[Cover Illustration]
NAZI CONSPIRACY
AND AGGRESSION
_VOLUME II_
_Office of United States_
_Chief of Counsel For Prosecution_
_of Axis Criminality_
[Illustration]
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON • 1946
Sold in Complete Sets
by the
Superintendent of Documents
U. S. Government Printing
Office
Washington 25, D. C.
A Collection of Documentary Evidence and Guide Materials Prepared by the
American and British Prosecuting Staffs for Presentation before the
International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany, in the case of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
—against—
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM von RIBBENTROP,
ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED
ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER
FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH, KARL
DOENITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR von SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL,
ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ von PAPEN, ARTUR
SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN von NEURATH, and HANS
FRITZSCHE, Individually and as Members of Any of the Following
Groups or Organizations to which They Respectively Belonged,
Namely: DIE REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER
POLITISCHEN LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN
ARBEITERPARTEI (LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY); DIE
SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN
ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”) and including DIE
SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the
“GESTAPO”); DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER N.S.D.A.P. (commonly known
as the “SA”) and the GENERAL STAFF and HIGH COMMAND of the
GERMAN ARMED FORCES all as defined in Appendix B of the
Indictment,
Defendants.
C O N T E N T S
Page
Chapter XV. Criminality of Groups and Organizations 1
1. The Law Under Which Nazi Organizations are
Accused of Being Criminal 1
2. The Nazi Party Leadership Corps 23
3. The Reich Cabinet 91
4. The Sturmabteilung (SA) 133
5. The Schutzstaffeln (SS) 173
6. The Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) and
Sicherheitsdienst (SD) 248
7. The General Staff and High Command of the
Armed Forces 316
XVI. Individual Responsibility of Defendants 416
1. Hermann Wilhelm Goering 417
2. Rudolf Hess 466
3. Joachim von Ribbentrop 489
4. Wilhelm Keitel 528
5. Alfred Jodl 565
6. Ernst Kaltenbrunner 575
7. Alfred Rosenberg 593
8. Hans Frank 624
9. Wilhelm Frick 653
10. Julius Streicher 689
11. Walter Funk 715
12. Hjalmar Schacht 738
13. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach 774
14. Karl Doenitz 815
15. Erich Raeder 849
16. Baldur von Schirach 877
17. Martin Bormann 896
18. Franz von Papen 915
19. Artur Seyss-Inquart 956
20. Constantin von Neurath 1014
21. Hans Fritzsche 1035
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA 1055
1. Principal Officials of the Reich Government 1055
2. Principal Officials of the Nazi Party 1062
3. Heads of the Armed Forces 1063
4. Index of Individuals 1064
CODE NAMES AND WORDS USED BY THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND FOR
OPERATIONS AND MEASURES DURING THE WAR 1078
DATA CONCERNING CAPTURE OF DEFENDANTS 1083
GLOSSARY OF COMMON GERMAN AND NAZI TITLES, DESIGNATIONS, AND
TERMS, WITH THEIR OFFICIAL ABBREVIATIONS 1084
TABLE OF COMMISSIONED RANKS IN THE GERMAN ARMY, NAVY, AND SS WITH
THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES 1099
Chapter XV
CRIMINALITY OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
1. THE LAW UNDER WHICH NAZI ORGANIZATIONS ARE ACCUSED OF BEING CRIMINAL
_The following argument on the law and policy involved in the
prosecution’s charge that certain Nazi groups and organizations should
be declared criminal, was delivered by Justice Jackson before the
Tribunal on 28 February 1946._
May it please the Tribunal:
The unconditional surrender of Germany created, for the victors, novel
and difficult problems of law and administration. Since it is the first
such surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, precedents
and past experiences are of little help in guiding our policy toward the
vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding and accepting
capitulation of a whole people must of necessity include a duty to
discriminate justly and intelligently between opposing elements of the
population which bore dissimilar relations to the policies and conduct
which led to the catastrophe. This differentiation is the objective of
those provisions of the Charter which authorize this Tribunal to declare
organizations or groups to be criminal. Understanding of the problem
which the instrument attempts to solve is essential to its
interpretation and application.
A. _The Problem of the Nazi Organizations._
One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time of the
surrender was that the State itself played only a subordinate role in
the exercise of political power, while the really drastic controls over
German society were organized outside its nominal government. This was
accomplished through an elaborate network of closely knit and exclusive
organizations of selected volunteers oath-bound to execute, without
delay and without question, the commands of the Nazi leaders.
