo bills.”
The extent of the credit expansion and the importance of mefo financing
may be seen from Document Number EC-419, which I now offer as Exhibit
Number USA-621 and which consists of a letter from Finance Minister Von
Krosigk to Hitler, under date of 1 September 1938. I quote the following
figures from the middle of the first page:
“The Reich debt accumulated as follows:
“As of 31 December 1932: Funded debt, 10,400 millions of
Reichsmark; short-term debt, 2,100 millions of Reichsmark; debt
not published in the budget (trade and mefo bills of exchange),
0.
“As of 30 June 1938: Funded debt, 19,000 million Reichsmark;
short-term debt, 3,500 million Reichsmark; and debt not
published in the budget (trade and mefo bills of exchange),
13,300 million Reichsmark.
“Total: as of 31 December 1932, 12,500 million Reichsmark; as of
30 June 1938, 35,800 million Reichsmark.”
The Reich debt thus tripled. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Would you read the next section, beginning with the words
“Provisions were made to cover. . .”?
LT. BRYSON: “Provisions were made to cover the armament expenditures for
the year 1938 (the same amount as in 1937) as follows:
“Five thousand millions from the budget, that is, taxes; 4,000
millions from loans; 2,000 millions from 6-month treasury notes,
which means postponement of payment until 1939; total: 11,000
millions.”
The Reich debt thus tripled under Schacht’s management. More than
one-third of the total was financed secretly and through the
instrumentality of the Reichsbank by mefo and trade bills. It is clear
that this amount of financing outside the normal public issues
represented armament debt. I read further from Document EC-436, at the
beginning of the last long paragraph:
“These mefo bills were used exclusively for financing
rearmament; and when in March 1938 a new finance program
discontinuing the use of mefo bills was announced by Dr.
Schacht, there was a total volume outstanding of 12,000 million
marks of mefo bills which had been issued to finance
rearmament.”
The character of Schacht’s credit policy and the fact that it was
ruthlessly dedicated to the creation of armaments plainly appear from
his own speech delivered on 29 November 1938.
I offer it in evidence as Document Number EC-611, Exhibit Number
USA-622; and I quote from Page 6 at the beginning of the last paragraph:
“It is possible that no bank of issue in peacetime carried on
such a daring credit policy as the Reichsbank since the seizure
of power by National Socialism. With the aid of this credit
policy, however, Germany created an armament second to none; and
this armament in turn made possible the results of our policy.”
Beyond the field of finance Schacht assumed totalitarian control over
the German economy generally in order to marshal it behind the
rearmament program.
He acquired great power over industry as a result of the Nazi
reorganization of German industry along military lines and in accordance
with the so-called Leadership Principle. On this point I refer the
Tribunal to the transcript for 23 November at Pages 287-290 (Volume II,
Pages 227-228); and to the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1934, Part I, Page 1194,
of which the Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice.
Schacht also exercised broad powers as a member of the Reich Defense
Council, which was secretly established on 4 April 1933 and the function
of which was preparation for war. The Tribunal is referred to the
transcript for 23 November, Page 290 (Volume II, Pages 228-229). I also
offer in evidence as Document Number EC-128, Exhibit Number USA-623, a
report under date of 30 September 1934, showing the functions of the
Ministry of Economics in this respect. The report reveals concentration
upon all the familiar wartime economic problems, including stockpiling,
production of scarce goods, removal of industry to secure areas, fuel
and power supply for war production, machine tools, control of wartime
priorities, rationing, price control, civilian supply, and so on. I wish
to read into the Record merely an excerpt showing the jurisdiction of
the Ministry of Economics, beginning near the top of Page 2 of Document
Number EC-128:
“With the establishment of the Reich Defense Council and its
permanent committee the Reich Ministry of Economics has been
given the task of making economic preparation for war. There
should really be no need to explain the tremendous importance of
this task. Everyone remembers vividly how terribly the lack of
any economic preparation for war hit us during the World War.”
Finally, in 1934, Schacht acquired sweeping powers under legislation
which authorized him, as Minister of Economics, to take any measure
deemed necessary for the development of the German economy. In this
connection reference is made to the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Part I,
Page 565, of which the Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice.
The so-called “New Plan” devised by Schacht was announced in the fall of
1934 shortly after he became Minister of Economics. In this connection
the Tribunal is referred to the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1934, Part I, Page
816 and the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1935, Part I, Page 105, with the
request that judicial notice be taken thereof. The New Plan was
Schacht’s basic program for obtaining the necessary foreign-produced raw
materials and foreign exchange required to sustain the rearmament
program.
With respect to the details of the New Plan, I offer in evidence
Document Number EC-437, Exhibit Number USA-624, consisting of an
affidavit of Emil Puhl, dated 7 November 1945. The entire text is
pertinent. Therefore, permission is requested to submit the affidavit
without reading therefrom, on condition that French and Russian
translations be prepared and filed.
THE PRESIDENT: And German ones supplied, too.
LT. BRYSON: We will supply copies. I wish to say that the original is in
English, but the affidavit has already been translated into German.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. BRYSON: This affidavit by a co-worker of Schacht describes in detail
the many ingenious and often ruthless devices he used, including
negotiating “stand-still” agreements, forcing payment in Reichsmark of
interest and amortization on debts incurred in foreign currency, using
scrip and funding bonds for the same purpose, suspending service on
foreign-held debts, blocking foreign-held marks, freezing foreign claims
in Germany, eliminating unessential foreign expenditures, requisitioning
German-held foreign exchange, subsidizing exports, issuing restricted
marks, bartering under clearing agreements, licensing imports, and
controlling all foreign exchange transactions to the end of favoring raw
materials for armaments.
The Tribunal is also asked to take judicial notice of
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1934, Page 997; _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1933, Part I,
Page 349; and _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1937, Part I, Page 600, relating to
the clearing bank, the conversion bank, and the maturity of foreign
loans, all of which decrees are mentioned in the affidavit.
Schacht even went so far as to invest foreign-held Reichsmark on deposit
in German banks in rearmament notes, thus, as he put it, financing
rearmament with the assets of his political opponents. Without reading
therefrom, I refer your Honors to Document Number 1168-PS, Exhibit
USA-37, being a memorandum from Schacht to Hitler, dated 3 May 1935,
which already appears in the transcript on Pages 412 and 413 (Volume II,
Pages 312, 313). Moreover, Schacht even resorted to capital punishment
to prevent the loss of foreign exchange when frightened capital began to
flee from the country. In this connection reference is made to the Law
against Economic Sabotage, found in 1936 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I,
Page 999, of which the Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice.
Schacht took particular pride in the results which were accomplished
under the stringent controls which he instituted under his New Plan. I
refer the Tribunal to Document Number EC-611, in evidence as Exhibit
Number USA-622, consisting of Schacht’s speech in Berlin on 29 November
1938. I wish to read into the Record an excerpt from the top of Page 10:
“If there is anything remarkable about the New Plan, it is again
only the fact that German organization under National Socialist
leadership succeeded in conjuring up in a very short time the
whole apparatus of supervision of imports, direction of exports,
and promotion of exports. The success of the New Plan can be
proved by means of a few figures. Calculated according to
quantity, the import of finished products was cut down by 63
percent between 1934 and 1937. On the other hand, the import of
ores was increased by 132 percent, of petroleum by 116, of grain
by 102, and of rubber by 71 percent.”
While President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, Schacht
acquired still another key position, that of Plenipotentiary General for
War Economy.
He received this appointment from Hitler pursuant to the unpublished
Reich Defense Law secretly enacted on 21 May 1935. This law is in
evidence as Document Number 2261-PS, Exhibit Number USA-24, consisting
of a letter from Von Blomberg dated 24 June 1935 to the chiefs of the
Army, Navy and Air Forces, together with copies of the Reich Defense Law
and the Cabinet’s memorandum relating thereto. Pertinent comments on and
excerpts from this document appear in the transcript for 23 November, at
Pages 278 and 292 (Volume II, Pages 220-229). I will simply state
therefore that by virtue of this appointment Schacht was put in complete
charge of economic planning and preparation for war in peacetime, except
for certain direct armament production under control of the War
Ministry. Upon the outbreak of war he was to be the economic czar of
Germany with complete control over the activities of a number of key
Reich ministries.
Schacht appointed Wohlthat as his deputy and organized a staff to carry
out his directives. In this connection I offer in evidence excerpts from
a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht under date 17 October 1945. This
document is Exhibit Number USA-616 (Document 3729-PS). I wish to read
into the Record a question and answer found at the bottom of Page 40 of
the document book:
“Q: ‘Let me ask you a general question then: Do you take the
responsibility as Plenipotentiary General for War Economy for
the writings that were made and the actions that were done by
Wohlthat and his assistants?’
“A: ‘I have to.’”
I also offer in evidence Document Number EC-258, Exhibit Number USA-625,
consisting of a status report issued in December 1937 under the
signature of Schacht’s deputy, Wohlthat. The report is entitled, “The
Preparation of the Economic Mobilization by the Plenipotentiary General
for War Economy.” Schacht had withdrawn from office immediately prior to
the preparation of this report, and it plainly is a recapitulation of
his accomplishments while in office. Since the entire text is relevant,
we ask permission to submit the document without reading therefrom on
condition that translations into French and Russian be later filed with
the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is consistent with the rule laid down
by the Tribunal, which was that the translations in the French and
Russian languages should be submitted at the same time. You are now
suggesting that you can submit translations at a later stage.
LT. BRYSON: Well, if Your Honor pleases, in any event I did not plan to
read from the document at this time and Defense Counsel do have the
German original.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not speaking of the Defense Counsel so much as of
the members of the Tribunal.
LT. BRYSON: We have the Russian translation in process now and it was
delayed and we were unable to get it here at this time, but the delay
will be very short and the document is of critical importance to our
case.
THE PRESIDENT: How long will it be before it is ready?
LT. BRYSON: I wouldn’t like to say precisely, Sir, but perhaps within 4
or 5 days.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you propose to do now, because it is a very
complicated and long document, is it not?
LT. BRYSON: It is and it shows. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Were you proposing to summarize it?
LT. BRYSON: I was proposing to summarize it, Sir, now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you would summarize it now
and only be permitted to put it in at the stage when you have the
translation ready, you may summarize it now.
LT. BRYSON: I will summarize it now, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Will it take long to summarize?
LT. BRYSON: Not very long, Sir; no.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, it is 5 o’clock.
LT. BRYSON: I think there will be time to summarize it, and then we will
stop.
This document discloses that before his resignation Schacht had worked
out in amazing detail his plans and preparations for the management of
the economy in the forthcoming war. For example, 180,000 industrial
plants in 300 industries had been surveyed with respect to usefulness
for war purposes; economic plans for the production of 200 basic
materials had been worked out; a system for the letting of war contracts
had been devised; allocations of coal, motor fuel, and power had been
determined; 248 million Reichsmark had been spent on storage facilities
alone; evacuation plans for war materials and skilled workers from
military zones had been worked out; 80 million wartime ration cards had
already been printed and distributed to local areas; and a card index on
the skills of some 22 million workers had been prepared.
That concludes the summary, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 11 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]
THIRTY-SECOND DAY
Friday, 11 January 1946
_Morning Session_
LT. BRYSON: If the Tribunal please, before picking up our line of proof
against the Defendant Schacht, I would like to supply a point of
information.
Yesterday the President of the Tribunal inquired with respect to
Document Number EC-457, Exhibit Number USA-619. The question raised by
the Tribunal was with respect to the words “in retirement” in the
letterhead used by Schacht in writing to Hitler in 1932. This is the
letter in which Schacht expressed his belief in the truth of the Nazi
movement and in which he said that Hitler could always count upon him as
a reliable assistant.
The letterhead has printed upon it “The President of the Reichsbank” and
after that phrase there is typed the letters “a. D.”, and I understand
that those letters are an abbreviation for a German phrase meaning “in
retirement” and that it is customary, or it was customary, in Germany
for retired officials to continue to use their titles with the letters
“a. D.”
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
LT. BRYSON: Yesterday we had just about completed our proof with respect
to the contribution of the Defendant Schacht to the preparation for war,
and I wish to submit one more document on this point. This is Document
Number EC-451, Exhibit Number USA-626. It consists of a statement by
George S. Messersmith, United States Consul General in Berlin, 1930 to
1934. I will quote therefrom, beginning with the second sentence of the
fourth paragraph:
“It was his”—Schacht’s—“financial ability that enabled the
Nazi regime in the early days to find the financial basis for
the tremendous armament program and which made it possible to
carry it through. If it had not been for his efforts, and this
is not a personal observation of mine only but I believe was
shared and is shared by every observer at the time, the Nazi
regime would have been unable to maintain itself in power and to
establish its control over Germany, much less to create the
enormous war machine which was necessary for its objectives in
Europe and later throughout the world.
“The increased industrial activity in Germany incident to
rearmament made great imports of raw materials necessary, while
at the same time exports were decreasing. Yet by Schacht’s
resourcefulness, his complete financial ruthlessness, and his
absolute cynicism, Schacht was able to maintain and to establish
the situation for the Nazis. Unquestionably, without this
complete lending of his capacities to the Nazi Government and
all of its ambitions, it would have been impossible for Hitler
and the Nazis to develop an armed force sufficient to permit
Germany to launch an aggressive war.”
We turn now. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Lieutenant Bryson, I am not sure that that gives a
full or quite fair interpretation of the document. Don’t you think
perhaps you ought to read the paragraph before?
LT. BRYSON: The preceding paragraph, Sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. BRYSON: “Dr. Schacht always attempted to play both sides of
the fence. He told me, and I know he told both other American
representatives in Berlin and various British representatives,
that he disapproved of practically everything that the Nazis
were doing. I recall on several occasions his saying, after the
Nazi Party came into power, that if the Nazis were not stopped,
they were going to ruin Germany and the rest of the world with
it. I recall distinctly that he emphasized to me that the Nazis
were inevitably going to plunge Europe into war.”
If the Court please, I would like to read also from the last paragraph:
“In my opinion Schacht was in no sense a captive of the Nazis.
He was not compelled to devote his time and his capacities to
their interest. His situation was such that he would most likely
have been able either to work on much less restrained scale or
to abstain from activity entirely. He continued to lend his
services to the Nazi Government out of opportunism.”
We turn now to the third part of our case against Schacht. The evidence
is clear that he willingly contributed his efforts to the Nazi
conspiracy, knowing full well its aggressive designs. The Tribunal will
recall our proof that Schacht was converted to the Nazi philosophy in
1931 and helped Hitler come to power in 1933. We will now prove, first,
that Schacht personally favored aggression and, second, that in any
event he knew Hitler’s aggressive intentions.
There is ample evidence to justify the conclusion that Schacht rearmed
Germany in order to see fulfilled his strong belief in aggressive
expansion as an instrument of German national policy. Schacht had long
been a German nationalist and expansionist. He spoke against the Treaty
of Versailles at Stuttgart as early as 1927. I offer in evidence
Document EC-415, Exhibit Number USA-627, consisting of a collection of
excerpts from speeches by Schacht. I quote from the top of Page 2: “The
Versailles Dictate cannot be an eternal document, because not only its
economic but also its spiritual and moral premises are wrong.”
It is common knowledge that he strongly favored acquisition of colonial
territory by Germany. However, he also favored acquisition of contiguous
territory in Europe. On 16 April 1929 at the Paris conference in
connection with reparations, he said. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to read the passage that follows that at a
later stage?
LT. BRYSON: At a later stage, if you please, Sir, in connection with
another point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; go on.
LT. BRYSON: On 16 April 1929, at the Paris conference in connection with
reparations, he said:
“Germany can as a whole pay only if the Corridor and Upper
Silesia will be handed back to Germany from Polish possession
and if, besides, somewhere on the earth, colonial territory will
be made available to Germany.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What are you quoting from?
LT. BRYSON: I offer in evidence Exhibit Number USA-628 (Document
3726-PS), consisting of excerpts from a pre-trial interrogation of
Schacht on 24 August 1945. You will find it in the document book at the
back, labelled “Interrogation of 24 August”. At the top of the first
page of the interrogation this statement was quoted to Schacht, and his
reply contains an admission of having made the statement. In his reply
he said:
“That Germany could not pay at the time after I made the
statement has been proved, and that Germany will not be able to
pay after this war will be proved in the future.”
I wish to point out that this is the very territory which was the
subject of the armed aggression in September 1939.
In 1935 Schacht stated flatly that Germany would, if necessary, acquire
colonies by force. I offer in evidence Document EC-450, designated as
Exhibit Number USA-629. This document consists of an affidavit of S. R.
Fuller, Jr., together with a transcript of his conversation with Schacht
at the American Embassy in Berlin on 23 September 1935. I wish to read
from Page 6 of the document where there appears a statement by Schacht
in the lower half of the page.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the conversation?
LT. BRYSON: The conversation occurred on 23 September 1935. The page
number of this document is at the bottom, and I quote from Page 6:
“Schacht: ‘Colonies are necessary to Germany. We shall get them
through negotiation, if possible; but if not, we shall take
them.’”
In July 1936, when the rearmament program was well under way, Schacht
again publicly spoke of the Versailles Treaty. This time his language
contained an explicit threat of war. I refer the Tribunal again to
Document EC-415, which I have previously introduced in evidence as
Exhibit Number USA-627, consisting of a collection of speeches by
Schacht. I wish to read from the paragraph beginning in the middle of
the first page:
“But the memory of war weighs undiminished upon the peoples’
mind. That is because, deeper than material wounds, moral wounds
are smarting, inflicted by the so-called peace treaties.
Material loss can be made up through labor, but the moral wrong
which has been inflicted upon the conquered peoples in the peace
dictates, leaves a burning scar on the peoples’ conscience. The
spirit of Versailles has perpetuated the fury of war; and there
will not be a true peace, progress, or reconstruction until the
world desists from this spirit. The German people will not tire
of pronouncing this warning.”
Later in the same year Schacht publicly advocated the doctrine of
Lebensraum for the German people. I quote again from Document EC-415,
Exhibit Number USA-627, being an excerpt from Schacht’s speech at
Frankfurt on 9 December 1936, on the second page, the last paragraph:
“Germany has too little living space for her population. She has
made every effort, and certainly greater efforts than any other
nation, to extract from her own existing small space whatever is
necessary for the securing of her livelihood. However, in spite
of all these efforts, the space does not suffice.”
In January 1937 Schacht, in a conversation with Ambassador Davies, at
least by inference threatened a breach of the peace in demanding a
colonial cession. I offer in evidence Document L-111, being Exhibit
Number USA-630, and consisting of excerpts from a report under date of
20 January 1937, by Ambassador Davies to the Secretary of State. I wish
to read therefrom, beginning with the second sentence of the second
paragraph:
“He”—meaning Schacht—“stated the following:
“That the present condition of the German people was
intolerable, desperate, and unendurable; that he had been
authorized by his Government to submit proposals to France and
England which would: (1) Guarantee European peace, (2) secure
present European international boundaries, (3) reduce armaments,
(4) establish a new form of a workable league of nations, and
(5) abolish sanctions with new machinery for joint
administration; all based upon a colonial cession that would
provide for Germany an outlet for population, a source for
foodstuffs, fats, and raw materials.”
In December 1937 Ambassador Dodd noted in his diary that Schacht would
be willing to risk war for the sake of new territory in Europe. I refer
the Tribunal to Document EC-461, consisting of excerpts from Ambassador
Dodd’s diary.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposal contained in Document L-111 was for cession
of colonies, was it not?
LT. BRYSON: It was, Sir.
I turn now to Document EC-461, consisting of excerpts from Ambassador
Dodd’s diary. The entire diary has previously been received in evidence
as Exhibit Number USA-58. I quote some notes on a conversation with
Schacht on 21 December 1937, beginning near the bottom of the second
page of Document EC-461, in the last paragraph:
“Schacht meant what the army chiefs of 1914 meant when they
invaded Belgium, expecting to conquer France in 6 weeks; that
is, domination and annexation of neighboring little countries,
especially north and east. Much as he dislikes Hitler’s
dictatorship, he, like most other eminent Germans, wishes
annexation without war if possible; with war if the United
States will keep hands off.”
THE PRESIDENT: There is another passage in that book, that diary. I am
not sure; it probably is not the same date, but it is on the first page
of the exhibit, I think—the third paragraph.
LT. BRYSON: The third paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it at a different time?
LT. BRYSON: It is a different time, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: September the 19th of what year?
LT. BRYSON: We will check that in the complete volume here, and I think
in a minute I will be able to supply the date. In the meantime would you
like me to read it, Sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think you had better read it.
LT. BRYSON: “He then acknowledged that the Hitler Party is
absolutely committed to war; and the people, too, are ready and
willing. Only a few government officials are aware of the
dangers and are opposed. He concluded, ‘But we shall postpone it
10 years. Then it may be we can avoid war.’”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think you should read the next paragraph, too.
LT. BRYSON: “I reminded him of his Bad Eilsen speech some 2
weeks ago and said, ‘I agree with you about commercial and
financial matters in the main. But why do you not, when you
speak before the public, tell the German people they must
abandon a war attitude?’ He replied, ‘I dare not say that. I can
speak only on my special subjects.’”
THE PRESIDENT: And the next one.
LT. BRYSON: And the next one:
“How, then, can German people ever learn the real dangers of
war, if nobody ever presents that side of the question? He once
more emphasized his opposition to war and added that he had used
his influence with Hitler—‘a very great man’, he
interjected—to prevent war. I said, ‘The German papers printed
what I said at Bremen about commercial relations between our
countries, but not a word about the terrible effects and
barbarism of war.’ He acknowledged that and talked very
disapprovingly of the Propaganda Ministry which suppresses
everything it dislikes. He added, as I was leaving ‘You know a
party comes into office by propaganda and then cannot disavow it
or stop it.’”
The date of his conversation was in September 1934.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a pity that those years are not stated in the
document. It is rather misleading as it is.
LT. BRYSON: If the Court please, the exhibit which is in evidence will
show the dates.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am not blaming you; but it is misleading, because
it looks like September the 19th and December the 21st, and as there
were 3 years’ interval between, it makes a difference. That is right,
isn’t it?
LT. BRYSON: Yes, that is right. I am sorry the excerpt simply shows the
page numbers from the exhibit, and not the dates.
Schacht admittedly strained all the resources of Germany to build up a
Wehrmacht which would provide Hitler with an instrument of realization
of his desire for Lebensraum. In this connection I offer in evidence
Document Number EC-369, Exhibit Number USA-631, consisting of a
memorandum from the Reichsbank Directorate, signed by Schacht, to
Hitler, dated 7 January 1939. I wish to read the last paragraph of the
first page:
“From the beginning the Reichsbank has been aware of the fact
that a successful foreign policy can be attained only by the
reconstruction of the German Armed Forces. It—the
Reichsbank—therefore assumed to a very great extent the
responsibility of financing the rearmament in spite of the
inherent dangers to the currency. The justification thereof was
the necessity, which pushed all other considerations into the
background, to carry through the armament at once, out of
nothing and furthermore under camouflage, which made a
respect-commanding foreign policy possible.”
It is clear that the “successful foreign policy” which Schacht thus
attributed to rearmament included the Austrian and Czechoslovakian
acquisitions. I offer in evidence Document EC-297(a), Exhibit Number
USA-632, being a speech of Schacht’s in Vienna after the Anschluss in
March 1938. I quote from the third page and the second full paragraph:
“Thank God, these things could not after all hinder the great
German people on their way, for Adolf Hitler has created a
communion of German will and German thought. He bolstered it
with the newly strengthened Wehrmacht and finally gave the
external form to the internal union between Germany and
Austria.”
With respect to the Sudetenland I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-611,
already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-622, being a speech by
Schacht; EC-611—but I will not read it, Sir—being a speech by Schacht
on 29 November 1938, shortly after the Munich settlement. I have earlier
read the pertinent remark attributing Hitler’s success at that
conference to the rearmament made possible by Schacht’s financial and
economic measures.
This line of proof shows that Schacht entertained an aggressive
philosophy with respect to territorial expansion and justifies the
conclusion that he allied himself with Hitler because of their common
viewpoint.
We turn now to prove that, whether or not Schacht wanted war, he at
least knew Hitler planned military aggression for which he was creating
the means. He had numerous discussions with Hitler from 1933 to 1937. He
knew that Hitler was intent upon expansion to the east, which would mean
war, and that Hitler felt he must present the German people with a
military victory. I offer in evidence Exhibit Number USA-633 (Document
3727-PS), consisting of an excerpt from a pre-trial interrogation of
Schacht on 13 October 1945, and I read from the second page at the end
of the second question:
“Q: ‘What was there in what he’”—meaning Hitler—“‘said that
led you to believe he was intending to move towards the east?’
“A: ‘That is in _Mein Kampf_. He never spoke to me about that,
but it was in _Mein Kampf_.’
“Q: ‘In other words, as a man who read it, you understood that
Hitler’s expansion policy was directed to the east?’
“A: ‘To the east.’
“Q: ‘And you thought that it would be better to try to divert
Hitler from any such intention and to urge upon him a colonial
policy instead?’
“A: ‘Quite.’”
I also offer in evidence Document EC-458, Exhibit Number USA-634,
consisting of an affidavit of Major Edmund Tilley under date of 21
November 1945, with respect to an interview of Schacht on 9 July 1945. I
read the second paragraph:
“During the course of the discussion Schacht stated to me that
he had had numerous talks with Hitler from 1933 to 1937. Schacht
stated that from these talks he had formed the impression that
in order to make his hold and government secure, the Führer felt
that he must present the German people with a military victory.”
As early as 1934, Schacht stated his belief that the Nazis would bring
war to Europe. I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-451, which I have
already submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-626, consisting of
an affidavit under date of 15 November 1945 by Messersmith, American
Consul General in Berlin, 1930 to 1934. I wish to read from the first
page, third paragraph, last sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: You have read it already.
LT. BRYSON: If the Court please, there is a little more there which we
have not read, which I should like to read.
THE PRESIDENT: You read the whole paragraph. At our invitation you read
from the third paragraph down to the bottom of the page.
LT. BRYSON: I should like to read the first sentence of the fourth
paragraph on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
LT. BRYSON: “While making these protestations he nevertheless
showed by his acts that he was thoroughly an instrument of the
whole Nazi program and ambitions and that he was lending all his
extraordinary knowledge and resourcefulness toward the
accomplishment of that program.”
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Bryson, speaking for myself and for some other
members of the Tribunal, we think it is a far better way to deal with a
document, to deal with it, if possible, once and for all, and not to be
coming back to it. It not only wastes time by the fact that the Tribunal
have got to turn back and forth, back and forth, to the document; but
you get a much fairer idea of the document if it is dealt with once and
for all, although it may cover more than one subject. I say that
although it may be impossible for you to do that now in consonance with
the preparations that you have made; but those who follow you may be
able to alter their course. If it is possible, when you get a document
with a variety or a number of paragraphs in it which you want to quote,
you should quote them all at the same time. Do you follow what I mean?
LT. BRYSON: I follow you, Your Honor. We have so organized our materials
that we have directed our evidence to specific points, and since the
points are separated, we had to separate our quotations.
THE PRESIDENT: I realize that it may be difficult for you.
LT. BRYSON: In September of 1934 Ambassador Dodd made a record in his
diary of a conversation with Sir Eric Phipps at the British Embassy in
Berlin. If the Court please, I will pass over this document, because in
response to a question from the Tribunal, I read an excerpt from the
document which covers the same point that I was about to direct myself
toward.
I had just pointed out that Schacht has acknowledged to Ambassador Dodd
in September 1934 his knowledge of the war purposes of the Nazi Party;
and we had already shown that in 1935 Schacht had stated that Germany
would, if necessary, acquire colonies by force. He must then have known
to what length Hitler was prepared to go.
After attending a meeting of the Reich ministers on 27 May 1936 in
Berlin, Schacht must have known that Hitler was contemplating war. Your
Honors may recall, as has been earlier shown, that at this meeting the
Defendant Göring, who was very close to Hitler, stated that all measures
are to be considered from the standpoint of an assured waging of war and
that waiting for new methods is no longer appropriate. I refer the
Tribunal to Document 1301-PS, from which I will not read, as the
quotation is already in evidence in Exhibit Number USA-123.
On 31 August 1936 the War Minister, Von Blomberg, sent to Schacht a copy
of Von Blomberg’s letter to the Defendant Göring. I refer the Tribunal
again to 1301-PS, previously submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-123, and read from the middle of Page 19 of the document. The page
numbers, if the Court please, on this document are found in the upper
lefthand corner:
“According to an order of the Führer the setting up of all Air
Force units is to be completed on 1 April 1937. Therefore
considerable expenditures have to be made in 1936, which at the
time when the budget for 1936 was made were planned for later
years only.”
This intensification of the air force program certainly revealed to
Schacht the closeness to war which Hitler must have felt.
I also offer in evidence Document EC-416, Exhibit USA-635, consisting of
minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 4 September 1936 which Schacht
attended. I read the statement by Göring found at the top of Page 2 of
this document:
“The Führer and Reichskanzler has given a memorandum to the
Colonel General and the Reich War Minister which represents a
general instruction for the execution of this task.
“It starts from the basic thought that the show-down with Russia
is inevitable.”
Schacht thus knew that Hitler expected war with Russia. He also knew of
Hitler’s ambitions towards the east. It must have been plain to him,
therefore, that such a war would result from Russian opposition to
German military expansion in that direction; that is, Schacht must have
known that it would be a war of German aggression.
In January 1937, the Tribunal will recall, Schacht stated to Ambassador
Davies in Berlin that he had “been authorized by his government” to
submit certain proposals to France and England which, in fact, amounted
to a bid for colonies under threat of war. If Schacht was acting under
instructions from Hitler, he was necessarily familiar with Hitler’s
aggressive intentions at that time.
In November of 1937 Schacht knew Hitler was determined to acquire
Austria and at least autonomy for the Germans of Bohemia and that Hitler
also had designs on the Polish Corridor. I refer the Tribunal to
Document L-151, already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-70, this being
a letter containing a memorandum of a conversation between Schacht and
Ambassador Bullitt, dated 23 November 1937. I quote the last paragraph
on Page 2:
“Hitler was determined to have Austria eventually attached to
Germany and to obtain at least autonomy for the Germans of
Bohemia. At the present moment he was not vitally concerned
about the Polish Corridor, and in his”—Schacht’s—“opinion it
might be possible to maintain the Corridor, provided Danzig were
permitted to join East Prussia and provided some sort of a
bridge could be built across the Corridor uniting Danzig and
East Prussia with Germany.”
To digress for just a moment, Schacht here was really speaking for
himself as well as for Hitler. We have seen from his speech of 29 March
1938 in Vienna his enthusiasm for the Anschluss after the event. He was
even working hard for its achievement. In this connection I refer the
Tribunal to Pages 506 and 507 of the transcript (Volume II, Page 373)
for evidence of Schacht’s having subsidized the Nazis’ preliminary
agitation in Austria.
In addition to the foregoing direct evidence, the Tribunal is asked to
take into consideration the fact that to such a man as Schacht the
events of the period certainly bespoke Hitler’s intention. Schacht was a
close collaborator of Hitler and a member of the Cabinet during the
period of the Nazi agitation in Austria, the introduction of
conscription, the march into the Rhineland, the overthrow of the
Republican Government in Spain, the ultimate conquest of Austria, and
the acquisition of the Sudetenland by a show of force. During this
period the Reich’s debt tripled under the stress of mounting armaments,
the expenditures from 750,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1932 to 11,000,000,000
Reichsmarks in 1937, and 14,000,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1938. During the
entire period 35,000,000,000 Reichsmarks were spent on armaments. It was
a period in which the burning European foreign policy issue was the
satisfaction of Germany’s repeated demands for additional territory.
Hitler, committed to a policy of expansion, was taking great risks in
foreign policy and laying the greatest stress upon utmost speed in
preparation for war.
Certainly, in this setting Schacht did not proceed in ignorance of the
fact that he was assisting Hitler and Germany along the road toward
armed aggression.
We turn now to our last line of proof with respect to Schacht’s loss of
power in the Hitler regime. In November 1937, Schacht resigned his
offices as Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary for the War
Economy. At that time he accepted appointment as Minister without
Portfolio and he also continued as President of the Reichsbank.
Our evidence will show: (a) This change in position was no more than a
clash between two power-seeking personalities, Göring and Schacht, in
which Göring, being closer to Hitler, won out; (b) their policy
differences were concerned only with the method of rearming; and (c)
Schacht’s loss of power in no sense implies an unwillingness to assist
armed aggression.
There was an issue of policy between Göring and Schacht, but it was
concerned only with the method and not the desirability of war
preparations. Schacht emphasized foreign trade as a necessary source of
rearmament material during the transitory period until Germany should be
ready to strike. Göring was a proponent of complete self-sufficiency.
Hitler supported Göring; and Schacht, his pride wounded and bitterly
resenting Göring’s intrusion in the economic field, finally stepped out.
I refer the Tribunal to Document 1301-PS, previously submitted in
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-123, containing notes of a conversation
between Schacht and Thomas on 2 September 1936. These are found on Page
21 of the document, from which I quote:
“President Schacht called me to him at 1300 hours today and
requested me to forward the following to the Minister of War:
Schacht returned from the Führer with the greatest anxiety,
since he could not agree to the economic program planned by the
Führer.
“The Führer wants to speak at the Party convention about
economic policy and wants to emphasize there that we now want to
get free from foreign countries with all our energy by
production in Germany.
“Schacht requests urgently that the Reich Minister of War warn
the Führer from this step.”
And three paragraphs farther down:
“If we now shout out abroad our decision to make ourselves
economically independent, then we cut our own throats, because
we can no longer survive the necessary transitory period.”
Nevertheless, Hitler announced the Four Year Plan of self-sufficiency a
few days later in Nuremberg, and against Schacht’s wishes Göring was
named Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan.
At this point I refer the Tribunal again to the interrogation of Schacht
on 16 October 1945, being Exhibit Number USA-636; and I wish to read
beginning near the bottom of Page 9 of the document:
“Q: ‘And the Four Year Plan came in when?’
“A: ‘It was announced in September ’36, on the Party Day.’
“Q: ‘Do you say that from the time that the Four Year Plan came
in in September 1936, you were ready to rid yourself of your
economic duty?’
“A: ‘No. At that time I thought that I might maintain my
position even against Göring.’
“Q: ‘Yes, in what sense?’
“A: ‘That he would not interfere with affairs which I had to
manage in my ministry.’
“Q: ‘As a matter of fact, his appointment was not met with favor
by you?’
“A: ‘I would not have ever appointed a man like Göring who
didn’t understand a bit about all these things.’”
Schacht and Göring immediately became embroiled in a conflict of
jurisdiction. On 26 November 1936 Göring issued a directive regarding
raw and synthetic material production. I offer in evidence Document
EC-243, Exhibit Number USA-637, consisting of a copy of this directive.
It shows that Göring’s Office for Raw and Synthetic Materials pre-empted
control over large economic areas previously in the hands of Schacht. As
an example, I will quote from Paragraph V of the directive on Page 4 of
the document:
“The planning and determination of objectives, as well as the
control over the execution of the tasks which must be
accomplished within the framework of the Four Year Plan, are the
responsibility of the Office for German Raw and Synthetic
Materials, which supersedes the authorities which have
heretofore been in charge of these tasks.”
On 11 December 1936 Schacht found it necessary to order all supervisory
offices in the Ministry of Economics to accept instructions from him
alone. I offer in evidence Document EC-376, Exhibit Number USA-638,
consisting of a circular letter from Schacht to all supervisory offices
under date of 11 December 1936, and I quote from the second paragraph:
“The supervisory offices are obliged to accept instructions from
me alone. They must answer all official inquiries for any
information of the Office for German Raw and Synthetic Materials
in order to give any information at any time to the fullest
extent.”
And a little further down:
“. . . I herewith authorize the supervisory offices to take the
necessary measures for themselves. In case doubts should result
from requests of the above offices and these doubts cannot be
cleared by oral negotiations with the experts of these offices,
I should be informed immediately. I will then order in each case
the necessary steps to be taken.”
The military sided with Schacht, who had rearmed them so well. I offer
in evidence Document EC-420, Exhibit Number USA-639, consisting of a
draft of a memorandum by the Military Economic Staff, dated 19 December
1936. I wish to read from Paragraph 1:
“(1) The direction of war economy in the civilian sector in case
of war can be handled only by the person who in peacetime has
borne the sole responsibility for the preparations for war.
“Upon recognizing this fact a year and a half ago Reichsbank
President Dr. Schacht was appointed Plenipotentiary General for
War Economy and an operations staff was attached to his office.”
And then Paragraph Number 2:
“(2) The Military Economy Staff does not deem it compatible with
the principle laid down in Number 1, Paragraph 1, if the
Plenipotentiary General for War Economy is now placed under the
Minister President General Göring’s command.”
In January 1937 the _Military Weekly Gazette_ published an article
warmly praising Schacht’s achievements in rearmament. Without reading it
I offer in evidence Document EC-383, Exhibit Number USA-640, containing
this article, a pertinent quotation from which already appears in the
transcript for 23 November at Page 296 (Volume II, Page 233).
Shortly thereafter Schacht attempted to force a show-down with Göring by
temporarily refusing to act in his capacity as Plenipotentiary. I offer
in evidence Document EC-244, Exhibit Number 641, consisting of a letter
from Von Blomberg, the Minister of War, to Hitler under date of February
22, 1937. I read the second paragraph of this letter as follows:
“The President of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht, has notified me
that he is not acting in his capacity as Plenipotentiary for the
time being, since in his opinion there exist discrepancies
regarding the powers conferred upon him and those of Colonel
General Göring. Because of this the preparatory mobilization
steps in the economic field are delayed.”
Schacht obviously was using his importance to the war preparations as a
lever.
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Bryson, does the Defendant Schacht admit in
his interrogation that the reason for his giving up his office was the
difference of opinion between him and the Defendant Göring?
LT. BRYSON: He does, Sir, and the Defendant Göring so states in his
interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into the details of their quarrel?
LT. BRYSON: If the Court will be satisfied that this was the cause of
Schacht’s resignation. . .
THE PRESIDENT: If they both say so. . .
LT. BRYSON: . . . and that the cause was not his unwillingness to go
along with the aggressive intentions of the Nazis at that time, I shall
be perfectly satisfied to confine our evidence to the interrogations of
Schacht and Göring.
THE PRESIDENT: Does he suggest that in his interrogation?—that that
might have been the reason?
LT. BRYSON: I will find out, Sir, but our case against Schacht is
premised upon conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Defendant Schacht wants to set up such a case as
that, you could apply to be heard in rebuttal.
LT. BRYSON: Well, we shall be satisfied then to eliminate a number of
our items of evidence, including the controversy between Göring and
Schacht, and satisfy ourselves with the interrogations.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. BRYSON: If the Court please, we are almost at the time of the break.
Perhaps during the break we can arrange our evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): We agree
that the question of the disagreement between the Defendants Göring and
Schacht need not be discussed further at this time. But we shall come
back to and deal in detail with the question as to how far these
disagreements had any bearing on the plan for an aggressive war.
LT. BRYSON: If the Tribunal please, we have eliminated part of our
proof. I would simply like to put in a letter from Göring and an
interrogation of Schacht which will finish up the question of the
disagreement.
Under date of 5 August 1937 Schacht wrote a critical letter to Göring,
who replied with a 24-page letter on 22 August 1937. Göring’s letter
reviews their many differences in detail. I offer it as Document EC-493,
Exhibit Number USA-642, and I wish to read simply one statement found in
the middle of Page 13:
“In conclusion I should like to refer to remarks which you made
in a paragraph of your letter entitled ‘The Four Year Plan’
about your general attitude toward my work in regard to the
economic policy. I know and I am pleased that at the beginning
of the Four Year Plan you promised me your most loyal support
and co-operation and that you repeatedly renewed this promise
even after the first differences of opinion had occurred and had
been removed in exhaustive discussions. I deplore all the more
having the impression recently, which is confirmed by your
letter, that you are increasingly antagonistic toward my work in
the Four Year Plan. This explains the fact that our
collaboration has gradually become less close. . . .”
Schacht and Göring were reconciled by written agreement on 7 July 1937
but subsequently again fell into disagreement, and Hitler finally
accepted Schacht’s resignation as Minister of Economics on 26 November
1937, simultaneously appointing him Minister without Portfolio, and
later Schacht’s resignation was extended to his position as
Plenipotentiary for War Economy. Without reading it, I offer in evidence
Document EC-494, Exhibit Number USA-643, as proof of this fact.
Now, finally, I wish to refer the Tribunal to the interrogation of
Schacht, under date of 16 October 1945, Document 3728-PS, Exhibit Number
USA-636, and I wish to read from Page 12 of the document near the
bottom:
“A: ‘It may amuse you if I tell you that the last
conversation’”—this is Schacht speaking—“‘that I had with
Göring on these topics was in November 1937, when Luther for 2
months had endeavored to unite Göring and myself and to induce
me to co-operate further with Göring and maintain my position as
Minister of Economics. Then I had a last talk with Göring; and
at the end of this talk Göring said, “But I must have the right
to give orders to you.” Then I said, “Not to me, but to my
successor.” I have never taken orders from Göring; and I would
never have done it because he was a fool in economics, and I
knew something about it, at least.’
“Q: ‘Well, I gather that was a culminating, progressive personal
business between you and Göring. That seems perfectly obvious.’
“A: ‘Certainly.’”
In all this abundant and consistent evidence there is not the slightest
suggestion that Schacht’s withdrawal from these two posts represented a
break with Hitler on the ground of contemplated military aggression.
Indeed, Hitler was gratified that Schacht would still be active in the
Government as President of the Reichsbank and as Minister without
Portfolio. I offer in evidence Document L-104, Exhibit Number USA-644,
consisting of a letter to the United States Secretary of State from
Ambassador Dodd, under date of 29 November 1937, enclosing a translation
of Hitler’s letter of 26 November 1937 to Schacht. I quote the last two
sentences of Hitler’s letter, found on Page 2 of the document:
“If I accede to your wish it is with the expression of deepest
gratitude for your so excellent achievements and in the happy
consciousness that, as President of the Reichsbank Directorate
you will make available for the German people and me for many
years more your outstanding knowledge and ability and your
untiring energy. Delighted at the fact that in the future, also,
you are willing to be my personal adviser, I appoint you as of
today a Reich Minister.”
Schacht did continue, obviously still in full agreement with Hitler’s
aggressive purpose. He was still President of the Reichsbank at the time
of the taking of Austria in March 1938. In fact, the Reichsbank took
over the Austrian National Bank. On this point I refer the Tribunal to
_Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1938, Part I, Page 254, and ask that judicial notice
be taken thereof. Further, Schacht even participated in the planning of
the absorption of Austria. In this connection I introduce into evidence
Document EC-421, Exhibit Number USA-645, consisting of excerpts from
minutes of a meeting of the staff of General Thomas on 11 March 1938 at
1500 hours. I quote therefrom as follows:
“Lieutenant Colonel Hünerm reads directive of the Führer of 11
March concerning the ‘Action Otto’ and informs us that ‘The
Economy War Service Law’ has been put in force. He then reads
Directives 1 and 2 and gives special orders to troops for
crossing the Austrian borders. According to that, at Schacht’s
suggestion, no requisitions should be made but everything ought
to be paid for at the rate of 2 schillings to 1 Reichsmark.”
On the conversion of the Austrian schilling the Tribunal is asked also
to take judicial notice of _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1938, Part I, Page 405.
The Tribunal, of course, is already familiar with the public approval by
Schacht of the Anschluss in his Vienna speech of 21 March 1938, and Your
Honors will also recall Schacht’s pride in Hitler’s use of the rearmed
Wehrmacht at Munich, as expressed in his speech of 29 November 1938.
Both speeches were subsequent to his resignation in November 1937.
We come now to the removal of Schacht from the presidency of the
Reichsbank in January 1939. The reason for this development is quite
clear. Schacht lost confidence in the credit capacity of the Reich and
was paralyzed, with the fear of a financial collapse. He felt that the
maximum level of production had been reached, so that an increase in
banknote circulation would only cheapen money and bring on inflation. In
this attitude he ceased to be useful to Hitler, who was about to strike
and wished to tap every ounce of available Government credit for
military purposes.
I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-369, which I have previously
submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-631. This document is a
memorandum from the Reichsbank directorate to Hitler, under date of 7
January 1939, in which Schacht reviews in detail his fears of inflation.
The seriousness of the situation may be seen generally from the entire
text. I wish to quote several of the more crucial statements, one from
the last paragraph on Page 3, the second sentence:
“We are, however, faced with the fact that approximately 3
billion Reichsmark of such drafts cannot now be paid, though
they will be due in 1939.”
I quote from the upper half of Page 4:
“Exclusive of the Reichsbank there are approximately 6 billion
Reichsmark mefo drafts which can be discounted against cash
payment at any time at the Reichsbank, which fact represents a
continuous danger to the currency.”
And I quote finally from the concluding paragraph of the memorandum:
“We are convinced that the effects on the currency caused by the
policy of the last 10 months can be mended and that the danger
of inflation again can be eliminated by strict maintenance of a
balanced budget. The Führer and Reich Chancellor himself has
publicly rejected, again and again, an inflation as foolish and
fruitless.
“We therefore ask for the following measures:
“(1) The Reich as well as all the other public offices must not
incur expenditures or assume guaranties and obligations that
cannot be covered by taxes or by those funds which can be raised
through loans without disturbing the long-term investment
market.
“(2) In order to carry out these measures effectively, full
financial control over all public expenditures must be restored
to the Reich Minister of Finance.
“(3) The price and wage control must be rendered effective. The
existing mismanagement must be eliminated.
“(4) The use of the money and investment market must be at the
sole discretion of the Reichsbank.”
It is clear that Schacht’s fear was genuine and is a complete
explanation for his departure from the scene. He had good reason to be
afraid. In fact, the Finance Minister had already recognized the
situation in September 1938. I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-419,
Exhibit Number USA-621, which I have already submitted in evidence and
which consists of a letter under date of 1 September 1938 from Krosigk
to Hitler, in which Krosigk warns of an impending financial crisis. I
quote from the bottom of Page 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that not really cumulative of what you have already
read?
LT. BRYSON: We will be glad to skip it, Sir. It is cumulative.
Schacht was not only afraid of a financial crisis, but he was afraid
that he personally would be held responsible for it. I offer in evidence
an affidavit of Emil Puhl, a director of the Reichsbank and co-worker of
Schacht, dated 8 November 1945, designated as Document EC-438, Exhibit
Number USA-646, and I read therefrom, beginning at the bottom of the
second page:
“When Schacht saw that the risky situation which he had
sponsored was becoming insoluble, he was more and more eager to
get out. This desire to get out of a bad situation was for a
long time the ‘Leitmotiv’ of Schacht’s conversation with the
directors of the bank.”
In the end Schacht escaped by deliberately stimulating his dismissal
from the Presidency of the Reichsbank. I offer in evidence Document
3731-PS, Exhibit Number USA-647, consisting of excerpts from an
interrogation of Von Krosigk under date of 24 September 1945, and I wish
to read several statements beginning at the very bottom of the second
page:
“I asked Mr. Schacht to finance for the Reich for the ultimo of
the month the sum of 100 or 200 millions. It was this quite
customary procedure which we had used for years, and we used to
give back this money after a couple of days. Schacht this time
refused and said that he was not willing to finance a penny
because he wanted, as he said, that it should be made clear to
Hitler that the Reich was bankrupt. I tried to explain that this
was not the proper ground to discuss the whole question of
financing because the question of financing very small sums for
a few days during ultimo never would bring Hitler to the
conviction that the whole financing was impossible. As far as I
remember now, it was Funk who told Hitler something about this
conversation; then Hitler asked Schacht to call upon him. I do
not know what they said but the result certainly was the
dismissal of Schacht.”
THE PRESIDENT: Just give me the reference again to that document that
you were reading from.
LT. BRYSON: This is the interrogation of Von Krosigk under date of 24
September 1945. I wish to read further, continuing on Page 3:
“Q: ‘Now did Schacht ever say anything to you to the effect that
he wanted to resign because he was in opposition to the
continuance of the rearmament program?’
“A: ‘No, he never said it in this specific form, but in some
conversations he certainly spoke about it several times in his
own way when he had encounters with Göring . . . therefore I did
not take these things very seriously.’
“Q: ‘Well, let me put it this way, and please think carefully
about this. Did Schacht ever say that he wanted to resign
because he realized that the extent of the rearmament program
was such as to lead him to the conclusion that it was in
preparation for war rather than for defense?’
“A: ‘No, he never did.’
“Q: ‘Was Schacht ever quoted to you to this effect by any of
your colleagues or by anybody else?’
“A: ‘No.’
“Q: ‘Now, after Keitel took over the position of Chief of the
Wehrmacht were there still meetings between Schacht and yourself
with Keitel in place of Blomberg?’
“A: ‘Yes.’
“Q: ‘Did Schacht ever say anything at these meetings to indicate
that except for the technical question of the financing through
the Reichsbank directly he was opposed to a further program of
rearmament or opposed to the budget of the Wehrmacht?’
“A: ‘No, I do not think he ever did.’”
The Defendant Göring has also confirmed this testimony. I refer the
Tribunal to the interrogation of Göring under date of 17 October 1945,
this being Document 3730-PS, Exhibit Number USA-648. I read from the
interrogation of Göring on 17 October 1945, from the lower half of the
third page:
“Q: ‘I want to ask you this specifically. Was Schacht dismissed
from the Reichsbank by Hitler for refusing to participate any
further in the rearmament program?'
“A: ‘No, because of his utterly impossible attitude in this
matter regarding this advance, which had no connection with the
rearmament program.’”
Hitler dismissed Schacht from the Reichsbank on 20 January 1939. Without
reading, I offer in evidence Document EC-398, Exhibit Number USA-649,
consisting merely of a brief note from Hitler to Schacht announcing his
dismissal.
From all of the foregoing it is clear that Schacht’s dismissal in no
sense reflected a parting of the ways with Hitler on account of proposed
aggression. This fact may also be seen from Document EC-397, Exhibit
Number USA-650, consisting of Hitler’s letter to Schacht under date of
19 January 1939, the text of which I wish to read:
“At the occasion of your recall from office as President of the
Reichsbank Directorate I take the opportunity of expressing to
you my most sincere and warmest gratitude for the services which
you have rendered repeatedly to Germany and to me personally in
this capacity during long and difficult years. Your name, above
all, will always be connected with the first epoch of the
national rearmament. I am happy to be able to avail myself of
your services for the solution of new tasks in your position as
Reich Minister.”
In fact, Schacht continued as Minister without Portfolio until January
1943.
I wish to conclude by saying that the evidence shows: First, Schacht’s
work was indispensable to Hitler’s rise to power and to the rearmament
of Germany; second, Schacht personally was favorably disposed towards
aggression and knew Hitler intended to and would break the peace; and,
third, Schacht retired from the scene for reasons wholly unrelated to
the imminence of illegal aggression.
As long as he remained in power, Schacht was working as eagerly for the
preparation of aggressive war as any of his colleagues. He was beyond
any doubt most effective and valuable in this connection. His assistance
in the earlier phase of the conspiracy made their later crimes possible.
His withdrawal from the scene reflected no moral feeling against the use
of aggressive warfare as an instrument of national policy. He personally
struggled to retain his position. By the time he lost it he had already
completed his task in the conspiracy, namely, to provide Hitler and his
colleagues with the physical means and economic planning necessary to
launch and maintain the aggression. We do not believe that, having
prepared the Wehrmacht for assault upon the world, he should now be
permitted to find refuge in his loss of power before the blow was
struck.
This concludes our case against the Defendant Schacht, and Lieutenant
Meltzer follows me with the presentation of the American case against
the Defendant Funk.
LIEUTENANT (j. g.) BERNHARD D. MELTZER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the
United States): May it please the Tribunal, the documents bearing upon
Defendant Funk’s responsibility have been assembled in a document book
marked “HH,” which has been filed with the Tribunal and has also been
made available to Defense Counsel. The same is true of the brief. The
documents have been arranged in the book in the order of their
presentation. Moreover, to facilitate reference, the pages of the
document book have been numbered consecutively in red. I wish to
acknowledge the invaluable collaboration of Mr. Sidney Jacoby, who sits
to my right, in the selection and analysis of these documents.
We propose to submit evidence concerning five phases of Defendant Funk’s
participation in the conspiracy:
First, his contribution to the Nazi seizure of power; second, his role
in the Propaganda Ministry and in the related agencies and his
responsibility for the activities of that ministry; third, his
responsibility for the unrelenting elimination of Jews, first from the
so-called cultural professions and then from the entire German economy;
fourth, his collaboration in the paramount Nazi task to which all other
tasks were subordinated—preparation for aggressive war; and finally, we
propose to mention briefly the evidence concerning his active
participation in the waging of aggressive war.
We turn now to the evidence showing that Defendant Funk actively
promoted the conspirators’ accession to power and their consolidation of
control over Germany. Soon after he joined the Nazi Party in 1931
Defendant Funk began to hold important positions, first within the Party
itself and then within the Nazi Government. Funk’s positions have, in
the main, been listed in Document Number 3533-PS, which is a statement
signed by both Defendant Funk and his counsel. This document has been
made available in the four working languages of these proceedings, and a
copy in the appropriate language should be available in each of Your
Honors’ document books. It is accordingly requested that this document,
which is Exhibit Number USA-651, be received into evidence without the
necessity of its being read in its entirety.
Your Honors will observe that there are some deletions and reservations
after some of the items listed in Document Number 3533-PS. These were
inserted by Defendant Funk. The words which he wished deleted are
enclosed in parentheses. His comments are underscored and followed by
asterisks.
We wished to avoid troubling the Tribunal with a detailed discussion of
all these contested points. Accordingly, we collected in Document
3563-PS relevant excerpts from certain German publications. This
document has also been made available in the four working languages.
Moreover, we submit that the Tribunal can properly take judicial notice
of the publications referred to in the document. However, in order to
facilitate reference, we request that it be received in evidence as
Exhibit Number USA-652.
In connection with Item “b” on the top of Page 1 of Document Number
3533-PS—Your Honors will find that on Page 1 of the document—Your
Honors will observe that Defendant Funk has in effect denied that he was
Hitler’s personal economic adviser in the 1930’s. However, the excerpts
from the four German publications set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of Document
Number 3563-PS directly contradict this denial.
We submit that it will be clear from the documents just referred to that
Defendant Funk, soon after he joined the Party, began to operate as one
of the Nazi inner circle. Moreover, as a Party economic theorist during
its critical days in 1932, he made a significant contribution to its
drive for mass support by drafting its economic slogans. In this
connection I would refer to Document 3505-PS, which is a biography
entitled, in the English translation, _Walter Funk—A Life for Economy_.
This biography was written by one Oestreich in German and published by
the Central Publishing House of the Nazi Party. I offer this document in
evidence as Exhibit Number USA-653. I wish to quote now from Page 1 of
the translation of this document, the center of the page. The
corresponding page of the German document is Page 81:
“In 1931 he”—that is, Funk—“became a member of the Reichstag.
A document of his activity at the time is the ‘Economic
Construction Program of the NSDAP’ which was formulated by him
in the second half of the year 1932. It received the approval of
Adolf Hitler and was declared binding for all Gau leaders,
speakers on the subject, and Gau advisers on the subject and
others of the Party.”
Thus Defendant Funk’s slogans became the economic gospel for the Party
organizers and spellbinders.
Defendant Funk, however, was much more than one of the Nazi Party’s
economic theorists; he was also involved in the highly practical work of
soliciting campaign contributions for the Party. As liaison man between
the Party and the large German industrialists he helped place the
industrialists’ financial and political support behind Hitler. Defendant
Funk, in an interrogation conducted on 4 June 1945, admitted that he
helped finance the highly critical campaign of 1932. I offer in evidence
Document Number 2828-PS as Exhibit Number USA-654, and I quote from the
bottom of Page 43. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Meltzer, isn’t this really all cumulative and
detailed evidence to support what the Defendant Funk has already agreed
with reference to his office? On Page 1 you have there the admission
that he was a member of the Nazi Party, chief of the division of the
Central Nazi Party, chairman of the committee of the Nazi Party on
economic policy, and then it goes on from A to U with views of the
various offices which he held and which he admits, he held. But surely
to go into the details of those positions is unnecessary.
LT. MELTZER: If Your Honor pleases, the admission of the various
positions listed do not, in our judgment, indicate in any way Defendant
Funk’s participation in the fund-raising for the Nazi Party.
THE PRESIDENT: The fund-raising?
LT. MELTZER: The fund-raising. Now, it is a possible inference from
those positions that he did engage in the solicitation of campaign
contributions. However, it did seem to us relevant to mention most
briefly direct evidence of that aspect of his activity.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you say there is nothing in these offices
which covered the matter you are going to deal with; well and good.
LT. MELTZER: Defendant Funk, in an interrogation conducted on 4 June
1945, admitted, as I said a minute ago, that he helped to finance this
highly critical campaign.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Lieutenant Meltzer, the heading that you have so
conveniently given to us is that he contributed to the seizure of power.
Well now, nearly every one of the headings A to U on Page 1, which he
admits, is evidence that he contributed to seizure of power. Is it your
object to propose that he also helped to raise funds? The contribution
to the seizure of power is not in itself a crime; it is only a step.
LT. MELTZER: Very well, Your Honor. There is one aspect, however, of his
activity in that regard which I should like to mention; that is, in
connection with his fund-raising activities, he was present at a meeting
in Berlin early in 1933.
I am referring to the document which records what went on in that
meeting in order to point out that in the course of the meeting Hitler
and Göring submitted an exposition of certain basic elements of the Nazi
program. The reference to this meeting is found in Document 2828-PS,
which Your Honors will find on Page 28 of the document book. I wish to
quote the following question and answer:
“Q: ‘About 1933, we have been informed, certain industrialists
attended a meeting in the home of Göring before the election in
March. Do you know anything about this?’
“A: ‘I was at the meeting. Money was not demanded by Göring but
by Schacht. Hitler left the room, then Schacht made a speech
asking for money for the election. I was there as an impartial
observer, since I was friendly with the industrialists.’”
The character and importance of Funk’s work with the large
industrialists is emphasized in the biography of Funk, which I referred
to earlier, and I will simply invite Your Honors’ attention to the
relevant pages of that book, which are 83 and 84.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t understand why you read that passage. If you
wanted to show that he was at the meeting, it would be merely sufficient
to say that he was at the meeting. I don’t think those two sentences
that you read help us in the very least.
LT. MELTZER: If the Tribunal please, those two sentences do not refer to
the meeting. Those two sentences refer to the biography which sums up
the Defendant Funk’s general contribution to the Nazi accession to power
and I thought it might be of interest to the Tribunal to see the
attitude of a German writer on this aspect of the defendant’s career.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me you referred to the meeting.
LT. MELTZER: I was referring Your Honors to Pages 32 and 33 of the
document book, and to clarify this point may I read briefly from the
biography:
“No less important than Funk’s accomplishments in the
programmatic field in the years 1931 and 1932 was his activity
at that time as the Führer’s liaison man to the leading men of
the German industry, trade, commerce, and finance. On the basis
of his past work his personal relations to the German economic
leaders were broad and far-reaching. He was now able to enlist
them in the service of Adolf Hitler and not only to answer their
questions authoritatively but to convince them and win their
backing for the Party. At that time that was terribly important
work; every success achieved meant a moral, political, and
economic strengthening of the vitality of the Party and
contributed toward destroying the prejudice that National
Socialism is merely a party of class hatred and class struggle.”
THE PRESIDENT: Again, I don’t see that that has helped the Tribunal in
the least.
LT. MELTZER: After Funk had helped Hitler become Chancellor, as Press
Chief of the German Government, he participated in the early Cabinet
meetings, in the course of which the conspirators planned the strategy
by which they would secure the passage of the Presidential Emergency
Decree, which was passed on 24 March 1933. Funk’s presence at these
meetings is revealed by Document 2962-PS which has already been received
in evidence and by Document Number 2963-PS, offered as Exhibit Number
USA-656. Your Honors will recall that this decree marked the real
seizure of political power in Germany.
Soon after this the Defendant Funk assumed an important role in the
Ministry of Propaganda. The record shows that the Ministry became one of
the most important and vicious of Nazi institutions and that propaganda
was fundamental to the achievement of the Nazi program within Germany
and outside of Germany. We do not propose to review those matters to you
but rather to present evidence showing, as we have said, that the
Defendant Funk took a significant part in the propaganda operations.
The Ministry was established on 13 March 1933, with Goebbels as Chief
and Defendant Funk as undersecretary, second in command.
As undersecretary Defendant Funk was not only Goebbels’ chief aide but
was also the organizer of the large and complex propaganda machine. I
wish to offer in evidence Document Number 3501-PS, which will be found
on Page 47 of your document book as Exhibit Number USA-657. This
document is an affidavit signed on 19 December 1945 by Max Amann, who
held the position of Reich Leader of the Press and President of the
Reich Press Chamber. I should like to read the second sentence of the
first paragraph and the entire second paragraph:
“In carrying out my duties and responsibilities I became
familiar with the operation and the organization of the Reich
Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Funk was the soul of
the Ministry, and without him Goebbels could not have built it
up. Goebbels once stated to me that Funk was his ‘most efficient
man.’ Funk exercised comprehensive control over all of the media
of expression in Germany; over the press, the theater, radio,
and music. As Press Chief of the Government and later as
undersecretary of the Ministry, Funk held daily meetings with
the Führer and a daily press conference in the course of which
he issued the directives governing the materials to be published
by the German press.”
In addition to his position as undersecretary, Funk had many other
important jobs in the Propaganda Ministry and in its subordinate
agencies. These positions have already been listed in Document 3533-PS.
I wish, however, to refer in particular to Funk’s position as
vice-president of the Reich Chamber of Culture. This position was, of
course, related to his functions in the Propaganda Ministry.
In his dual capacity he directly promoted two vital and related Nazi
policies. The first was the regimentation of all creative activities in
the interests of Nazi political and military objectives. The second was
the complete elimination of Jews and dissidents from the so-called
cultural professions. A full discussion of the methods by which these
policies were effectuated has been included in the brief which was
submitted as part of Document Book E. Accordingly, we will not go into
that matter now unless the Tribunal wishes us.
In view of the Defendant Funk’s major role in the Propaganda Ministry,
it is natural to find Nazi writers stressing his responsibility for the
Nazi perversion of culture. In this connection, I will simply invite the
Tribunal’s attention to Pages 94 and 95 of Oestreich’s biography, which
has already been referred to.
After Defendant Funk left the Ministry of Propaganda and became Minister
of Economics in 1938, he continued to advance the anti-Jewish program.
For example, on 14 June 1938 he signed a decree providing for the
registration of Jewish enterprises. This decree, which became the
foundation for the ruthless economic persecution which followed, is
found in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1938, Part I, Page 627. It is
requested that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this reference to
the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ and all subsequent references. May I add that
the brief on Defendant Funk gives the document numbers of translations
of decrees and other German publications of which the Tribunal will be
requested to take judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
LT. MELTZER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we do so, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, I see that one
of the counsel, Colonel Phillimore, I think, is proposing to call
certain witnesses. The Tribunal would like to know who those witnesses
are and what subject their evidence is going to deal with.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal like to know now? I would
like to let them know, if it is convenient.
THE PRESIDENT: If you could, it would be convenient now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The first witness is Korvettenkapitän
Moehle, who was a captain on Defendant Dönitz’ staff; and he will prove
the passing on the Dönitz order of 17 September 1942. I think that is
the main point that he deals with. I think he deals also with the
destruction of some rescue ships, but that is the main point.
The second witness is Lieutenant Heisig. He will deal primarily with
lectures of the Defendant Dönitz in which he advocated the destruction
of the crews of merchant ships. That is the general effect of the
evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Meltzer, are you intending to call any
witnesses this afternoon?
LT. MELTZER: No, Sir. There is another member of the Prosecution, Sir,
who I believe is intending to call a witness—Mr. Dodd.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the case against Funk?
LT. MELTZER: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Or in connection with the case against somebody else?
LT. MELTZER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is it in connection with, Raeder?
LT. MELTZER: I believe Mr. Dodd might offer. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Raeder, is it?
LT. MELTZER: No, Sir. Mr. Dodd might offer a better explanation than I
on the purpose of calling the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd?
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Yes,
Sir. Your Honor, the witness is offered in connection with the
Defendants Rosenberg, Funk, Frick, Sauckel, and Kaltenbrunner.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. The evidence relates to concentration camps, does
it?
MR. DODD: It does, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. DODD: This witness would have been called at the time that we
presented the other proof, except for the fact that he was before the
military court at Dachau at that time and was not available.
THE PRESIDENT: I see; thank you.
LT. MELTZER: May it please the Tribunal, before we adjourned we were
dealing with Defendant Funk’s role in the economic persecution of the
Jews. As Your Honors will recall, in November of 1938 the death of Vom
Rath in Paris was exploited by the Nazis as a pretext for intensifying
the persecution of the Jews. The new policy was directed at the complete
elimination of the Jews from the economic life of Germany. The evidence
we will offer will show that Defendant Funk took a significant part in
both the formulation and execution of that policy. In this connection I
would refer the Tribunal to Document Number 1816-PS which is already in
the Record. This document is a report of the meeting on the Jewish
question. It will be found, Your Honor, on Page 52 of the document book.
This meeting was held under Göring’s chairmanship on 12 November 1938.
In opening the meeting, Defendant Göring stated—and I quote now from
Page 1, Paragraph 1, of the translation; the corresponding page of the
German document is also Page 1:
“. . . today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have received
a letter written by the chief of staff of the Führer’s Deputy,
Bormann, on the Führer’s orders directing that the Jewish
question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and solved one
way or another.”
Defendant Funk came to this meeting well prepared. He had a law already
drafted which he submitted with the following explanation—I quote again
from Document 1816-PS, Page 15:
“I have prepared a law for this case which provides that as from
1 January 1939 Jews shall be prohibited from operating retail
stores and mail-order establishments as well as independent
workshops. They shall be further prohibited from hiring
employees for that purpose or offering any goods on the market.
Wherever a Jewish shop is operated, it is to be closed by the
police. From 1 January 1939 a Jew can no longer operate a
business in the sense of the law for the regulation of national
labor of 20 January 1934.”
I believe we may omit the rest. It is all in the same tenor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. MELTZER: The substance of Defendant Funk’s draft law promptly found
its way into the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. On 12 November 1938 Defendant
Göring signed a decree entitled, and I quote, “. . . for the Elimination
of Jews from German Economic Life,” and in Section 4 he authorized
Defendant Funk to implement the provisions of the decree by issuing the
necessary rules and regulations. An examination of the provisions of
this decree, which is set forth in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1938, Part I,
Page 1580, will reveal how well it deserved its title “. . . for the
Elimination of the Jews from German Economic Life.”
Soon after the passage of the decree of 12 November, Defendant Funk
delivered a speech on the Jewish question. He made it clear that the
program of economic persecution was part of the larger program of
extermination and he boasted of the fact that the new program insured
the complete elimination of Jews from the German economy. I offer into
evidence Document Number 3545-PS as Exhibit USA-659. This document,
which is found on Page 76 of the document book, is a certified
photostatic copy of Page 2 of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ of 17 November
1938. I quote a very brief portion of that speech:
“State and economy constitute a single unit. They must be
directed according to the same principles. The best proof of
this is given by the most recent development of the Jewish
problem in Germany. One cannot exclude the Jews from political
life and yet let them live and work in the economic sphere.”
I shall omit the rest, with the request that the Tribunal take judicial
notice of this reprint from the German newspaper, the _Frankfurter
Zeitung_.
I wish, however, to refer to only one more decree, signed by Defendant
Funk himself. On the 3rd of December 1938 he signed a decree which
imposed additional and drastic economic disabilities upon the Jews and
subjected their property to confiscation and forced liquidation. This
decree is set forth in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1938, Part I, Page 1709.
Defendant Funk himself has admitted and deplored his responsibility for
the economic persecution of the Jews. I offer into evidence Document
Number 3544-PS, as Exhibit USA-660. This document, which is the last
document in connection with this phase of the case, is an interrogation
of Defendant Funk dated 22 October 1945. Your Honors will find it on
Pages 102 and 103 of the document book. I wish to quote from Pages 26 to
27 of the interrogation. The corresponding page of the German
translation is Page 21. Although I propose to quote enough to place
Defendant Funk’s statements in their proper context, I do not, of
course, intend to give any credence to his attempts at
self-justification:
“Q: ‘All the decrees excluding the Jews from industry were
yours, were they not?’”
Now, omitting the first nine lines of the reply:
“A: ‘As far as my participation in this Jewish affair is
concerned, that was my responsibility, and I regretted later on
that I ever participated. The Party had always brought pressure
to bear on me to make me agree to the confiscation of Jewish
property, and I refused repeatedly. But later on, when the
anti-Jewish measures and the brutality against Jews were being
carried out with full force, something legal had to be done to
prevent the looting and confiscation of the whole of Jewish
property.’
“Q: ‘You knew that the looting and all that was done at the
instigation of the Party, didn’t you?’
“Here Defendant Funk wept and answered:
“‘That is when I should have resigned, in 1938. I am guilty. I
am guilty. I admit that I am a guilty party here.’”
In the Propaganda Ministry, Defendant Funk, as we have seen, helped
solidify the German people in favor of war. When he moved on to his
position as Minister of Economics, and to other positions which will
appear, he used his talents even more directly for the conspirators’
main task: preparation for war. Immediately before Defendant Funk took
over the Ministry of Economics from Defendant Schacht in 1938, there was
a major reorganization of that ministry’s functions which integrated it
with the Four Year Plan as the supreme command of the German military
economy. This reorganization was effected by a decree, dated 4 February
1938, signed by Göring as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan. This
decree is set forth in an official monthly bulletin issued by Göring and
entitled, in the English translation, _The Four Year Plan_, Volume II,
1938, Page 105. It is requested that the Tribunal take judicial notice
of this publication.
At this point I would simply note that that decree makes it clear that
Defendant Funk assumed a critical role in the task of economic
mobilization during a decisive period. Indeed, in 1938 he was directly
charged with the task of preparing the German economy for war. By a
secret decree he was made Plenipotentiary General for Economics and
assumed the duties which once had been discharged by Defendant Schacht.
In this connection I refer to Document 2194-PS, which has already been
placed in evidence. This document, which is found on Page 111 of Your
Honors’ document books, consists of a letter dated 6 September 1939, and
that letter transmitted a copy of the Reich Defense Law of 4 September
1938. It is this enclosure that we wish to deal with now. I wish to
quote from Page 4 of the translation, Paragraphs 2 to 4:
“It is the task of the GBW”—that is the Plenipotentiary General
for Economics—“to put all economic forces into the service of
the Reich defense and to safeguard economically the life of the
German nation. To him are subordinated: the Reich Minister of
Economics, the Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture, the Reich
Minister of Labor. . .” and so on.—“He is furthermore
responsible for directing the financing of the Reich defense
within the realm of the Reich Finance Ministry and the
Reichsbank.”
To quote one more paragraph:
“The GBW must fulfill the demands of the OKW which are of
essential importance for the Armed Forces and must ensure the
economic conditions necessary for the production of the armament
industry directly managed by the OKW, according to the
requirements of the latter.”
This law, in essence, re-enacted the provisions previously passed in the
Reich Defense Law of 1935, and I will not trouble the Tribunal with
further reading. I do wish to note, however, that the law was, at the
specific direction of Hitler, kept secret and that it was signed by
Defendant Funk, among others, as Plenipotentiary General for Economics.
Your Honors will find Defendant Funk’s signature on the next to the last
page of the document, and I invite your attention to the names of his
co-signers.
Defendant Funk, in a speech which he delivered on 14 October 1939,
explained how, as Plenipotentiary General for Economics, he had for a
year and a half prior to the launching of the aggression against Poland,
advanced Germany’s economic preparations for war. I offer into evidence
Document Number 3324-PS as Exhibit USA-661. This document is a German
book by Berndt and Von Wedel entitled, in the English translation,
_Germany in the Fight_. That book reprints the defendant’s speech. I
quote now from Page 2 of the translation of Document Number 3324-PS,
which is found on Page 116 of the document book. The translation of this
speech is somewhat awkward, and with the Tribunal’s permission I would
rephrase it somewhat without changing its substance in the slightest.
“Although all economic and financial departments were harnessed
to the task of the Four Year Plan under the leadership of
General Field Marshal Göring, Germany’s economic preparation for
war was also secretly advanced in another sector for well over a
year, namely, through the formation of a national guiding
apparatus for special war economy tasks which would have to be
accomplished the moment that war became a fact. For this work
all economic departments were combined into one administrative
authority, the Plenipotentiary General for Economics, to which
position the Führer appointed me one and a half years ago.”
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of that?
LT. MELTZER: The date of that speech, Sir, is 14 October 1939.
In his dual capacity as Plenipotentiary General for Economics and
Minister of Economics, Defendant Funk was naturally advised of the
requirements which the conspirators’ program of aggression imposed on
the German economy. In this connection I would invite the Tribunal’s
attention to Document Number 1301-PS, which is already in evidence. As
Your Honors will recall, this document is a top secret report of the
conference held in Defendant Göring’s office on 14 October 1938. Your
Honors will find it on Page 142 of the document book. I shall simply
summarize the relevant portions of this document.
During the conference Göring referred to the world situation and to
Hitler’s directive to organize a gigantic armament program. He thereupon
directed the Ministry of Economics to increase exports in order to
obtain the foreign exchange necessary for stepping up armament. He
added, as Your Honors will recall, that the Luftwaffe must be increased
five-fold, that the Navy should arm more quickly, and that the Army
should accelerate the production of weapons for attack. Defendant
Göring’s words directed at Funk, among others, were the words of a man
already at war; and his emphasis on quintupling the Air Force and on
weapons for attack was that of a man waging aggressive war.
After Schacht’s departure Funk was a key figure in the preparation of
plans to finance the war. This was natural, since Defendant Funk after
1939 occupied three positions crucial to war finance. Two we have
already named: Minister of Economics and Plenipotentiary General for
Economics. In addition, he was President of the Reichsbank.
Funk’s role in war financing is illustrated by Document Number 3562-PS,
which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-662. This document was
found in the captured files of the Reich Ministry of Economics. It
consists, in part, of a letter from the Plenipotentiary General for
Economics, signed on his behalf by Dr. Posse. The letter is dated 1 June
1939 and encloses the minutes of a conference concerning the financing
of the war which was held under the chairmanship of Funk’s
undersecretary in the Ministry of Economics, Dr. Landfried. A copy of
the document which I have offered into evidence bears a marginal note on
Page 1 in the bottom lefthand corner, dated 5 June, stating, and I
quote: “To be shown to the Minister,”—that is, Funk—“for his
information.”
During the course of the meeting, which was attended by 12 officials,
five of whom were directly responsible to Defendant Funk in his various
capacities, the conferees discussed a memorandum regarding war finance
which had been prepared by the Plenipotentiary General for Economics on
May 9, 1939. I wish to quote briefly from Page 2 of the English
translation, which is found on Page 153 of Your Honors’ document book:
“Then a report was made of the contents of the ‘Notes on the
question of Internal Financing of War’ of 9 May of this year, in
which the figures given to me by the Reich Minister of Finance
were also discussed. It was pointed out that the Plenipotentiary
General for Economics is primarily interested in introducing
into the legislation for war finance the idea of financing war
expenditures by future revenues to be expected after the war.”
And, if I may quote another brief excerpt from this important
memorandum, which is found on Page 2 of the English translation, Page
153 of your document books:
“State Secretary Neumann first submitted for discussion the
question of whether, in case of war, production would be able to
meet, to the extent supposed, the demands of the Armed Forces,
especially if the demands of the Armed Forces, as stated in the
above report, should increase to approximately 14,000 millions
in the first 3 months of war. He stated that if the production
potential of the present Reich territory is taken as a basis he
doubts the possibility of such an increase.”
It is plain then that Defendant Funk exercised comprehensive authority
over large areas of the German economy whose proper organization and
direction were critical to effective war preparation. The once powerful
military machine which rested on the foundation of thorough economic
preparation was a tribute to the contribution which Defendant Funk had
made to Nazi aggression.
And Funk made this contribution with full knowledge of the plans for
military aggression. A compelling inference of such knowledge would
arise from the combination of several factors: From Funk’s long and
intimate association with the Nazi inner circle; from the very nature of
his official functions; from the war-dominated setting of Nazi Germany;
from the fact that force and the threat of force had become the primary
and the open instruments of German foreign policy. And the final element
in weighing the question of Defendant Funk’s knowledge is, of course,
the fact that, at the same time that Defendant Funk was making economic
preparation, specific plans for aggression were being formulated—plans
which were carried out and plans which could be effectively carried out
only if they were synchronized with the complementary economic measures.
The conclusion concerning Defendant Funk’s knowledge is reinforced
beyond any question by considering, in the light of the factors
described above, the more specific and direct evidence which has already
been placed into the Record. We have seen from Document 1760-PS that
Defendant Funk had told Mr. Messersmith that the absorption of Austria
by Germany was a political and economic necessity, and that it would be
achieved by whatever means were necessary. We have already referred to
Document Number 1301-PS, in which Defendant Göring laid down directives
which could be understood only as directives to prepare the economic
basis for aggression. And Document Number 3562-PS has revealed that
Defendant Funk was making detailed plans for financing the war, that is,
of course, a particular war, the war against Poland. In this connection
I wish to refer to another vital piece of evidence which has already
been introduced in the Record. It is the letter dated 25 August 1939
which Defendant Funk wrote to Hitler. In that letter, as Your Honors
will recall, Defendant Funk expressed his gratitude at being able to
experience those world-shaking times and to contribute to those
tremendous events. And he thanked Hitler for approving his proposals
designed to prepare the German economy for the war.
Moreover, the Record contains evidence showing that Defendant Funk, both
personally and through his representatives, participated in the economic
planning which preceded the military aggression against the Soviet
Union. I would refer the Tribunal to Document 1039-PS, which revealed
that in April of 1941 Defendant Rosenberg, who had been appointed deputy
for the centralized treatment of problems related to the occupation of
the Eastern territories, that is, the Soviet Union, discussed with
Defendant Funk the economic problems which would arise when the plans
for aggression in the East matured. And Document 1039-PS also reveals
that Defendant Funk appointed one Dr. Schlotterer as his deputy to
collaborate with Rosenberg in connection with the exploitation of the
Eastern territories and that Schlotterer met with Defendant Rosenberg
almost daily.
It is clear, then, that Defendant Funk participated in every phase of
the conspirators’ program, from their seizure of power to their final
defeat. Throughout he worked effectively, if sometimes more quietly than
others, on behalf of the Nazi program, a program which from the very
beginning he knew contemplated the use of ruthless terror and force
within Germany and, if necessary, outside of Germany. He bears, we
submit, a special, a direct, and a heavy responsibility for the
commission of Crimes against Humanity, Crimes against Peace, and War
Crimes. The Record makes it clear, if we may summarize the evidence,
that by virtue of his activities in the Ministry of Propaganda and in
the Ministry of Economics he is responsible for stimulating and engaging
in the unrelenting persecution of the Jews and other minorities, for
psychologically mobilizing the German people for aggressive war, and for
weakening the willingness and capacity of the conspirators’ intended
victims to resist aggression. It is also clear, we submit, that
Defendant Funk, with full knowledge of the conspirators’ purposes, in
his capacity as Minister of Economics, President of the Reichsbank, and
Plenipotentiary General for Economics, actively participated in the
mobilization of the German economy for aggression. In these capacities
and as a member of the Ministerial Council for Defense and the Central
Planning Board he also participated in the waging of aggressive war.
Moreover, by virtue of his membership in the Central Planning Board,
which, as Your Honors will recall from Mr. Dodd’s presentation,
formulated and directed the program for the enslavement, the
exploitation, and degradation of millions of foreign workers, Defendant
Funk also shares special responsibility for the Nazi slave-labor
program.
The French Prosecution, I am informed, will deal with this matter in
greater detail. Moreover, the French and Soviet Prosecution will submit
evidence showing that Defendant Funk actively participated in the
program for the criminal looting of the resources of occupied
territories.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, we would like to call at this time
the witness, Dr. Franz Blaha.
[_The witness, Blaha, took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT [_To the witness_]: Is your name Franz Blaha?
DR. FRANZ BLAHA (Witness) [_In Czech._]: Dr. Franz Blaha.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath: “I swear by God—the Almighty
and Omniscient—that I will speak the truth, the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.”
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You can sit down if you wish.
MR. DODD: You are Dr. Franz Blaha, a native and a citizen of
Czechoslovakia, are you not?
BLAHA: [_In Czech._] Yes.
MR. DODD: I understand that you are able to speak German, and for
technical reasons I suggest that we conduct this examination in German,
although I know your native tongue is Czech; is that right?
BLAHA: [_In Czech._] In the interest of the case I am willing to testify
in German for the following reasons: 1. For the past 7 years, which are
the subject of my testimony, I have lived exclusively in German
surroundings; 2. A large number of special and technical expressions
relating to life in and about the concentration camps are purely German
inventions, and no appropriate equivalent for them in any other language
can be found.
MR. DODD: Dr. Blaha, by education and training and profession you are a
doctor of medicine?
BLAHA: [_In German._] Yes.
MR. DODD: And in 1939 you were the head of a hospital in Czechoslovakia?
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: You were arrested, were you not, by the Germans in 1939 after
they occupied Czechoslovakia?
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: And were you confined in various prisons between 1939 and
1941?
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: From 1941 to April of 1945 you were confined at Dachau
Concentration Camp?
BLAHA: Yes, until the end.
MR. DODD: When that camp was liberated by the Allied Forces?
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: You executed an affidavit in Nuremberg on the 9th day of
January of this year, did you not?
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: This affidavit, if it please the Tribunal, bears the Document
Number 3249-PS, and I wish to offer it at this time. It is Exhibit
USA-663. I feel that we can reduce the extent of this interrogation by
approximately three-fourths through the submission of this affidavit and
I should like to read it. It will take much less time to read this
affidavit than it would to go through it in question and answer form and
it covers a large part of what we expect to elicit from this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: I wouldn’t have read it if we had had time to have a Russian
and French translation, but unfortunately that wasn’t possible in the
few days we had.