These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The country was
subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about 50 households each,
and every such community had its recognized party leaders, party police,
and its undercover party spies. These were combined into larger units
with higher ranking leaders, executioners and spies. The whole formed a
pyramid of power outside the law, with the Fuehrer at its apex, and with
the local party officials as its broad base resting heavily on the
German population. The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of
these individual defendants alone. A thousand little fuehrers dictated,
a thousand imitation Goerings strutted, a thousand Schirachs incited the
youth, a thousand Sauckels worked slaves, a thousand Streichers and
Rosenbergs stirred hate, a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks tortured
and killed, a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks administered,
financed, and supported the movement. The Nazi movement was an
integrated force in city and county and hamlet. The party power
resulting from this system of organizations first rivaled, and then
dominated, the power of the State itself.
The primary vice of this web of organizations was that they were used to
transfer the power of coercing men from the government and the law to
the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, and security of persons and
property do not exist except where the power of coercion is possessed
only by the State and is exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis,
however, set up a private system of coercion, outside of and immune from
law, with party-controlled concentration camps and firing squads to
administer privately decreed sanctions. Without responsibility to law
and without warrant from any court, they were enabled to seize property,
take away liberty, and even take life itself.
These organizations had a calculated and decisive part in the barbaric
extremes of the Nazi movement. They served cleverly to exploit mob
psychology and to manipulate the mob. Multiplying the numbers of persons
in a common enterprise tends to diminish each individual’s sense of
moral responsibility and to increase his sense of security. The Nazi
leaders were masters of this technique. They manipulated these
organizations to make before the German populace impressive exhibitions
of numbers and of power. These were used to incite a mob spirit and then
riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and the
Germanic ambition they had inflated.
These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and terrorism.
They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined execution
throughout Germany and the occupied countries of the whole catalogue of
crimes we have proven. The flowering of the system is represented in the
fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who told this Tribunal without shame or
trace of pity how he personally directed the putting to death of 90,000
men, women, and children. No tribunal ever listened to a recital of such
wholesale murder as this Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a
fellow officer of the SS. Their own testimony shows the responsibility
of the SS for the extermination program which took the lives of five
million Jews, a responsibility the organization welcomed and discharged
methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes are
unprecedented ones because of the shocking numbers of victims. They are
even more shocking and unprecedented because of the large number of
persons who united to perpetrate them. All scruple or conscience of a
very large segment of the German people was committed to Nazi keeping,
and its devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as they went from one
extreme measure to another. On the other hand, they developed a contest
in cruelty and a competition in crime. Ohlendorf from the witness stand
accused other SS commanders, whose killings exceeded his, of
“exaggerating” their figures.
There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy which
imposed upon passive and unorganized and inarticulate Germans the same
burdens as it placed upon those who voluntarily banded themselves
together in these powerful and notorious gangs. One of the basic
requirements, both of justice and of successful administration of the
occupation responsibility of the victors, is a segregation of these
organized elements from the masses of Germans for separate treatment.
It seems beyond controversy that to punish a few top leaders but to
leave this web of organized bodies unscotched in the midst of German
postwar society, would be to foster the nucleus of a new Nazidom. The
members are accustomed to an established chain of centralized command;
they have formed a habit and developed a technique of both secret and
open cooperation. They still nourish a blind devotion to the suspended,
but not abandoned, Nazi program. They will keep alive the hates and
ambitions which generated the orgy of crime we have proved. They are
carriers, from this generation to the next, of the infection of
aggressive and ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen how
easily an assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor force can be
in fact a military training unit drilling with shovels. The next war and
the next pogroms will be hatched in the nests of these organizations as
surely as we leave their membership with its prestige and influence
undiminished by condemnation and punishment.
The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when we
consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be years
before there can be established in the German State any political
authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It cannot quickly
acquire the stability of a government aided by long habit of obedience
and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, and possible
overthrow, which older and established governments fear from
conspiratorial groups, is a real and present danger to any stable social
order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow.
Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of
retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized
instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case, I said
that the United States does not seek to convict the whole German people
of crime. But it is equally important that this trial shall not serve to
absolve the whole German people except 22 men in the dock. The wrongs
that have been done to the world by these defendants and their top
confederates was not done by their will or by their strength alone. The
success of their designs was made possible because great numbers of
Germans organized themselves to become the fulcrum and the lever by
which the power of these leaders was extended and magnified. If this
trial fails to condemn these organized confederates for share of
responsibility for this catastrophe, it will be construed as their
exoneration.