“I, Franz Blaha, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
“1. I studied medicine in Prague, Vienna, Strasbourg, and Paris
and received my diploma in 1920. From 1920 to 1926 I was a
clinical assistant. In 1926 I became chief physician of the
Iglau Hospital in Moravia, Czechoslovakia. I held this position
until 1939 when the Germans entered Czechoslovakia and I was
seized as a hostage and held a prisoner for co-operating with
the Czech Government. I was sent as a prisoner to the Dachau
Concentration Camp in April 1941 and remained there until the
liberation of the camp in April 1945. Until July 1941 I worked
in a punishment company. After that I was sent to the hospital
and subjected to the experiments in typhoid being conducted by
Dr. Muermelstadt. After that I was to be made the subject of an
experimental operation and succeeded in avoiding this only by
admitting that I was a physician. If this had been known before,
I would have suffered, because intellectuals were treated very
harshly in the punishment company. In October 1941 I was sent to
work in the herb plantation and later in the laboratory for
processing herbs. In June 1942 I was taken into the hospital as
a surgeon. Shortly afterwards I was directed to perform a
stomach operation on 20 healthy prisoners. Because I would not
do this I was transferred to the autopsy room where I stayed
until April 1945. While there I performed approximately 7,000
autopsies. In all, 12,000 autopsies were performed under my
direction.
“2. From the middle of 1941 to the end of 1942 some 500
operations on healthy prisoners were performed. These were for
the instructions of the SS medical students and doctors and
included operations on the stomach, gall bladder, and throat.
These were performed by students and doctors of only 2 years’
training, although they were very dangerous and difficult.
Ordinarily they would not have been done except by surgeons with
at least 4 years’ surgical practice. Many prisoners died on the
operating table and many others from later complications. I
performed autopsies on all of these bodies. The doctors who
supervised these operations were Lang, Muermelstadt, Wolter,
Ramsauer, and Kahr. Standartenführer Dr. Lolling frequently
witnessed these operations.
“3. During my time at Dachau I was familiar with many kinds of
medical experiments carried on there on human victims. These
persons were never volunteers but were forced to submit to such
acts. Malaria experiments on about 1,200 people were conducted
by Dr. Klaus Schilling between 1941 and 1945. Schilling was
personally ordered by Himmler to conduct these experiments. The
victims were either bitten by mosquitoes or given injections of
malaria sporozoites taken from mosquitoes. Different kinds of
treatment were applied including quinine, pyrifer, neosalvarsan,
antipyrin, pyramidon, and a drug called 2516 Behring. I
performed autopsies on the bodies of people who died from these
malaria experiments. Thirty to 40 died from the malaria itself.
Three hundred to four hundred died later from diseases which
were fatal because of the physical condition resulting from the
malaria attacks. In addition there were deaths resulting from
poisoning due to overdoses of neosalvarsan and pyramidon. Dr.
Schilling was present at my autopsies on the bodies of his
patients.
“4. In 1942 and 1943 experiments on human beings were conducted
by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to determine the effects of changing air
pressure. As many as 25 persons were put at one time into a
specially constructed van in which pressure could be increased
or decreased as required. The purpose was to find out the
effects on human beings of high altitude and of rapid descents
by parachute. Through a window in the van I have seen the people
lying on the floor of the van. Most of the prisoners used died
from these experiments, from internal hemorrhage of the lungs or
brain. The survivors coughed blood when taken out. It was my job
to take the bodies out and as soon as they were found to be dead
to send the internal organs to Munich for study. About 400 to
500 prisoners were experimented on. The survivors were sent to
invalid blocks and liquidated shortly afterwards. Only a few
escaped.
“5. Rascher also conducted experiments on the effect of cold
water on human beings. This was done to find a way for reviving
airmen who had fallen into the ocean. The subject was placed in
ice-cold water and kept there until he was unconscious. Blood
was taken from his neck and tested each time his body
temperature dropped one degree. This drop was determined by a
rectal thermometer. Urine was also periodically tested. Some men
stood it as long as 24 to 36 hours. The lowest body temperature
reached was 19 degrees centigrade, but most men died at 25 or 26
degrees. When the men were removed from the ice water attempts
were made to revive them by artificial sunshine, with hot water,
by electro-therapy, or by animal warmth. For this last
experiment prostitutes were used and the body of the unconscious
man was placed between the bodies of two women. Himmler was
present at one such experiment. I could see him from one of the
windows in the street between the blocks. I have personally been
present at some of these cold water experiments when Rascher was
absent, and I have seen notes and diagrams on them in Rascher’s
laboratory. About 300 persons were used in these experiments.
The majority died. Of those who survived, many became mentally
deranged. Those who did not die were sent to invalid blocks and
were killed just as were the victims of the air pressure
experiments. I know only two who survived, a Yugoslav and a
Pole, both of whom are mental cases.
“6. Liver puncture experiments were performed by Dr. Brachtl on
healthy people and on people who had diseases of the stomach and
gall bladder. For this purpose a needle was jabbed into the
liver of a person and a small piece of the liver was extracted.
No anaesthetic was used. The experiment is very painful and
often had serious results, as the stomach or large blood vessels
were often punctured, resulting in hemorrhage. Many persons died
of these tests for which Polish, Russian, Czech, and German
prisoners were employed. Altogether about 175 people were
subjected to these experiments.
“7. Phlegmone experiments were conducted by Dr. Schütz, Dr.
Babor, Dr. Kieselwetter and Professor Lauer. Forty healthy men
were used at a time, of which twenty were given intramuscular
and twenty intravenous injections of pus from diseased persons.
All treatment was forbidden for 3 days, by which time serious
inflammation and in many cases general blood poisoning had
occurred. Then each group was divided again into groups of 10.
Half were given chemical treatment with liquid and special pills
every 10 minutes for 24 hours. The remainder were treated with
sulfanamide and surgery. In some cases all the limbs were
amputated. My autopsy also showed that the chemical treatment
had been harmful and had even caused perforations of the stomach
wall. For these experiments Polish, Czech, and Dutch priests
were ordinarily used. Pain was intense in such experiments. Most
of the 600 to 800 persons who were used finally died. Most of
the others became permanent invalids and were later killed.
“8. In the fall of 1944 there were 60 to 80 persons who were
subjected to salt water experiments. They were locked in a room
and for 5 days were given nothing for food but salt water.
During this time their urine, blood, and excrement were tested.
None of these prisoners died, possibly because they received
smuggled food from other prisoners. Hungarians and Gypsies were
used for these experiments.
“9. It was common practice to remove the skin from dead
prisoners. I was commanded to do this on many occasions. Dr.
Rascher and Dr. Wolter in particular asked for this human skin
from human backs and chests. It was chemically treated and
placed in the sun to dry. After that it was cut into various
sizes for use as saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house
slippers, and ladies’ handbags. Tattooed skin was especially
valued by SS men. Russians, Poles, and other inmates were used
in this way, but it was forbidden to cut out the skin of a
German. This skin had to be from healthy prisoners and free from
defects. Sometimes we did not have enough bodies with good skin
and Rascher would say, ‘All right, you will get the bodies.’ The
next day we would receive 20 or 30 bodies of young people. They
would have been shot in the neck or struck on the head so that
the skin would be uninjured. Also we frequently got requests for
the skulls or skeletons of prisoners. In those cases we boiled
the skull or the body. Then the soft parts were removed and the
bones were bleached and dried and reassembled. In the case of
skulls it was important to have a good set of teeth. When we got
an order for skulls from Oranienburg the SS men would say, ‘We
will try to get you some with good teeth.’ So it was dangerous
to have good skin or good teeth.
“10. Transports arrived frequently in Dachau from Struthof,
Belsen, Auschwitz, Mauthausen and other camps. Many of these
were 10 to 14 days on the way without water or food. On one
transport which arrived in November 1942 I found evidence of
cannibalism. The living persons had eaten the flesh from the
dead bodies. Another transport arrived from Compiègne in France.
Professor Limousin of Clermont-Ferrand who was later my
assistant told me that there had been 2,000 persons on this
transport when it started. There was food available but no
water. Eight hundred died on the way and were thrown out. When
it arrived after 12 days, more than 500 persons were dead on the
train. Of the remainder most died shortly after arrival. I
investigated this transport because the International Red Cross
complained, and the SS men wanted a report that the deaths had
been caused by fighting and rioting on the way. I dissected a
number of bodies and found that they had died from suffocation
and lack of water. It was mid-summer and 120 people had been
packed into each car.
“11. In 1941 and 1942 we had in the camp what we called invalid
transports. These were made up of people who were sick or for
some reason incapable of working. We called them ‘Himmelfahrt
Commandos.’ About 100 or 120 were ordered each week to go to the
shower baths. There four people gave injections of phenol,
evipan, or benzine, which soon caused death. After 1943 these
invalids were sent to other camps for liquidation. I know that
they were killed, because I saw the records and they were marked
with a cross and the date that they left, which was the way that
deaths were ordinarily recorded. This was shown on both the card
index of the Camp Dachau and the records in the registry office
of Dachau. One thousand to two thousand went away every 3
months, so there were about five thousand sent to death in this
way in 1943, and the same in 1944. In April 1945 a Jewish
transport was loaded at Dachau and was left standing on the
railroad siding. The station was destroyed by bombing, and they
could not leave. So they were just left there to die of
starvation. They were not allowed to get off. When the camp was
liberated they were all dead.
“12. Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place
right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I
was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the
eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still
alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were
red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later
killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the
crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold. Teeth
containing gold were extracted. Many prisoners who were sick
were killed by injections while in the hospital. Some prisoners
killed in the hospital came through to the autopsy room with no
name or number on the tag which was usually tied to their big
toe. Instead the tag said ‘Do not dissect’. I performed
autopsies on some of these and found that they were perfectly
healthy but had died from injections. Sometimes prisoners were
killed only because they had dysentery or vomited and gave the
nurses too much trouble. Mental patients were liquidated by
being led to the gas chamber and injected there or shot.
Shooting was a common method of execution. Prisoners could be
shot just outside the crematorium and carried in. I have seen
people pushed into the ovens while they were still breathing and
making sounds, although if they were too much alive they were
usually hit on the head first.
“13. The principal executions about which I know from having
examined the victims or supervised such examinations are as
follows:
“In 1942 there were 5,000 to 6,000 Russians held in a separate
camp inside Dachau. They were taken on foot to the military
rifle range near the camp in groups of 500 or 600 and shot. Such
groups left the camp about three times a week. At night we used
to go out to bring the bodies back in carts and then examine
them. In February 1944 about 40 Russian students arrived from
Moosburg. I knew a few of the boys in the hospital. I examined
their bodies after they were shot outside the crematory. In
September 1944 a group of 94 high-ranking Russian officers were
shot, including two military doctors who had been working with
me in the hospital. I examined their bodies. In April 1945, a
number of prominent people were shot who had been kept in the
bunker. They included two French generals, whose names I cannot
remember; but I recognized them from their uniform. I examined
them after they were shot. In 1944 and 1945 a number of women
were killed by hanging, shooting, and injections. I examined
them and found that in many cases they were pregnant. In 1945,
just before the camp was liberated, all ‘Nacht und Nebel’
prisoners were executed. These were prisoners who were forbidden
to have any contact with the outside world. They were kept in a
special enclosure and were not allowed to send or receive any
mail. There were 30 or 40, many of whom were sick. These were
carried to the crematory on stretchers. I examined them and
found they had all been shot in the neck.
“14. From 1941 on the camp was more and more overcrowded. In
1943 the hospital for prisoners was already overcrowded. In 1944
and in 1945 it was impossible to maintain any sort of sanitary
conditions. Rooms which held 300 or 400 persons in 1942 were
filled with 1,000 in 1943, and in the first quarter of 1945 with
2,000 or more. The rooms could not be cleaned because they were
too crowded and there was no cleaning material. Baths were
available only once a month. Latrine facilities were completely
inadequate. Medicine was almost nonexistent. But I found after
the camp was liberated that there was plenty of medicine in the
SS hospital for all the camp, if it had been given to us for
use. New arrivals at the camp were lined up out of doors for
hours at a time. Sometimes they stood there from morning until
night. It did not matter whether this was in the winter or in
the summer. This occurred all through 1943, 1944, and the first
quarter of 1945. I could see these formations from the window of
the autopsy room. Many of the people who had to stand in the
cold in this way became ill with pneumonia and died. I had
several acquaintances who were killed in this manner during 1944
and 1945.
“In October 1944 a transport of Hungarians brought spotted fever
into the camp, and an epidemic began. I examined many of the
corpses from this transport and reported the situation to Dr.
Hintermayer but was forbidden, on penalty of being shot, to
mention that there was an epidemic in the camp. He said that it
was sabotage, and that I was trying to have the camp quarantined
so that the prisoners would not have to work in the armaments
industry. No preventive measures were taken at all. New healthy
arrivals were put into blocks where an epidemic was already
present. Also infected persons were put into these blocks. The
30th block, for instance, died out completely three times. Only
at Christmas, when the epidemic spread into the SS camp, was a
quarantine established. Nevertheless, transports continued to
arrive. We had 200 to 300 new typhus cases a day and about 100
deaths from typhus daily. In all we had 28,000 cases and 15,000
deaths. Apart from those that died from the disease my autopsies
showed that many deaths were caused solely by malnutrition. Such
deaths occurred in all the years from 1941 to 1945. They were
mostly Italians, Russians, and Frenchmen. These people were just
starved to death. At the time of death they weighed 50 to 60
pounds. Autopsies showed their internal organs had often shrunk
to one-third of their normal size.
“The facts stated above are true. This declaration is made by me
voluntarily and without compulsion. After reading over the
statement I have signed and executed the same at Nuremberg,
Germany, this 9th day of January 1946.”[1]
—Signed—“Dr. Franz Blaha.
“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of January 1946
at Nuremberg, Germany. 2d Lieutenant Daniel F. Margolies.”
MR. DODD: [_Continuing the interrogation._] Dr. Blaha, will you state
whether or not visitors came to the camp of Dachau while you were there?
BLAHA: Very many visitors came to our camp so that it sometimes seemed
to us that we were not confined in a camp but in an exhibition or a zoo.
At times there was a visit or an excursion almost every day from
schools, from different military, medical, and other institutions, and
also many members of the Police, the SS, and the Armed Forces; also. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will you pause so as to give the interpreter’s words time
to come through; do you understand?
BLAHA: Yes. Also some State personalities came to the camp. Regular
inspections were made month by month by the Inspector General of
Concentration Camps, Obergruppenführer Pohl; also by SS Reichsführer
Professor Grawitz, Inspector of Experimental Stations; Standartenführer
Dr. Lolling; and other personalities.
MR. DODD: The presiding Justice has suggested that you pause, and it
would be helpful if you paused in the making of your answers so that the
interpreters can complete their interpretation.
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: Are you able to state how long these visits lasted on an
average?
BLAHA: That depended on the sort of visits being made. Some were inside
for half an hour to an hour, some for 3 or 4 hours.
MR. DODD: Were there prominent Government people who visited the camp at
any time while you were there?
BLAHA: While I was there many personalities came to our camp:
Reichsführer Himmler came to Dachau several times and also was present
at the experiments. I was present myself on these occasions. Other
personalities also were there. I myself have seen three ministers of
state, and from political prisoners who were Germans and therefore knew
these people I heard that several other personages visited the camp. I
also twice saw high-ranking Italian officers and once a Japanese
officer.
MR. DODD: Do you remember the names of any of these prominent Government
people, or do you remember more particularly who any of them were?
BLAHA: Besides Himmler there was Bormann; also Gauleiter Wagner;
Gauleiter Giesler; State Ministers Frick, Rosenberg, Funk, Sauckel; also
the General of Police Daluege; and others.
MR. DODD: Did these people whom you have just named take tours around
the camp while you were there?
BLAHA: Generally the tour through the camp was so arranged that the
visitors were first taken to the kitchen, then to the laundry, then to
the hospital, that is, usually to the surgical station, then to the
malaria station of Professor Schilling and the experimental station of
Dr. Rascher. Then they proceeded to a few “blocks,” particularly those
of the German prisoners and sometimes they also visited the chapel,
which, however, had been fitted up inside for German clergy only.
Sometimes, too, various personalities were presented and introduced to
the visitors. It was so arranged that always, first of all, a “green”
professional criminal was selected and introduced as a murderer; then
the Mayor of Vienna, Dr. Schmitz, was usually presented as the second
one; then a high-ranking Czech officer; then a homosexual; a Gypsy; a
Catholic bishop or other Polish priest of high rank; then a university
professor, in this order, so that the visitors always found it
entertaining.
MR. DODD: Now did I understand you to name Kaltenbrunner as one of those
visitors there or not?
BLAHA: Yes, Kaltenbrunner was also present. He was there together with
General Daluege. That was, I believe, in the year 1943. I was also
interested in General Daluege because it was he who, after Heydrich’s
death, had become Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, and I wanted to see
him.
MR. DODD: Did you see Kaltenbrunner there yourself?
BLAHA: Yes. He was pointed out to me. I had not seen him previously.
MR. DODD: Did I understand you mentioned the name Frick as one of those
whom you saw there?
BLAHA: Yes, it was in the year of 1944, the first half of 1944.
MR. DODD: Where did you see him? Where in the camp did you see him?
BLAHA: I saw him from the hospital window as he was entering with his
staff, with several people.
MR. DODD: Do you see the man whom you saw there that day, by the name of
Frick, in this courtroom now?
BLAHA: Yes, the fourth man from the right in the first row.
MR. DODD: I understand you also named the name Rosenberg as one of those
whom you saw there?
BLAHA: I can recall that it was shortly after my arrival in the
concentration camp at Dachau that there was a visit and it was then that
my German comrades pointed Rosenberg out to me.
MR. DODD: Do you see that man in this courtroom now?
BLAHA: Yes. He is the second farther to the left in the first row.
MR. DODD: I also understood you to name Sauckel as one of those who were
present in the camp.
BLAHA: Yes, but I did not see him personally; I merely heard that he had
also visited certain factories and armament plants; and that was in
1943, I believe.
MR. DODD: Was it general knowledge in the camp at that time that a man
named Sauckel visited the camp, and particularly the munition plant?
BLAHA: Yes, that was general knowledge in the camp.
MR. DODD: I also understood you to name one of those who visited this
camp as Funk.
BLAHA: Yes. He was also present at a visit, and I can remember that it
was on the occasion of a state conference of the Axis Powers in Salzburg
or Reichenhall. It was the custom on such occasions, when there was a
Party convention or a celebration in Munich, Berchtesgaden, or Salzburg,
for several personalities to come from the celebrations to Dachau for a
visit. That was also the case with Funk.
MR. DODD: Did you personally see Funk there?
BLAHA: No, I did not see Funk personally; I merely heard that he was
there.
MR. DODD: Was that general knowledge in the camp at that time?
BLAHA: Yes. We knew beforehand that he was to come.
MR. DODD: Were there any visits after the end of the year 1944, or in
the months of 1945?
BLAHA: There were some visits still, but very few, because there was a
typhus epidemic in the camp at that time and quarantine was imposed.
MR. DODD: Doctor, you are now director of a hospital in Prague, are you
not?
BLAHA: Yes.
MR. DODD: I have no further questions to ask of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other counsel for the Prosecution wish to ask any
questions? Colonel Pokrovsky? [_Colonel Pokrovsky indicated assent._] We
will adjourn for a 10-minute recess.
-----
[1] The last paragraph of this affidavit appears in the English
translation signed by Dr. Blaha but not in the original German version.
[_A recess was taken._]
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): I
would like permission to ask this witness several questions.
[_Turning to the witness_]: Tell us, witness, do you know what was the
particular purpose of the concentration camp at Dachau; was it really,
so to speak, a concentration camp of extermination?
BLAHA: Until the year 1943 it was really an extermination camp. After
1943 a good many factories and munition plants were established, also
inside the camp, particularly after the bombardments started, and then
it became more of a work camp. But as far as the results are concerned
there was no difference, because the prisoners had to work so hard while
going hungry that they died from hunger and exhaustion instead of from
beatings.
COL. POKROVSKY: Must I understand you this way, that, in fact, both
before 1943 and after 1943 Dachau was a camp of extermination and that
there were different ways of extermination?
BLAHA: That is so.
COL. POKROVSKY: How many, according to your own observations, went
through this camp of extermination, Dachau; how many internees came
originally from the U.S.S.R., how many passed through the camp?
BLAHA: I cannot state that exactly, only approximately. First, after
November 1941, there were exclusively Russian prisoners of war in
uniform. They had separate camps and were liquidated within a few
months. In the summer of 1942, those who remained of these—I believe
there were 12,000 prisoners of war—were transported to Mauthausen; and,
as I learned from the people who came from Mauthausen to Dachau, they
were liquidated in gas chambers.
Then, after the Russian prisoners of war, Russian children were brought
to Dachau. There were, I believe, 2,000 boys, 6 to 17 years old. They
were kept in one or two special blocks. They were assigned to
particularly brutal people, the “greens,” who beat them at every step.
These young boys also. . .
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you mean when you refer to the “greens”?
BLAHA: Those were the so-called professional criminals. They beat these
young boys and gave them the hardest work. They worked particularly in
the plantations where they had to pull ploughs, sowing machines, and
street rollers instead of horses and motors being used. Also in all
transport Kommandos Russian children were used exclusively. At least 70
percent of them died of tuberculosis, I believe, and those who remained
were then sent to a special camp in the Tyrol in 1943 or the beginning
of 1944.
Then after the children, several thousand so-called Eastern Workers were
killed. These were civilians who were removed from the Eastern
territories to Germany and then because of so-called work-sabotage were
put into concentration camps. In addition there were many Russian
officers and intellectuals.
COL. POKROVSKY: I would like to ask you to be more exact in your answers
in regard to those people whom you call “greens.” Did I correctly
understand you when you said that those criminals had the task of
supervising those internees arriving at the camp?
BLAHA: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: And these professional criminals were given complete
charge of the children, and they beat and ill-treated these children of
Soviet citizens and put them to work far beyond their strength, so that
they became tubercular?
BLAHA: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the executions of the citizens of
the U.S.S.R. which were carried out in this camp?
BLAHA: I believe I am not far from the truth when I say that of all
those executed, at least 75 percent were Russians, and that women as
well as men were brought to Dachau from outside to be executed.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you give us more details in regard to the execution
of 94 high field and staff officers of the Red Army, which you already
spoke about in reply to the question of my colleague? Who were these
officers, and what rank did they hold? What were the reasons for their
execution? Do you know anything at all about it?
BLAHA: In the summer or late spring of 1944 high-ranking Russian
officers—generals, colonels, and majors—were sent to Dachau. During
the following weeks they were examined by the political department; that
is to say, after each interrogation they were brought to the camp
hospital in a completely battered condition. I myself saw and knew well
some who for weeks had to lie on their bellies, and we had to remove by
surgical operation parts of their skin and muscles which had become
mortified. Many succumbed to these methods of investigation. The others,
94 people in number, were then brought to the crematory in the beginning
of September 1944 on orders from the RSHA in Berlin and there, while on
their knees, shot through the neck.
In addition, in the winter and spring of 1945 several Russian officers
were brought from solitary confinement to the crematory and there either
hanged or shot.
COL. POKROVSKY: I would like to ask you the same kind of question about
the execution of the 40 Russian students. It is possible for you to give
us a few details about the execution?
BLAHA: Yes, those Russian students and intellectuals—I can recall that
a doctor was also among them—were brought from the Moosburg Camp to
Dachau, and after 1 month they were all executed. That was in March of
1944.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you happen to know what the reason was for their
execution?
BLAHA: The order for it came from Berlin. We did not get to know the
reason, because I saw the bodies only after the execution and the reason
was read aloud before the execution took place.
COL. POKROVSKY: This execution produced the impression that it was one
of the stages of the general plan for extermination of the people who
entered Dachau?
BLAHA: Yes. It was easy to see that these executions, these transports
of invalids, and the way epidemics were dealt with, were all part of the
general plan for extermination; and particularly, and this I must
emphasize, it was the Russian prisoners who were always treated the
worst of all.
COL. POKROVSKY: Would you be so kind as to say what is known to you in
regard to those internees who were in the “Nacht und Nebel” (night and
fog) category? Were there many of these internees? Do you know the
reason why they were sent to the concentration camp?
BLAHA: Many so-called Nacht und Nebel prisoners came to the
concentration camp. The people so designated were mostly from the
western countries of Europe, particularly Frenchmen, Belgians, and
Dutchmen. The Russian people—and this was also the case with the Czechs
and also in my own case—frequently had the designation “return
undesirable.” This actually meant the same. Shortly before the
liberation many of these people were executed on the order of the camp
commander, that is, shot in front of the crematory. Many of these
people, particularly the French and Russians, were serious cases of
typhus and with a temperature of 40 degrees were carried on stretchers
to the rifle range.
COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me that you mentioned something about a
considerable number of prisoners who died of starvation. Could you tell
me how large that number was—the number of people who died of
starvation?
BLAHA: I believe that two-thirds of the entire population of the camp
suffered from severe malnutrition and that at least 25 percent of the
dead had literally died of starvation. It was called in German
“Hungertyphus.” Apart from that, tuberculosis was the most widespread
disease in the camp and it spread also because of malnutrition. Most of
its victims were Russians.
COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me that you said, answering the question of
my colleague, that the majority of those who died of starvation and
exhaustion were French, Russians, and Italians. How do you account for
the fact that in just these categories of internees more people died
than in other categories?
BLAHA: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: How do you explain that especially Russians, French, and
Italians made up the largest number of those people who died from
starvation? Was there any difference in the feeding of internees of the
different nationalities, or was there some other reason?
BLAHA: It was like this: The others, the Germans, Poles, and Czechs, who
had already been in the camp for some time, had had time, if I may say
so, to adjust themselves to camp conditions, physically I mean. The
Russian deteriorated rapidly. The same was true of the French and the
Italians. Moreover, these nationals for the most part arrived from other
camps suffering from malnutrition so that they then soon fell easy prey
to the other epidemics and diseases. Also, the Germans, Poles, and many
others who worked in the armaments industry had since the year 1943 been
able to get parcels from home. That, of course, was not the case with
citizens of Soviet Russia, France, or Italy.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you answer the question about what Rosenberg,
Kaltenbrunner, Sauckel, or Funk saw when they were in the Dachau
Concentration Camp? Do you know what they saw and what was shown them?
BLAHA: I had no opportunity of seeing what happened during these visits.
Only on very rare occasions did one have the opportunity of seeing these
visitors from the window and observing where they went. I seldom had the
opportunity to be present as I was in the case of Himmler’s visits and
those of Obergruppenführer Pohl and once on the occasion of Gauleiter
Giesler’s visit, when they were shown the experiments or the patients in
the hospital. As to the others I do not know what they individually saw
and did in the camp.
COL. POKROVSKY: Perhaps you had an opportunity of observing the length
of the visit of those people in the camp, whether the visit was
short—just for a few moments—or whether they stayed there a long time.
I have in mind Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner, Sauckel, and Funk.
BLAHA: That varied. Many visitors were there for half an hour, many, as
I said before, spent as many as 3 hours there. We were always able to
observe that quite well because at those times no work could be done,
nor was food distributed. We did not carry on our work in the hospital
and had to wait until the signal was given to us that the visitors had
left the camp. Apart from that I had no means of knowing how long these
visits in the camp lasted in the individual cases.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you recall the visit of Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg,
Funk, and Sauckel? On the basis of what you said just now could you
state whether they were brief visits or whether those people stayed
there for several hours? Did you understand my question or not?
BLAHA: Unfortunately, I cannot make a statement on that because, as I
said, the visits took place so frequently that I have difficulty, after
all these years, in recalling whether they lasted for a short or longer
time. Many visits, for instance, from schools—from the military and
police schools—lasted a whole day.
COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness
at this stage of the sitting.
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): You
alluded to a convoy of deported French people who came from Compiègne,
of whom only 1,200 survivors arrived. Were there any other convoys?
BLAHA: Yes. There were transports, particularly from Bordeaux, Lyon, and
Compiègne, all in the first half of 1944.
M. DUBOST: Were all the transports carried out under the same
conditions?
BLAHA: The conditions under which these transports were made were, if
not the same, at any rate very similar.
M. DUBOST: Each time you were able to see on arrival that there were
numerous victims?
BLAHA: Yes.
M. DUBOST: What were the causes of death?
BLAHA: The deaths were caused by the fact that too many people were
packed into the cars, which were then locked, and that they did not get
anything to eat or drink for several days. Usually they starved or
suffocated. Many of those who survived were brought to the camp
hospital, and of these a large number died from various complications
and diseases.
M. DUBOST: Did you make autopsies on the people who died while en route?
BLAHA: Yes, particularly for the transport from Compiègne my services
were demanded because the rumor was spread that the French Maquis and
Fascists had attacked and killed each other in the cars. I had to
inspect these corpses, but in no case did I find any signs of violence.
Moreover, I took 10 corpses as a test, dissected them thoroughly and
sent special reports on them to Berlin. All these people had died of
suffocation. I was also able to note during the autopsy that these were
prominent people of France. I could tell from their identity papers and
uniforms that they were high-ranking French officers, priests, deputies,
and well-nourished people who had been taken direct from civilian life
to the cars and sent to Dachau.
M. DUBOST: After the reports which you sent to Berlin did the conditions
under which the transports were made remain the same?
BLAHA: Nothing happened, as usual. Always long reports were written but
conditions did not improve at all.
M. DUBOST: You indicated that some French generals had been put to death
shortly before the liberation of the camp. Do you know the names of
these generals?
BLAHA: Unfortunately I have forgotten these names. I can remember only
what I was told by the prisoners who were kept in the bunkers with
them—that they were the prominent personalities from Germany and other
countries: Pastor Niemöller was there, also a French prince, Schuschnigg
was there too, and members of the French Government and many others. I
was told that one of the generals who had been shot was a close relative
of General De Gaulle. Unfortunately I have forgotten his name.
M. DUBOST: If I understood you correctly, these generals were prisoners
of war who had been transported to this concentration camp?
BLAHA: These two generals were not in the concentration camp. They were
kept, along with the other prominent personalities, in the so-called
“Kommandantur-Arrest,” that is, in the bunker separated from the camp.
On various occasions when they needed medical attention I came into
contact with them, but that was very seldom. Otherwise they did not come
into contact with the other prisoners at all.
M. DUBOST: Did they belong to the category of deported people whose
“return was undesirable” or were they in the Nacht und Nebel category?
BLAHA: I do not know. It was 2 days previously that all the others who
were kept in the bunker were sent by special transport to the Tyrol.
That was, I believe, a week or 8 days before the liberation.
M. DUBOST: You indicated that numerous visitors, German military men,
students, political men, often toured the camp. Can you say if any
ordinary people, like workers or farmers, knew what was going on in this
camp?
BLAHA: In my opinion, the people who lived in the neighborhood of Munich
must have known of all these things, because the prisoners went every
day to various factories in Munich and the neighborhood; and at work
they frequently came into contact with the civilian workers. Moreover,
the various suppliers and consumers often entered the fields and the
factories of the German armament works and they saw what was done to the
prisoners and what they looked like.
M. DUBOST: Can you say in what way the French were treated?
BLAHA: Well, if I said that the Russians were treated worst of all, the
French were the second in order. Of course, there were differences in
the treatment of individual persons. The Nacht und Nebel prisoners were
treated quite differently; likewise the prominent political
personalities and the intellectuals. That was so for all nationalities.
And the workers and peasants also were treated differently.
M. DUBOST: If I understood correctly, the treatment reserved for the
French intellectuals was particularly rigorous. Do you remember the
treatment inflicted on some French intellectuals and can you tell us
their names?
BLAHA: I had many comrades among the physicians and university
professors who worked with me in the hospital. Unfortunately a large
number of them died of typhus. Most of the French, in fact, died of
typhus. I remember best of all Professor Limousin. He arrived in very
poor condition with the transport from Compiègne. I took him into my
department as assistant pathologist. Then I also knew the Bishop of
Clermont-Ferrand. There were other physicians and university professors
whom I knew. I remember Professor Roche, Dr. Lemartin, and many
others—I have forgotten their names.
M. DUBOST: In the course of the conversations which you had with Dr.
Rascher were you informed of the purpose of these experiments?
BLAHA: I didn’t understand the question, excuse me please. . .
M. DUBOST: Were you informed of the purpose of the medical and
biological experiments made by Dr. Rascher in the camp?
BLAHA: Well, Dr. Rascher made exclusively so-called Air Force
experiments in the camp. He was a major in the Air Force and was
assigned to investigate the conditions to which parachutists were
subjected and, secondly, the conditions of those people who had to make
an emergency landing on the sea or had fallen into the sea. According to
scientific standards, insofar as I can judge, this was all to no
purpose. Like all the other experiments, it was simply useless murder;
and it is amazing that learned university professors and physicians,
particularly, were capable of carrying out these experiments according
to plan. These experiments were much worse than all the liquidations and
executions, because all the victims of these experiments simply had
their suffering prolonged, as various medicines such as vitamins,
hormones, tonics, and injections, which were not available for the
ordinary patients, were provided for these patients so that the
experiments might last longer and give those people more time to observe
their victims.
M. DUBOST: I am speaking now of the experiments of Dr. Rascher only. Had
he received the order to make these experiments or did he make them on
his own initiative?
BLAHA: These experiments were made on Himmler’s direct orders; also, Dr.
Rascher had close relations with Himmler and was like a relative of his.
He visited Himmler very often and Himmler visited Dr. Rascher several
times.
M. DUBOST: Have you any information as to the kind of physicians who
were making these experiments? Were they always SS men or were they
members of medical faculties of universities who, however, did not
belong to the SS?
BLAHA: That varied. For example, the malaria station was under the
direction of Professor Klaus Schilling of the Koch Institute in Berlin.
The Phlegmone station also had several university professors. The
surgical station was manned solely by SS doctors. In the Air Force
station there were exclusively SS and military doctors. It differed. Dr.
Bleibeck from Vienna conducted the experiments with sea water.
M. DUBOST: Were the experiments for the Luftwaffe made on the order of
Himmler only?
BLAHA: Himmler.
M. DUBOST: Do you know—this is the last question—how many Frenchmen
passed through this camp?
BLAHA: I believe at least eight or ten thousand people arrived at the
camp. Furthermore, I know very well that, particularly during the last
period, several thousand French prisoners marched on foot from the
western camps, especially from Natzweiler, Struthof, _et cetera_, and
that only very small remnants of these ever reached Dachau.
M. DUBOST: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us to what branches of the German service
those who were employed at the camp belonged?
BLAHA: If I understood you correctly, the highest authority on
everything going on in the camp was the so-called Security Main Office
in Berlin. All demands and directives came from Berlin; also the
experimental stations received a definite quota of subjects for the
experiments and the numbers were fixed by Berlin. If the doctors making
the experiments needed a larger number, new requests had to be sent to
Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what I want to know is to what branch of the
service the men belonged who were employed in the camp.
BLAHA: They were all SS men and most of them from the SD. During the
last days, at the very end, a few members of the Armed Forces were there
as guards but the men in charge were entirely SS men.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there any of the Gestapo there?
BLAHA: Yes, that was the so-called political department, which was
directed by the chief of the Munich Gestapo. It had control of all the
interrogations and regulations, and it proposed the executions,
transports, and transports of invalids. Also, all the people who were
provided for the experiments had to be approved by the political
department.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to cross-examine
the witness?
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you told us that at one time the Defendant Funk
also was at Dachau, and you informed us, if I understood you correctly,
that this happened on the occasion of some celebration or state
conference between the Axis Powers. Please think back a little and tell
us when that was approximately. Perhaps—just a moment—perhaps you
could tell us the year, maybe also the season, and perhaps you could
also state which political celebration it was.
BLAHA: As far as Funk is concerned, I can remember that it was, I
believe, a conference of finance ministers. The papers had announced
that it would take place and we were informed beforehand that some of
the ministers would come to Dachau. Such a visit was actually made a few
days afterwards, and it was said that Minister Funk was among the
visitors. It was, I believe, during the first half of the year 1944. I
cannot say that with absolute certainty.
DR. SAUTER: You mean to say: during the first half of 1944, on the
occasion of a conference of finance ministers?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Where did that conference take place?
BLAHA: If I remember correctly—I didn’t write that down, of
course—that was either in Salzburg or Reichenhall or Berchtesgaden,
somewhere in the neighborhood of Munich, I believe.
DR. SAUTER: From whom did you learn at that time that on the next day,
or the day after, high-ranking visitors would arrive?
BLAHA: We always received an order to prepare for such a visit.
Elaborate preparations were always made; everything was cleaned up;
everything had to be in order, as you will understand; and those people
whose presence might be undesirable or those who, in a certain sense,
might be dangerous, had to disappear. Thus, whenever such high-ranking
visitors were announced we always received an order from the camp
headquarters 1 or 2 days beforehand; and, also these visitors were
always accompanied by the camp commander.
DR. SAUTER: By the camp commander? Now, if you know that the Defendant
Funk was there and people talked about it, then I think they would have
mentioned also what other persons were present at this visit made by the
Defendant Funk.
BLAHA: I cannot remember. There were always several important persons.
DR. SAUTER: The rest do not interest me. I am interested only in knowing
whether or not at that particular visit, which was said to have been
made by Funk, word was passed around the camp that such and such
personalities were with him?
BLAHA: I cannot remember that now.
DR. SAUTER: You cannot remember. Can you remember afterwards, perhaps on
the next day or the day after, something was said perhaps by people who
had seen the visitors?
BLAHA: Yes, we always discussed that, but now I can no longer remember
which personalities were mentioned.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I am not interested in any other visit, but in this
specific visit, as long as I do not say anything to the contrary. In
this case I should like to know whether or not anything at all was said
later on about the persons who were there with Funk.
BLAHA: That I do not know; there were so many visits. For instance,
after one visit, the very next day already another visit would be
announced.
DR. SAUTER: Now, you do also remember the visit that Funk made. Well, if
other finance ministers were there, one would think that you would
recall these other persons also.
BLAHA: I cannot remember that. It may be that the people with whom I
talked did not know who these other persons were.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know why, or to put it differently, which departments
of the camp were visited on the occasion when Funk was supposed to have
made this visit. At any rate he did not come to you.
BLAHA: No; he did not come to the pathological department.
DR. SAUTER: He did not. But you were also prepared?
BLAHA: Yes. All departments had always to be prepared, even if no
visitors came. It also happened at times that a visit was announced, and
then, for one reason or another, nothing came of it.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, as regards these observations of yours that you
have related to us today, have you been interrogated in regard to them
many times already?
BLAHA: I was interrogated on these matters for the first time before the
military court at Dachau.
DR. SAUTER: Did you also at that time say that Funk had been there? I
repeat, did you before the military court at Dachau say anything to the
effect that Funk had been present?
BLAHA: Yes, I said the same thing before the court at Dachau.
DR. SAUTER: About Funk?
BLAHA: Also about Funk.
DR. SAUTER: But is it true, Witness? I ask again whether it is really
true, because you are here as a witness under oath.
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You were interrogated also the day before yesterday?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Did you, at that time, also make these statements about
Funk?
BLAHA: I said the same thing at the interrogation conducted by the
Prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: Is that also in the record which I believe you signed?
BLAHA: I signed no record.
DR. SAUTER: You signed no record?
BLAHA: No; I simply signed what was read by the Prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: Well, that is a record.
BLAHA: Yes, but in that record there is no mention of these visits.
DR. SAUTER: Why then didn’t you mention these visits the day before
yesterday?
BLAHA: I was asked about it orally, and the prosecutor told me that
these matters would be taken up orally in the courtroom.
DR. SAUTER: Were you then also told where the defendants sit in the
courtroom?
BLAHA: No. Before the military court I was shown all the pictures. . .
DR. SAUTER: Aha!
BLAHA: And I was asked to identify to the court the various people. I
identified the three of whom I said today that I had seen them in
person. Funk and others I did not name.
DR. SAUTER: You did not name Funk?
BLAHA: I did not say that I had personally seen him or that I could
identify him.
DR. SAUTER: But when the pictures were shown to you did you see the
defendants in the pictures?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now, if I understand you correctly, you knew today where,
for instance, Funk or Frick or anyone else was sitting?
BLAHA: Funk I do not know personally, because I did not see him at that
time.
DR. SAUTER: Were you not told when the pictures were shown to you at
Dachau, “This is Funk; look at him; do you know him”?
BLAHA: No; that was done quite differently.
DR. SAUTER: How?
BLAHA: All the pictures were shown to me and I was asked to say which of
these individuals I had seen at the Dachau camp. Of these people I named
these three. There was no further discussion whatsoever in regard to the
other pictures.
DR. SAUTER: Well, Dr. Blaha, when your hearing started and you were
questioned by the President or by the prosecutor, you made a statement,
I believe, in the Czech language.
BLAHA: No.
DR. SAUTER: What then?
BLAHA: In the German language.
DR. SAUTER: No; everyone heard that that was not German, but it was
obviously Czech.
BLAHA: The first sentence only.
DR. SAUTER: The first sentences? Well, now, as it will in any case come
into the court transcript for practical purposes, I ask you to state and
to repeat quite literally, giving the true sense, that which you said
then, because we are interested in that from the point of view of the
Defense.
BLAHA: I believe that it was included in the transcript because an
English translation was added to my statement.
DR. SAUTER: No, I do not believe that Czech is being translated. But
anyhow please repeat it. We did not hear it.
BLAHA: Yes. I said that I was ready, since it is technically impossible
to use my native Czech tongue in the hearing, to give my testimony in
German, because I have lived in German surroundings through all these
events which occurred during the last 7 years and which are now the
subject of this Trial. Moreover, the special and new expressions
referring to life in the camp can be found only in German, and in no
other dictionary can one find such suitable and expressive terms as in
the German language.
DR. SAUTER: Then, Mr. President, I have no further questions. Thank you.
DR. THOMA: Witness, were the inmates of the Concentration Camp Dachau
bound to secrecy?
BLAHA: No. Of course, if someone was discharged from the camp by the
Gestapo—those cases were few and far between, particularly in the case
of the Germans, who were then drafted—one had to sign a so-called
pledge of secrecy.
DR. THOMA: Could the inmates of the camp, those inside the camp, who
worked on farms, _et cetera_, talk to the other workers about conditions
in the camp?
BLAHA: Yes, there were opportunities, because the people worked in the
same rooms and factories with other workers—civilian workers. That was
the case in the German armament industry, in the fields, and in all
factories in Munich and the surroundings.
DR. THOMA: If I understood you correctly, you said previously that
visitors, people who delivered things, and customers, also had an
opportunity of observing these conditions in the camp without
difficulty.
BLAHA: Yes. Many of these people had access everywhere, in the fields as
well as in the various factories, and could observe what life was like
in these places.
DR. THOMA: And what did they see there in the way of atrocities and
ill-treatment, and so forth?
BLAHA: I believe they saw how the people worked, what they looked like
and what was produced there. For instance, I can remember one example of
what they saw quite well. At that time I was working in the fields. We
were pulling a heavy street roller, 16 men, and a group of girls passed
who were on an excursion. When they passed, their leader said very
loudly, so that we all could hear it, “Look, those people are so lazy
that rather than harness up a team of horses they pull it themselves.”
That was supposed to be a joke.
DR. THOMA: Witness, when did you first have occasion, after your
liberation from the concentration camp, to tell outside people about
those horrible atrocities which you related to us today?
BLAHA: I did not understand that; please repeat.
DR. THOMA: When did you first have an opportunity, after your discharge
or liberation from the concentration camp, of telling an outsider about
these horrible atrocities?
BLAHA: Immediately after the liberation. I was at that time, as chief
physician of the concentration camp, interrogated by the American
investigating corps; and it was to this corps that I told this story for
the first time, and I also gave them various proofs—diagrams, and the
medical records which I had saved from being burnt.
DR. THOMA: That prosecutor believed the information you gave without
further ado?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. THOMA: Witness, you said that the Defendant Rosenberg was pointed
out to you in the Concentration Camp Dachau shortly after you arrived
there.
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. THOMA: When was that?
BLAHA: In the year 1941; first half of 1941.
DR. THOMA: First half?
BLAHA: I believe so, yes.
DR. THOMA: Can you perhaps remember the month?
BLAHA: I cannot remember. I arrived in April; I believe it was between
April and July or something like that.
DR. THOMA: From April to July 1941?
BLAHA: I believe so.
DR. THOMA: Was Rosenberg at that time in uniform?
BLAHA: He was in uniform.
DR. THOMA: In what uniform?
BLAHA: I believe it was an SS uniform.
DR. THOMA: SS uniform?
BLAHA: It was a—I cannot say that very precisely—but he was in
uniform.
DR. THOMA: All right, you remember _prima facie_ that it was an SS
uniform, that is, a black uniform?
BLAHA: No, at that time the SS no longer wore the black uniform, because
after the beginning of the war they wore field uniforms and other
similar uniforms.
DR. THOMA: Then, you assume it was a gray uniform?
BLAHA: Something like that; whether it was gray or yellow or brown I
don’t remember any more.
DR. THOMA: That is just the point: whether it was gray, brown, or
yellow. Was it a field uniform?
BLAHA: I do not know because from 1939 I was in the concentration camp,
and I am not at all familiar with the various German uniforms, ranks,
and branches of the Army, and so forth.
DR. THOMA: But you just said that during the war they changed the
uniform.
BLAHA: Yes, the men in the Gestapo also changed theirs. When I was
arrested in 1939, all Gestapo personnel wore this black uniform. Then,
after the war broke out most of them wore either green or gray uniforms.
DR. THOMA: May I ask you again: Did Rosenberg wear a wartime uniform or
a peacetime uniform?
BLAHA: I believe it was a wartime uniform.
DR. THOMA: Wartime uniform? The Defendant Rosenberg was pointed out to
you by another comrade, wasn’t he?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. THOMA: At what distance?
BLAHA: Well, he was just going down the camp street. That was perhaps 30
or 40 degrees.
DR. THOMA: Thirty or forty metres you mean?
BLAHA: Well, 30 metres; 30 paces I wanted to say, 30 or 40 paces.
DR. THOMA: And had you previously seen photographs of Rosenberg? Did you
already have an idea of what Rosenberg looked like?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. THOMA: And when this comrade showed you Rosenberg, was it then
necessary for him to say, “This is Rosenberg”? Didn’t you recognize him
already from having seen him in the photographs which you had
previously. . .
BLAHA: I cannot remember that. But when he showed him to me I remembered
that I knew him already from the various pictures in the newspapers.
DR. THOMA: May I ask you to describe the incident precisely? How it
happened; where you were standing; where Rosenberg came from; and who
was in his company.
BLAHA: Who was in his company? I knew only the camp commander.
DR. THOMA: Who was the camp commander at that time?
BLAHA: Pierkowski was camp commander, Sturmbannführer Pierkowski.
DR. THOMA: Do you know whether he is still alive?
BLAHA: No, I don’t.
DR. THOMA: The camp commander?
BLAHA: Pierkowski. Then the Lagerführer Ziel and Hoffmann, I knew them.
DR. THOMA: Now were you in your room and looking out of the window?
BLAHA: No, we were in one of the so-called “block” streets. This led
into another street along which the visitors passed.
DR. THOMA: And what was said to you?
BLAHA: “Look, there goes Rosenberg.”
DR. THOMA: Was Rosenberg alone?
BLAHA: No, he was with the other persons.
DR. THOMA: That is to say, only with the camp commander?
BLAHA: No, there were many other people with him.
DR. THOMA: That is to say, he had an escort, a staff?
BLAHA: Yes.
DR. THOMA: Members of Rosenberg’s staff?
BLAHA: I don’t know whether that was Rosenberg’s staff, but there were a
number of persons.
DR. THOMA: A number of persons? Witness, the Defendant Rosenberg assures
me most definitely that he has never been to the concentration camp at
Dachau. Is it possible that there has been a mistake?
BLAHA: I believe I am not mistaken. Besides the German in question knew
Rosenberg very well, I believe.
DR. THOMA: How do you know that?
BLAHA: Because he told me so definitely. Otherwise, I have no way of
knowing that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will forgive me if I point out to you that this is
intended to be an expeditious trial and that it is not right to take up
too much time upon small points like this.
DR. THOMA: My Lord, I ask your permission to remark that the question of
whether or not Rosenberg was in the concentration camp is of decisive
importance. I thank you.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): The Defendant Frick
states that he has never been in Dachau Camp. Therefore, in order to
clarify the facts I should like to ask the following questions:
Witness, at what distance do you believe you saw Frick?
BLAHA: I saw him from the window as he passed with a number of people.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you know Frick before?
BLAHA: Yes, from pictures.
DR. PANNENBECKER: From pictures? Did you recognize him yourself or did
some friend tell you that it was Frick?
BLAHA: A number of us saw him and I looked at him particularly, because
at that time he was already Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. For that
reason I had a personal interest in recognizing him.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Did Frick wear a uniform?
BLAHA: I do not believe so.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize anybody who was with him, anyone
from his staff or from the camp command?
BLAHA: I did not know his staff. From the camp command there was Camp
Commander Weiter. Camp Commander Weiter, and his adjutant, Otto.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Could you name anyone of your comrades who also
recognized him?
BLAHA: There were many comrades of mine who at that time were standing
at the window. Unfortunately, I cannot say who they were, because, as
you will understand, life in the concentration camp was so full of
incidents that one could not record these things accurately in one’s
memory. One remembers only the more important events.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize him at once of your own accord when
he passed by, or had it been mentioned previously that Frick was
expected?
BLAHA: No, it was not mentioned then. We simply heard that a
high-ranking visitor was expected, and we were waiting for this
high-ranking visitor. We were not told beforehand who it would be.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize Frick immediately when you came into
the courtroom, or did you know beforehand that he was sitting in the
fourth seat here?
BLAHA: No, I recognized him easily, because I have already seen him many
times in various pictures, and because he is a well-known person in
Bohemia and Moravia.
DR. PANNENBECKER: You believe then that there can be no question of any
error.
BLAHA: I don’t think so.
DR. PANNENBECKER: May I then ask the Court whether Frick himself may
take the stand to testify that he has never seen Dachau Camp? I want to
make this motion now so that, if necessary, the witness might be
confronted with Frick.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendants will understand that they will
have the opportunity, when it comes to their time to present their
cases, to call all the defendants, but they will not have an opportunity
of calling them now. They will have to wait until the case for the
Prosecution is over and they will then have an opportunity, each of
them, to call the defendant for whom they appear, if they wish to.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I simply thought, that as the witness is available
now. . .
[_Dr. Kubuschok approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: It is now 5:00 o’clock and unless you are going to be
very short . . . are you going to be very short?
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): Yes, Sir.
[_Turning to the witness._] Witness, you said that when prominent
visitors came to the camp, for instance, Reich ministers, extensive
preparations were made beforehand. You also said that undesirable
persons were removed. Maybe you could supplement that statement. I am
interested to know what the purpose of these preparations was.
BLAHA: I meant that everything had to be in order. In our infirmary all
the patients had to lie in bed quietly, everything was washed and
prepared; the instruments were polished, as is usually the case for
high-ranking visitors. We were not allowed to do anything—no
operations; no bandages nor food were given out before the visit had
terminated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Could you perhaps tell me which undesirable persons were
to be removed, as you said before?
BLAHA: Well, the Russians especially were always kept strictly in their
blocks. It was said that they were afraid of possible demonstrations,
assassinations, _et cetera_.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were prisoners kept out of sight because they showed
outward signs of ill-treatment?
BLAHA: It goes without saying that before the visitors nobody was
struck, beaten, hanged, or executed.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: To sum up, the purpose of these preparations was to
prevent the guests from seeing the concentration camp as it really was.
BLAHA: From seeing the cruelties.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will not sit in open session tomorrow,
Saturday, and will only sit in the morning on Monday, because there is
work to be done in the closed session tomorrow and on Monday afternoon.
I thought it would be convenient for counsel to know that.
The Court will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 14 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]
THIRTY-THIRD DAY
Monday, 14 January 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Would you have the witness brought in? I think one of the
defendants’ counsel was about to cross-examine him.
[_The witness, Blaha, took the stand._]
HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and SD): I would like to put to
the witness a few practical questions which I think necessary both for a
better understanding of the earlier testimony of the witness and for my
own information.
The witness was in the concentration camp from 1941 to 1945 and should
be well informed on conditions as they were. His memory, as is evident
from his previous statements, seems to be excellent.
[_Turning to the witness._]
Do you know how the proportion of political and criminal inmates changed
during the various periods? What were the approximate figures of
political and criminal inmates in Dachau?
BLAHA: In Dachau it varied. There were political prisoners, professional
criminals, and the so-called black or asocial elements. I am, of course,
speaking only of the German prisoners; the inmates of other nations were
all political prisoners. Only the German inmates were divided into red,
green, and black prisoners. The great majority of Germans were political
prisoners.
HERR BABEL: Can you indicate the approximate proportion? A quarter, a
half, or three-quarters?
BLAHA: I am sorry, I didn’t hear you.
HERR BABEL: Can you give figures? How many were political
prisoners—half, three-quarters, or how many? Can you give an
approximate number?
BLAHA: I would say that of 5,000 German prisoners, 3,000 were political
and 2,000 were green and black prisoners.
HERR BABEL: Was that the proportion during the whole 4- or 5-year
period?
BLAHA: It changed; because many died, some Germans left, many were
drafted, and there were many new arrivals. In the last years there were
more and more political prisoners, because many of the green prisoners
were drafted to the front.
HERR BABEL: What approximately was the total number in 1941, 1943, and
1945?
BLAHA: Do you mean the total number of prisoners?
HERR BABEL: Yes, the total number.
BLAHA: We had 8,000 to 9,000 in 1941; in 1943 there were 15,000 to
20,000; and between the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 we had
more than 70,000 or 80,000.
HERR BABEL: Another question: You mentioned that at first you worked in
the plantations. What did you mean by plantations?
BLAHA: The plantations were a large estate of the SS, in which spices,
medical herbs, and things of that sort were raised.
HERR BABEL: Was this plantation inside the camp?
BLAHA: No, it was in the near vicinity of the camp, not a part of it.
HERR BABEL: You also mentioned work in armament factories. I gathered
from your testimony that these armament factories were partially within
and partially outside the camp. Is that correct?
BLAHA: Yes, at first these so-called German armament works were only
outside the camp. Then, as a result of the bombings, some sections were
moved into the interior of the concentration camp.
HERR BABEL: What was the number of camp guards in 1941?
BLAHA: For actual guard duty usually three SS companies were in the
camp, but at Dachau there were in addition a large garrison of SS and a
Kommandantur. Guards were taken from other SS formations from time to
time, when it was necessary. It varied and depended on how many guards
were needed. For regular duty there were usually three companies.
HERR BABEL: Were the prisoners in the armament factories guarded during
working hours?
BLAHA: Yes. Every labor detachment had a commander selected from the
guard companies and, in addition, these so-called guards, who went with
the detachment to their place of work and then brought the prisoners
back to the camp.
HERR BABEL: While you were at the camp, did you witness any
ill-treatment on the part of these guards in the course of their daily
activities?
BLAHA: Yes; a great deal.
HERR BABEL: Often?
BLAHA: Yes.
HERR BABEL: For what reasons?
BLAHA: The reasons varied, depending on the nature of the guards or the
commanders.
HERR BABEL: But you said you were occupied, indeed according to your
statements, very much occupied.
BLAHA: Yes.
HERR BABEL: How then did you have an opportunity of observing such
ill-treatment?
BLAHA: I performed many autopsies on people either shot or beaten to
death at their work, and made official reports on the cause of death.
HERR BABEL: You said they were shot. Did you see such incidents
yourself?
BLAHA: No.
HERR BABEL: Then, how do you know that?
BLAHA: The bodies were brought to me from the place of work, and it was
my duty to ascertain the cause of death; that the men had been beaten to
death, for example, that the skull or ribs had been fractured, that the
man had died of internal hemorrhage, or that he had been shot; I had to
make an official report on the cause of death. Sometimes, but this was
rare, when an investigation was conducted, I was called in as witness.
HERR BABEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, do you wish to re-examine the witness?
MR. DODD: I have no further questions to ask the witness at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the prosecuting staff want to
re-examine? Colonel Pokrovsky?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: At this stage of the Trial I have no further
questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. DODD: I should like to ask the Tribunal at this time to take
judicial notice of the findings and the sentences imposed by the
Military Court at Dachau, Germany, on the 13th day of December 1945. The
findings were dated the 12th and the sentences on the 13th. I have here
a certified copy of the findings and the sentences, Document Number
3590-PS, which I should like to offer as Exhibit Number USA-664.
THE PRESIDENT: Have copies of this been given to the defendants?
MR. DODD: Yes. They have been sent to the defendants’ counsel
information room.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: I have one other matter that I should like to take up very
briefly before the Tribunal this morning. It is concerned with a matter
that arose after I had left the courtroom to return to the United
States.
On the 13th of December we offered in evidence Document Number 3421-PS,
and Exhibit Numbers USA-252 and 254. They were, respectively, the Court
will recall, sections of human skin taken from human bodies and
preserved; and a human head, the head of a human being, which had been
preserved. On the 14th day of December, according to the Record, counsel
for the Defendant Kaltenbrunner addressed the Tribunal and complained
that the affidavit, which was offered, of one Pfaffenberger, failed to
state that the camp commandant at Buchenwald, one Koch, along with his
wife, was condemned to death for having committed precisely these
atrocities, this business of tanning the skin and preserving the head.
And in the course of the discussion before the Tribunal the Record
reveals that counsel for the Defendant Bormann, in addressing the
Tribunal, stated that it was highly probable that the Prosecution knew
that the German authorities had objected to this camp commandant Koch
and, in fact, knew that he had been tried and sentenced for doing
precisely these things. And there was some intimation, we feel, that the
Prosecution, having this knowledge, withheld it from the Tribunal. Now,
I wish to say that we had no knowledge at all about this man Koch at the
time that we offered the proof; didn’t know anything about him except
that he had been the commandant, according to the affidavit. But,
subsequent to this objection we had an investigation made, and we have
found that he was tried in 1944, indeed, by an SS court, but not for
having tanned human skin nor having preserved a human head but for
having embezzled some money, for what—as the judge who tried him tells
us—was a charge of general corruption and for having murdered someone
with whom he had some personal difficulties. Indeed, the judge, a Dr.
Morgen, tells us that he saw the tattooed human skin and he saw a human
head in Commandant Koch’s office and that he saw a lampshade there made
out of human skin. But there were no charges at the time that he was
tried for having done these things.
I would also point out to the Tribunal that, we say, the testimony of
Dr. Blaha sheds further light on whether or not these exhibits, Numbers
USA-252 and 254, were isolated instances of that atrocious kind of
conduct. We have not been able to locate the affiant. We have made an
effort to do so, but we have not been able to locate him thus far.
THE PRESIDENT: Locate whom?
MR. DODD: The affiant Pfaffenberger, the one whose affidavit was
offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Dodd.
DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): The statement
just made is undoubtedly significant, but it would be of importance to
have the documents which served to convict the commandant and his wife
at the time. Kaltenbrunner told me that it was known in the whole SS
that the commandant Koch and his wife had been taken to account also—I
emphasize “also”—on account of these things and that it was known in
the SS that one of the factors determining the severity of the sentences
imposed had been this proved inhuman behavior.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. As you were the counsel who made the
allegation that the commandant Koch had been put to death for his
inhuman treatment, it would seem that you are the party to produce the
judgment.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I never had the verdict in my hand. I depended on the
information which Kaltenbrunner gave me personally and orally.
THE PRESIDENT: It was you who made the assertion. I don’t care where you
got it from. You made the assertion; therefore it is for you to produce
the document.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE: (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May
it please the Tribunal: Briefs and document books have been handed in.
The documents in the document book are in the order in which I shall
refer to them, and the references to them in the briefs are also in that
order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from
Appendix A of the Indictment, which deals with the criminality of this
defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing first of all with Raeder or with Dönitz?
COL. PHILLIMORE: With Dönitz. My learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, will
deal with Raeder immediately after. Reading at Page 1 of the brief. . .
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, may I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Briefs and document books have been handed in. The
documents are in the document book in the order in which I shall refer
to them, and the references in the brief to the documents are in that
same order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from
the Indictment as Appendix A, which deals with the allegations against
this defendant. It sets out the positions he held and charges him,
first, with promoting the preparations for war, set forth in Count One;
second, with participating in the military planning and preparation for
wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties,
agreements, and assurances, set forth in Count One and Two of the
Indictment; and thirdly, with authorizing, directing, and participating
in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, including
particularly the crimes against persons and property on the High Seas.
Now, if at any place I appear to trespass on Count Three, it is with the
consent and courtesy of the Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic.
My Lord, on the second page of the brief are set out first the positions
held by the Defendant Dönitz; and the document in question is the first
document in the document book, 2887-PS, which has already been put in as
Exhibit Number USA-12. The Tribunal will see that after his appointment
in 1935 as Commander of the Weddigen U-boat Flotilla—that was, in fact,
the first flotilla to be formed after the end of the World War in
1918—the defendant, who was in effect then Commander of U-boats, rose
steadily in rank as the U-boat arm expanded, until he became an admiral.
And then on the 30th of January 1943, he was appointed Grossadmiral and
succeeded the Defendant Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy,
retaining his command of the U-boat arm. Then on the 1st of May 1945, he
succeeded Hitler as head of Germany.
My Lord, as appears from a number of documents which I shall put in
evidence, the defendant was awarded the following decorations: On the
18th of September 1939 the Cluster of the Iron Cross, first class, for
the U-boat successes in the Baltic during the Polish campaign. This
award was followed on the 21st of April 1940 by the high award of the
Knight’s Cross to the Iron Cross, while on the 7th of April 1943 he
received personally from Hitler the Oak Leaf to the Knight’s Cross of
the Iron Cross, as the 223rd recipient, for his services in building up
the German Navy and, in particular, his services for the offensive
U-boat arm for the coming war, which were outstanding. And now I put in
the next document in the document book, D-436, which becomes Exhibit
GB-183. That is an extract from the official publication _Das Archiv_ on
the defendant’s promotion to vice admiral. It is dated the 27th of
September 1940, and I read the last two sentences:
“In 4 years of untiring and, in the fullest sense of the word,
uninterrupted work of training, he succeeds in developing the
young U-boat armed personnel and material till it is a weapon of
a striking power unexpected even by the experts. More than 3
million gross tons of enemy shipping sunk in only 1 year,
achieved with only a few boats, speak better than words of the
merits of this man.”
The next document in the document book, 1463-PS, which I put in as
Exhibit GB-184, is an extract from the diary for the German Navy, 1944
edition, and it serves to emphasize the contents of that last document.
My Lord, I won’t read from it. The relevant passage is on Page 2, and if
I might summarize that, it describes in detail the defendant’s work in
building up the U-boat arm, his ceaseless work in training night and day
to close the gap of 17 years during which no training had taken place,
his responsibility for new improvements, and for devising the “pack”
tactics which were later to become so famous. And then his position is
summarized further at the top of Page 3. If I might read the last two
sentences of the first paragraph on that page:
“In spite of the fact that his duties took on immeasurable
proportions since the beginning of the huge U-boat construction
program, the chief was what he always was and always will be:
leader and inspiration to all the forces under him.”
And then the last sentence of that paragraph:
“In spite of all his duties, he never lost touch with his men;
and he showed a masterly understanding in adjusting himself to
the changing fortunes of war.”
It was not, however, only his ability as a naval officer which won the
defendant these high honors: his promotion to succeed the Defendant
Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, the personal position he
acquired as one of Hitler’s principal advisers, and finally, earlier
candidates, such as Göring, having betrayed Hitler’s trust or finding
the position less attractive than they had anticipated, the doubtful
honor of becoming Hitler’s successor. These he owed to his fanatical
adherence to Hitler and to the Party, to his belief in the Nazi ideology
with which he sought to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people, and
to his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing
fortunes of war, referred to in the diary and which the Tribunal may
think, when I have referred them to the document, may be regarded as
synonymous with the capacity for utter ruthlessness. His attitude to the
Nazi Party and its creed is shown by his public utterances.
I turn to the next document in the document book, D-443, which I put in
to become Exhibit GB-185. It is an extract from a speech made by the
defendant at a meeting of commanders of the Navy in Weimar on the 17th
of December 1943. It was subsequently circulated by the defendant as a
top secret document for senior officers only and by the hand of officers
only. My Lord, if I might read:
“I am a firm adherent of the idea of ideological education. For
what is it in the main? Doing his duty is a matter of course for
the soldier. But the full value, the whole weight of duty done,
is only present when the heart and spiritual conviction have a
voice in the matter. Doing his duty is then quite different from
what it would be if I only carried out my task literally,
obediently, and faithfully. It is therefore necessary for the
soldier to support the execution of his duty with all his
mental, all his spiritual energy; and for this his conviction,
his ideology are indispensable. It is therefore necessary for us
to train the soldier uniformly, comprehensively, that he may be
adjusted ideologically to our Germany. Every dualism, every
dissension in this connection, or every divergence or
unpreparedness imply a weakness in all circumstances. He in whom
this grows and thrives in unison is superior to the other. Then
indeed the whole importance, the whole weight of his conviction
comes into play. It is also nonsense to say that the soldier or
the officer must have no politics. The soldier embodies the
state in which he lives, he is the representative, the
articulate exponent of his state. He must therefore stand with
his whole weight behind this state.
“We must travel this road out of our deepest conviction. The
Russian travels along it. We can only maintain ourselves in this
war if we take part in it, with holy zeal, with all our
fanaticism. . . .
“I alone cannot do this, but it can be done only with the aid of
the man who holds the production of Europe in his hand—with
Minister Speer. My ambition is to have as many warships for the
Navy as possible so as to be able to fight and to strike. It
does not matter to me who builds them.”
My Lord, that last sentence is of importance in connection with a later
document. The Tribunal will see when I come to it that the defendant was
not above employing concentration camp labor for this purpose.
I put in the next document in the document book, D-640, which becomes
Exhibit GB-186. It is an extract from a speech on the same subject by
the defendant as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to the Commanders on the
15th of February 1944. My Lord, it is cumulative except that I think the
last two sentences add, if I might read them:
“From the very start the whole of the officer corps must be so
indoctrinated that it feels itself co-responsible for the
National Socialist State in its entirety. The officer is the
exponent of the State, the idle chatter that the officer is
non-political is sheer nonsense.”
Now, the next document is 2878-PS, which I put in to become Exhibit
GB-187. It consists of three extracts from speeches. The first is from a
speech made by the defendant to the German Navy and the German people on
Heroes’ Day, the 12th of March 1944.
“German men and women!
“. . . What would have become of our country today, if the
Führer had not united us under National Socialism! Split into
parties, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable
to it, and lacking, as a defense, our present uncompromising
ideology, we would long since have succumbed to the burdens of
this war and been subject to the merciless destruction of our
adversaries. . . .”
My Lord, the next extract is from a speech to the Navy on the 21st of
July 1944. It again shows the defendant’s fanaticism. It is perhaps
worth reading the first sentence:
“Men of the Navy! Holy wrath and unlimited anger fill our hearts
because of the criminal attempt which was to have cost the life
of our beloved Führer. Providence wished it otherwise, watched
over and protected our Führer, and did not abandon our German
fatherland in the fight for its destiny.”
And then he goes on to deal with the fate which should be meted out to
these traitors.
The third extract deals with the introduction of the German salute into
the Armed Forces. I don’t think I need read it, but as the members of
the Tribunal will see, it was the Defendant Keitel and this defendant
who were responsible for the alteration of the salute in the German
forces and the adoption of the Nazi salute—together with Göring. . .
Pardon, I should have said: the Defendants Göring, Keitel, and Dönitz.
The next document is a monitored report of the speech made on the German
wireless by this defendant, announcing the death of Hitler and his own
succession. It is Document D-444. I put it in to become Exhibit GB-188,
and I read a portion of it. The time is 2226—marked on the document. I
read therefrom:
“It has been reported from the Führer’s headquarters that our
Führer Adolf Hitler has died this afternoon in his battle
headquarters at the Reich Chancellery, fallen for Germany,
fighting to the last breath against Bolshevism.
“On the 30th of April the Führer nominated Grossadmiral Dönitz
to be his successor. The Grossadmiral and Führer’s successor
will speak to the German nation.”
And then, the first paragraph of the speech:
“German men and women, soldiers of the German Armed Forces. Our
Führer Adolf Hitler is dead. The German people bow in deepest
sorrow and respect. Early he had recognized the terrible danger
of Bolshevism and had dedicated his life to the fight against
it. His fight having ended, he died a hero’s death in the
capital of the German Reich, after having led an unmistakably
straight and steady life.”
Then, that document also contains an order of the day issued by the
defendant, which is very much to the same effect.
Apart from his services in building up the U-boat arm, there is ample
evidence that the defendant as officer commanding U-boats took part in
the planning and execution of aggressive war against Poland, Norway, and
Denmark. The next document in the document book, C-126(c), has already
been put in as Exhibit GB-45. It is a memorandum by the Defendant
Raeder, dated the 16th of May 1939, and I will call the attention of the
Tribunal to the distribution. The sixth copy went to the Führer der
Unterseeboote, that is to say, to the Defendant Dönitz. The document is
a directive for the invasion of Poland, Fall Weiss, and I won’t read it.
It has already been read.
The next document, C-126(e), on the second page of that same document,
has also been put in as Exhibit GB-45. It again is a memorandum from the
Defendant Raeder’s headquarters, dated the 2d of August 1939. It is
addressed to the fleet, and then Flag Officer U-boats—that is, of
course, the defendant . . . and it is merely a covering letter for
operational directions for the employment of U-boats which are to be
sent out into the Atlantic by way of precaution in the event the
intention of carrying out Fall Weiss should remain unchanged. The second
sentence is important:
“Flag Officer U-boats is handing in his operation orders to
SKL”—that is the Seekriegsleitung, the German Admiralty—“by 12
August. A decision on the sailings of U-boats for the Atlantic
will probably be made in the middle of August.”
The next document, C-172, I put in as Exhibit GB-189. It consists of the
defendant’s own operational instructions to his U-boats for the
operation Fall Weiss. It is signed by him. It is not dated, but it is
clear from the subject matter that its date must be before the 16th of
July 1939. I don’t think the substance of the document adds. It is
purely an operational instruction, giving effect to the document already
put in, C-126(c), the directive by Raeder.
My Lord, the next document, C-122, has already been put in as Exhibit
GB-82. It is an extract from the War Diary of the naval war staff of the
German Admiralty, dated the 3rd of October 1939, and records the fact
that the chief of the naval war staff has called for views on the
possibility of taking operational bases in Norway. It has already been
read and I would merely call the Tribunal’s attention to the passage in
brackets, in the paragraph marked “d”:
“Flag Officer U-boats already considers such harbors extremely
useful as equipment and supply bases for Atlantic U-boats to
call at temporarily.”
The next document, C-5, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-83. This
is from the defendant, as Flag Officer U-boats, addressed to the Supreme
Command of the Navy, the naval war staff. It is dated the 9th of October
1939, and it sets out the defendant’s view on the advantages of
Trondheim and Narvik as bases. The document proposes the establishment
of a base at Trondheim with Narvik as an alternative.
Now the next document, C-151, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-91.
It is the defendant’s operation order to his U-boats for the occupation
of Denmark and Norway, and the operation order, which is top secret,
dated the 30th of March 1940, is termed “Hartmut.” The members of the
Tribunal will remember that the document, in the last paragraph, said:
“The naval force will, as they enter the harbor, fly the British
flag until the troops have landed, except presumably at Narvik.”
The preparations for war against England are perhaps best shown by the
disposition of the U-boats under his command on the 3rd of September
1939, when war broke out between Germany and the Western Allies. The
locations of the sinkings in the following week, including that of the
_Athenia_ which will be dealt with by my learned friend, Major Elwyn
Jones, provide corroboration. On that, I would put in two charts; I put
them in as Document D-652, and they become Exhibit GB-190.
My Lord, I have copies here for the members of the Tribunal. They have
been prepared by the Admiralty. There are two charts. The first sets out
the disposition of the submarines on the 3rd of September 1939. There is
a certification attached to the chart, in the top left-hand corner,
which I should read:
“This chart has been constructed from a study of the orders
issued by Dönitz between 21 August 1939 and 3 September 1939 and
subsequently captured. The chart shows the approximate
disposition of submarines ordered for the 3rd of September 1939
but it cannot be guaranteed accurate in every detail as the
files of captured orders are clearly not complete and also some
of the submarines shown apparently had received orders at sea on
or about 3 September to move to new operational areas. The
documents from which this chart was constructed are held by the
British Admiralty in London.”
My Lord, there are two points I would make on that first chart. First,
it will be apparent to members of the Tribunal that U-boats which were
in those positions on the 3rd of September 1939 had left Kiel some
considerable time before. The other point which I would make is
important in connection with my learned friend Major Elwyn Jones’ case
against the Defendant Raeder, and that is the location of the U-boat
U-30. The members of the Tribunal may care to bear it in mind while
looking at the charts now.
The second chart sets out the sinkings during the first week of the war,
and the location of the sinking of the _Athenia_ will be noted. There is
a short certification in the left-hand corner of the Tribunal’s copies:
“This chart has been constructed from the official records of
the British Admiralty in London. It shows the positions of the
sinkings of the British merchant vessels lost by enemy action in
the 7 days commencing the 3rd of September 1939.”
My Lord, I turn to the defendant’s participation in War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity.
The course of the war waged against neutral and Allied merchant shipping
by the U-boats followed under the defendant’s direction a course of
consistently increasing ruthlessness. The defendant displayed his
masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of
war. From the very early days, merchant ships, both Allied and neutral,
were sunk without warning; and when operational danger zones had been
announced by the German Admiralty, these sinkings continued to take
place both within and without those zones. With some exceptions in the
early days of the war, no regard was taken for the safety of the crews
or passengers of sunk merchant ships, and the announcement claiming a
total blockade of the British Isles merely served to confirm the
established situation under which U-boat warfare was being conducted
without regard to the established rules of international warfare or the
requirements of humanity.
The course of the war at sea during the first 18 months is summarized by
two official British reports made at a time when those who compiled them
were ignorant of some of the actual orders issued which have since come
to hand.
My Lord, I turn to the next document in the document book. It is
Document D-641(a), which I put in to become Exhibit GB-191. It is an
extract from an official report of the British Foreign Office concerning
German attacks on merchant shipping during the period 3 September 1939
to September 1940, that is to say, the first year of the war, and it was
made shortly after September 1940.
My Lord, if I might quote from the second paragraph on the first page:
“During the first 12 months of the war, 2,081,062 tons of Allied
shipping comprising 508 ships have been lost by enemy action. In
addition, 769,213 tons of neutral shipping, comprising 253
ships, have also been lost. Nearly all these merchant ships have
been sunk by submarine, mine, aircraft, or surface craft, and
the great majority of them were sunk while engaged on their
lawful trading voyages. 2,836 Allied merchant seamen have lost
their lives in these ships. . . .
“In the last war the practice of the central powers was so
remote from the recognized procedure that it was thought
necessary to set forth once again the rules of warfare in
particular as applied to submarines. This was done in the Treaty
of London, 1930; and in 1936 Germany acceded to the rules. The
rules laid down:
“(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must
conform to the rules of international law to which surface
vessels are subjected.
“(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to
stop on being summoned or of active resistance to visit and
search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not
sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without
having first placed passengers, crew, and ships’ papers in a
place of safety. For this purpose, the ship’s boats are not
regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the
passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather
conditions by the proximity of land or the presence of another
vessel which is in a position to take them on board.”
Then, the next paragraph:
“At the beginning of the present war, Germany issued a prize
ordinance for the regulation of sea warfare and the guidance of
her naval officers. Article 74 of this ordinance embodies the
submarine rules of the London Treaty. Article 72, however,
provides that captured enemy vessels may be destroyed if it
seems inexpedient or unsafe to bring them into port, and Article
73 (i) and (ii) makes the same provision with regard to neutral
vessels which are captured for sailing under enemy convoy, for
forcible resistance, or for giving assistance to the enemy.
These provisions are certainly not in accordance with the
traditional British view but the important point is that, even
in these cases, the prize ordinance envisages the capture of the
merchantman before its destruction. In other words, if the
Germans adhered to the rules set out in their own prize
ordinance, we might have argued the rather fine legal point with
them, but we should have no quarrel with them, either on the
broader legal issue or on the humanitarian one. In the event,
however, it is only too clear that almost from the beginning of
the war the Germans abandoned their own principles and waged war
with steadily increasing disregard for international law, and
for what is, after all, the ultimate sanction of all law, the
protection of human life and property from arbitrary and
ruthless attacks.”
I pass to the third paragraph on the next page which sets out two
instances:
“On the 30th of September 1939 came the first sinking of a
neutral ship by a submarine without warning and with loss of
life. This was the Danish ship _Vendia_ bound for the Clyde in
ballast. The submarine fired two shots and shortly after
torpedoed the ship. The torpedo was fired when the master had
already signaled that he would submit to the submarine’s orders
and before there had been an opportunity to abandon ship. By
November submarines were beginning to sink neutral vessels
without warning as a regular thing. On the 12th November the
Norwegian _Arne Kjode_ was torpedoed in the North Sea without
any warning at all. This was a tanker bound from one neutral
port to another. The master and four of the crew lost their
lives and the remainder were picked up after many hours in open
boats. Henceforward, in addition to the failure to establish the
nature of the cargo, another element is noticeable, namely an
increasing recklessness as to the fate of the crew.”
And then dealing with attacks on Allied merchant vessels, certain
figures are given: Ships sunk 241, recorded attacks 221, illegal attacks
112. At least 79 of these 112 ships were torpedoed without warning.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then they were not illegally sunk, however?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, Sir.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): According to this document, the Germans have
been given the benefit of the doubt.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Oh, yes, I should have read that sentence; I am obliged
to Your Honor.
I pass to the second report, Document D-641(b). It is part of the same
document and is put in as Exhibit GB-191. It is a report covering the
next 6 months from September 1, 1940. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are you not reading Page 3?
COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases, I have read a great deal of
the report and there are passages that I had not considered important.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t myself read it, but I think. . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: If I might read the first two paragraphs on Page 3:
“By the middle of October submarines were sinking merchant
vessels without any regard to the safety of the crews. Yet 4
months later the Germans were still officially claiming that
they were acting in accordance with their prize ordinance. Their
own semi-official commentators, however, had made the position
clear. As regards neutrals, Berlin officials had early in
February stated that any neutral ship that is either voluntarily
or under compulsion bound for an enemy port—including
contraband control harbors—thereby loses its neutrality and
must be considered hostile. At the end of February the cat was
let out of the bag by a statement that a neutral ship which
obtained a navicert from a British consul in order to avoid
putting into a British contraband control base was liable to be
sunk by German submarines, even if it was bound from one neutral
port to another. As regards Allied ships, in the middle of
November 1939 a Berlin warning was issued against the arming of
British vessels. By that date a score of British merchantmen had
been illegally attacked by gunfire or torpedo from submarines,
and after the date some 15 more unarmed Allied vessels were
torpedoed without warning. It is clear therefore that not only
was the arming fully justified as a defensive measure but also
that neither before nor after this German threat did the German
submarines discriminate between armed and unarmed vessels.”
The last paragraph is merely a summing-up; it does not add.
Turning to D-641(b), which is a similar report covering the next 6
months, if I might read the first five paragraphs of Page 1:
“On the 30th January 1941 Hitler proclaimed: ‘Every ship, with
or without convoy, which appears before our torpedo tubes is
going to be torpedoed. On the face of it, this announcement
appears to be uncompromising; and the only qualification
provided by the context is that the threats immediately
preceding it are specifically addressed to the peoples of the
American Continent. German commentators, however, subsequently
tried to water it down by contending that Hitler was referring
only to ships which attempted to enter the area within which the
German ‘total blockade’ is alleged to be in force.
“From one point of view it probably matters little what exactly
was Hitler’s meaning, since the only conclusion that can be
reached after a study of the facts of enemy warfare on merchant
shipping is that enemy action in this field is never limited by
the principles which are proclaimed by enemy spokesmen, but
solely by the opportunities or lack of them which exist at any
given time.”
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, isn’t this document you are now
reading really legal argument?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, some of it is. The difficulty is to leave
those parts and take in the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: The third paragraph, if I might leave the rest of the
second, is as follows:
“The effect of the German ‘total blockade’ is to prohibit
neutral ships from entering an enormous stretch of sea round
Britain (the area extends to about 500 miles west of Ireland,
and from the latitude of Bordeaux to that of the Faroe Islands),
upon pain of having their ships sunk without warning and their
crews killed. As a matter of fact, at least 32 neutral ships,
exclusive of those sailing in British convoys, have been sunk by
enemy action since the declaration of the ‘total blockade.’”
The last sentence in the following paragraph about the sinking of ships
without warning:
“Yet though information is lacking in very many cases, details
are available to prove that, during the period under review, at
least 38 Allied merchant ships exclusive of those in convoys
have been torpedoed without warning in or near the ‘total
blockade’ area.
“That the Germans themselves have no exaggerated regard for the
area is proved by the fact that of the 38 ships referred to at
least 16 were torpedoed outside the limits of the war zone.”
My Lord, the next page deals with a specific case illustrating the
matter set out above. It is in the first paragraph of that page, the
third sentence:
“The sinking of the _City of Benares_ on the 17th September 1940
is a good example of this. The _City of Benares_ was an
11,000-ton liner with 191 passengers on board, including nearly
100 children. She was torpedoed without warning just outside the
‘war zone,’ with the loss of 258 lives, including 77 children.
It was blowing a gale, with hail and rain squalls and a very
rough sea when the torpedo struck her at about 10 p. m. In the
darkness and owing to the prevailing weather conditions, at
least four of the 12 boats lowered were capsized. Others were
swamped and many people were washed right off. In one boat alone
16 people, including 11 children, died from exposure; in another
22 died, including 15 children; in a third 21 died. The point to
be emphasized is not the unusual brutality of this attack but
rather that such results are inevitable when a belligerent
disregards the rules of sea warfare as the Germans have done and
are doing.”
I think the rest of that paragraph is not important.
I turn to the next document, 641(c), which is part of Exhibit GB-191.
THE PRESIDENT: It is clear, I suppose, from that statement of facts that
there was no warning whatever given?
COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: We think that you should read the next paragraph too.
COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases.
“There are hundreds of similar stories, stories of voyages for
days in open boats in Atlantic gales, of men in the water
clinging for hours to a raft and gradually dropping off one by
one, of crews being machine-gunned as they tried to lower their
boats or as they drifted away in them, of seamen being blown to
pieces by shells and torpedoes and bombs. The enemy must know
that such things are the inevitable result of the type of
warfare he has chosen to employ.”
My Lord, the rest is very much to the same general effect.
The document, 641(c), is merely a certificate giving the total sinkings
by U-boats during the war (1939 to 1945) as 2,775 British, Allied, and
neutral ships totalling 14,572,435 gross registered tons.
My Lord, it is perhaps worth considering one example not quoted in the
above reports of the ruthless nature of the actions conducted by the
defendant’s U-boat commanders, particularly as both British and German
versions of the sinkings are available. I turn to the next document,
“The sinking of S. S. _Sheaf Mead_.” That is Document D-644, which I put
in as Exhibit GB-192. If I might read the opening paragraph:
“The British S. S. _Sheaf Mead_ was torpedoed without warning on
27 May 1940. . .”
THE PRESIDENT: This is the German account, is it not?
COL. PHILLIMORE: This is actually in the form of a British report. It
includes the German account in the shape of a complete extract from the
log.
THE PRESIDENT: It bears the words, “top secret”?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, this was at the time a top secret
document. That was some while ago.
“The British S. S. _Sheaf Mead_ was torpedoed without warning on
27 May 1940, with the loss of 31 of the crew. The commander of
the U-boat responsible is reported to have behaved in an
exceptionally callous manner towards the men clinging to
upturned boats and pieces of wood. It was thought that this man
was Kapitänleutnant Öhrn of _U-37_: The following extract from
his log for 27 May 1940 leaves no doubt on the matter and speaks
for itself as to his behaviour.”
Again turning to the relevant extract from the log, on the second page,
the time is marked on the document as 1554.
“Surface. Stern is underwater.”—referring to the ship which has
been torpedoed—“Stern is underwater. Bows rise higher. The
boats are now on the water. Lucky for them. A picture of
complete order. They lie at some distance. The bows rear up
quite high. Two men appear from somewhere in the forward part of
the ship. They leap and rush with great bounds along the deck
down the stern. The stern disappears. A boat capsizes. Then a
boiler explosion. Two men fly through the air, limbs
outstretched. Bursting and crushing. Then all is over. A large
heap of wreckage floats up. We approach it to identify the name.
The crew have saved themselves on wreckage and capsized boats.
We fish out a buoy. No name on it. I ask a man on the raft. He
says, hardly turning his head, ‘Nix Name.’ A young boy in the
water calls, ‘Help, help, please!’ The others are very composed.
They look damp and somewhat tired. An expression of cold hatred
is on their faces. On to the old course. After washing the paint
off the buoy, the name comes to light: Greatafield, Glasgow,
5,006 gross registered tons.”
“On to the old course” means merely that the U-boat makes off.
Then the next page of that document contains an extract from the report
of the chief engineer of the _Sheaf Mead_. The relevant paragraphs are
the first and the last:
“When I came to the surface I found myself on the port side,
that is, nearest to the submarine, which was only about 5 yards
away. The submarine captain asked the steward the name of the
ship, which he told him, and the enemy picked up one of our
lifebuoys, but this had the name Greatafield on it, as this was
the name of our ship before it was changed to _Sheaf Mead_ last
January.”
In the last paragraph:
“She had cut-away bows, but I did notice a net-cutter. Two men
stood at the side with boat-hooks to keep us off.
“They cruised around for half an hour, taking photographs of us
in the water. Otherwise they just watched us, but said nothing.
Then she submerged and went off, without offering us any
assistance whatever.”
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any suggestion in the German report that any
warning was given?
COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord. It is quite clear, indeed, that it was
not.
Under the time 1414 there is a description of the sighting of the ship
and the difficulty in identifying; and then at the top of the page:
“The distance apart is narrowing. The steamship draws in
quickly, but the position is still 40-50. I cannot see the stern
yet. Tube ready. Shall I or not? The gunnery crews are also
prepared. On the ship’s side a yellow cross in a small, square,
dark blue ground. Swedish? Presumably not. I raise the periscope
a little. Hurrah, a gun at the stern, an A/A gun or something
similar. Fire! It cannot miss. . .”—and then the sinking.
Now that it is possible to examine some of the actual documents by which
the defendant and his fellow conspirators issued their orders in
disregard of international law, you may think the compilers of the above
reports understated the case. These orders cover not only the period
referred to in the reports, but also the subsequent course of the war.
It is interesting to note in them the steps by which the defendants
progressed. At first they were content with breaching the rules of
international law to the extent of sinking merchant ships, including
neutral ships, without warning where there was a reasonable prospect of
being able to do so without discovery. The facts already quoted show
that the question of whether ships were defensively armed or outside the
declared operational areas was in practice immaterial.
I go to the next document in the document book, C-191, which I put in as
Exhibit GB-193. That is a memorandum by the German naval war staff,
dated 22 September 1939. It sets out:
“Flag Officer U-boats intends to give permission to U-boats to
sink without warning any vessels sailing without lights.”
Reading from the third sentence:
“In practice there is no opportunity for attacking at night, as
the U-boat cannot identify a target which is a shadow in a way
that entirely obviates mistakes being made. If the political
situation is such that even possible mistakes must be ruled out,
U-boats must be forbidden to make any attacks at night in waters
where French and English naval forces or merchant ships may be
situated. On the other hand, in sea areas where only English
units are to be expected, the measures desired by Flag Officer
U-boats can be carried out; permission to take this step is not
to be given in writing, but need merely be based on the unspoken
approval of the Naval Operations Staff.
“U-boat commanders should be informed by word of mouth, and the
sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as
due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary
cruiser. In the meanwhile, U-boats in the English Channel have
received instructions to attack all vessels sailing without
lights.”
Now I go to the next document, C-21, which I put in as Exhibit GB-194.
My Lord, this document consists of a series of extracts from the War
Diary of the German naval war staff of the German Admiralty. The second
extract, at Page 5, relates a conference with the head of the naval war
staff, report of the 2 January 1940, and then reading:
“1) Report by Ia”—that is the Staff Officer Operations on the
naval war staff. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn’t you read above that, Paragraph 1/b?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, if Your Lordship pleases. It is important. The
others are much to the same effect. If I might read it:
“Report by Ia.”—This is one report by Ia on the directive of
Armed Forces High Command of 30 December.
“According to this, the Führer, on report of Commander-in-Chief
of the Navy, has decided: (a) Greek merchant vessels are to be
treated as enemy vessels in the zone blockaded by U.S.A. and
Britain; (b) in the Bristol Channel all ships may be attacked
without warning. For external consumption these attacks should
be given out as hits by mines. Both measures may be taken with
immediate effect.”
The next extract, a report by Ia, that is, the Staff Officer Operations
on the naval war staff on the directive of Armed Forces High Command,
dated 30 December:
“Referring to intensified measures in naval and air warfare in
connection with ‘Fall Gelb’.
“In consequence of this directive, the Navy is authorized,
simultaneously with the general intensification of the war, to
sink by U-boats, without any warning, all ships in those waters
near the enemy coasts in which mines can be employed. In this
case, for external consumption, pretence should be made that
mines are being used. The behaviour of, and use of weapons by,
U-boats should be adapted to this purpose.”
And then the third extract, dated 6 January 1940:
“. . . pursuant to the Führer’s consent on principle (see
minutes of report of Commander-in-Chief Navy of 30 December) to
authorize firing without warning while maintaining the pretence
of mine hits in certain parts of the American blockade
zone. . . .”
Well, then the order is given to Flag Officer U-boats carrying out that
decision.
The next extract, dated the 18th of January 1940, adds to some extent,
and if I may read it:
“The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued the following
directive dated 17th of January, cancelling the previous order
concerning intensified measures of warfare against merchantmen.
“The Navy is authorized, with immediate effect, to sink by
U-boats without warning all ships in those waters near the enemy
coasts in which the use of mines is possible.”—My Lord, that is
an extension of the area.—“U-boats must adapt their behavior
and employment of weapons to the pretence, which is to be
maintained in these cases, that the hits were caused by mines.
Ships of the United States, Italy, Japan, and Russia are
exempted from these attacks.”
Well, then there is a note emphasizing the point about maintaining the
pretense of mine hits and the last extract is, I think, purely
cumulative.
The next document, C-118, I put in as Exhibit GB-195. This is an extract
from the B.d.U. War Diary, that is to say the defendant’s war diary. It
is dated the 18th of July 1941, and it consists of a further extension
of that order by the cutting down of the protected categories.
“Supplementary to the order forbidding, for the time being,
attacks on U.S. warships and merchant vessels in the operational
area of the North Atlantic, the Führer has ordered the
following:
“1. Attacks on U.S. merchant vessels sailing in British or U.S.
convoys, or independently are authorized in the original
operational area which corresponds in its dimensions to the U.S.
blockade zone and which does not include the sea-route U.S. to
Iceland.”
As the members of the Tribunal will have seen from these orders, at one
date the ships of a particular neutral under certain conditions could be
sunk while those of another could not. It would be easy to put before
the Tribunal a mass of orders and instances to show that the attitude to
be adopted toward ships of particular neutrals changed at various times.
The point is that the defendant conducted the U-boat war against
neutrals with complete cynicism and opportunism. It all depended on the
political relationship of Germany toward a particular country at a
particular time whether her ships were sunk or not.
My Lord, I turn to the next document in the document book, D-642, which
I put in as Exhibit GB-196. My Lord, this is a series of orders; the
first, I should say, of a series of orders leading up to the issue of an
order which enjoined the U-boat commanders not merely to abstain from
rescuing crews, which is the purpose of this order, not merely to give
them no assistance but deliberately to annihilate them.
My Lord, in the course of my proof of this matter, I shall call two
witnesses. The first witness will give the Court an account of a speech
made by the defendant at the time that he issued the order describing
the policy, or his policy toward the recovery of Allied troops: that it
must be stopped at all costs.
The second witness is the officer who actually briefed crews on the
order.
My Lord, this document is an extract from the standing orders of the
U-boat command, an extract from Standing Order Number 154, and it is
signed by the defendant:
“Paragraph e) Do not pick up men or take them with you. Do not
worry about the merchant ship’s boats. Weather conditions and
distance from land play no part. Have a care only for your own
ship and strive only to attain your next success as soon as
possible. We must be harsh in this war. The enemy began the war
in order to destroy us, so nothing else matters.”
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of that?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, that order, the copy we have, is not dated,
but a later order, Number 173, which was issued concurrently with an
operational order, is dated the 2d of May 1940. The Tribunal may take
it, it is earlier than the 2d of May 1940. My Lord, that is a secret
order.
THE PRESIDENT: Earlier than May 1940?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Earlier than May 1940.
It was, however, in 1942, when the United States entered the war with
its enormous shipbuilding capacity, that the change thus brought about
necessitated a further adjustment in the methods adopted by the U-boats
and of the defendant; and the defendant was guilty of an order which
intended not merely the sinking of merchant ships, not merely the
abstention from rescue of the crews, but their deliberate extermination.
My Lord, the next document in the document book shows the course of
events, Document D-423, and I put it in as Exhibit GB-197. It is a
record of a conversation between Hitler and the Japanese Ambassador
Oshima, in the presence of the Defendant Ribbentrop, on the 3 of January
1942.
“The Führer, using a map, explains to the Japanese Ambassador
the present position of marine warfare in the Atlantic,
emphasizing that what he considers his most important task is to
get the U-boat warfare going in full swing. The U-boats are
being re-organized. Firstly, he had recalled all U-boats
operating in the Atlantic. As mentioned before, they would now
be posted outside United States ports. Later, they would be off
Freetown and the larger boats even as far down as Capetown.”
And then, after further details:
“After having given further explanations on the map, the Führer
pointed out that, however many ships the United States built,
one of their main problems would be the lack of personnel. For
that reason even merchant ships would be sunk without warning
with the intention of killing as many of the crew as possible.
Once it gets around that most of the seamen are lost in the
sinkings, the Americans would soon have difficulties in
enlisting new people. The training of sea-going personnel takes
a very long time. We are fighting for our existence and our
attitude cannot be ruled by any humane feelings. For this reason
he must give the order that in case foreign seamen could not be
taken prisoner, which is in most cases not possible on the sea,
U-boats were to surface after torpedoing and shoot up the
lifeboats.
“Ambassador Oshima heartily agreed with the Führer’s comments,
and said that the Japanese, too, are forced to follow these
methods.”
My Lord, the next document, D-446, I put in as Exhibit GB-198. I do not
propose to read it. It is an extract from B. d. U. War Diary of the 16th
of September 1942; and it is part of the story in the sense that it was
on the following day that the order I complain of was issued, and the
Defense will, no doubt, wish to rely on it. It records an attack on a
U-boat which was rescuing survivors, chiefly the Italian survivors of
the Allied liner _Laconia_, when it was attacked by an Allied aircraft.
My Lord, the next document, D-630, I put in as Exhibit GB-199. It
contains four documents. The first is a top secret order, sent to all
commanding officers of U-boats from the defendant’s headquarters, dated
17th of September 1942:
“1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of
ships sunk; and this includes picking up persons in the water
and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats and
handing over food and water. Rescue runs counter to the
rudimentary demands of warfare for the destruction of enemy
ships and crews.
“2. Orders for bringing in captains and chief engineers still
apply.
“3. Rescue the shipwrecked only if their statements will be of
importance to your boat.
“4. Be harsh, having in mind that the enemy takes no regard of
women and children in his bombing attacks on German cities.”
Now, My Lord, that is, of course, a very carefully worded order. Its
intentions are made very clear by the next document on that same page,
which is an extract from the defendant’s war diary; and I should say
there, as appears from the copy handed in to the Court, the war diary is
personally signed by the Defendant Dönitz. It is the war diary entry for
the 17th of September 1942:
“The attention of all commanding officers is again drawn”—and I
would draw the Tribunal’s attention to the word “again”—“to the
fact that all efforts to rescue members of the crews of ships
which have been sunk contradict the most primitive demands for
the conduct of warfare for annihilating enemy ships and their
crews. Orders concerning the bringing in of the captains and
chief engineers still stand.”
The last two documents on that page consist of a telegram from the
commander of the U-boat _Schacht_ to the defendant’s headquarters and
the reply. _Schacht_ had been taking part in the rescue of survivors
from the _Laconia_. The telegram from _Schacht_, dated the 17th of
September 1942, reads:
“163 Italians handed over to _Annamite_. Navigating officer of
_Laconia_ and another English officer on board.”
And then it goes on setting out the position of English and Polish
survivors in boats.
The reply sent on the 20th:
“Action as in wireless telegram message of 17th of September was
wrong. Boat was detailed to rescue Italian allies and not for
the rescue of English and Poles.”
It is a small point, but of course “detailed” means before the bombing
incident had ever occurred.
And then as for the next document, D-663, that was issued later and may
not yet have been inserted in the Tribunal’s Document Book; D-663 I put
in as Exhibit GB-200. My Lord, this is an extract from an operation
order, “Operation Order Atlantic Number 56,” dated the 7th of October
1943, and the copy put in is part of sailing orders to a U-boat. As I
shall prove through the second witness, although the date of this order
is the 7th of October 1943, in fact it is only a reproduction of an
order issued very much earlier, in the autumn of 1942.
“Rescue ships: A so-called rescue ship is generally attached to
every convoy, a special ship of up to 3,000 gross registered
tons, which is intended for the picking up of survivors after
U-boat attacks. These ships are for the most part equipped with
a shipborne aircraft and large motorboats, are strongly armed
with depth charge throwers, and are very maneuverable, so that
they are often taken for U-boat traps by the commander.”
And then, the last sentence:
“In view of the desired destruction of ships’ crews, their
sinking is of great value.”
If I might just sum up those documents, it would appear from the War
Diary entry of the 17th of September that orders on the lines discussed
between Hitler and Oshima were, in fact, issued, but we have not
captured them. It may be they were issued orally and that the defendant
awaited a suitable opportunity before confirming them. The incident of
the bombing of the U-boats detailed to rescue the Italian survivors from
the _Laconia_ afforded the opportunity and the order to all commanders
was issued. Its intent is very clear when you consider it in the light
of the War Diary entry. The wording is, of course, extremely careful but
to any officer of experience its intention was obvious and he would know
that deliberate action to annihilate survivors would be approved under
that order.
You will be told that this order, although perhaps unfortunately
phrased, was merely intended to stop a commander from jeopardizing his
ship by attempting a rescue, which had become increasingly dangerous, as
a result of the extended coverage of the ocean by Allied aircraft; and
that the notorious action of the U-boat Commander Eck in sinking the
Greek steamer _Peleus_ and then machine-gunning the crew on their rafts
in the water, was an exception; and that, although it may be true that a
copy of the order was on board, this action was taken solely, as he
himself swore, on his own initiative.
I would make the point to the Tribunal that if the intention of this
order was to stop the rescue attempts in the interests of the
preservation of the U-boat, first of all it would have been done by
calling attention to Standing Order 154.
Second, this very fact would have been prominently stated in the order.
Drastic orders of this nature are not drafted by experienced staff
officers without the greatest care and an eye to their possible capture
by the enemy.
Third, if it was necessary to avoid the risks attendant on standing by
or surfacing, not only would this have been stated but there would have
been no question of taking any prisoners at all except possibly in
circumstances where virtually no risk in surfacing was to be
apprehended.
Fourth, the final sentence of the first paragraph would have read very
differently.
And fifth, if, in fact—and the Prosecution do not for one moment accept
it—the defendant did not mean to enjoin murder, his order was so worded
that he cannot escape the responsibility which attaches to such a
document.
My Lord, I would call my first witness, Peter Heisig.
[_The witness, Peter Josef Heisig, took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
PETER JOSEF HEISIG (Witness): My name is Peter Josef Heisig.
THE PRESIDENT: Say this: “I swear by God—the Almighty and
Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold nothing
and add nothing.”
[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]
COL. PHILLIMORE: Peter Josef Heisig, are you an Oberleutnant zur See in
Germany?
HEISIG: I am Oberleutnant zur See in the German Navy.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And were you captured on the 27th of December 1944, and
now held as a prisoner of war?
HEISIG: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you swear an affidavit on the 27th of November
1945?
HEISIG: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And is that your signature? [_Document D-566 was
submitted to the witness._]
My Lord, that is the Document D-566.
HEISIG: That is the document I signed.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I put that in as Exhibit GB-201.
[_Turning to the witness._] Will you take your mind back to the autumn
of 1942? What rank did you hold at that time?
HEISIG: I was senior midshipman at the 2d U-boat Training Division.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Were you attending a course there?
HEISIG: I took part in the training course for U-boat officers of the
watch.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember the last day of the course?
HEISIG: On the last day of the course, Grossadmiral Dönitz, who was then
Commander-in-Chief of the U-boats, reviewed the 2d U-boat Training
Division.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And what happened at the end of this tour?
HEISIG: At the end of his visit—not at the end but rather during his
visit—Grossadmiral Dönitz made a speech before the officers of the 2d
U-boat Training Division.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Can you fix the date of his visit?
HEISIG: I remember the approximate date; it must have been at the end of
September or the beginning of October 1942.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, will you give the Tribunal—speaking slowly—an
account of what Admiral Dönitz said in his speech?
HEISIG: Grossadmiral Dönitz said in his speech that the successes of the
U-boats had declined. The strength of enemy air control was responsible
for that decline. New antiaircraft guns had been developed which would
in future make it possible for the U-boats to fight off enemy aircraft.
Hitler had personally given him the assurance that U-boats would be
equipped with these antiaircraft guns before all other branches of the
Armed Forces. It could be expected therefore that the successes of
former times would be reached again within a few months. After speaking
about his good relations with Hitler, Grossadmiral Dönitz discussed the
German armament program.
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.
Member of the National Socialist Party since its formation, member of
the Diet of Thuringia, and member of the Reichstag, Obergruppenführer of
the criminal organizations SS and SA, the Defendant Sauckel was
Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia. On 21 March 1942 he was
appointed Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor by a decree of
the Führer. This decree is countersigned by Lammers in his capacity as
Reichsminister and Chief of the Chancellery and by the Defendant Keitel;
the responsibility of these latter is confirmed by this countersigning.
The Defendant Keitel has associated himself with the policy of
compulsory labor through the appointment of Sauckel, the principles and
methods of whom he approved.
I have already read this decree to the Tribunal. I would remind you that
it placed Sauckel, in his capacity as Plenipotentiary General for
Allocation of Labour, under the immediate orders of the Delegate for the
Four Year Plan, the Defendant Göring. The latter bears a direct
responsibility in pursuing the plan of recruitment of compulsory labor.
I shall produce numerous proofs of this. I ask the Tribunal to authorize
me to produce as first proof the decree signed by the Defendant Göring
the day after the appointment of the Defendant Sauckel. This decree,
dated 27 March 1942, was published in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1942,
Part I, Page 180. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-12
(Document Number 1902-PS). Göring by this decree did away with all the
administrative offices of the Four Year Plan which had been charged with
the recruitment of labor; he transmitted their powers to Sauckel’s
department, thus confirming his appointment.
The powers of Sauckel between 1942 and 1944 were considerably
strengthened by decrees of Hitler and Göring. These decrees gave full
significance to the Defendant Sauckel’s title of Plenipotentiary. They
gave him administrative autonomy and even legislative competency such as
he could not have aspired to had he confined himself to executive tasks.
The importance of the political part which he played during the last 2
years of the war increases to this extent the weight of the
responsibility devolving upon him.
I draw the attention of the Tribunal very especially to the decrees of
the Führer of 30 September 1942 and of 4 March 1943 and to the decree of
the Defendant Göring of 25 May 1942. I will not read these decrees,
which have been commented on by my American colleague, Mr. Dodd. I
submit them in support of my argument.
I will first refer to the decree of the Defendant Göring of 25 May 1942.
It was published in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1942, Part I, Page 347. He
delegated to Sauckel part of the powers relating to labor held by the
Minister of Labor. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number
RF-13 (Document Number 1905-PS).
Hitler’s decree of 30 September 1942 gave Sauckel considerable power
over the civil and military authorities of the territories occupied by
the German Armed Forces. It made it possible for the defendant to
introduce into the staffs of the occupying authorities personal
representatives to whom he gave his orders direct. The decree is
countersigned by Lammers and by the Defendant Keitel and appears in the
_Collection of the Decrees, Directives, and Notices of 1942_, second
volume, Page 510. I submit it under Exhibit Number RF-14 (Document
1903-PS).
In the carrying out of this decree representatives of Sauckel’s
department were in fact introduced into the headquarters staffs of the
military commands. The interrogation of General Von Falkenhausen,
Military Governor of Belgium and Northern France, gives in this
connection a proof which I would ask the Tribunal to be good enough to
remember. General Von Falkenhausen was interrogated on 27 November 1945
by the head of the Investigation Section of the French Delegation. I
submit his evidence to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-15. I read
the following extract—Page 3, the first paragraph, of the French text,
and Page 2, the fifth paragraph, of the German translation:
“Q: ‘Can the witness tell us what was the line of demarcation
between his own powers and the powers of the Arbeitseinsatz?’
“A: ‘Up to a certain moment there existed in my department a
labor service which was engaged in the hiring of voluntary
workers. I no longer remember the exact date—perhaps autumn
1942—when this labor service was placed under the order of
Sauckel, and the only thing I had to do was to carry out the
orders which came through this way. I don’t remember, but
Reeder, who is also in prison’”—Reeder was a civilian official
on the staff of General Von Falkenhausen—“‘is very well
informed about the dates and can undoubtedly give them better
than I can.’
“Q: ‘Before the question of labor was entirely entrusted to
Sauckel’s organization, did there exist in the General Staff or
in its services an officer who was in charge of this question?
Afterwards was there a delegate from Sauckel’s service in this
department?’
“A: ‘Until Sauckel came into power there was, in my service,
Reeder, who directed the Bureau of Labor in my office. This
labor office functioned as an employment office in Germany, that
is to say, it concerned itself with demands for labor which
would naturally be voluntary.’
“Q: ‘What took place when the change happened?’
“A: ‘After the change the office continued to exist, but the
orders were given directly by Sauckel to the Arbeitseinsatz and
passed through my office.’”
[_A recess was taken._]
M. HERZOG: I have just reminded the Tribunal of the legislative
framework through which the activity of the Defendant Sauckel was
exercised. This framework was strengthened by the varied decrees of the
defendant. The first document shows that Sauckel deliberately assumed
the responsibility of the general policy for the recruitment of foreign
workers. It is his decree of the 22d of August 1942, which appeared in
the _Reichsarbeitsblatt_, 1942, Part I, Page 382. This decree lays down
the principle of forced recruitment and makes the necessary provisions
for the whole human potential of the occupied territories to be placed
at the service of the German war machine.
Sauckel forced the inhabitants of the invaded countries to participate
in the war of Germany against their own fatherland. It is not only a
violation of international law, it is a crime against the law of
nations. I submit the decree to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-17
and I shall read it:
“Decree Number 10 of the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation
of Labor, concerning the employment of labor in the occupied
territories, under date of 22 August 1942.
“In order to mobilize the labor force of the occupied
territories under the new organization for the Allocation of
Labor within the European area, this force must be subjected to
a rigid and uniform control. The maximum production, as well as
the useful and rational distribution of this force, must be
assured in order to satisfy the labor requirements of the Reich
and the occupied territories. By virtue of the full powers which
are conferred upon me, I order:
“1) By virtue of the decree of the Führer, under date of 21
March 1942, concerning the Plenipotentiary General for
Allocation of Labor and by virtue of the ordinance of the
Delegate for the Four Year Plan, under date of 27 March 1942,
concerning the application of this decree, I likewise am
competent to employ, as may be necessary, the labor of occupied
territories, as well as to take all the measures necessary to
augment its efficiency. Those German offices competent for the
tasks of the Arbeitseinsatz and for the policy of wages, or my
commissioners, will carry out this Allocation of Labor and take
all measures necessary to increase efficiency, according to my
instructions.
“2) This decree extends to all the territories occupied during
the war by the Wehrmacht, as far as they are under German
administration.
“3) The labor available in the occupied territories must be
utilized in the first place to satisfy the primary war needs of
Germany herself.
“This labor must be utilized in the occupied territories in the
following order:
“a) For the needs of the army, the occupation services, and the
civilian services; b) for the needs of German armament; c) for
the tasks of food supply and agriculture; d) for industrial
needs other than those of armament, in which Germany is
interested; e) for the industrial needs concerning the
population of the territory in question.”
A second document demonstrates the willingness of the Defendant Sauckel
to take the responsibility for the treatment of foreign workers. It is
an agreement concluded on 2 June 1943 with the Chief of the German Labor
Front. I shall not read this document to the Tribunal; it has been
discussed by Mr. Dodd. I point out that it was published in the
_Reichsarbeitsblatt_, 1943, Part I, Page 588. I submit it in support of
my statement under Exhibit Number RF-18 (Document Number 1913-PS).
Designated by Hitler and by the Defendants Keitel and Göring in order to
pursue, under the control of the latter, the policy of recruitment of
compulsory labor, the Defendant Sauckel carried out his task by virtue
of the responsibilities which he had assumed. I request that the
Tribunal bear this in mind.
I request the Tribunal, likewise, to note that the policy of recruitment
of foreign workers involves the responsibility of all German ministers
responsible for the economic and social life of the Reich. An
inter-ministerial office, or at any rate an inter-administrative office,
the Central Office for the Four Year Plan, proceeded to formulate the
program for the recruitment of foreign workers.
All departments interested in the labor problem were represented at the
meetings of the Central Office. General Milch presided at the meetings,
in the name of the Defendant Göring. The Defendant Sauckel and the
Defendant Speer took part, in person, and I shall submit to the Tribunal
certain statements made by them. The Defendant Funk also took part; he
therefore knew of, and approved, the program for the deportation of
workers. He even collaborated in its formulation. As proof thereof I
produce two documents inculpating Funk.
The first is a letter of 9 February 1944, in which Funk is summoned to a
meeting of the Central Office of the Plan. It is Document F-674 which I
submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-19. I read:
“Sir: In the name of the Central Office of the Plan, I invite
you to a meeting concerning the question of the Allocation of
Labor, to take place on Wednesday, 16 February 1944, at 10
o’clock in the committee room of the Secretary of State at the
Ministry of Aviation, Leipziger Strasse, in Berlin.
“In the enclosure I transmit to you some statistics on the
subject of the development of the Allocation of Labor. These
statistics will serve as a basis for discussion at the meeting.”
Funk was unable personally to attend the meeting but he arranged to be
represented by Undersecretary of State Hayler. He received the minutes
of the meeting, and on 7 March 1944 he wrote to General Milch to excuse
himself for his frequent absences from the meetings of the Office. I
submit this document to the Tribunal. It is Document F-675, which I
submit under Exhibit Number RF-20. It is the account of the 53rd meeting
of the Central Office of the Plan. The Tribunal may see on Page 2 of the
French translation that Minister Funk received an account of this
meeting. He is mentioned on the second line of the distribution
list—Reich Minister Speer first and on the second line Reich Minister
Funk.
I now produce under Exhibit Number RF-21 (Document Number F-676) the
letter by which Funk excuses himself to Marshal Milch because of his
inability to be present at the meetings:
“Very honored and dear Field Marshal:
“Unfortunately the meetings of the Central Office of the Plan
are always set for dates when I am already engaged by other
important meetings. So it is to my great regret that I shall be
unable to be present Saturday at the meeting of the Central
Office of the Plan, inasmuch as I have to speak on that day in
Vienna in the course of a great demonstration commemorating the
anniversary of the day of the Anschluss.
“State Secretary Dr. Hayler will also be in Vienna on Friday and
Saturday, where at the same time there will be an important
southeast European conference, in which foreign delegates will
participate and at which I must likewise speak.
“Under these circumstances I beg you to allow Ministerial
Director and General of Police, SS Brigadeführer Ohlendorf, who
is the permanent deputy of State Secretary Hayler, to
participate as my representative. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Does this document tell us anything more than that the
Defendant Funk was unable to be present?
M. HERZOG: This document, Mr. President, was given to me by my American
colleagues, who asked me to use it in the matter of compulsory labor,
because they have not had the necessary time to include it in their
charge against Funk. It is presented to the Tribunal to prove that Funk
followed the meetings of the Central Office of the Plan and that he had
permanent representatives there. He was represented at all meetings, and
by the minutes he received he was kept in touch with the work of the
Central Office of the Plan. That is why we present to the Tribunal this
document on Defendant Funk.
I shall continue to quote:
“Under these circumstances, I beg you to allow Ministerial
Director and General of Police, SS Brigadeführer Ohlendorf, who
is the permanent deputy of State Secretary Hayler, to
participate as my representative. Mr. Ohlendorf will have
Ministerial Director Dr. Koelfen as a consultant for questions
concerning goods for consumption and Counsellor of State Dr.
Janke, for questions concerning foreign trade.”
The policy of the Central Office pursued by the Defendant Sauckel is
shown by the mass deportation of workers. The principle of this
deportation is a criminal one, but the manner of its execution was even
more criminal. I shall submit proof of this to the Tribunal and explain
in succession, the methods of compulsory recruitment, its results, and
the conditions of deportation.
I wish here to thank the members of the French Delegation and of the
foreign delegations who have come to my aid in the preparation of my
work, in particular, my colleague M. Pierre Portal, attorney at the bar
of Lyons.
The statement which I have the honor of presenting to the Tribunal will
be limited to the account of the recruiting of foreign labor in the
occupied territories of Western Europe, since the deportation of workers
coming from Eastern Europe will be dealt with by my Soviet colleagues.
During the whole duration of the occupation the local field commanders
imposed conscription of labor on the populations of the occupied
territories. Fortification works considered necessary for the
furtherance of military operations and guard duties made necessary by
the need of maintaining the security of the occupation troops were
carried out by the inhabitants of the occupied areas. The labor
requisitions affected not only isolated individuals but entire groups.
In France, for instance, they affected, in turn, groups of Indo-Chinese
workers, workers from North Africa, foreign workers, and _Chantiers de
Jeunesse_ (youth workyards). I produce in evidence an extract from the
report on forced labor and the deportation of workers drawn up by the
Institute of Statistics of the French Government. This report bears the
Document Number F-515 and I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit
Number RF-22. This document, because of its importance, has been taken
out of the document book. I quote first of all Page 17 of the French
text and 17, likewise, of the German translation, second paragraph
before the end:
“Paragraph 6: The forced labor recruitment of constituted
groups:
“Finally, a last procedure employed by the Germans on a number
of occasions during the whole course of the occupation, for
direct forced labor as well as for indirect forced labor: the
‘requisition’ of constituted groups already trained and
disciplined and consequently an excellent contribution.
“(a) Indo-Chinese labor (M.O.I.): This formation of colonial
workers had been intended from the beginning of hostilities to
satisfy the needs of French industry in unskilled labor. Under
the control of officers and noncommissioned officers of the
French Army, who became civilian officials after the month of
July 1940, Indo-Chinese labor was, from 1945 on, compelled to do
partial forced labor, directly as well as indirectly.”
I skip the table on Page 18 and I read:
“(b) North African labor: Between 17 August and 6 November 1942
the home country received two contingents of workers from North
Africa; one composed of 5,560 Algerians, the other of 1,825
Moroccans. These workers were immediately compelled to do direct
forced labor, which brought the number of North African workers
enrolled in the Todt Organization to 17,582.
“(c) Foreign labor: The law of 11 July 1938, concerning the
organization of the nation in time of war, provided for the
cases of foreigners living in France, obliging them to render
service. Under French officers and noncommissioned officers who
by the law of 9 October 1940 had assumed the status of civil
servants, foreign labor was progressively subjected by the
Germans to direct forced labor.”
I skip the table and I read:
“(d) Youth workyards: On 29 January 1943 the labor staff of the
German Armistice Commission in Paris made known that the
Commander-in-Chief ‘West’ was examining whether and in what ways
the formations of French labor might be called upon for the
accomplishment of tasks important for both countries. There
followed partial recruiting and demands for young people from
the workyards for direct labor.”
Similar requisitions took place in all the other territories of Western
Europe. These requisitions were illegal. They were carried out by virtue
of Article 52 of the Appendix to the fourth Hague Convention. In reality
they systematically violated the letter and the spirit of the text of
this international law.
What does Article 52 of the Appendix to the fourth Hague Convention say?
It is worded as follows:
“Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from
municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army
of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of
the country and be of such a nature that they do not imply for
the populations the obligation to take part in war operations
against their country. Such requisitions and services shall be
demanded only on the authority of the commander of the area
occupied.”
The terms in which Article 52 authorizes the requisition of services by
an army of occupation are expressly formulated. These terms are four in
number:
1. The rendering of services can be demanded only for the needs of the
army of occupation. All requisitions made for the general economic needs
of the occupying power are thus forbidden.
2. Services demanded by way of requisition must not entail an obligation
to take part in military operations against the country of those
rendering them. The rendering of any service exacted in the interests of
the war economy of the occupying power, all guard duties, or exercise of
military control are forbidden.
3. Services rendered in a given area must be in proportion to its
economic resources, the development of which must not be hampered. It
follows that any requisitioning of labor is contrary to international
law if it results in the impeding or prevention of the normal
utilization of the riches of the occupied country.
4. Finally, labor requisitions must, under the provisions of the second
paragraph of Article 52, be carried out in the area of the locality
under the administration of the occupation authority who has signed the
requisition order. The transfer of conscripted workers from one part of
the occupied area to another and, even more, their deportation to the
country of the occupied power, are prohibited.
Labor requisitions exacted by German civilian and military authorities
in the occupied areas did not honor the spirit of Article 52. They were
carried out to satisfy either the needs of German economy or even the
needs of the military strategy of the enemy forces. They deliberately
refused to acknowledge the need of ensuring facilities for a reasonable
utilization of local resources. They finally took the form of migration
of workers. The case of those workers who were conscripted from all
countries of Western Europe and formed an integral part of the Todt
Organization, to help in building the system of fortifications known
under the name of the “Atlantic Wall,” may be taken as a typical
example.
This violation of international agreements is a flagrant one; it called
forth repeated protests from General Doyen, Delegate of the French
authorities at the German Armistice Commission. I ask the Tribunal to
accept as evidence the letter of General Doyen, dated 25 May 1941. This
letter constitutes Document F-283 and it is placed before the Tribunal
as Exhibit Number RF-23, I read:
“Wiesbaden, 25 May 1941. Général de Corps d’Armée Doyen,
President of the French Delegation at the German Armistice
Commission, to General of Artillery Vogl, President of the
German Armistice Commission.
“On several occasions, and notably in my letters Numbers
14,263/A E and 14,887/A E of 26 February and 8 March, I
protested to you against the use made of French labor within the
Todt Organization in the execution of military work on the coast
of Brittany.
“I have today the duty of calling your attention to other cases
in which the occupation authorities have had recourse to
recruiting French civilians to carry out services of a strictly
military character, cases which are even more grave than those
which I have already called to your attention.
“If, indeed, as concerns the workers engaged by the Todt
Organization, it may be argued that certain ones among them
accepted voluntarily an employment for which they are being
remunerated (although in practice most often they were not given
the possibility of refusing this employment), this argument can
by no means be invoked when the prefects themselves are obliged
at the expense of the departments and the communities, to set up
guard services at important points, such as bridges, tunnels,
works of art, telephone lines, munitions depots, and areas
surrounding aviation fields.
“The accompanying note furnishes some examples of the guard
services which have thus been imposed upon Frenchmen, services
which before this were assumed by the German Army and which
normally fall to the latter, since it is a question of
participating in watches or of preserving the German Army from
risks arising from the state of war existing between Germany and
Great Britain.”
The occupying authorities, in the face of the resistance which they
encountered, were anxious that their orders regarding the requisition of
labor should be obeyed. The measures which they took to this end are
just as illegal as the measures taken for the requisition itself. The
National Socialist authorities in occupied France proceeded by way of
legislation. They promulgated ordinances by which sentence of death
could be pronounced against persons disobeying requisition orders.
I submit two of these ordinances to the Tribunal as evidence. The first
was given in the early months of the occupation, 10 October 1940. It was
published in the _Verordnungsblatt_ for the occupied territory of France
on 17 October 1940, Page 108. I submit it to the Tribunal under Document
Number RF-24, and I read it:
“Ordinance concerning protection against acts of sabotage, 10
October 1940.
“By virtue of the powers which have been conferred upon me by
the Führer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, I decree
the following:
“I. Whoever intentionally does not fulfill or fulfills
inadequately the tasks of surveillance which are imposed upon
him by the Chief of the Military Administration in France, or by
an authority designated by the latter, shall be condemned to
death.”
I skip Paragraph 2 and read Paragraph 3:
“In less serious cases concerning infractions of Paragraphs 1
and 2 of the present ordinance, and in case of negligence,
punishment by solitary confinement with hard labor or
imprisonment may be imposed.”
The second ordinance of the Military Commander in France to which I
refer is dated 31 January 1942. It was published in the
_Verordnungsblatt_ of France of 3 February 1942, Page 338. I submit it
to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-25 and I read:
“Ordinance of 31 January 1942 concerning the requisition of
service and goods.
“By virtue of the plenary powers which have been conferred on me
by the Führer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, I
decree the following:
“1. Whoever fails to comply with these requisitions of service
or goods which are imposed upon him by the Military Commander in
France, or an authority designated by him, or who performs them
in such a manner as to imperil or make fail the purpose of the
services or requisitions, shall be punished by penal servitude,
imprisonment, or fine. A fine may be imposed in addition to
penal servitude or imprisonment.
“2. In serious cases the penalty of death may be inflicted.”
These ordinances were protested against by the French authorities.
General Doyen protested on several occasions against the first of these
without his protest having any effect.
I refer again to his letter of 25 May 1941, which I have just submitted
to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-23 (Document Number F-283), and
I read on Page 3 of the French text, Page 4 of the German translation:
“I am instructed to lodge a formal protest with you against such
practices and to beg you to intervene so that an immediate end
may be put to this.
“On 16 November, in letter Number 7,843/AE, I already protested
against the ordinance that was decreed on 10 October 1940, by
the Chief of the Military Administration in France, which
provided the death penalty for any person failing to carry out
or carrying out inadequately the tasks of surveillance imposed
by the occupation authorities. I protested then that this
demand, as well as the penalty, was contrary to the spirit of
the Armistice Convention, the object of which was to relieve the
French population from any participation in the hostilities.
“I had limited myself to this protest in principle because at
the time no concrete case in which such a task of surveillance
might have been imposed had been called to my attention. But it
was not possible to accept as justification of the ordinance in
question the arguments which you gave me in your letter Number
1361 of 6 March.
“You did indeed point out there that Article 43 of the Hague
Convention gave the occupying power the authority to legislate,
but the power to which you refer in the said article is subject
to two qualifications: There can be legislation only to
establish and secure public order and life as far as it is
possible. On the other hand, the ordinances decreed must. . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t it enough to show that General Doyen protested? It
is not necessary to read all the argument which was put forward on the
one side or the other.