But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. It
manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and preventive
considerations. The primary objective of requiring that the surrender be
unconditional was to clear the way for reconstruction of German society
on such a basis that it will not again threaten the peace of Europe and
of the world. Temporary measures of the occupation authorities may, by
necessity, have been more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination
than befits a permanent policy. Under existing denazification policy, no
member of the Nazi party or its formations may be employed in any
position, other than ordinary labor, or in any business enterprise
unless he is found to have been only a nominal Nazi. Persons in certain
categories, whose standing in the community is one of prominence or
influence, are required to meet this standard, and those who do not may
be denied further participation in their businesses or professions. It
is mandatory to remove or exclude from public office, and from positions
of importance in quasi public and private enterprises, persons falling
within approximately 90 specified categories deemed to consist of either
active Nazis, Nazi supporters, or militarists. The property of such
persons is blocked.
It is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the framers of the
Charter, that a permanent, long-term program should be based on a more
careful and more individual discrimination than was possible with
sweeping temporary measures. There is a movement now within the Control
Council for reconsideration of its whole denazification policy and
procedure. The action of this Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to
declare, the accused organizations criminal has a vital bearing on
future occupation policy.
It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes of
this Tribunal to identify and condemn those Nazi and militaristic forces
that were so organized as to constitute a continuing menace to the
long-term objectives for which our respective countries have spent the
lives of their young men. It is in the light of this great purpose that
we must examine the provisions of the Charter.
B. _The Procedure for Condemning Organizations._
It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could not,
without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system of
jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for handling a
great multiplicity of common charges against a multitude of accused
persons. The number of individual defendants that fairly can be tried in
a single proceeding probably does not greatly exceed the number now in
your dock. Moreover, the number of separate trials in which the same
voluminous evidence as to common plan must be repeated is very limited
as a practical matter. Yet adversary hearing procedures are the best
assurance the law has evolved that decisions will be well considered and
just. The task of the framers of the Charter was to find a way to
overcome these obstacles to practicable and early decision without
sacrificing the fairness implicit in hearings. The solution prescribed
by the Charter is certainly not faultless, but not one of its critics
has ever proposed an alternative that would not either deprive the
individual of any hearing or contemplate such a multitude of long trials
as to be impracticable. In any case, it is the plan adopted by our
respective governments and our duty here is to make it work.
The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a severance of
the general issues which would be common to all individual trials from
the particular issues which would differ in each trial. The plan is
comparable to that employed in certain wartime legislation of the United
States (_Yakus_ v. _United States_, 321 U. S., 414, 64 Sup. Ct. 660).
The general issues are to be determined with finality in one trial
before the International Tribunal. In this trial, every accused
organization must be defended by counsel and must be represented by at
least one leading member, and other individual members may apply to be
heard. Their applications may be granted if the Tribunal thinks justice
requires it. The only issue in this trial concerns the collective
criminality of the organization or group. It is to be adjudicated by
what amounts to be a declaratory judgment. It does not decree any
punishment, either against the organization or against the individual
members.
The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration
that an organization is criminal, is contained in Article 10 of the
Charter, which provides:
“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by
the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory
shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein before national, military or occupation
courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or
organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”
Unquestionably, it would be competent for the Charter to have declared
flatly that membership in any of these named organizations is criminal
and should be punished accordingly. If there had been such an enactment,
it would not have been open to an individual who was being tried for
membership in the organization to contend that the organization was not
in fact criminal. The framers of the Charter, at a time before the
evidence adduced here was available, did not care to find organizations
criminal by fiat. They left that issue to determination after relevant
facts were developed by adversary proceedings. Plainly, the individual
member is better off because of the procedure of the Charter, which
leaves that finding of criminality to this body after hearings at which
the organization must, and the individual may, be represented.
The groups and organizations named in the Indictment are not “on trial”
in the conventional sense of that term. They are more nearly under
investigation as they might be before a grand jury in Anglo-American
practice. Article 9 recognizes a distinction between _the declaration_
of a group or organization as criminal and “_the trial_ of any
individual member thereof.” The power of the Tribunal to try is confined
to “persons,” and the Charter does not expand that term by definition,
as statutes sometimes do, to include other than natural persons. The
groups or organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities
served with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any
sentence upon them as entities, nor to convict any person because of
membership.