M. HERZOG: I shall then stop this quotation, Mr. President.
The German ordinances which I have just read to the Tribunal thus
contained formal violations of the general principles of international
criminal legislation; they were decreed in contradiction to Article 52
of the Annex to the fourth convention of The Hague and also in
contradiction to Article 43, on which they were supposed to be based.
They were, therefore, illegal and they were criminal, since they
provided death sentences which no international law or domestic law
justifies.
The system of the requisition of service furnishes the first example of
the criminal character of the methods pursued by the defendants in the
execution of their plan of recruitment of foreign labor.
The National Socialist authorities then had recourse to a second
procedure to give an appearance of legality to the recruiting of foreign
workers. They called upon workers who were so-called volunteers. From
1940 on, the occupation authorities opened recruiting offices in all the
large cities of the occupied territories. These offices were placed
under the control of a special service instituted for this purpose
within the general staff of the commanders-in-chief of occupation zones.
The Tribunal knows that these services from 1940 to 1942 functioned
under the control of the generals. From 1942 on, and more precisely,
from the day when the Defendant Sauckel became the Plenipotentiary for
Allocation of Labor, they received their orders directly from the
latter. General Von Falkenhausen, Commander-in-Chief in Belgium and in
the north of France, declared in the testimony which I have just read to
the Tribunal that from the summer of 1942 he had become the simple
intermediary charged with transmitting the instructions given by Sauckel
to the Arbeitseinsatz.
Thus, the policy of the German employment offices set up in the occupied
areas was carried out from 1942 under the sole responsibility of the
Defendant Sauckel and his direct chief, the Delegate for the Four Year
Plan, the Defendant Göring. I ask the Tribunal to take note of this.
The task of the employment offices was to organize the recruiting of
workers for the factories and workshops set up in Europe by the Todt
Organization and by the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, and other
German organizations. It was also their task to procure for the German
munition factories the amount of foreign labor needed. Workers recruited
in this way signed a labor contract; thus they had, theoretically, the
status of free workers and were apparently volunteers.
The occupation authorities always made a point of the voluntary nature
of the recruiting carried out by the employment offices, but the line
followed by their propaganda systematically ignored what they were
actually doing. In fact, the voluntary character of this recruiting was
entirely fictitious; the workers of the occupied areas who agreed to
sign German labor contracts were subject to physical and moral pressure.
This pressure took several forms. It was sometimes collective and
sometimes individual. In all its forms it was heavy enough to deprive
the workers, who were its victims, of their freedom of choice.
The nullity of contracts entered into under the sway of violence is a
fundamental principle of law common to all civilized nations. It is
found just as expressly stated in German law as in the laws of the
powers represented in the Court, or the states occupied by Germany. The
German employment offices forced on the foreign workers labor contracts
which had no legal significance because they were obtained with
violence. I assert this and I will try to provide the Court with proof
of my assertion.
First of all, I will show proof of premeditation by the Germans. The
pressure under which the foreign workers suffered was not the result of
sporadic action on the part of subordinate authorities. It came from the
deliberate intent which the National Socialist leaders of Germany
formulated into precise instructions.
I submit to the Tribunal Document 1183-PS, which is Exhibit Number
RF-26. This is a circular dated 29 January 1942, dealing with the
recruitment of foreign workers. This directive comes from a section of
the Arbeitseinsatz of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan. It bears the
signature of the section chief, Dr. Mansfeld, but it places the
executive responsibility directly on the Defendant Göring, Delegate for
the Four Year Plan. I read this circular:
“Berlin (SW 11), 29 January 1942, Saarlandstrasse 96.
“Subject: Increased mobilization of labor for the German Reich
from the occupied territories and preparations for mobilization
by force.
“The labor shortage, aggravated on the one hand by drafts for
the Wehrmacht and on the other hand by the increased amount of
work for armaments in the Reich, renders it necessary for labor
for service in the Reich to be recruited from the occupied
territories to a much greater extent than heretofore, in order
to relieve the shortage.
“Therefore, any and all methods must be adopted which make it
possible to transport, without exception and at once, for
employment in the Reich, manpower in the occupied territories
which is unemployed or which can be released . . . for use in
Germany after most careful screening.”
I read further on Page 2 of the German text:
“In the first place, this mobilization shall be carried out on a
voluntary basis as hitherto. For this reason recruitment for
employment in the German Reich must be intensified considerably.
If, however, satisfactory results are to be obtained, the German
authorities who are operating in the occupied territories must
be able to exert any pressure necessary to support the voluntary
recruitment of labor for employment in Germany.
“Accordingly, as far as may be necessary, the regulations in
force in the occupied territories with regard to changing the
place of employment or . . . those refusing work, must be
tightened. Supplementary regulations concerning distribution of
labor must, above all, insure that older persons who are exempt
will be used to replace younger persons so that the latter may
be made available for the Reich. A far-reaching reduction in the
amount of relief granted by public welfare must also be effected
in order to induce laborers to accept employment in the Reich.
Unemployment relief must be set so low that the amount, in
comparison with the average wages in the Reich and the
possibilities there for sending remittances home, may serve as
an inducement to the workers to accept employment in Germany.
When refusal to accept work in the Reich is not justified,
relief must be reduced to an amount barely sufficient for
subsistence or even cancelled. In this case partial withdrawal
of ration cards and an assignment to particularly heavy
compulsory work may be considered.”
I here end the quotation and I call to the Tribunal’s attention that
this circular is addressed to all the services responsible for labor in
the occupied areas. Its distribution in Western Europe was: The Reich
Commissioner for the occupied Norwegian territories, the Reich
Commissioner for the occupied Dutch territories, the Chief of the
Military Administration of Belgium and Northern France, the Chief of the
Military Administration of France, the Chief of the Civil Administration
of Luxembourg, the Chief of the Civil Administration at Metz, and the
Chief of the Civil Administration at Strasbourg.
It is thus proved that a general common plan existed with a view to
compelling the workers of the occupied territories to work for Germany.
I have now to show how this plan was put into practice in the different
occupation zones. The machinery of pressure which the National Socialist
authorities exerted on the foreign workers can be analyzed in the
following manner: German labor offices organized intense propaganda in
favor of the recruitment of foreign workers. This propaganda was
intended to deceive the workers of the occupied areas with regard to the
material advantages offered them by the German employment offices. It
was carried out by the press, the radio, and by every possible means of
publicity. This propaganda was also carried on as a side-line to
official administrative duties by secret organizations which had been
given the task of enticing foreign workers and subjecting them to a
veritable impressment.
These measures proved to be insufficient. The occupation authorities
then intervened in the social life of the occupied countries. They
strove to produce artificial unemployment there and at the same time
they devoted their energies to making living conditions worse for the
workers and the unemployed.
In spite of unemployment and the poverty with which they were
threatened, the foreign workers showed themselves unmoved by German
propaganda. This is why the German authorities finally resorted to
direct methods of pressure. They exercised pressure on the political
authorities of the occupied countries to make them give support to the
recruiting campaign. They compelled employers, especially the
organizational committees in France, to induce their workers to accept
the labor contracts of the German employment offices. Finally, they took
action by way of direct pressure on the workers and gradually passed
from so-called voluntary recruitment to conscription by force.
The fiction of voluntary enrollment was dispelled by the sight of the
individual arrests and collective raids of which the workers of the
occupied areas rapidly became the victims. There are innumerable
documents providing proof of the facts which I relate. I shall submit
the most important of these to the Tribunal.
The documents which show proof of the publicity campaigns made in France
by the German administration will be submitted to the Tribunal by M.
Edgar Faure in the course of his brief concerning Germanization and
Nazification. By way of example I wish to make use of a document which
in the French classification bears the Document Number F-516, which I
submit under Exhibit Number RF-27.
This is a report of the Prefect of the Department of the North to the
Delegate of the Minister of the Interior in the General Delegation of
the French Government in the Occupied Territories. This report points
out that a German publicity car circulated through the community of
Lille in order to induce French workers to go to Germany. I quote the
report:
“Lille, 25 March 1942. Prefect of the Region of the North,
Prefect of the Lille Region, to the Prefect, Delegate of the
Minister of the Interior with the General Delegation of the
French Government in the Occupied Territories.
“Subject: German publicity car.
“I have the honor to inform you that for some days a publicity
car covered with posters inviting French workers to enroll for
work in Germany has been circulating in the vicinity of Lille,
while a loud-speaker plays a whole repertoire of records of
French music, among which are featured the ‘Marche Lorraine’ and
the hymn ‘Maréchal, Here We Are.’”
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will adjourn until 2 o’clock.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors. I showed you this morning what
the official propaganda was which was conducted by the German offices in
France to persuade workers to enroll for work in Germany. The effect of
this official propaganda was reinforced by the clandestine recruitment
bureaus. Real dens for clandestine recruiting were organized by the
occupation authorities apart from the administrative services whose
activities they completed. These recruitment bureaus were directed by
German agents who often succeeded in securing local accomplices. In
France these bureaus extended their ramifications to the non-occupied
zone as well as the occupied zone. Several documents prove their
existence. The first among them is a report transmitted on 7 March 1942
by the Vice President of the Council of Ministers of the _de facto_
Government of Vichy, to the Delegate General for Franco-German Economic
Relations. It is Document F-654 of the French archives.
This report is drawn up under the seal of Vice President of the Council,
Darlan. It bears the signature of an officer of the latter’s General
Staff, Commander Fontaine. I submit this report under Exhibit Number
RF-28 (Document F-654) and I read it:
“Vichy, 7 March 1942. Your Honor, the Delegate General, I have
the honor of transmitting to you in this letter, for your
information, a report on the organization of recruitment in
France of workers for German industry.”
I now go to Page 2.
“26 of February 1942. Secret. Note on the organization of the
recruitment in France of workers for German industry. Source:
excellent.
“I. Organization of the recruitment of workers in France.
“One of the main organizations for the recruitment of workers in
France for Germany is to be Société de Mécanique de la Seine,
whose head office is in Puteaux, Seine, at 8 Quai National, and
which is also known as A. M. S.
“This society is to operate under the secret control of the
Kommandantur, and of three engineers, one of which is to have
the rank of chief engineer and the other two are to be M. Meyer
and M. Schronner.
“In addition to the work which it has to carry out, this society
is particularly entrusted with the re-education of workers
recruited in France and sent to Germany at the request of German
industrial firms on payment of premiums.
“The A. M. S. is assisted in these operations in the Occupied
Zone by three centers of recruiting which operate in Paris and
are the Porte de Vincennes Center, the Courbevoie Center (200
Boulevard St. Denis), and the Avenue des Tournelles Center.
These centers are also charged with co-ordinating the operations
of recruitment in the non-occupied zone. For this zone, the two
principal centers are in Marseilles and Toulouse. A third center
is to be at Tarbes.
“a) The center at Marseilles is in charge of the recruitment in
the Mediterranean zone, under the direction of Mr. Meyer who is
mentioned above. The address of this engineer is not known, but
one can obtain information about him at 24 Avenue Kléber, Paris,
at the Military Commander’s.
“In Marseilles the A. M. S. office is situated at 83 Rue de
Sylvabelle. In his task Mr. Meyer is assisted by M. Ringo, who
lives in Madrague-Ville, 5 bis Boulevard Bernabo, near the
slaughter house.”
I stop this quotation here to submit to the Tribunal the correspondence
exchanged between the months of December 1941 and January 1942, between
the Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes and the authorities of the Vichy
Government. This is Document F-518 which I submit to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number RF-29. This correspondence emphasizes the activity of the
German agents in clandestine recruiting, and particularly that of Mr.
Meyer, to whom the report of Commander Fontaine, which I have just read,
applies. I quote first the letter of 10 December 1941, in which the
Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes confirmed the reports which he had
previously made on this question. It is the letter which is on the sixth
page of the French text and the seventh page of the German text:
“Nice, 10 December 1941. The State Counsellor, Prefect of the
Alpes-Maritimes, to His Honor, the State Secretary of the
Interior, Secretariat General of the Police, Directorate for
Home and Foreign Police.
“Subject: The activity of foreign agents, aimed at enticing away
skilled workers.
“Reference: Your telegrams 12,402 and 12,426 of 28 November
1941; my reports 955 and 986 of 24 November 1941 and 6 December
1941.
“In my reports referred to I pointed out to you the activity of
recruiting agents who attempted to entice skilled workers on
behalf of Germany.
“I have the honor of giving you below some additional
information gathered on this subject.
“The German engineer Meyer and the French subject Bentz stopped
on 1 December 1941 at the Hotel Splendid in Nice, coming from
Marseilles.”
Now, I go on to the third paragraph before the end:
“I permit myself to draw your attention particularly to the fact
that in Paris they enrolled French workers for Germany.”
Here I end the quotation.
These documents attest to the activity which the clandestine recruiting
offices developed. But I am not satisfied merely to point out their
existence; I wish to show that these offices operated under the
initiative of official administrations and of the German office for
labor.
The proof is furnished by a statement which the Defendant Sauckel made
on 1 March 1944, during the 54th conference of the Central Office for
the Four Year Plan. The stenographic report of these conferences has
been found. It forms Document R-124, to which my American colleagues
have already referred. I submit it again to the Tribunal under Exhibit
Number RF-30 and I shall read from an extract of the minutes of the
session of 1 March 1944. This is in Exhibit Number RF-30, in the French
text, Page 2, second paragraph; in the German text, Pages 1770 and 1771.
I quote the page numbers which are at the bottom and on the right of the
German original. I read the declaration made by the Defendant Sauckel:
“The most abominable point against which I have to fight is the
claim that there is no organization in these districts properly
to recruit Frenchmen, Belgians, and Italians and to dispatch
them to work. So I have even proceeded to employ and train a
whole staff of French and Italian agents of both sexes who for
good pay, just as was done in olden times for ‘shanghaiing,’ go
hunting for men and dupe them, using liquor as well as
persuasion. . .”
The propaganda of the official services and that of the clandestine
recruiting offices proved to be inefficacious. The National Socialist
authorities then had to resort to methods of economic pressure. They
tried to give to the workers who were to go to Germany the hope of
material advantages. I cite in respect to this an ordinance of the
Military Commander in Belgium and the North of France, which I submit to
the Tribunal. It is an ordinance of 20 July 1942 which appeared in the
_Verordnungsblatt_ of Belgium. It exempts from tax Belgian workers who
work in German factories. I submit it to the Tribunal under Document
Number RF-31.
On the other hand, the occupation authorities sought to lower the living
standard of workers who remained in the occupied territories. I said
that they had made poverty a factor in their recruiting policy. I am
going to prove it by showing how they went about creating artificial
unemployment in the occupied zones and aggravating the material
situation of the unemployed.
I remark as a reminder that the German authorities also practiced for
this purpose a policy of freezing salaries. This measure aided the
recruiting campaign for labor for Germany and had also an economic
bearing, and I would like to refer the Tribunal to the explanations
which will be given on this point by M. Gerthoffer.
Unemployment was produced by two complementary measures: The first is
the regulating of the legal working hours; the second, the concentration
and, if need be, the closing of industrial enterprises.
From 1940 the local field commandants were concerned with increasing the
duration of work in their administrative zones. In France steps taken by
the local authorities brought about reactions. The problem became
general and was solved on a national scale. Long negotiations were
imposed on the representatives of the pseudo-government of Vichy.
Finally an ordinance of 22 April 1942, from the Military Command in
France, reserved for the occupation authorities the right of fixing the
duration of work in industrial enterprises. This ordinance appeared in
their _Verordnungsblatt Frankreich_, 1942. I submit it to the Tribunal
under Document Number RF-32 and I quote the first paragraph:
“Paragraph I: For establishments and enterprises of all kinds a
minimum of working hours may be imposed. This minimum of working
hours will be decreed for an entire economic region, for
specified economic branches, or for individual enterprises.”
In Belgium working hours were fixed by a decree and by an implementing
order of 6 October 1942, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of
Belgium. I submit this ordinance to the Tribunal under Document Number
RF-33.
The regulating of working hours did not release a sufficient number of
workers for the German factories; that is why the National Socialist
authorities used a second method. Under the pretext of rationalizing
production they brought about a concentration of industrial and
commercial enterprises, certain of which were closed at their
instigation. I cite in this relation the provisions which were made or
imposed by the Germans in France, in Belgium, and in Holland.
In France I would like to refer to two texts. The first is the ordinance
of the Vichy Government of 17 December 1941, published in the _Journal
Officiel de L’État Français_, which I submit to the Tribunal under
Document Number RF-34. The second text to which I wish to draw the
attention of the Tribunal is the ordinance of 25 February 1942, issued
by the Military Commandant in France. This ordinance appeared in the
_Verordnungsblatt des Militärbefehlshabers in Frankreich_. I shall read
it to the Tribunal because it seems particularly important, as the
principle for the compulsory closing of certain French enterprises is
laid down by a decree by the occupying power. I shall read the first and
second paragraphs of Document Number RF-35:
“Paragraph I: If the economic situation, especially as regards
the use of raw materials and industrial appliances, requires it,
establishments and economic enterprises may be partly or
completely closed.
“Paragraph II: The closing of these enterprises will be
announced by field headquarters by means of a written
notification addressed to the establishment or to the industrial
enterprise.”
In Belgium I refer to the ordinances of the Military Commandant, 30
March and 3 October 1942, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ in
Belgium. I submit to the Tribunal the ordinance of 30 March under
Document Number RF-36.
In Holland the regulating provisions of the occupying authorities were
more stringent than elsewhere. I present an ordinance of the Reich
Commissioner for the territory of occupied Holland, 15 March 1943. I
submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-37.
This ordinance presents a double interest. First, it offers precise
information which emphasizes the method with which the German services
executed their recruiting plan. It constitutes, on the other hand, the
first document I shall submit to the Tribunal accusing the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart. The policy of Sauckel was carried out in Holland with the
collaboration of Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart. The ordinances
regarding compulsory labor in Holland were all issued on the
responsibility of Seyss-Inquart, whether they bear his actual signature
or not. I ask the Tribunal to note this.
The increase of the legal working hours and the closing of industrial
enterprises deprived thousands of workers of their jobs. The defendants
did not hesitate to use material constraint to incite the unemployed to
work for Germany. They threatened the unemployed that they would do away
with their unemployment compensation. This threat was made on several
occasions by the local field commandants in occupied France. I find
proof in the protest made by the French authorities to the German
Armistice Commission. The French document is F-282, which I submit to
the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-38. I read the first page, third
paragraph of the letter:
“Moreover, the occupation authorities stipulate that the workers
who refuse the work offered to them will forfeit their right to
unemployment compensation and may be prosecuted by the war
tribunal for sabotage of Franco-German collaboration.”
Far from disavowing the initiative of their local authorities, the
Central Office for Labor gave them instructions to continue this policy.
The proof is furnished by the circular of Dr. Mansfeld, dated 29 January
1942, which I have just submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number
RF-26 (Document Number 1183-PS) in which instructions were given that
the stopping of unemployment compensation should be utilized as a means
of pressure on workers from foreign countries. The circular of Dr.
Mansfeld shows that the blackmail of the National Socialist leaders was
practiced not only in the granting of unemployment compensation, but
also in the issuing of ration cards.
Moreover, the defendants tried to force the inhabitants of the occupied
territories to leave for Germany by increasing their food difficulties.
The proof of this intention is given in the report of the session of 1
March 1944 of the Conference of the Four Year Plan. This document I
referred to a short time ago as Exhibit Number RF-30 (Document R-124).
This is a passage which has not yet been read, which the Tribunal will
please permit me to read. It is on Page 5 of the French translation,
Pages 1814 and 1815 of the German text. The page numbers are at the
bottom and on the right. I read on the top of Page 5 of the French text:
“Milch: ‘Wouldn’t the following method be better than . . . to
protect the “S” factories, German administration should take
over the feeding of the Italians and say to them, “No one shall
receive food unless he works in a protected factory (S-Betrieb)
or leaves for Germany?’”
“Sauckel: ‘It is true that the French workman in France is
better fed than the German workman in Germany. The Italian
workman, even if he does not work at all, is better fed in the
part of Italy which we occupy than if he worked in Germany.’”
I have shown the Tribunal the economic and social measures which the
National Socialist authorities took to force workers in the occupied
territories to accept labor contracts offered by the German authorities.
This indirect coercion was reinforced by direct pressure which was
simultaneously put on the local governments, the employers, and on the
workers themselves.
The National Socialist leaders knew that their recruiting policy could
be facilitated by the local authorities. That is why they tried to make
the pseudo-governments of the occupied territories guarantee or indorse
the fiction of voluntary enrollment. I submit to the Tribunal an example
of the pressure which the German services placed on the Vichy Government
to that purpose. They first arranged that the State Secretariat of Labor
should issue a circular to all prefects on 29 March 1941. The German
authorities were not satisfied with this circular. They were conscious
of the illegality of their recruiting methods and they wished to justify
them by an agreement with the _de facto_ government of France.
They required that this agreement be made known by public statement.
Negotiations were carried out for this purpose in 1941 and 1942. The
violence of the German pressure is substantiated by the letters
addressed by Dr. Michel, chief of the administrative staff, to the
Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations.
I refer especially to his letters of 3 March 1942 and 15 May 1942, which
constitute Exhibits Numbers RF-39 and 40 (Documents Numbers F-526 and
F-525). I read first to the Tribunal the letter of 15 May, which is
under Exhibit Number RF-39 (Document Number F-526):
“Paris, 15 May 1942.
“Subject: The Recruiting of French Labor for Germany.
“As the result of the conversations of 24 January 1942, and
after repeated appeals, the first draft of the declaration of
the French Government concerning recruiting was presented 27
February. On the German side it was accepted with slight
modifications and in written form on 3 March, on the condition
that at the time of its transmission to the organizational
committees, attention should be directed to the fact that the
French Government expressly approved of the acceptance of work
in Germany.
“On 19 March attention was drawn to the fact that a draft for a
memorandum to the organizational committees should be submitted,
whereupon the draft was submitted on 27 March. On 30 March a
proposal for modification was delivered to M. Terray, who was to
take it up with M. Bichelonne.”
I skip the two following paragraphs, and I will read the last paragraph:
“Although no reason appears for the unusual and incomprehensible
delay, the draft has not been presented up to now. As more than
2 months have passed since the first request for the submission
of the memorandum, it is requested that the new draft be
submitted by 19 May.
“For the Military Commandant; for Chief of the Administrative
Staff. Signed, Dr. Michel.”
The Tribunal undoubtedly has observed that Dr. Michel demanded not only
the circulation of a public declaration, but also insisted that the text
of this statement be officially transmitted to the organizational
committees. The pressure which occupation authorities put upon French
industrial enterprises to stimulate them to encourage the departure of
their workers to Germany was brought about, in fact, through the medium
of the organizational committees. The German offices for labor
collaborated directly with the organizational committees. They ordered
conferences in the course of which they dictated their will to the
leaders of these committees. They also insisted that the organizational
committees should be informed of all the measures which the French
authorities had to take.
The committees could then be associated with these measures in the
interests of German policy. The correspondence of Dr. Michel offers
numerous examples of the constant efforts of the German authorities to
act upon the organizational committees.
I have just offered an example of this to the Tribunal in the document
which I have read. I now offer another.
In 1941 the Germans demanded that the circulars, especially the
directive of 29 March 1941 addressed to the prefects regarding the
recruiting of laborers for Germany, should be officially transmitted to
the organizational committees. The occupation authorities obtained
satisfaction through a circular of 25 April, which I submit to the
Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-41 (Document Number F-521). But the
terms of this circular did not receive the approval of the German
authorities, and on 28 May 1941 Dr. Michel protested in violent terms to
the Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations. This protest
constitutes our Document F-522. I submit it to the Tribunal under
Exhibit Number RF-42, and read it:
“Paris, 28 May 1941.
“Subject: Recruiting of Workers for Germany.
“Reference: Your letter Number 192 of 29 April 1941.
“From your explanations I gather that even before my letter of
23 April was received a circular for the organizational
committees had been drafted and sent on 25 April.
“This circular, nevertheless, does not seem to me adequate to
support in an efficacious manner the recruiting of workers
carried out by Germany. That is why I consider that it is
necessary that, in a further directive, attention may be drawn
to the points which were particularly mentioned by me on 23
April and I request you to submit to me as soon as possible the
appropriate draft.
“On the German side an impressive contribution toward the
creating of a favorable atmosphere has been made by means of the
intended release of an additional large number of prisoners of
war, which was considered by you at the time of our conversation
of 24 March as a primary condition for the success of a
reinforced recruiting of workers for Germany. I am therefore
probably not wrong in expecting that you will send to the
economic organizations a communication so designed that the
attitude of expectation, maintained by French economy up until
now, will develop also in the field of the release of labor into
a constructive co-operation. I therefore expect that you will
submit to me your proposals with all possible speed.”
And, finally, the German services placed direct pressure upon the
workers themselves.
First, moral pressure. The _opération de la relève_ (prisoner exchange
plan) tried in France in the spring of 1942 is characteristic. The
occupation authorities promised to compensate for the sending of French
workers to Germany by liberating prisoners of war. The return of a
prisoner was to take place upon the departure of a worker. This promise
was fallacious, and reality was quite different.
I quote in this connection the report on compulsory labor and the
deportation of workers, which I submitted this morning to the Tribunal
under Exhibit Number RF-22 (Document Number F-515).
I quote Page 51, both in the French original and in the German
translation. In the French original it is the third paragraph of Page 51
and in the German translation the first paragraph:
“If the press, inspired by the occupying power, pretends in its
commentaries to applaud the replacement plan of one prisoner for
one worker, it is undoubtedly done to order and based on
calculation; and also it seems because until 20 June 1942, 2
days before the speech cited before”—it was a speech of the
chief of the _de facto_ government of France—“it was, indeed,
this proportion which the Germans Michel and Ritter had
pretended to accept in their reports to the French
administrative services.
“The proportion, in fact, of one to five, appears to have been a
last-minute surprise of which the press had never breathed a
word.”
The pressure of which foreign workers were the victims was also a
material pressure. I said that the fiction of voluntary enrollment could
not be maintained in view of the arrests. I wish to submit a document to
the Tribunal which furnishes a characteristic example of the German
mentality and of the methods utilized by the National Socialist
administrations. This is a document which in the French archives is
Number 527, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-43.
This is a letter from the delegate of the Reich Labor Minister in the
French department of Pas de Calais. This official enjoins a young French
workman to depart for Germany as a free worker under threat of
unfavorable consequences. This is in Exhibit Number RF-43 (Document
Number F-527), third page:
“Sir:
“The 26th of March last, in Marquise, I ordered you to go to
work in Germany in your profession. You were to leave with the
convoy of the 1st of April for Germany. You paid no attention to
this summons. I warn you that you must present yourself, with
your baggage, next Monday, 28 April, before 19 hours, at 51 Rue
de la Pomme d’Or in Calais. I call your attention to the fact
that you leave for Germany as a free worker, that you will work
there under the same conditions, and earn the same wages as the
German workers.
“In case you do not present yourself, I must tell you that
unfavorable consequences may very well follow.
“Delegate for the Labor Ministry of the
Reich”—signed—“Hanneran.”
The proof of the constraint which the German authorities exercised on
the workers of the occupied territories to bring about their allegedly
voluntary enrollment may be continued. The National Socialist
authorities did not merely impose labor contracts tainted with violence
on foreign workers, they themselves deliberately failed to honor these
contracts.
I find proof of this in the fact that they unilaterally prolonged the
duration of the contracts signed by foreign workers. This proof is based
on several documents. Some ordinances were issued by the Defendant
Göring in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan; others by the
Defendant Sauckel.
I now call the attention of the Tribunal to an order of Sauckel’s, dated
29 March 1943, which I submit to the Tribunal under Document Number
RF-44. It is an extract from _Verfügungen, Anordnungen,
Bekanntmachungen_, Volume 5, Page 203:
“Extension of work contracts, fixed for a period of time, of
foreign workers, who during the time of their contract have,
absented themselves from their work without proper excuse.
“The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor decrees:
“The regular carrying out of the clauses of a contract for a
fixed period of time concluded by a foreign worker necessitates
that the worker should devote all his energy to the enterprise
for the whole duration of the contract. Nevertheless, it happens
that foreign workers as a result of idleness, delays in their
return to work from visits to their homes,”—I draw the
Tribunal’s attention to the following words—“serving terms of
prison, internment in a camp of correction, or for other
reasons, remain absent from their work . . . without just cause,
for a longer or shorter period of time. In such cases foreign
workers cannot be authorized to return to their country when the
period of time has elapsed for which they agreed to work
voluntarily in Germany.
“Such procedure is not in keeping with the spirit of a work
contract for a fixed period of time, whose object is not only
the presence of the foreign worker, but also the work
accomplished by him.”
Kept by force in the German factories which they had entered under
compulsion, the foreign workers were neither voluntary workers nor free
workers. The exposé of the methods of German recruiting will suffice to
show the Tribunal the fictitious character of the voluntary enrollment
on which it was supposed to be based. The foreign workers who agreed to
work in the factories of the National Socialist war industry did not act
through free will. Their number, however, remained limited. The workers
of the occupied territories had the physical and moral courage to resist
German pressure. This is proved in an admission by the Defendant
Sauckel, which I take from the minutes of the meeting of 3 March 1944 of
the Conference of the Four Year Plan.
This is from an extract which has already been read by my American
colleague, Mr. Dodd, so I will not read it again to the Tribunal. I
merely wish to recall that the Defendant Sauckel admitted that out of 5
million foreign workers who came to Germany, there were not even 200,000
who came voluntarily. The resistance of the foreign workers surprised
the Defendant Sauckel as much as it irritated him. One day he expressed
his surprise to a German general who replied, “The difficulty comes from
the fact that you address yourself to patriots who do not share your
ideal.”
Indeed, only force could constrain the patriots of the occupied
territories to work in behalf of the enemy. The National Socialist
authorities resorted to force.
The Germans had, from the first, the possibility of imposing their
policy of force on that kind of labor whose particular status guaranteed
recruitment and apparent submission—the prisoners of war. From 1940 on,
the German military authorities organized labor task forces in prison
camps. They constantly increased the importance of these task forces,
which were put at the disposal of agricultural economy and the war
industry.
The importance of the work required from war prisoners is substantiated
by the report on forced labor and the deportation of workers, which I
have submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-22 (Document
Number F-515). We find on Page 68 of the French and German texts the
following estimates: There were, at the end of 1942, 1,036,319 French
prisoners of war in Germany; 987,687 had been assigned to the work
groups and only the surplus, that is 48,632 prisoners, remained
unemployed.
The utilization of prisoners of war in German factories does not
constitute a distinct phenomenon which can be dissociated from the
general plan for the recruiting of foreign workers; it is, on the
contrary, an integral part of this plan.
The National Socialists have always considered that the obligation to
work applied just as much to war prisoners as to the civilian workers of
the occupied territories. They have on many occasions expressed this
conviction. I refer especially to three documents.
The first is the decree of the appointment of the Defendant Sauckel,
which I submitted to the Tribunal at the beginning of my explanatory
remarks.
The second document to which I wish to draw the attention of the
Tribunal is the 10th decree of Sauckel, which I submitted some time ago
under Document Number RF-17. This decree formulates the principle of the
obligation to work and applies to war prisoners, according to the terms
of its Article 8.
Finally, Sauckel had, in another document, affirmed that the prisoners
of war were to be subject to work in the same manner as civilian
workers. This is found in the letter which he wrote to the Defendant
Rosenberg on 20 April 1942, some days after his appointment, to explain
his project to the latter. This is Document 016-PS, which my American
colleague, Mr. Dodd, has already submitted to the Tribunal. I present it
as Exhibit Number RF-45. I shall not read from it, but I point out that
on Page 20 of the German text the problem of compulsory labor is treated
in the general heading entitled, “Prisoners of war and foreign workers.”
These documents bring a double proof to the Tribunal. First of all, they
reveal the willingness of the National Socialists to force prisoners to
work in behalf of the German war economy within the general frame of
their recruiting policy. In the second place, these documents establish
that the utilization of prisoners of war was not undertaken only by
military authorities; this utilization was ordered and systematized by a
civilian organization—that of the Arbeitseinsatz. As well as the
responsibility of the Defendant Keitel, it entails also that of the
German leaders who conducted the labor policy: the Defendant Sauckel,
the Defendant Speer, and the Defendant Göring.
The Tribunal knows that international law regulates the conditions under
which prisoners of war may be forced to work. The Hague Convention
formulated rules which were closely defined by the Geneva Convention in
Articles 27, 31, and 32:
“Article 27: Belligerents may use as workers healthy war
prisoners, according to their rank and their capabilities, with
the exception of officers and corresponding ranks. Nevertheless,
if officers, or those of similar rank, ask for suitable work, it
will be supplied for them as far as possible. Noncommissioned
officers, who are war prisoners, can be required to work only as
supervisors, if they do not expressly request remunerative
occupation. . . .
“Article 31: The work furnished by the prisoners of war. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: We consider these documents as official and sufficiently
authentic.
M. HERZOG: These rules of international law determine positively the
legal powers of the nation having prisoners of war in its custody. It is
legitimate to force prisoners of war to work during their captivity, but
this includes three legal limitations:
1. It is forbidden to compel noncommissioned officers who are prisoners
to work, unless they have expressly requested to do so.
2. War prisoners must not be used for dangerous work.
3. Prisoners must not be associated with the enemy war effort.
The National Socialist authorities systematically neglected these
imperative provisions. They exercised violent constraint on
noncommissioned officers held in captivity, to force them to join labor
crews. They included war prisoners as workers in their factories and in
the workyards, without considering the nature of the work imposed upon
them. The utilization of war prisoners by National Socialist Germany
took place under illegal and criminal conditions. This I affirm and I
will prove it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors. From 1941, the Germans exercised
direct pressure on noncommissioned officers to force them to engage in
productive work for the Reich war economy. This pressure, after the
failure of propaganda methods, took the form of reprisals. Insubordinate
noncommissioned officers were subjected to ill-treatment; they were sent
to special camps, such as Coberczyn, where they were put under a
disciplinary regime. Some incurred penal sentences because of their
refusal to work. I submit, as proof, the report of the Ministry of
Prisoners, Deportees, and Refugees of the French Government, Document
UK-78(2), which is, in my document book, Exhibit Number RF-46. The
document is in a white file. I shall read from the bottom of Page 19 in
the French original, Page 10 of the German translation:
“Work of noncommissioned officers.
“On this subject the Geneva Convention was explicit:
Noncommissioned officers who are war prisoners can be subjected
to work only as supervisors, unless they make an express request
for a remunerative occupation.
“In conformity with this article a certain number of
noncommissioned officers refused to work from the beginning of
their captivity. The number of imprisoned noncommissioned
officers was, at the end of 1940, about 130,000 and represented
later a very important source of labor for the Reich. Therefore,
the German authorities strove by every means to induce the
greatest possible number of objectors to work. To this effect,
during the last months of 1941, the noncommissioned officers who
did not volunteer for the work were, in most camps, subjected to
an alternating regime. For a few days they had to undergo
punishments such as the reduction of food rations, doing without
beds, compulsory physical exercises for a number of hours, and
particularly the _pelote_ (punishment drill). During another
period they were promised work according to their liking, and
other material advantages, for example, special regulations for
insurance, an extra number of letters, and higher wages. These
methods led a certain number of noncommissioned officers to
accept work. The noncommissioned officers who persisted in their
refusal to work were subjected to a very severe disciplinary
regime and to arduous physical exercises.”
The National Socialist military authorities utilized the prisoners of
war for dangerous work. The French, British, Belgian, and Dutch
prisoners were used to transport munitions, to load bombs on planes, to
repair aviation camps, and to construct fortifications. The proof of the
use of prisoners of war for the transport of munitions and for the
loading of bombs on planes is furnished by the affidavits of repatriated
French prisoners of war. These affidavits have been assembled in the
report of the Ministry of Prisoners, which I have just quoted and which
I shall quote again.
I now quote Page 27 of the French document, Page 14 of the German
translation. It is the same document from which I have just quoted,
Exhibit Number RF-46, Page 27:
“(b) The requisition of prisoners for the construction of
fortifications and for the transport of munitions, very often in
the close vicinity of the firing line.
“The war prisoners, Kommando 274 of Stalag II B, complain,
December 1944, of being employed on Sundays in the construction
of antitank trenches.
“On 2 February 1945 the prisoners of Stalag II D, evacuated on
account of the advance of the Russian Army, worked, as soon as
they arrived at Sassnitz, at fortification works and antitank
works, in particular around the city.
“After falling back from Stalag III B, the war prisoners were
engaged until the end of April in earthworks, digging trenches,
and in transporting aviation bombs.
“Kommando 553 at Lebus was obliged to carry out work in the
front lines under the fire of Russian artillery. Numerous
comrades, drawn back to Fürstenwalde, were employed in loading
bombs on German bombers. In spite of their protests to the
International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and to the
colonel commanding Stalag III B, about billeting in barns, very
bad hygiene, and insufficient food, the latter answered that he
was obeying superior orders of the OKW, ordering the prisoners
to dig trenches.”
The National Socialist leaders, for that matter, admitted that they used
French and British prisoners of war for military work on airdromes
exposed to Allied bombardment.
I offer in proof two notes, the first addressed by the OKH to the War
Prisoners Section of the Wehrmacht, and the second by “Wilhelmstrasse”
to the German representative of the Reich Foreign Office at the
Wiesbaden Armistice Commission.
The memorandum of the OKH, dated 7 October 1940, constitutes Document
F-549; I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-47, and I
read it in full:
“The demand of the French Delegation shall be considered
unfounded. The lodging of war prisoners in camps situated in the
vicinity of aviation fields is not in contradiction to the rules
of the rights of nations.
“According to Article 9, Paragraph 4, of the Convention on the
Treatment of War Prisoners, of 27 July 1929, no prisoners of war
shall be exposed to the fire of the combat zone. Combat zone in
this sense is to be understood as the space in which normally a
battle between two armies is carried on, thus extending to a
depth of about 20 kilometers from the advance line. Places
exposed to possible aerial attacks, however, do not belong to
the combat zone. In this age of air warfare there no longer
exists any sure shelter. The fact of using war prisoners for the
construction of a camp and for the repairing of destroyed
runways does not seem to lend itself to any controversy.
“According to Article 31 of the Convention quoted above, war
prisoners must not be used in works directly related to war
activity. The construction of shelters, houses, and camps is not
directly a war act. It is recognized that war prisoners may be
employed in the construction of roads. Accordingly their
utilization for the reconstruction of aviation camps that have
been destroyed is permissible. On the roads, trucks, tanks,
ammunition cars, _et cetera_, are driven, and on the aviation
fields there are planes. It is all the same.
“On the other hand, it would be illegal to use war prisoners for
loading bombs, munitions, _et cetera_ on bombers. This would be
work directly related to war activity.
“By reason of the legal position explained above, the OKH has
rejected the idea of withdrawing French prisoners of war
employed on work in the aviation camps.”
I draw the attention of the Tribunal to this document. It emphasized the
bad faith of the leaders of National Socialist Germany, which was
two-fold: In the first place, the note of 7 October 1940, which I have
read, acknowledges that it is forbidden by international law to use
prisoners of war for the loading of bombs and ammunitions on bombers.
But I have just brought proof to the Tribunal that the French prisoners
of war were used for this purpose. In the second place, the note of the
OKH disputes the dangerous character of the work carried out on the
aviation fields.
But the note of “Wilhelmstrasse,” to which I shall now refer, and which
I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-48 (Document Number
F-550), recognizes, on the contrary, that prisoners forced to work on an
aviation field incur grave danger because of the military purpose of
this work.
I will read to the Tribunal a note of the German Foreign Office dated 14
February 1941, Exhibit Number RF-48 (Document Number F-550):
“Article 87 of the Agreement of 1929 on Prisoners of War
provides that, in case of difference of opinion on the subject
of the interpretation of the Agreement, the protecting powers
shall offer their services to settle the dispute. To accomplish
this, any protecting power may propose a meeting of
representatives of the belligerent powers. . . . France herself
assumes the responsibilities of a protecting power in questions
on prisoners of war.”
I shall pass on from this quotation to Paragraph 2 of the same document:
“As to the point in dispute, it is well to call attention to the
following:
“The French conception, according to which prisoners of war may
not be quartered near airfields and may not be employed in
repairing runways, cannot be based on the exact content of
Articles 9 and 31; but, on the other hand, it is certain that
French prisoners of war quartered and employed under these
conditions are in a particularly dangerous situation, because
the airfields in occupied territories are used exclusively for
German military purposes and thus constitute a special objective
for enemy air attacks.
“The American Embassy in Berlin has likewise made a protest
against a similar use of British prisoners of war in Germany. So
far no answer has been made, because a rejection of this protest
might result in German prisoners being employed in similar work
in England.”
The utilization of war prisoners for the construction of fortifications
is substantiated by Document 828-PS, which I file with the Tribunal
under Exhibit Number RF-49. It is a letter of 29 September 1944,
addressed by the Chief of the German 1st Army Corps to the OKW, to give
an account of work on fortifications accomplished by 80 Belgian
prisoners of war. I quote:
“According to the teletype referred to, it is reported that in
the territory of Stalag I A, Stablack Einsatzbereich 2-213,
Tilsit-Loten near Ragnit, there are 40 Belgian prisoners of war
and in Lindbach, near Neusiedel, 40 Belgian prisoners of war,
who are employed on fortification work.”
There remains the task of proving that Allied prisoners, forced to work
in Reich armament factories, were associated with the enemy war effort.
To this end I first offer Document 1206-PS. This document is a
memorandum, dated 11 November 1941, concerning a report made 7 November
1941 by the Reich Marshal. The document, consequently, establishes the
direct responsibility of the Defendant Göring. The use of Russian war
prisoners is treated in a general way in this document, but it deals
also with the use of war prisoners of Western European countries. I
submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-50, and I
read:
“Berlin, 11 November 1941.
“Notes on report made by the Reich Marshal at a meeting of 7
November 1941 in the Reich Ministry for Air.
“Subject: Employment of Russian labor in the war economy.”
THE PRESIDENT: Has that already been put in by the United States?
M. HERZOG: I think, Mr. President, that it was presented by the United
States Prosecution. I shall, therefore, simply quote an extract, the
fifth and sixth paragraphs of the first page, concerning the employment
of French and Belgian war prisoners on individual employment in the
economy of armament. This use of war prisoners in the Reich munitions
factories corresponded to a common plan. It is the result of a
systematic policy. The administrative offices for labor deliberately
assigned to armament factories all war prisoners who seemed capable of
carrying out skilled work. I quote, in this connection, Document
3005-PS, Exhibit RF-51. It is a circular addressed, in 1941, by the
Ministry of Labor to the heads of employment offices concerning the use
of French and Russian prisoners of war. This document has been submitted
and commented upon by my American colleague, Mr. Dodd. I shall,
therefore, not read it. I simply point out that this circular deals with
the employment of all French war prisoners in the armament factories of
the Reich.
After the capitulation of Italy, Italian soldiers who had fallen into
the hands of the Germans—they were not called prisoners of war, but
rather “military internees”—were forced to work. I offer in this
connection, a directive of the Defendant Bormann, of 28 September 1943,
Document 657-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number
RF-52.
The Italian military internees were in three categories; some asked to
continue the struggle on the side of the German army; others desired to
keep a neutral attitude; others turned their arms against their former
allies. The military internees of the second and third categories were,
in the terms of the circular, to be forced to work. I read:
“Circular Number 55/43 G.R.S., top secret. Concerning the
treatment and employment of Italian military internees.
“The OKW, in connection with the Plenipotentiary General for
Allocation of Labor, has regulated the treatment and the
employment of Italian military internees. The most important
directions of the ordinances of the OKW are the
following. . . .”
I shall skip the rest of the first page and proceed to Page 2 of the
French translation:
“The Italian internees who, when investigated, do not declare
themselves ready to continue the struggle under German command,
are put at the disposal of the Plenipotentiary General for
Allocation of Labor, who has already given the necessary
instructions for their employment to the heads of the regional
labor offices.
“It is to be noted that Italian military internees must not be
employed together with the British and American prisoners of
war. . . .”
The prisoners of war offered passive resistance to German force. The
National Socialist authorities intervened again and again to attempt to
increase their output. I refer to Document 233-PS, which I submit to the
Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-53. It is a directive of the OKW of 17
August 1944. The purpose is to indicate to the war prisoner bureaus
measures capable of increasing the production of the prisoners. I read
from the document:
“Subject: Treatment of War Prisoners—Increase in Production.
“The measures taken until now with regard to the treatment of
war prisoners and the increasing of their production have not
given the hoped-for results. The offices of the Party and those
of economy continually complain of the poor labor output of all
the war prisoners. The object of this circular is to make known
the directives for prisoners of war made in agreement with all
interested offices of the Party and State. Accordingly all guard
companies and their auxiliaries are to be given detailed
instructions.
“1. Collaboration with the Hoheitsträger of the NSDAP.
“The co-operation of all officers in charge of war prisoners
with the Hoheitsträger of the Party must be intensified to an
even greater extent. To this end the commanders of the
prisoners-of-war camps shall immediately detail, for all the
Kreise in their command, an energetic officer acquainted with
all questions concerning prisoners of war, to act as liaison
officer to the Kreisleiter. This officer shall have the duty of
settling in closest collaboration with the Kreisleiter,
according to the instructions of the camp commander, all
questions concerning prisoners of war which might be of public
interest.
“The aim of this collaboration must be: (a) To increase the
labor output of war prisoners; (b) to solve all arising
difficulties quickly and on the spot; (c) to organize the
employment of war prisoners in the Kreise in such a way that it
meets with the political, military, and economic requirements.
“The Chancellery of the Party will give the necessary orders to
the Gauleiter and the Kreisleiter.
“2. Treatment of prisoners of war. The treatment of prisoners of
war shall be dictated, within limits compatible with security,
by the sole purpose of increasing the labor output to the utmost
extent. In addition to just treatment, providing the prisoners
with the food due them according to stipulations, and with
proper billets, supervision of the labor output is necessary to
achieve this highest possible production.
“Available means must be employed with extreme rigor as regards
lazy and rebellious prisoners.”
The resistance of war prisoners caused the German labor bureaus to use a
subterfuge to force them to work. I refer to the operation called the
transformation of war prisoners into free workers. It consisted in
transforming prisoners of war into so-called free workers, to whom a
labor contract was offered. The operation was perfected by the Defendant
Sauckel in the course of one of his trips to Paris on 9 April 1943. To
Germany it offered the advantage of permitting the use of transformed
prisoners in armament factories without directly violating the Geneva
Convention. For the prisoners it presented only an illusory advantage,
the decrease of the surveillance to which they were subjected. In
reality the length and the nature of the work imposed upon them was in
no way changed; their housing conditions and the quality of their
rations remained unchanged. Moreover, this operation, presented by
German propaganda as a special measure to war prisoners, brought about a
deterioration of their legal status.
The prisoners of war were not fooled; in most cases they refused to
co-operate with this German maneuver. Some agreed to do it, but a number
of these took advantage of the first leave granted them because of their
change in status, and fled. The report of the Statistical Institute on
Forced Labor, which I submitted to the Tribunal this morning under
Exhibit Number RF-22, (Document Number F-515) gives in this connection
the following information. I quote it, Page 70 of the French text, Page
70 of the German translation. I shall read the second paragraph:
“The transformation of prisoners into ‘free’ workers, which was
realized or carried out as the second Sauckel act and which
because of this fact must be counted in the present list as
dating from 25 April 1943, was decided by him, Sauckel, in the
course of a trip to Paris on 9 April 1943. It was to afford,
after the prisoner had signed his contract, leave to go to
France which was dependent on the return of the men who had gone
on leave before. Two attempts were made to carry out this plan.
As of 24 April 1943, out of 1,000 on leave, 43 did not return.
In the month of August following, out of 8,000 on leave, 2,000
did not return. A last appeal directed to them was published in
the press of 17 August without result. There is no third
experiment, and the transformation in practice limited itself to
the removal of sentinels and of camp guards, but did not change
either the nature or the duration of the work or the housing
conditions or the rations. On the other hand, it entailed loss
of rights to receive packages from the International Red Cross
and loss of the diplomatic protection of prisoners of war.”
The forced utilization of war prisoners did not permit the German
authorities to solve the labor problem of the war economy. That is why
they applied their policy of force to the civilian populations of the
occupied territories.
The National Socialist authorities systemized their policy of force,
from 1942 on, by instituting compulsory labor in the different occupied
territories. From the end of 1941 it has been confirmed that neither the
recruiting of voluntary workers nor the utilization of prisoners led to
a solution of the problem of the labor required for the war economy. The
Germans then decided to proceed to the forced enrollment of civilian
workers. They decreed a veritable civilian mobilization, the execution
of which characterizes their criminal activity.
I refer to a circular of 29 January 1942, issued by Dr. Mansfeld on the
responsibility of the Defendant Göring. I remind the Tribunal that I
have submitted this Document Number 1183-PS already under Exhibit Number
RF-26. I read the passage from the document where I stopped this
morning, Page 2, last paragraph of the French translation, Page 2; last
paragraph also of the German original:
“In order to avoid effects detrimental to the armament industry,
all considerations must yield to the necessity of filling in
every case the gaps in the labor supply caused by extensive
drafting into the Wehrmacht. To this end the forced mobilization
of workers from the occupied territories must not be overlooked
if voluntary recruitment should not succeed. The mere
possibility of compulsory mobilization will, in many cases,
facilitate recruiting.
“Therefore I ask you to take immediate steps in your district to
promote the employment of workers in the German Reich on a
voluntary basis. I herewith request you to prepare for
publication, regulations to render possible forced mobilization
of labor in your territory for Germany, so that they may be
decreed at once in case recruiting on a voluntary basis remains
without the success necessary to relieve labor in the Reich.”
The appointment of the Defendant Sauckel may be considered as
preparatory measure for the establishment of compulsory labor. It was
necessary that a central authority be set up in order to co-ordinate the
activity of the different labor departments to proceed to the
mobilization of civilian workers. The terms explaining the motives of
the decree of appointment are explicit: The mission of the
Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor consists in satisfying the labor
needs of the German economy through the recruiting of foreign workers
and the utilization of war prisoners. The decree of Sauckel dated 22
August 1942, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under Document
Number RF-17, expresses, moreover, the will of the defendant to set
about recruiting by means of coercion.
The institution of compulsory labor represents deliberate violation of
international conventions. The deportation of workers is forbidden by
several stipulated regulations which have the value of actual law. I
shall quote, first of all, Article 52 of the Annex to the Fourth
Convention of the Hague. I have already given a commentary on it to the
Tribunal to demonstrate that the requisitioning of labor effected by the
occupation authorities was illegal. Much more, the institution of
compulsory labor was prohibited by Article 52. Compulsory labor was
imposed upon foreign workers in the interest of the German war economy.
It was carried out in armament factories of National Socialist Germany.
It deprived the occupied territories of labor necessary for the rational
exploitation of their wealth. It therefore is not within the framework
of that labor requisition which Article 52 of the Hague Convention
authorizes.
The prohibition of forced labor is, moreover, affirmed by another
international convention. It is a question of the Convention of 25
September 1926 on slavery, of which Germany is a signatory. This treaty
makes forced labor equivalent to slavery in its Article 5. I ask the
Tribunal to refer to it.
Deportation of workers is the subject of a formal prohibition. Forced
labor in German war factories was, therefore, instituted in flagrant
violation of international law and of all pledges subscribed to by
Germany. The National Socialist authorities transgressed positive
international law; they likewise violated the law of nations. The latter
guarantees individual liberty, on which the principle of forced
recruitment is a characteristic attack.
The violation of treaties and the contempt of the rights of individuals
are the tenets of National Socialist doctrine. Therefore, the defendants
proceeded not merely to the mobilization of foreign workers; they
proclaimed the necessity and the legitimacy of forced labor. I shall,
first of all, indicate to the Tribunal certain declarations made by the
defendants which amount to admissions. I shall thereupon indicate how
the occupation authorities introduced the service of compulsory work in
the different occupied territories. I shall demonstrate, finally, that
the Germans took measures of violent coercion in an attempt to assure
the execution of the civilian mobilization which had been decreed.
The legitimacy of forced enrollment has been upheld by Hitler. The proof
of this can be found in the report of the Führer conferences held on 10,
11, and 12 August 1942. It is contained in Document R-124 which I
presented this morning under Exhibit Number RF-30. I shall not read it
to the Tribunal, because my American colleague, Mr. Dodd, has done so
during his presentation on forced labor. I point out that the document
to which I refer indicates that the Führer was in agreement with the
exercise of all the necessary compulsion in the East as well as in the
West, if the question of recruiting foreign workers could not be
regulated on a voluntary basis.
The necessity of making use of compulsory labor was expressed in
identical terms by certain defendants.
I shall not stress the numerous statements of the Defendant Sauckel to
which I have already drawn the attention of the Tribunal. The
explanatory statement of his decree of 22 August 1942, the program
included in his letter of 24 April 1942, and the policy advocated in his
speech at Posen in February 1943, reproduce faithfully the determination
of the defendant to justify the principle of forced recruiting. I shall
not revert to this.
I present to the Tribunal the declaration of the Defendant Jodl. This
declaration is an extract from a long speech made by General Jodl, 7
November 1943 at Munich before an audience of Gauleiter. This speech is
Document L-172. I offer it in evidence to the Tribunal under Exhibit
Number RF-54. I shall read Page 2 of the French translation, Pages 38
and 39 of the German original:
“The dilemma of manpower shortage has led to the idea of making
more thorough use of the manpower reserves in the territories
occupied by us. Here right and wrong conceptions are mixed
together. I believe that as far as labor is concerned, the
utmost has been done, but where this is not yet the case, it
would appear preferable from the political point of view to
abstain from compulsory measures and instead to aim at order and
economic effort. In my opinion, however, the time has now come
to take steps with remorseless vigor and resolution in Denmark,
Holland, France, and Belgium to compel thousands of idle persons
to carry out fortification work, which takes precedence over all
other tasks. The necessary orders for this have already been
given.”
The German Labor Service had not waited for the appeal of General Jodl
to decree the mobilization of civilian foreign workers. I am going to
show the Tribunal how compulsory labor was instituted and organized in
France, Norway, Belgium, and Holland.
I should like to remind the Tribunal that in Denmark there was never any
legal regulation for forced labor and that forced labor was carried out
as a simple _de facto_ measure.
I also wish to remind the Tribunal that compulsory labor was introduced
in a special form in Luxembourg and in the French departments of Alsace
and Lorraine. The occupation authorities incorporated the citizens of
Luxembourg and the French citizens residing in the departments of
Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin, and Moselle, in the labor service of the Reich.
This incorporation was carried out by ordinances of Gauleiter Simon and
Gauleiter Wagner. The ordinances constitute an integral part of the
Germanization plan for territories of Luxembourg, Alsace, and Lorraine.
Their scope exceeds that of the measures of forced enrollment which were
taken in other occupied territories. That is why I refer the Tribunal,
on this point, to the explanation which will be given in the trial brief
of M. Edgar Faure.
Two German texts of a general nature serve as a foundation for the
legislation on forced labor in the occupied territories of Western
Europe.
The first is the decree of Sauckel of 22 August 1942, to which I have
drawn the attention of the Tribunal on several occasions. This decree
prescribes the mobilization of all civilian workers in the service of
the war economy. Article 2 prescribes that this decree is applicable to
occupied territories. This decree of 22 August 1942 thus constitutes the
legal charter of the civilian mobilization of foreign workers. This
mobilization was confirmed by an order of the Führer of 8 September
1942. It is Document 556(2)-PS, Exhibit Number RF-55, which I submit to
the Tribunal and from which I shall read:
“The Führer and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht; General
Headquarters of the Führer: 8 September 1942.
“The extensive coastal fortifications which I have ordered to be
erected in the area of Army Group West necessitate in the
occupied territory the utilization of all available workers to
the fullest extent and to their utmost capacity. The assignment
of indigenous workers, made up to now, is insufficient. In order
to increase it, I order the introduction of compulsory labor and
the prohibition of changing the place of employment without
permission of the authorities in the occupied territories.
“Furthermore, in future, the distribution of food and clothing
ration cards to those subject to compulsory labor shall depend
on the possession of a certificate of employment. Refusal to
accept an assigned job, as well as leaving the place of work
without the consent of the authorities in charge, will result in
the withdrawal of the food and clothing ration cards.
“The GBA”—that is, the office of the Defendant Sauckel—“in
agreement with the military commanders or the Reich
Commissioners, will issue the appropriate directives.”
The forced enrollment of foreign workers was preceded by preliminary
measures to which the order of 8 September 1942 refers—which I have
just read. I am speaking of the freezing of labor. To carry out the
mobilization of workers it was necessary for the public services to
exercise strict control over their use in the industrial enterprises of
occupied territories. This control had a double purpose: It was to
facilitate the census of workers suitable for work in Germany and to
prevent workers from avoiding the German requisition by alleging a real
or fictitious employment. The National Socialist authorities exercised
this control by restricting the liberty of hiring and discharging, which
they had given to the authorities of the labor bureaus.
In France, the freezing of labor was brought about by the law of 4
September 1942. I shall shortly explain to the Tribunal the conditions
under which this law was formulated. I shall, for the moment, simply
submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-56 and ask the
Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
In Belgium, the freezing of labor was carried out by the ordinance of
the military commanding officer of 6 October 1942. I submit Document
Number RF-57, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice.
Finally, in Holland, where compulsory labor was instituted as early as
1941, an ordinance of the Reich Commissioner, dated 28 February 1941,
which I offer to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-58, organized the
freezing of labor.
The immobilization of labor was brought about under an economic pretext
in all countries. In reality it constituted a preliminary measure for
the mobilization of workers, which the National Socialists immediately
proceeded to carry out.
In France compulsory labor was established by the legislation of the
pseudo-government of Vichy, but this legislation was imposed upon the
_de facto_ French authorities by the defendants, and especially by
Sauckel. The action which Sauckel brought against the Government of
Vichy, to force it to favor the deportation of workers into Germany, was
exercised in four phases: I shall briefly review for the Tribunal the
history of these four Sauckel actions.
The first Sauckel action was initiated in the spring of 1942, soon after
the appointment of the defendant as Plenipotentiary for Allocation of
Labor. The German armament industry had an urgent need of workers. The
service of the Arbeitseinsatz had decided to recruit 150,000 skilled
workers in France. Sauckel came to Paris in the month of June 1942. He
had several conversations with French ministers. Otto Abetz, German
ambassador in Paris, presided over these meetings. They brought about,
the following results:
In view of the reluctance of French authorities to establish compulsory
labor, it was decided that the recruiting of 150,000 skilled workers
should be carried out by a pseudo-voluntary enrollment. This was the
beginning of the so-called exchange operation, to which I have already
drawn the attention of the Tribunal.
But the Tribunal knows that the exchange operation was a failure and
that, despite an intensification of German propaganda, the number of
voluntary enrollments remained at a minimum. The German authorities then
put the Vichy Government under the necessity of proceeding to forced
enrollment. I offer in evidence the denunciatory letter of 26 August
1942, addressed by the German, Dr. Michel, Chief of the Administrative
Staff, to the Delegate General for Franco-German economic relations.
This is French Document F-530, which I shall submit to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number RF-59:
“Paris, 26 August 1942.
“Military Commander in France, economic section; to M. Barnaud,
Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations; Paris.
“President Laval promised Gauleiter Sauckel, Plenipotentiary
General for Allocation of Labor, to make every effort to send to
Germany, to help German armament economy, 350,000 workers, of
which 150,000 should be metal workers.
“The French Government intended at first to solve this problem
by recruitment, especially of the _affectés spéciaux_. This
method has been abandoned and that of voluntary enrollment has
been attempted with a view to the liberation of prisoners. The
past months have shown that the end in view cannot be achieved
by means of voluntary recruitment.
“In France, German armament orders have increased in volume and
urgency. Moreover, special tasks have been set, the
accomplishment of which depends upon the supply of a very
considerable number of workers.
“In order to assure the realization of the tasks for which
France is responsible in the sphere of the Arbeitseinsatz, the
French Government must now be asked to put into execution the
following measures:
“1) The publication of a decree, concerning change of place of
work. By virtue of this decree, leaving the place of employment
and engaging labor depends on the approval of certain specified
authorities.
“2) The institution of compulsory registration of all persons
out of work, as well as of those who do not work full-time or
are not permanently employed. This compulsory registration is to
ensure the fullest recruitment possible of all the reserves
still available.
“3) The publication of a decree for the mobilization of workers
for tasks important to the policy of state. This decree is to
ensure: (a) The necessary labor for Germany; (b) the workers
necessary in France for the carrying out of orders which have
been transferred there and the workers needed for special tasks.
“4) Publication of a decree ensuring an adequate supply of
apprentices. This decree is to impose upon French enterprise the
duty of turning out, by means of apprenticeship and systematic
training, young workers possessing adequate qualifications.
“For the Military Commander, the Chief of the Administrative
Staff.”—signed—“Dr. Michel.”
Dr. Michel’s letter forms the basis for the law relative to the
utilization and the allocation of labor. It is the law of 4 September
1942, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number
RF-56.
In application of the law, all Frenchmen between 18 and 50 who did not
have employment for more than 30 hours a week, were forced to state this
at their local town hall. A decree of 19 September 1942 and a directive
of 22 September provided regulations as to how this declaration had to
be made.
Sauckel’s first action was achieved through a legislative plan; the
defendant had merely to dip into the labor resources which were
established by it. But the resistance of the French workers caused his
recruiting plan to fail. This is why Sauckel undertook his second
action, beginning in January 1943.
The second Sauckel action is marked by the introduction of compulsory
labor, properly speaking. Until then workers had been the only victims
of the policy of force of the defendants. The latter understood the
demagogic argument which they could derive from this _de facto_
situation. They explained that it was inadmissible that the working
classes of the occupied territory should be the only ones to participate
in the German war effort. They demanded that the basis of forced labor
be enlarged by the introduction of compulsory labor.
This was established by two measures. A directive of 2 February 1943
prescribed a general census of all French males born between 1 January
1912 and 1 January 1921. The census took place between 15 and 23
February. It had just been put in force when the law and decree of 16
February 1943 appeared. These regulations introduced compulsory labor
for all young men born between 1 January 1920 and 31 December 1922. I
submit them to the Tribunal under Documents Numbers RF-60 and 61, of
which I ask the Court to take judicial notice.
The action carried out by the defendants to impose this exceptional
legislation is substantiated by numerous documents. I particularly draw
the attention of the Tribunal to four of these, which permit us to
retrace the activities of the Defendant Sauckel during the months of
January and February 1943. On 5 January 1943 Sauckel transmitted to the
different departments of his administration an order of the Führer,
which the Defendant Speer had communicated to him. This is Document
556(13)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-62. I
shall read its first paragraph:
“On 4 January 1943, at 8 o’clock in the evening, Minister Speer
telephoned from the general headquarters of the Führer giving
the information that, by virtue of a decision of the Führer, it
was no longer necessary, when recruiting skilled and unskilled
labor in France, to have any particular regard for the French.
Recruitment could be carried on there with pressure and more
severe measures.”
On 11 January 1943 the Defendant Sauckel was in Paris. He attended a
meeting which brought together at the Military Commander’s all
responsible officials of the labor service. He announced to them that
new measures of compulsion were to be taken in France. I refer you to
the minutes of the meeting which constitute Document 1342-PS, which I
submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-63. I shall read from
Page 2 of the French translation; Page 1, fourth line, of the second
paragraph of the German original:
“Gauleiter Sauckel likewise thanks the various services for the
successful carrying out of the first action. Immediately after
the beginning of the new year, he is obliged to announce further
severe measures. There is a great new need of labor for the
front as well as for the Reich armament industry.”
I skip to the end of the paragraph. I shall read from the next
paragraph:
“The situation at the front calls for 700,000 soldiers fit for
front-line service. The armament industry would have to lose
200,000 key workers by the middle of March. I have received an
order from the Führer to find 200,000 foreign skilled workers as
replacements and I shall need for this purpose 150,000 French
skilled workmen, while the other 50,000 can be drawn from
Holland, Belgium, and other occupied countries. In addition,
100,000 unskilled French workers are necessary for the Reich.
The second action of recruitment in France makes it necessary
that by the middle of March 150,000 skilled workers and 100,000
unskilled workmen and women be transferred to Germany.”
The Defendant Sauckel went back to Germany a few days later. On 16
February he was in Berlin at the meeting of the Central Planning Board.
He gave a commentary on the law which was to appear that very day and
revealed that he was the instigator of it. I refer once more to the
minutes of the conferences of the Four Year Plan, included under
Document Number R-124, which I submitted this morning to the Tribunal
under Exhibit Number RF-30. I shall read an extract from this document,
which my American colleagues have not mentioned. It is Page 7 of the
French translation of the document, Page 2284 of the German original;
this is the situation in France:
“My collaborators and I having succeeded, after difficult
discussions, in persuading Laval to introduce the law of
compulsory labor in France, this law has now been so
successfully extended, thanks to our pressure, that by yesterday
three French age-groups had already been called up. So we are
now legally qualified to recruit in France, with the assistance
of the French Government, workers of three age-groups whom we
shall be able to employ henceforth in French factories, but
among whom we shall also be able to choose some for our own
needs in the Reich and send them to Germany.”
The Defendant Sauckel returned to France on 24 February. I offer in
evidence to the Tribunal the letter which he addressed to Hitler before
his departure, to inform him of his journey. It proves the continuity of
the action of Sauckel. The letter constitutes Document 556(25)-PS, which
I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-64, and I shall read
it:
“Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, to the Führer;
general headquarters of the Führer.
“My Führer:
“I beg herewith to take leave of you before my intended journey
to France. The purpose of my journey is:
“1) To put at the disposal of the Reich, within the given time,
skilled labor to replace German key workers being drafted into
the Wehrmacht. May I add that Field Marshal Keitel and General
Von Unruh received a communication from me yesterday to the
effect that half of these replacements for key men, that is
125,000 French qualified skilled men, have already arrived in
the Reich on 1 January 1943 and that a corresponding number of
soldiers can be called to the colors. I shall now make sure in
France that the second half shall arrive in the Reich by the end
of March, or earlier if possible. The first French program was
executed by the end of December.
“2) To assure the necessary labor for the French dockyards for
the carrying out of the programs drawn up by Grand Admiral
Dönitz and Gauleiter Kaufmann.
“3) To assure the necessary labor for the programs of the
Luftwaffe.
“4) To assure the necessary labor for the other German armament
programs which are in progress in France.
“5) To make available supplementary labor in agreement with
State Secretary Backe, with a view to intensifying French
agricultural production.
“6) To have discussions, if necessary, with the French
Government on the subject of the carrying out of the labor
service, the calling up of age-groups, and so forth, with a view
to activating the recruitment of labor for the benefit of the
German war economy.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a good time to break off.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]
THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY
Saturday, 19 January 1946
_Morning Session_
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors, at the end of yesterday’s session
I was expounding to the Tribunal the conditions under which the
compulsory labor service was progressively imposed in France. I reached
the second action of the Defendant Sauckel as set out in the laws and
decrees of 16 February 1943. Sauckel’s second action accelerated the
enforced enrollment of Frenchmen during the months of February and March
1943. Several tens of thousands of young men of the 1940 and 1942
classes were deported to Germany by the application of the law of 16
February. The tempo of these deportations slowed down in the month of
April, but the Arbeitseinsatz immediately formulated new requirements.
On 9 April 1943 the Defendant Sauckel asked the French authorities to
furnish him with 120,000 workers during the month of May and 100,000
during the month of June. In June he made it known that he wished to
effect the transfer of 500,000 workers up to 31 December.
Sauckel’s third action was about to begin. It was to be marked, on 3
June 1943, by the total mobilization of the 1942 class. All exemptions
provided by the law of 16 February and subsequent texts were withdrawn,
and the young men of the 1942 class were tracked down throughout France.
In reality, Sauckel’s third action was especially manifested by a
violent pressure on the part of the defendant, tending towards a mass
deportation by forced recruiting. I offer in evidence three documents
which testify to the action taken by Sauckel in the summer of 1943.
The first document is a letter from Sauckel to Hitler, dated 27 June
1943. Drafted by the defendant upon his return from a trip to France, it
contains an outlined plan for the recruiting of French workers for the
second half of 1943. Its object was, on the one hand, to secure 1
million workers to be assigned in France to French armament factories
and, on the other hand, 500,000 French workers to be deported to
Germany. This letter constitutes Document 556(39)-PS, which I submit to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-65. I quote:
“Weimar, 27 June 1943.
“My Führer:
“Herewith I beg to report my return from my official trip to
France.
“Inasmuch as the free labor reserves in the territories occupied
by the German Armed Forces have been, numerically, absorbed to
saturation point, I am now carefully examining the possibilities
of mobilizing additional labor reserves in the Reich and the
occupied territories to work on German war production.
“In my reports of 20 April I was allowed to point out that
intensive and careful utilization must be made of European labor
forces in territories submitted to direct German influence.
“It was the purpose of my recent stay in Paris to investigate
the possibilities still existing in France for the recruitment
of labor by extensive conferences and my own personal
inspection. On the basis of a carefully established balance
sheet I have come to the following decision:
“1. Assuming that war economy measures are carried out in France
which would at least prove partially effective or approximately
approach, in efficacy, the measures carried out in Germany, a
further million workers, both men and women, could be assigned
to the French war and armament industries up to December 1943
for work on German orders and assignments. In this case
additional German orders might be placed in France.
“2. In consideration of these measures and given a careful study
of the subject together with the co-operation of our German
armament services and the German labor recruiting offices, it
should be possible to transfer a further 500,000 workers, both
men and women, from France to the Reich between now and the end
of the year.
“The prerequisites for the realization of this program, drafted
by me are as follows:
“1. Closest collaboration between all German offices especially
in dealing with the French services.
“2. A constant check on French economy by joint commissions, as
already agreed upon by the Reich Minister of Armaments and War
Production Party Member Speer, and myself.
“3. Constant, skillful, and successful propaganda against the
cliques of De Gaulle and Giraud.
“4. The guarantee of adequate food supplies to the French
population working for Germany.
“5. An emphatic insistence on this urgency before the French
Government, in particular before Marshal Pétain, who still
represents the main obstacle to the further recruiting of French
women for compulsory labor.
“6. A pronounced increase in the program which I have already
introduced in France, for retraining workers to trades essential
to war production.”
I skip the next and read the last paragraph:
“I therefore beg you, my Führer, to approve my suggestion of
making available 1 million French men and women for German war
production in France proper in the second half of 1943 and, in
addition, of transferring 500,000 French men and women to the
Reich before the end of the current year.
“Yours faithfully and obediently,”—Signed—“Fritz Sauckel.”
The document to which I would now like to call the Tribunal’s attention
proves that the Führer gave his approval to Sauckel’s program. A note
drawn up on 28 July 1943 by Dr. Stothfang, under the letterhead of the
Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor (Arbeitseinsatz), gives
a report on a discussion between Sauckel and the Führer. It is Document
556(41)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-66. I
shall limit myself to reading the last paragraph:
“d) The transfer envisaged for the end of the year of 1 million
French workers to the war industries in France, and the intended
transportation of 500,000 other French workers to the interior
of the Reich has been approved by the Führer.”
Finally a document establishes that the Defendant Sauckel, on the
strength of Hitler’s approval, attempted to realize his program by
working on the French authorities. This document is a letter from
Sauckel to Hitler. It is dated 13 August 1943, upon the defendant’s
return from a trip to France, Belgium, and Holland. It is Document
556(43)-PS. I shall read it to the Tribunal. It is Exhibit Number RF-67:
“Weimar, 13 August 1943.
“My Führer:
“I beg to report my return from my official trip to France,
Belgium and Holland. In tough, difficult, and tedious
negotiations I have imposed upon the occupied Western
territories, for the last 5 months of 1943, the program set
forth below and have prepared very detailed measures for
realizing it: In France—with the military commander, the German
Embassy, and the French Government; in Belgium—with the
military commander; and in Holland with the offices of the Reich
Commissioner.
“The program provides:
“1. In France the transfer of 1 million French workers, both men
and women, from the civilian to the German war industries in
France. This measure will enable further considerable placing of
German orders in France.
“2. Soliciting and recruiting of 500,000 French workers for work
in Germany. This figure should not be made known publicly.
“3. In order to stalemate any passive resistance from large
groups of French officials, I have ordered, in agreement with
the military commander in France, the introduction of labor
recruiting commissions for each two French departments and
placed them under the supervision and direction of the German
Gau offices. Only in this manner can the complete recruitment of
the French labor potential and its intensive utilization be made
possible. The French Government has given its approval.”
If the Tribunal will allow me, I shall quote the rest of this letter;
the following paragraphs concern Belgium and Holland. It will allow me
to refer to this document later without reading it again:
“4. A program was secured in Belgium for the employment of
150,000 workers in the Reich and, with the approval of the
military commander in Belgium, an organization for compulsory
labor corresponding to that in France was decided upon.”
I skip and proceed to the fifth paragraph:
“5. A program has likewise been prepared for Holland, providing
for the transfer of 150,000 workers to Germany and of 100,000
workers, men and women, from Dutch civilian industries to German
war production.”
Such was Sauckel’s program in 1943. His plan was partly thwarted by the
resistance of officials and patriotic workers. Proof of this is
furnished by an admission of the defendant. I am referring to the report
on a conference of the central office for the Four Year Plan held on 1
March 1944. I submitted this document to the Tribunal yesterday as
Exhibit Number RF-30 (Document R-124). I shall read from the first page
of the French translation, second paragraph, German text, Page 1768:
“Last autumn, as far as foreign manpower is concerned, the labor
recruiting program has been severely battered. I do not wish to
elaborate on the reasons here. They have been discussed at
length; all I have to say is: The program has been wrecked.”
Sauckel, however, was not discouraged by the difficulties encountered in
1943. In 1944 he attempted to realize a new program by the trick of his
fourth action.
The National Socialist authorities decided to secure, in 1944, the
transfer of 4 million foreign workers to Germany. This decision was made
on 4 January 1944 during a conference at the headquarters of the Führer
and in his presence. The report on this conference constitutes Document
1292-PS. I submit it herewith to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-68,
and I read from Page 3 of the French translation, Page 6 of the German
original, last paragraph:
“Final results of the conference:
“1. The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor shall
procure at least 4 million new workers from the occupied
territories.”
The details concerning the contingents demanded from each occupied
territory must have been determined on 16 February 1944, during a
conference of the central office for the Four Year Plan. I submitted the
report of this session at the outset of my explanations, under Exhibit
Number RF-20. I am quoting the conclusions today. They will be found in
Document Number F-675, first page of the translation, third page of the
German original.
“Results of the 53rd session of the Central Planning Board.
Labor recruiting in 1944.
“1. About 500,000 new workers might be mobilized from German
home reserves by extraordinary efforts. . . .”
I skip the rest.
“2. Recruiting of Italian labor to the number of 1,500,000; of
these—1 million at the rate of 250,000 per month from January
to April and 500,000 from May to December;
“3. Recruiting of 1 million French workers at equal monthly
rates from 1 February to 31 December 1944 (approximately 91,000
per month);
“4. Recruiting of 250,000 workers from Belgium;
“5. Recruiting of 250,000 workers from the Netherlands.”
I abstain from quoting since the other paragraphs concern the Eastern
European countries.
The Tribunal has seen that France was called upon to furnish a large
contingent of workers. After the 15th of January, Sauckel went to Paris
to dictate his demands to the French authorities.
The fourth Sauckel action consisted of two distinct measures: The
adoption of the procedure known as the combing of industries, and the
publication of the law of 1 February 1944, which widened the sphere of
application of compulsory labor. The system of combing the industries
led the labor administration to carry out direct recruiting in the
industrial enterprises. Mixed Franco-German commissions were set up in
each country. They determined the percentage of workers to be deported.
They proceeded to requisition and transfer them.
The practice of combing the industries represents the realization of the
projects elaborated by Defendant Sauckel as early as 1943. In the
documents which I have read to the Tribunal Sauckel announced, in fact,
his intention of creating mixed labor commissions.
The law of 1 February 1944 marked the culminating point of Sauckel’s
actions in the field of legislation. It extends the scope of application
of the law of 4 September 1942. As from February 1944 all men between
the ages of 16 and 60 and all women between the ages of 18 and 45 were
subject to compulsory labor. I submit to the Tribunal the law of 1
February 1944 under Exhibit Number RF-69 (Document RF-69) with the
request judicial notice be taken of it.
The proof of the pressure that Sauckel exerted on the French authorities
in order to impose on them the publication of this law is furnished by a
report of the defendant to Hitler. This report is dated 25 January 1944.
It was, therefore, drafted during the negotiations which characterized
the fourth Sauckel action. It constitutes Document 556(55)-PS, which I
submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-70. I shall read this
document:
“My Führer:
“On the 22d of January 1944 the French Government, together with
Marshal Pétain, accepted to a large degree my demands for
increasing the working week from 40 to 48 hours as well as for
extending the compulsory labor law in France and utilizing
French manpower in Germany.
“The Marshal did not agree to the compulsory labor for French
women in the Reich; but he did agree to compulsory labor for
women inside France, limited to women between the ages of 26 and
45. Women between 15 and 25 are to be employed only at their
place of residence.
“Since this, nevertheless, represents appreciable progress in
comparison with the extremely difficult negotiations which I had
to conduct in Paris, I approved this law in order to save
further loss of time, on condition that the German demands were
energetically met and carried out.
“The French Government has likewise accepted my demand that
French officials sabotaging the enforcement of the compulsory
labor law should be punished by severe penalties including the
death penalty. I have left no doubt that further and more rigid
measures will be adopted if the demands for the manpower
required are not fulfilled.
“Your ever obedient and faithful, Fritz Sauckel.”
I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the problem of compulsory labor
of women referred to in the two preceding documents. For a long time the
French authorities categorically opposed the introduction of female
labor. In return the Defendant Sauckel did not cease to exercise violent
pressure.
On the 27th of June 1943, in a letter to Hitler, he suggested that an
energetic statement of German needs be made before the French
Government. I have already quoted this letter to the Tribunal, Exhibit
Number RF-65 (Document 556(39)-PS). I shall not revert to it, but I
emphasize the fact that the law of 1 February did not satisfy Sauckel
and did not in the least appease his demands at all. His dissatisfaction
and his determination to pursue his policy of compulsion become apparent
from a report of 26 April 1944, bearing his signature; that the report
has been forwarded is certified by Berk, one of his assistants.
There actually were four reports submitted jointly under Document Number
1289-PS, Exhibit Number RF-71, and I quote from the second page:
“1) France. The problem of women.
“At the time of the promulgation of the French compulsory labor
law, the French authorities (Marshal Pétain in particular) have
urgently desired that women be exempted from performing
compulsory labor in Germany. In spite of serious objections the
G.B.A. approved of this exemption. The reservation was made,
however, that the approval was given on condition that the
contingents imposed were met; or else the G.B.A. would reserve
himself the right of taking further measures. Inasmuch as the
contingents are far from being met, the demand for extending the
compulsory labor service to women must also be addressed to the
French Government.”
The fourth Sauckel action, therefore, was led in such a manner as to
utilize all of France’s manpower. The French resistance and the
development of the military operations hindered the execution of the
Sauckel plan. The defendant, in the meantime, had contemplated
extraordinary measures to be taken on the day the allied armies were to
land. I quote again Document 1289-PS, Exhibit Number RF-71; and I read
on Page 3:
“Measures concerning compulsory labor in the case of invasion:
“To some extent precautions already have been taken to evacuate
the population of those areas invaded and to protect valuable
manpower from being seized by our enemies. In view of the actual
situation of labor utilization in Germany, it is necessary to
induct efficient workers to the greatest extent possible into
efficacious employment within the Reich. Orders to this effect
on the part of the Wehrmacht are indispensable for carrying out
these measures.
“The following text might be proposed for an order by the
Führer. . . .”
I shall not read the text of the order proposed by Sauckel.
The Allied victory, however, came so quickly that Sauckel did not have
the chance to realize fully his plan of mass deportation. All the same,
he started to carry it out, and deportations of workers went on up to
the day of liberation of the territory. Several hundred thousand French
workers were finally stationed in Germany as a result of the various
Sauckel actions. Will the Tribunal please bear this in mind.
The compulsory labor service was introduced in Norway in the same manner
as in France. The defendants imposed upon the Norwegian authorities the
publication of a law instituting the compulsory registration of
Norwegian citizens, and prescribing their enrollment by force. I quote
in this respect the preliminary report on the crimes of Germany against
Norway, a report prepared by the Norwegian Government and submitted to
the Tribunal as Document Number UK-79. I now submit it as Exhibit Number
RF-72, and I quote from the first page, third paragraph:
“The result of Sauckel’s order as to Norway was that on 3
February 1943, a Quisling ‘law’ relating to compulsory
registration of Norwegian men and women for so-called ‘national
labor effort’ was promulgated. Terboven and Quisling openly
admitted that the law was promulgated in order that the
Norwegian people should use their manpower for the benefit of
the German war effort. In a speech on 2 February Terboven
stated, among other things, that he himself and the German Reich
stood behind this law; and he threatened to use force against
anyone who tried to prevent its execution.”
In Belgium and in the Netherlands the German authorities used a direct
procedure. The compulsory labor service was organized by ordinances of
the occupying power.
In Belgium these were ordinances of the military commander and in the
Netherlands ordinances of the Reich Commissioner. I remind the Tribunal
of the fact that the authority of the military commander in Belgium
extended to the north of France.
An ordinance of 6 March 1942 established the principle of compulsory
labor in Belgium. It was published in the Belgian _Verordnungsblatt_ of
1942, Page 845. I submit it to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-73,
and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. The ordinance of 6
March excluded the possibility of forced deportation of workers to
Germany. However, such deportation was ordered by a decree of 6 October
1942, which was published in the Belgian _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1942,
Page 1060. I submitted it to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-57 in
the course of my explanations.
These carryings-on in Belgium gave rise to interventions and protests by
leading Belgian personalities, among others the King of Belgium and
Cardinal Van Roay.