It is to be observed that the Charter does not _require_ subsequent
proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the competent national
authorities “_shall have the right_ to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein.”
The Charter is silent as to the form these trials should take. It was
not deemed wise, on the information available when the Charter was drawn
up, that the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. Nor was it
necessary to do so. There is a continuing legislative authority,
representing all four signatory nations, competent to take over where
the Charter leaves off. Legislative supplementation of the Charter is
necessary to confer jurisdiction on local courts, to define procedures,
and to prescribe different penalties for different forms of activity.
Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence as to
future proceedings means that great numbers of members will be rounded
up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration of an
organization to be criminal. It also has been suggested that this is, or
may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control Council Act No.
10, which defines as a crime “membership in categories of a criminal
group or organization declared criminal by the International Military
Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishments without a right of hearing
cannot be spelled out of the Charter, and would be offensive to both its
letter and its spirit. And I do not find in Control Council Act No. 10
any inconsistency with the Charter. Of course, to reach all individual
members will require numerous hearings. But they will involve only
narrow issues; many accused will have no answers to charges if they are
clearly stated, and the proceedings should be expeditious and
nontechnical.
But I think it is clear that before any person is punishable for
membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a hearing on
the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize the national
authorities to punish membership without a hearing—it gives them only
the right to “bring individuals to trial.” That means what it says. A
trial means there is something to try.
As to trials of the individual members, the Charter denies only one of
the possible defenses of an accused: he may not relitigate the question
whether the organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes
him from denying that his participation was voluntary and proving he
acted under duress; he may prove that he was deceived or tricked into
membership; he may show that he had withdrawn; or he may prove that his
name on the rolls is a case of mistaken identity.
The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act make
criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving the volition
of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization must have
been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion or illegal duress,
actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim, has never been thought
to be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust result is not to be implied
now. The extent of the member’s knowledge of the criminal character of
the organization is, however, another matter. He may not have known on
the day he joined but may have remained a member after learning the
fact. And he is chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of
which he reasonably was put on notice.
There are safeguards to assure that this program will be carried out in
good faith. Prosecution under the declaration is discretionary, and if
there were purpose to punish without trial, it would have been already
done without waiting for the declaration. We think the Tribunal will
presume that signatory powers which have voluntarily submitted to this
process will carry it out faithfully.
The Control Council Act applies only to “categories of membership
declared criminal.” This language recognizes a power in this Tribunal to
limit the effect of its declaration. I do not think, for reasons I will
later state, that this should be construed or availed of so as to try
here any issues as to sub-groups or sections or individuals, which can
be tried later. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not those
limitations which must be defined by detailed evidence, but limitations
of principle such as those I have outlined as already implied. It does
not require this Tribunal to delve into evidence to condition its
judgment, if it sees fit, to apply only to intentional, voluntary, and
knowing membership. It does not supplant later trials but guides them.
It cannot be said that a plan, such as we have here, for the severance
of general issues common to many cases from particular issues applicable
only to individual defendants and for the litigation of each type of
issue in separate Tribunals specially adapted to their different tasks,
is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it presents unusual
procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents any insurmountable
ones.
C. _Criteria, Principles, and Precedents for Declaring Collective
Criminality._
The substantive law which governs the inquiry into criminality of
organizations is, in its large outline, old and well settled and fairly
uniform in all systems of law. It is true that we are dealing with a
procedure easy to abuse and one often feared as an interference with
liberty of assembly or as an imposition of “guilt by association.” It
also is true that proceedings against organizations are closely akin to
the conspiracy charge, which is the great dragnet of the law, rightly
watched by courts lest it be abused.
The fact is, however, that every form of government has considered it
necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not even the most
tolerant of governments can permit the accumulation of power in private
organizations to a point where it rivals, obstructs, or dominates the
government itself. To do so would be to grant designing men a liberty to
destroy liberty. It was the very complacency and tolerance as well as
the impotence of the Weimar Republic towards the growing organization of
Nazi power, which spelled the death of German freedom.
Protection of the citizen’s liberty has required even free governments
to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power which threaten
to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every one of the nations
signatory to this Charter has laws making certain types of organizations
criminal. The Ku Klux Klan in the United States flourished at about the
same time as the Nazi movement in Germany. It appealed to the same
hates, practiced the same extra-legal coercions, and likewise terrorized
by weird nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it was composed of a
core of fanatics, but enlisted support of some respectable persons who
knew it was wrong, but thought it was winning. It eventually provoked a
variety of legislative acts directed against such organizations.