The ordinances instituting compulsory labor in Belgium and the north of
France bore the signature of General Von Falkenhausen, but the latter
proclaimed his ordinance of 6 October on the order of Sauckel. I refer
once more to the testimony of General Von Falkenhausen, which I have
submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-15. I ask your
permission to quote the following passages, first page, fifth paragraph:
“Q: ‘On 6 October 1942 a decree was published which instituted
compulsory labor in Belgium and in the departments of northern
France for men between the ages of 18 and 50 years and for
single women from 21 to 25 years.’
“A: ‘I was Commander-in-Chief for northern France and Belgium.’
“Q: ‘Does the witness recall having promulgated this decree?’
“A: ‘I do not remember exactly the text of this decree because
it was issued following long arguments with the labor deputy
Sauckel.’
“Q: ‘Did you have any trouble with Sauckel?’
“A: ‘I was fundamentally opposed to the establishment of
compulsory labor, and consented to promulgating the decree only
after receiving orders.’
“Q: ‘Then this decree was not issued on the initiative of Von
Falkenhausen himself?’
“A: ‘On the contrary.’
“Q: ‘Who gave instruction in this matter?’
“A: ‘I suppose that at that time Sauckel was already responsible
for manpower and that at that time he gave me all instructions
on Hitler’s orders.’”
I skip and take up the quotation again on Page 3 of the French
translation, fourth paragraph:
“Q: ‘Since you were opposed to the idea of compulsory labor,
didn’t you protest when you received these instructions?’
“A: ‘There were unending quarrels between Sauckel and myself. In
the end this contributed greatly to my resignation.’”
The violence of the pressure exerted by the Defendant Sauckel in Belgium
in order to impose his plan of recruitment by force is also demonstrated
by the document which I have just submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number RF-67 (Document Number 556(43)-PS). The Tribunal will remember
that it is the report addressed on 13 August 1943 by Sauckel to Hitler
on his return from France, Belgium, and Holland.
Finally, I have to deal with the introduction of compulsory labor in the
Netherlands. I request the Tribunal to charge the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart as well as the Defendant Sauckel with the institution of
compulsory enrollment in the occupied Dutch territories.
As a matter of fact, the deportation of the Dutch workers was organized
by ordinances of the Reich Commissioner. They established all the more
the responsibility of the defendant, who in his quality as Reich
Commissioner, derived his powers directly from the Führer.
The Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the compulsory labor service in
the Netherlands by an ordinance of 28 February 1941, published in the
Dutch _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1941, Number 42. I have referred to this
ordinance as Document Number RF-58 in the course of my explanation and
asked the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
As in Belgium the compulsory labor service could originally be enforced
in the interior of the occupied territories only; but just as in
Belgium, it was soon extended in order to permit the deportation of
workers to Germany. The extension was put into realization by an
ordinance of Seyss-Inquart of 23 March 1942, which appeared in Number 26
of the _Verordnungsblatt_, 1942. I submit it to the Tribunal as Document
Number RF-74, and I ask the Tribunal to add it to the Record.
The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has thus paved the way on which the
Defendant Sauckel was to be enabled to proceed to action. Sauckel
actually utilized all the human potential of the Netherlands. New
measures were soon necessary—measures which Seyss-Inquart adopted.
An ordinance dated 6 May 1943, _Verordnungsblatt_, 1943, Page 173,
ordered the mobilization of all men from 18 to 35 years of age. I submit
this decree to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-75.
Moreover, as soon as 19 February 1943 Seyss-Inquart had issued a
regulation which permitted his services to take all measures in the
utilization of labor which they considered to be opportune.
This ordinance, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1943, is
submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-76.
The extent of deportation from Holland in 1943 is attested to by a
letter of 16 June 1943 from Sauckel’s representative in the Netherlands.
This letter, which bears French Document Number F-664, is submitted to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-77. I quote:
“In conformity with the census decree of 7 May 1943, the 1920 to
1924 classes have been registered on filing cards. Although this
involved very much work it was nevertheless possible to send
22,986 workers to the Reich, and in addition the prisoners of
war put at our disposal. During the month of June the deficiency
of the month of May will be made up.
“These classes include, according to the Statistical Service of
the Kingdom of Holland, 80,000 each. It is from these classes
that transfers to the Reich have been made so far. Up to 1 June
1943, 446,493 persons have been transferred to the Reich and a
number of them have returned from there. The figures as per
index are as follows: 1921 class, 43,331; 1922 class, 45,354;
1923 class, 47,593; 1924 class, 45,232.
“As up to 80 percent have been deferred, it is now imperative to
begin transporting entire classes to the Reich. The Reich
Commissioner has given his agreement to this action. The other
authorities involved—of economy, armament, agriculture, and the
Armed Forces—pressed by necessity, have given their approval.”
At the end of the year 1944, the German authorities increased their
pressure on the Netherlands. During that period tens of thousands of
persons were arrested within 2 days in Rotterdam. Systematic raids took
place in all the larger cities of Holland, sometimes improvised,
sometimes after the population had been publicly summoned to appear in
designated places. I submit to the Tribunal various proclamations of
this kind. They form Document 1162-PS and have already been submitted to
the Tribunal by Mr. Dodd. I shall not read them again. I use them in
support of my argument and submit them as Exhibit Number RF-78.
These documents do not reveal isolated facts; they show a systematic
policy which the defendants were to pursue up to 5 May 1945, when the
capitulation of Germany brought liberation to the Netherlands.
I still owe the Tribunal a supplementary explanation. The defendants did
not stop at introducing compulsory labor service in the occupied
territories. I have said that they proceeded to criminal coercion in
order to ensure that the mobilization of foreign workers was carried
out. I am going to prove this fact.
The measures taken by the National Socialist authorities to guarantee
the forced enlistment of foreign workers cannot be disassociated from
the procedures they applied to ensure the so-called voluntary
enlistment. The pressure was more violent, but it sprang from the same
spirit. The method was to deceive, and where this proved unsuccessful to
use coercion. The defendants very soon realized that no kind of
propaganda would lend the cloak of justice to compulsory labor in the
eyes of their victims. If they had any doubts in this respect, these
would have been dissipated by the reports of the occupation authorities.
The latter were unanimous in their reports of the political trouble
provoked by this compulsory enlistment and of the resistance encountered
by it. That is why the defendants once again used force in their attempt
to ensure that the civilian mobilization decreed by them was carried
out.
First in line among the coercive measures to which the Germans took
recourse, I mention the withholding of the ration cards of the
recalcitrants. The Tribunal knows from the circular letter of Dr.
Mansfeld, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-26 (Document 1183-PS), that
this measure had been proposed ever since January 1942, and will recall
that by decree of the Führer of 8 September 1942, which I submitted as
Exhibit Number RF-55 (Document 556(2)-PS), this measure was put into
effect. This order provided that food and clothing ration cards were not
to be issued to persons incapable of proving that they were working, nor
to those who refused to do compulsory work.
Hitler’s order was put into effect in all occupied territories. In
France circulars imposing decrees by the occupation authorities
prohibited the renewal of ration cards of those French people who had
eluded the census of 16 February 1943. In Belgium the forfeiture of
ration certificates was regulated by an order of the military commander.
It is the order of 5 March 1943, published in the _Verordnungsblatt_ for
Belgium, which I submit to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-79.
General Von Falkenhausen, the signatory of this order, admitted its
grave significance during the interrogation, which I have submitted to
the Tribunal under Document Number RF-15 and to which I refer again.
General Von Falkenhausen declared that the Defendant Sauckel was the
originator of this order and that he had refused to grant an amnesty
proposed by his services. I quote, Page 4 of the French translation,
fifth paragraph:
“Q: ‘Does the witness remember an order of 5 March 1943, by
which those refusing to enter the compulsory labor service had
their ration cards withdrawn?’
“A: ‘I do not remember. At the time when the order was issued
for men from 18 to 50 years old the implementing orders were not
given by myself but by my offices, and I am not conversant with
the details of the application of reprisals. I was not the
executive head of the administration. I was above it.’
“Q: ‘But at that time you were informed of the means of pressure
and manner of treatment which the authorities thought fit to
employ?’
“A: ‘I do not wish to deny my responsibility for all that
happened. After all, I was aware of many things. I remember in
particular the order regarding ration cards, because on various
occasions I proposed that an amnesty be declared for persons who
were obliged to live illegally and who did not have a ration
card.’
“Q: ‘To whom was this proposal made?’
“A: ‘To Sauckel, with the consent of President Revert.’
“Q: ‘What was the attitude taken by Sauckel at that time?’
“A: ‘He refused to grant such an amnesty.’”
In Holland, likewise, the renewal of ration certificates which did not
bear the stamp of the labor office was prohibited.
The defendants, however, used a method of coercion even more criminal
than the forfeiture of ration cards. I refer to the persecution directed
against the families of those who refused to do compulsory labor. I call
this method criminal, because it is based on the concept of family
responsibility which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the
penal law of civilized nations. It was, nevertheless, sanctioned by
several legislative texts issued or imposed by the National Socialists.
In France, I quote the law of 11 June 1943, which I submit to the
Tribunal as Document Number RF-80 with the request that it take judicial
notice thereof.
In Belgium, I refer to the order of the military commander of 30 April
1943, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ for Belgium of 6 May
1943, and particularly to Paragraphs 8 and 9. I submit this order to the
Tribunal as Document Number RF-81, with the request that it take
judicial notice thereof.
Judicial action by the defendants was likewise directed against the
employers and against the officials of the employment bureaus. In France
the action was initiated by two laws of 1 February 1944. I emphasize
that these laws were issued on the same day as the compulsory labor law,
and I affirm that they were imposed at the same time. In support of my
statement, I submit the admission of the Defendant Sauckel, in his
letter of 25 January 1944, which I read a while ago to the Tribunal
under Exhibit Number RF-70 (Document 556(55)-PS). I submit to the
Tribunal the laws of 1 February 1944 as Document Number RF-82 with the
request that it be added to the Record.
There were still other measures of coercion. One of these, for instance,
was the closing of the faculties and schools to defaulting students. It
was decreed in Belgium on 28 June 1943; in France, on 15 July 1943. In
Holland the students were victims of a systematic deportation in
February and March 1943. I quote in this connection a letter of 4 May
1943, which brings proof of the action carried out through Holland
towards a systematic deportation. This is Document F-665, which I submit
as Exhibit Number RF-83 of my book.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this is a good time to break off.
[_A recess was taken._]
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors, at the suspension of the session
I was about to read to the Tribunal the letter of 4 May 1943, which
gives evidence of the action taken in Holland towards a systematic
deportation of the students. I quote:
“Subject: Action against students.
“The action will start on Thursday morning. As it is now too
late to have this published in the press today, an announcement
by the Higher SS and Police Leader will be made over the radio
beginning tomorrow at 7 o’clock; it will be published tomorrow
in the morning and the evening papers. Besides that, we will
follow the directives given in yesterday’s telegram.”
Following is the text of the proclamation:
“Ordinance on the registration of students.”
I will skip the first paragraph and I quote:
“1. All persons of the male sex who have attended a Dutch
university or academy during the years 1942-43 and have not yet
finished their studies according to the curriculum—referred to
below as ‘students’—are to report between 1000 and 1500 on 6
May 1943 to the commander of the sector of the SS and the
Security Police competent for their respective residence for the
purpose of their induction into the compulsory labor service.”
I now skip Paragraphs 2 and 3 and quote:
“4. (1) Persons violating this ordinance or trying to circumvent
it, particularly such persons who do not comply with their duty
to register or either intentionally or through negligence state
any false data will be punished by imprisonment and/or unlimited
fine, unless other laws providing a more severe penalty are
applicable. . . .
“(4) Those exercising paternal authority or guardianship over
the students are co-responsible for their reporting as
prescribed. They are subjected to the same penalties as the
offenders themselves.
“5. This ordinance becomes effective on promulgation.”
Signed—“The Higher SS and Police Leader with the Reich
Commissioner for the Occupied Dutch Territories.”
Since no measures whatsoever succeeded in intimidating the workers in
the occupied territories, the defendants finally resorted to their
police forces to ensure the arrest of those workers destined for
deportation to Germany. This intervention by the police had been
demanded by the Defendant Sauckel.
I submit two documents in evidence. The first consisted of the minutes
of a conference which took place on 4 January 1944 at the headquarters
of the Führer. I have just submitted this document to the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number RF-68 (Document 1292-PS). I quote, French translation,
Page 2, last paragraph; German original, middle of Page 4:
“The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor (GBA)
Sauckel, declared that he would try with fanatical determination
to obtain this manpower. Up to now he had always kept his
promises regarding the number of workers to be provided; with
the best will in the world, however, he was not in a position to
make a definite promise for 1944. He would do anything possible
to provide the manpower required for 1944. The success would
depend mainly on the number of German police put at his
disposal. If he had to rely on the indigenous police his project
could not be carried out.”
I refer now to the statements made by Sauckel at the conference of the
central office for the Four Year Plan on 1 March 1944. It is Exhibit
Number RF-30 (Document R-124), to which I repeatedly have called the
attention of the Tribunal. The passage which I am about to quote has not
yet been referred to before the Tribunal. Page 3 of the French
translation, German text, from Page 1775 on:
“The term ‘S-factory’”—S-Betrieb—“in France is actually
nothing else but a protection against Sauckel’s grasp. That is
how the French look at it, and they certainly cannot be expected
to think differently. They are Frenchmen in the first place, who
are faced with a German point of view and German actions
different from theirs. It is not up to me to decide whether the
protected factories (Schutzbetriebe) are useful and necessary. I
have described the situation only from my point of view.
Nevertheless, I still hope to succeed eventually by using my old
organization of agents on the one hand and, on the other hand,
by those measures which I have fortunately been able to wrest
from the French Government.
“In the course of negotiations lasting 5 to 6 hours I wrested
from M. Laval the concession that the death sentence may be
imposed on officials who sabotage the recruitment of labor and
other measures. Believe me, it was very difficult. I had to
fight hard to succeed, but I did succeed. And I am requesting,
especially of the Armed Forces that, in case the French
Government does not really put its mind to it, most drastic
action be taken now by the Germans in France. Please do not
resent my following remark: Several times, when in company of my
assistants, I have faced situations in France which caused me to
ask, ‘Is there no respect in France for the German lieutenant
and his 10 men?’ For months on end everything I said was
paralyzed by the reply, ‘What do you want, Mr. Gauleiter? Don’t
you know that we have no police forces at our disposal? We are
powerless in France.’
“This was the reply given over and over again. How, in the face
of these facts, am I to achieve labor recruitment in France? The
German authorities must co-operate; and if the French, despite
all their promises, do not remedy the situation, we Germans must
make an example of one case and, on the provisions of this law,
put some prefect or mayor against the wall if he does not
co-operate, else not a single Frenchman will go to Germany.”
By such means the deportation of workers to Germany finally was
achieved, by arresting them, and by the threat of reprisals. It was a
logical consequence of the National Socialist system that the policy of
recruiting foreign workers was accomplished by police terror.
I have told the Tribunal that the resistance offered by the prisoners of
war and by the workers of the occupied territories against the
activities of the defendants, which were in turn insidious and brutal,
wrecked the plan for the recruitment of foreign workers. The Defendant
Sauckel encountered the greatest difficulty in carrying out the programs
which he had persuaded Hitler and the Defendants Göring, Speer, and Funk
to accept.
From this it does not follow that Nazi Germany did not succeed in
carrying out mass deportations of foreign workers. The number of native
workers from the occupied territories of Western Europe who were
deported into Germany is very high. More numerous still were those
workers compelled to work at home in factories and workyards under the
control of the occupation authorities.
I shall give the Tribunal statistical information which will enable it
to verify my statements. These statistics are fragmentary. They are
excerpts from reports compiled by the governments of the occupied
countries after their liberation and from reports sent during the war by
the Arbeitseinsatz office to its superiors.
The statistics of Allied origin are incomplete. The records on which
they are based have been partially destroyed. On the other hand, the
administrations of the occupied territories are in possession of
second-hand information only whenever the requisitions of workers were
made directly by the occupation authorities. As to the German
statistics, they are also incomplete since the Allied authorities have
not yet discovered all the records of the enemy.
It is, however, possible to give to the Tribunal an exact evaluation of
the extent of the deportations effected by Germany. This evaluation will
furnish proof that the violations of international law committed by the
defendants did not remain in the tentative stage characterized by a
beginning only—though reprehensible as such; they brought about social
disorder such as, under penal law, constitutes the perpetration of the
crime.
I shall first submit to the Tribunal the statistics furnished by the
official reports of the French Government. The French Government’s
report has been published by the Institute of Market Analysis. It
contains numerous statistical tables from which I quote the total
figures. The figures are as follows: 738,000 workers were pressed into
compulsory labor service in France; 875,952 French workers were deported
to German factories; 987,687 prisoners of war were utilized for the
Reich war economy. A total of 2,601,639 workers of French citizenship
thus were pressed into work serving the war effort of National Socialist
Germany.
From the official report of the Belgian Government it appears that
150,000 persons were pressed into compulsory labor; and the report of
the Dutch Government gives a figure of 431,400 persons; but it should be
noted that this figure does not take into account the systematic raids
undertaken during November 1944, nor the deportations carried out in
1945.
I am submitting to the Tribunal exact figures which cover all the stages
of the policy of recruiting foreign labor. These figures are taken from
the reports of the Defendant Sauckel himself or of various
administrative offices concerned with the deportation of labor. The
extent of labor utilized in the occupied territories is demonstrated by
the statistics concerning workers who were used in constructing
fortifications of the so-called Atlantic Wall as part of the
Organization Todt, which I recall was directed by the Defendant Speer
after the death of its founder. These statistics are to be found in a
teletype message sent to Hitler by the Defendant Sauckel on 17 May 1943.
It is Document 556(33)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number RF-84. I quote:
“The Delegate for the Four Year Plan. The Plenipotentiary
General for Allocation of Labor, Berlin, to the Führer,
headquarters of the Führer.
“My Führer! I beg to submit to you the following figures on the
manpower employed in the Todt Organization:
“In addition to the manpower assigned to the entire German
industry by the Allocation of Labor since I took office, fresh
workers have also been constantly supplied to the Todt
Organization. The total figure of the workers employed by the
Todt Organization was as follows: End of March 1942, 270,969;
end of March 1943, 696,003.
“It should be noted that the Allocation of Labor has with great
speed and energy assigned workers preferably to the Todt
Organization in the West for the purpose of completing the work
on the Atlantic Wall. This is all the more remarkable because in
France, Belgium, and Holland. . . .”
I skip a few lines and quote from Page 2:
“Despite the difficulties involved, the manpower strength of the
Todt Organization in the West was increased from 66,701 workers
at the end of March 1942 to 248,200 workers at the end of March
1943.”
The number of foreign workers deported to Germany by 30 September 1941
is furnished by a report which was found in the archives of the OKW. It
is Document 1323-PS, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-85. According
to this document, 1,228,686 foreign workers were employed in Germany on
30 September 1941. Of that number 483,842 came from the occupied Western
territories. I quote from this document the number of labor deportees by
country of origin. I shall confine myself to the columns of interest to
the Western states, since the statistics of workers deported from the
East of Europe come within the province of my Soviet colleagues:
“Denmark, 63,309; Holland, 134,093; Belgium, 212,903; France,
72,475; Italy, 238,557.”
Finally, on 7 July 1944, Sauckel, in one of his last reports, informed
the National Socialist Government of the results of his campaign during
the first half of 1944. I quote the document, which bears the Number
208-PS and which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-86. I
read from the second page:
“C. The foreigners came from. . . . France except the north,
33,000; Belgium, including the north of France, 16,000;
Netherlands, 15,000; Italy, 37,000.”
This is the fresh manpower put at the disposal of German industry during
the period of 1 January to 30 June 1944.
I have furnished the proof I owed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will,
moreover, remember Sauckel’s admission at the 58th conference of the
Four Year Plan, which I have read to you previously. Sauckel admitted
that there were 5 million foreign workers in Germany, of whom 200,000
were actually volunteers.
The materiality of the crime exposed is at the same time established by
the circumstances of its perpetration and by the multitude of the
victims affected. To prove the gravity of its effect, I have but to
recall the treatment to which foreign workers were subjected in Germany.
German propaganda always claimed that foreign workers deported to
Germany were treated on equal basis with German workers: the same living
conditions, the same labor contracts, and the same discipline. This
contention, as such, is not conclusive. My American colleagues have
furnished proof of the blows which the National Socialist conspirators
have dealt to the dignity and decency of the life of the German worker.
The reality is worse yet. Foreign workers did not enjoy the treatment in
Germany to which they were entitled as human beings. I affirm this and I
will prove it to the Tribunal.
But before going into that I wish to call the Tribunal’s attention to
the significance of the new crime which I am denouncing. It does not
only make the crime of deportation complete but provides its true
meaning also. I said that the policy of the defendants in the occupied
territories could be summed up as follows:
Utilization of the productive forces and extermination of the
unproductive forces. This is the principle representing one of the
favorite concepts of National Socialism, on the basis of which the
treatment inflicted on foreign workers by the defendants should be
judged. The Germans have exploited the human potential of the occupied
countries to the extreme limit of the strength of the individuals
concerned. They showed some consideration for foreign workers only
insofar as they wished to increase their output. But as soon as their
capacity for work decreased, the foreign workers shared the common lot
of deportees.
I shall prove my argument by expounding to the Tribunal the working and
living conditions and rules of discipline which were imposed on foreign
workers deported to Germany.
I request the Tribunal to charge the Defendant Sauckel with the facts I
am going to denounce. He was put in charge of the working conditions for
foreign workers, following an agreement to which he freely consented.
The text of this agreement, made with Ley, the Chief of the German Labor
Front, on 2 June 1943, was published in the _Reichsarbeitsblatt_, 1943,
Part I, Page 558. I submitted this to the Tribunal at the beginning of
my presentation as Exhibit Number RF-18.
This agreement shows that the treatment of foreign workers was subject
to control by the inspection department of the Allocation of Labor
(Arbeitseinsatz). The Defendant Sauckel could therefore not ignore the
mistreatment to which foreigners were subjected. If not prescribed it
was tolerated by him.
The working conditions of workers deported to Germany provided the first
evidence of the determination of the defendants to exploit the human
potential of the occupied territories to the extreme limit of its
strength.
First I call the attention of the Tribunal to the working hours imposed
on foreign workers. The working hours were legally set at 54 hours per
week by Sauckel’s decree of 22 August 1942. Actually, most foreign
workers were subjected to still longer working hours. Rush work, which
necessitated overtime, was mostly assigned to foreigners. It was not
unusual for the latter to be forced to work 11 hours a day, that is, 66
hours a week, provided they had one day off per week.
For this purpose I quote the report of the Minister for Prisoners,
Deportees, and Refugees, Document UK-78(3), which I submit as Exhibit
Number RF-87. I quote Paragraph 2:
“Working Hours: The average number of working hours was 11 and
sometimes 13 a day in certain factories, for example,
Maschinenfabrik, Berlin (31). In Berlin-Spandau, the Alkett
factory imposed 10¼ hours work on day shift and 12 hours on
night shift. At Königsberg the caterpillar-tread factory, Krupp,
imposed 12 hours a day.”
The work of foreign workers was remunerated by wages identical with
those of the German workers.
I call the attention of the Tribunal to the illusory character of this
equality. The policy of freezing wages was a permanent element of the
wage and price policy pursued by the National Socialist Government;
consequently, the wages of the workers employed in Germany remained
limited. They were, moreover, heavily burdened with impositions and
taxes. Finally and above all, they were encroached upon by fines which
the German employers had the right to impose upon their workers. These
fines could reach the amount of the weekly wage for slight breaches of
discipline.
I submit in evidence Document D-182. These are two drafts of speeches to
foreign civilian workers. One of them is intended for Russian and Polish
workers. I leave this to be dealt with by my Soviet colleagues. I submit
the other to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-88, and I quote:
“Draft of an address to foreign civilian workers, ‘Maintenance
of Labor Discipline,’ January 1944.
“I must inform you of the following:
“The increasing lack of punctuality and absenteeism have caused
the competent authorities to issue stricter regulations to
ensure labor discipline whereby the competence of the employers
to impose penalties has been extended. Violations of labor
discipline, such as repeated tardiness, being absent without
cause or excuse, leaving a job without authorization, will in
the future be punished by fines up to the average daily wage. In
more serious cases, for example, for repeated absences without
cause or excuse, or insubordination, fines up to the average
weekly salary will be imposed. In such cases, moreover, the
additional ration cards may be taken away for a period up to 4
weeks. . . .”
The precariousness of wages which, after these various cuts, were
actually received by the foreign workers did not allow them to raise
their standard of living in the places to which they had been deported.
I maintain that this standard was insufficient and that the attitude of
the Arbeitseinsatz in this matter constitutes a characteristic violation
of the elementary principles of the rights of man. I will confirm this
by submitting to the Tribunal proof of the inadequacy of food, lodging,
and medical care to which the foreign workers were entitled.
The German propaganda services issued, in France, illustrated pamphlets
in which the accommodations for foreign workers were represented as
being comfortable. It was quite different in reality.
I will not dwell on this point. Mr. Dodd, my American colleague, has
already submitted and commented upon Document D-288, an affidavit by Dr.
Jäger, chief medical officer in charge of the work camps in the Krupp
factories. I will not reread this document to the Tribunal, but I would
like to repeat that in this document Dr. Jäger stated that French
workers—prisoners of war working in the Krupp factories—had been
billeted for more than half a year in kennels, urinals, unused ovens.
The kennels were 3 feet high, 9 feet long, and 6 feet wide, and the men
had to sleep there five in a kennel. I submit this document, which is to
support my argument, as Exhibit Number RF-89.
To this unsanitary accommodation often inadequate food was added. In
this respect I wish to explain the following to the Tribunal:
I do not claim that the foreign workers deported to Germany were
systematically exposed to starvation, but I do maintain that the leading
principle of National Socialism finds its expression in the food
regulations for foreign workers. They were decently fed only insofar as
the Allocation of Labor wished to maintain or to increase their capacity
for work. They were put on a starvation diet the moment when, for any
reason whatsoever, their industrial output diminished. They then entered
that category of unproductive forces, which National Socialism sought to
destroy.
On 10 September 1942 the Defendant Sauckel declared to the First
Congress of the Labor Administration of Greater Germany:
“Food and remuneration of foreign workers should be in
proportion to their output and their good will.”
He developed this point of view in documents which I am offering in
evidence to the Tribunal.
I refer, in the first place, to the letter from Sauckel to Rosenberg,
which is Document 016-PS and which I shall not read since it has already
been read to the Tribunal by my American colleagues. I wish, however, to
draw the Tribunal’s attention to the second paragraph, Page 20, of this
document, which concerns the food supply of prisoners of war and foreign
workers:
“All these people must be fed, lodged, and treated in such a way
that they may be exploited to the maximum with a minimum of
expense.”
I ask the Tribunal to remember this formula—the aim to exploit the
foreign labor to the maximum at a minimum of expense. It is the same
concept which I find in a letter of Sauckel of 14 March 1943 addressed
to all Gauleiter. It is Document 633-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal
as Exhibit Number RF-90:
“Subject: Treatment and care of foreign labor.
“Not only our honor and prestige and, still more than that, our
National Socialist ideology which is opposed to the methods of
plutocrats and Bolshevists, but also cool common sense in the
first place demand proper treatment of foreign labor, including
even Soviet-Russians. Slaves who are underfed, diseased,
resentful, despairing, and filled with hate, will never yield
that maximum of output which they might achieve under normal
conditions.”
I skip now to the next to the last paragraph:
“But since we will need foreign labor for many years and the
possibility of replacing them is very limited I cannot exploit
them on a short-term policy nor can I allow wasting of their
working capacity.”
The criminal concept revealed by these documents is particularly
manifest in the establishment of the food sanctions which were inflicted
on the deported workers. I refer to Document D-182, which I have just
submitted as Exhibit Number RF-88, and I remind the Tribunal that it
provides the possibility of inflicting on recalcitrant workers the
penalty of a partial suppression of food rations. Moreover, the foreign
workers, who were all the more exposed to diseases and epidemics since
they were poorly lodged and fed, did not enjoy proper medical care.
I submit in evidence a report made on 15 June 1944 by Dr. Février, head
of the health service of the French Delegation with the German Labor
Front. It is Document F-536. I submit it as Exhibit Number RF-91, and I
quote from the last paragraph at Page 15 of the French original, Page 13
of the German translation:
“At Auschwitz, in a very fine camp of 2,000 workers, we find
tubercular people who were recognized as such by the local
German doctor of the Arbeitsamt going about freely; but this
doctor neglects to repatriate them out of hostile indifference.
I am now taking steps to obtain their repatriation.
“In Berlin, in a clean hospital, well lighted and ventilated,
where the chief doctor, a German, makes the rounds only once in
3 weeks, and a female Russian doctor every morning distributes
uniformly the same calming drops to every patient, I have seen a
dozen consumptives, three of them released prisoners. All of
them except one have gone beyond the extreme limit at which
treatment might still have had some chance of proving
effective.”
No statistics have been made of foreign workers who died during their
deportation. Professor Henri Dessaille, Medical Inspector General of the
Labor Ministry, estimates that 25,000 French workers died in Germany
during their deportation. But not all of them died of diseases. To slow
extermination was added swift extermination in concentration camps.
The disciplinary regime over the foreign workers was, in fact, of a
severity contrary to the rights of man. I have already given some
example of penalties to which the deported workers were exposed. There
were still more. The workers who were deemed recalcitrant by their
supervisors were sent to special reprisal camps, the ‘Straflager’; some
disappeared in political concentration camps.
I remind the Tribunal that I have already, indirectly, proved this fact.
In the course of my presentation I submitted under Exhibit Number RF-44,
the ordinance of Sauckel of 29 March 1943 which extends the term of the
labor contracts by the length of time which the workers spent in prison
or in internment camps.
I will not dwell on this point. Mr. Dodd, my American colleague, has
submitted to the Tribunal the documents which prove the shipment of
labor deportees to concentration camps. For the rest, I take the liberty
of referring the Tribunal to the presentation which M. Dubost will
deliver to the Tribunal within a few days.
I emphasize, however, the significance of this persecution of foreign
workers. It constitutes the completion of the crime of their deportation
and the proof of the coherence of the German policy of extermination.
I have already reported to the Tribunal the events which marked the
civilian mobilization of foreign workers for the service of National
Socialist Germany. I have shown how the device of compulsory labor was
inserted into the general framework of the policy of German domination.
I have denounced the methods employed by the defendants to enforce the
recruitment of foreign labor. I have emphasized the importance of the
deportations undertaken by the Arbeitseinsatz, and I have recalled how
the deported workers were treated and ill-treated.
The policy of compulsory labor includes all the infractions under the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal: Violation of international conventions,
violation of the rights of man, and crimes against common law.
All the defendants bear functional responsibility for these infractions.
It was the Reich Cabinet which set up the principles of the policy of
enforced recruitment; the High Command of the German Armed Forces
carried them out in the workshops of the Wehrmacht, the Navy, and the
Air Force; the civilian administrations made use of it to support the
German war economy.
I retain more particularly the guilt of certain of the defendants:
Göring, Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, co-ordinated the
planning and the execution of the plans for the recruitment of foreign
workers. Keitel, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces,
counter-signatory of Hitler’s decrees, integrated compulsory labor with
his manpower policy. Funk, Reich Minister of Economics, and Speer,
Minister for Armament and War Production, based their program of war
production on compulsory labor. Sauckel, finally, Plenipotentiary
General for Allocation of Labor, proved to be the resolute and fanatical
agent—to use his own words—of the policy of compulsory enrollment
which, in Holland, was promoted and carried out by Seyss-Inquart.
The Tribunal will appreciate their respective responsibility. I request
the Tribunal to condemn the crime of mobilization of foreign workers. I
ask the Tribunal to restore the dignity of human labor which the
defendants have attempted to degrade.
M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic):
Mr. President, Your Honors, the French Prosecution is in charge of the
part of the Indictment concerning the deeds charged to the defendants
which were perpetrated in the countries of Western Europe, as provided
for by Article VI of the Charter of 8 August 1945. This text provides
for violations of the laws and customs of war which concern persons on
the one hand and private and public property on the other hand.
The part of the Indictment concerning persons, that is, ill-treatment
inflicted on prisoners of war and on civilians, torture, murder,
deportation, as well as devastations not justified by military
exigencies, were presented to you and will be presented to you by my
colleagues. M. Delpech and I will have the honor to present to you the
pillage of private and public property.
The Tribunal will have to be informed of the most arid part of the
presentation of the French prosecution. We shall strive to present it as
briefly as possible, to shorten the quotation of the numerous documents
submitted to the Tribunal, and to avoid, whenever possible, statistical
material in order to bring only the principal facts to light.
Nevertheless, sometimes we will go into detail in order that the
Tribunal may appreciate certain characteristic facts now charged to the
defendants, facts which are customarily designated as “economic
looting.”
Before approaching this subject, I should like to ask the Tribunal’s
permission to express the gratitude of the Prosecutors of the Economic
Section of the French Delegation to their colleagues of the other Allied
delegations, and particularly to those of the American section of the
economic case who have been kind enough to put at our disposal a great
number of German documents discovered by the United States Army, and
important material means for their reproduction in a sufficient number
of copies.
I shall have the honor of presenting in succession to the Tribunal: 1)
General remarks on the economic looting of the occupied countries of
Western Europe, 2) the special case of Denmark, 3) that of Norway, 4)
that of Holland. My colleague, M. Delpech, will present 5), the part
covering Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. I shall have the
honor of presenting to you 6), the part relating to France, and also the
conclusion. Finally, a special statement, 7), will be devoted to the
works of art.
In the course of the presentation, we shall submit a certain number of
documents. We shall quote only the passages which seem to us the most
important, when the same document relates to several different
questions; we shall quote those excerpts concerning each question when
it is presented, indicating each time the reference in the document
book, since it is impossible to make known to you all the excerpts at
the same time because of the complexity of facts.
In his speeches and in his writings, Hitler never concealed the economic
aims of the aggression of which Germany was to become guilty. The
theories of race and living space increased the envy of the Germans at
the same time as they stimulated their bellicose instincts.
After having conquered Austria and Czechoslovakia without bloodshed,
they turned against Poland and prepared to attack the countries of
Western Europe, where they hoped to find what was lacking to assure
their domination.
This fact is revealed in particular by Document EC-606, discovered by
the United States Army, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
RF-92. This is the minutes of a conference held by the Defendant Göring
on 30 January 1940, with Lieutenant Colonel Conrath and Director Lange
of the machine-constructing group attending. The following is the
principal passage of the minutes:
“Field Marshal Göring told me at the beginning that he had to
inform me of the intentions of the Führer and of the economic
measures resulting therefrom.
“He stated: The Führer is firmly convinced that he shall succeed
in bringing about a decisive conclusion of the war in 1940 by
making a great attack in the West. He assumes that Belgium,
Holland, and northern France will fall into our possession; he,
the Führer, forms his opinion on the calculation that the
industrial areas of Douai and Lens, of Luxembourg, of Longwy and
Briey might, as far as raw materials are concerned, replace the
deliveries from Sweden.
“Therefore, the Führer has decided, in disregard for the future,
to stake fully our reserves of raw materials, at the expense of
possible later years of war. The soundness of this resolution is
supported with the Führer by the view that the best stocks are
not stocks of raw materials but stocks of finished war
materials. Moreover, when the aerial war begins, it must be
taken into account that our finishing factories may be
destroyed. The Führer is furthermore of the opinion that the
maximum output must be achieved in 1940 and consequently that
long-range production programs should be put aside in order to
accelerate those which can be terminated in 1940.”
When the invasion began the countries of Western Europe were glutted
with products of every kind; but after 4 years of methodical looting and
enslavement of production, these countries are ruined, and their entire
population is physically weakened as the result of rigorous
restrictions.
To achieve such results, the Germans used every method, particularly
violence, trickery, and blackmail.
The purpose of the present statement will be to specify the main
spoliations ordered by the German leaders in the countries of Western
Europe and to show that they constitute, as far as they are concerned,
War Crimes which come under the jurisdiction of the International
Military Tribunal for major war criminals.
It is not possible to draw an exact balance sheet of the German looting
and of the profit derived by them as the result of the enslavement of
production in the occupied countries. On one hand, we do not have enough
time; on the other hand, we find ourselves faced with actual impotence
resulting from the secret nature of certain operations and the
destruction of archives through acts of war or deliberate destruction at
the time of the German rout.
Nevertheless, the documents now collected and the information gathered
make it possible to give a minimum estimate of the extent of spoliation.
However, I shall ask the Tribunal’s permission to make three preliminary
remarks:
1) The numerous acts of individual looting committed by the Germans will
not be referred to by this presentation since they come under the
competence of a different jurisdiction.
2) We shall only mention for the Record the incalculable, economic
results of German atrocities, for instance, the financial loss
experienced by the immediate relatives of breadwinners murdered, or the
loss suffered by certain victims of ill-treatment, who are totally or
partially, temporarily or permanently, incapacitated for work, or the
damage resulting from the destruction of localities or buildings for the
purpose of vengeance or intimidation.
3) Finally, gentlemen, we shall not discuss the damage resulting from
purely military operations, which cannot be considered as economic
results of War Crimes. When damage caused by military operations is
referred to, some separate valuation will be necessary.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall make a few general remarks
on the economic looting of Western European occupied territories.
Economic looting is to be understood as the removal of wealth of every
kind, as well as the enslavement of the production of the various
occupied countries.
To reach such results in countries which were generally highly
industrialized and where numerous stocks of manufactured goods and
abundant reserves of agricultural products existed, the German venture
was faced with real difficulties.
At first, although the Germans had used this procedure to its maximum
extent, requisitions were not adequate. In fact, they had to find the
opportunities for ferreting out all sorts of things, which were
sometimes hidden by the inhabitants, and on the other hand, they had to
maintain for their own profit the economic activity of these countries.
The simplest way of becoming masters of the distribution of existing
products and of production was to take possession of almost all means of
payment and, if necessary, to impose by force their distribution in
exchange for products or services, at the same time combating the rise
of prices.
Faced with starvation the populations were thus naturally forced to work
directly or indirectly for the benefit of Germany.
The first part of this presentation will be divided into five chapters:
1) Seizure of currency by the Germans; 2) sequestering of the production
of the occupied territories; 3) individual purchases, which should not
be confused with individual acts of looting; 4) the black market,
organized by and for the profit of Germany; 5) examination of the
question of economic looting from the viewpoint of international law and
in particular of the Hague Convention.
First chapter—seizure of currency by the Germans:
To have at their disposal all means of payment, the Germans used almost
the same methods in the various occupied countries. First, they took two
principal measures. One was the issue of paper money, by ordinance of 9
May 1940, published on Page 69 of the _Verordnungsblatt für die
besetzten französischen Gebiete_, official German gazette, which will
subsequently be referred to by its official abbreviation VOBIF, which I
submit to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-93. This ordinance
concerned Denmark and Norway; and on 19 May 1940 was rendered applicable
to the occupied territories of Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France.
The Germans proceeded to issue bank notes of the Reichskreditkasse which
were legal tender only in the respective occupied countries.
The Germans then took a second measure: The blocking of existing
currency within the occupied countries as a result of the ordinance of
10 May 1940, published in VOBIF, Page 58, which I submit as Document
Number RF-94. In regard to Holland these ordinances are those of 24
June, 14 August, 16 August, and 18 September 1940, which are submitted
as Document Numbers RF-95, 96, 97, and 98. In regard to Belgium these
ordinances are those of 17 June and 22 July 1940, submitted as Document
Numbers RF-99 and 100.
These measures, notably the issuing of paper money, left exclusively to
the whim of the Germans without any possible control on the part of the
financial administrations of the occupied countries, were to serve, as
we shall see, as powerful means of pressure to impose the payment of
enormous war tributes under the pretext of maintaining occupation troops
as well as alleged payment agreements known as “clearing,” which
functioned almost exclusively to the benefit of the occupying power.
The Germans thus procured for themselves, under false pretenses, means
of payment from which they profited by realizing considerable sums for
their sole benefit.
All agricultural and industrial products, raw materials, goods of every
kind, or services, for which Germany apparently made regular payment by
means of either notes of the Reichskreditkasse or by so-called clearing
agreements or by war tributes known as indemnities for the maintenance
of occupation troops, were exacted with full knowledge that no
redemption would be forthcoming. Thus, we can be sure that, as a rule,
such regulations were purely fictitious and were the most regularly used
fraudulent procedure to effect the economic looting of the occupied
countries of Western Europe.
These questions will be examined in a more exact manner later on. I
shall limit myself for the moment to pointing out to the Tribunal that
to effect the economic looting of the occupied countries with their own
money, it was necessary that this money should preserve an appreciable
purchasing power. Therefore, the efforts of the Germans were directed
toward stabilization of prices. A severe regulation prohibiting rises in
prices was subsequently promulgated by several decrees—VOBIF, Pages 8,
60, and 535, submitted as Document Number RF-101. Nevertheless, the
application of such measures could not prevent economic laws from
playing their part. The payment of excessive tributes, considering the
resources of the invaded countries, could not but have as their primary
result a continuous rise of prices. The leaders of the Reich were
perfectly aware of the situation and watched very attentively the rise
in prices, which they were attempting to moderate.
This we know principally from the secret reports of Hemmen, President of
the Armistice Commission for German Economic Questions, which we will
discuss when we examine the particular case of France.