The Congress of the United States also has enacted legislation outlawing
certain organizations. A recent example is the Act of June 28, 1940 (c.
439, Title I, Section 2, 54 Stat. 671, 18 USCA 10) which provides in
part as follows:
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person . . .
“(3) to organize or help to organize any society, group,
or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage
the overthrow or destruction of any government in the
United States by force or violence; or to be or become a
member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group,
or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.”
There is much legislation by States of the American union creating
analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the Act of California
(Statutes 1919, Chapter 188, p. 281) which, after defining “criminal
syndicalism,” provides:
“Section 2. Any person who . . . (4) organizes or assists in
organizing, or is or knowingly becomes a member of, any
organization, society, group or assemblage of persons organized
or assembled to teach or aid and abet criminal syndicalism . . .
“Is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment.”
Precedents in English law for outlawing organizations and punishing
membership therein are old and consistent with the Charter. One of the
first is the British India Act No. 30, enacted November 14, 1836.
Section 1 provides:
“It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have
belonged either before or after the passing of this Act to any
gang of thugs either within or without the territories of the
East India Company shall be punished with imprisonment for life
with hard labour.”
Other precedents in English legislation are the Unlawful Societies Act
of 1799 (3 George III, Chapter 79); the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817
(57 George III, Chapter 19); the Seditious Meetings Act of 1846 (9 and
10 Victoria, Chapter 33); the Public Order Act of 1936 and Defense
Regulation 18(b). The last, not without opposition, was intended to
protect the integrity of the British Government against the fifth-column
activities of this same Nazi conspiracy.
Soviet Russia punishes as a crime the formation of and membership in a
criminal gang. Criminologists of the U.S.S.R. call this crime the “crime
of banditry,” a term appropriate to the German organizations.
French criminal law makes membership in subversive organizations a
crime. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in itself. (Articles
265-268, French Penal Code, “_Association de Malfaiteurs_”; Garaud,
_Précis de Droit Criminel_, 1934 Edition Sirey, p. 1518 and seq. See
also Act of December 18, 1893.)
For German precedents, it is neither seemly nor necessary to go to the
Nazi regime. Under the Empire and the Weimar Republic, however, German
jurisprudence deserved respect and it presents both statutory and
juridical examples of declarations of the criminality of organizations.
Among statutory examples are:
1. The German Criminal Code enacted in 1871. Section 128 was aimed
against secret associations and Section 129 was directed against
organizations inimical to the State.
2. The law of March 22, 1921 against paramilitary organizations.
3. The law of July 21, 1922 against organizations aimed at overthrowing
the constitution of the Reich.
Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. It
reads:
“The participation in an organization the existence,
constitution, or purposes of which are to be kept secret from
the Government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or
unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is
punishable by imprisonment up to six months for the members and
from one month to one year for the founders and officers. Public
officials may be deprived of the right to hold public office for
a period of from one to five years.”
Under the Empire, various Polish national unions were the subject of
criminal prosecution. Under the Republic, judicial judgments in 1927-28
held criminal the entire Communist Party of Germany. In 1922 and 1928
judgments ran against the political Leadership Corps of the Communist
Party, which included all its so-called “body of functionaries,”
corresponding to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party which we have
accused. The judgment included every cashier, every employee, every
delivery boy and messenger, and every district leader. In 1930 a
judgment of criminality against the “Union of Red Front Fighters” of the
Communist Party made no discrimination between leaders and ordinary
members.
Most significant of all is the fact that on 30 May, 1924 the German
courts rendered judgment that the whole Nazi Party was a criminal
organization. This decision referred not only to the Leadership Corps,
which we are indicting here, but to all other members as well. The whole
subsequent rise to power of the Nazi Party was in the shadow of this
judgment of illegality.
The German courts in dealing with criminal organizations proceeded on
the theory that all members were held together by a common plan in which
each one participated even though at various levels. Moreover, the
fundamental principles of responsibility of members as stated by the
German Supreme Court are strikingly like the principles that govern our
Anglo-American law of conspiracy. Among them were these:
1. “It is a matter of indifference whether all the members
pursued the forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the
forbidden activity.” (R.G. VIa 97/22 of the 8.5.22.)
2. “It is a matter of indifference whether the members of the
group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of
working and means of fighting.” (R.G. 58, 401 of the 24.10.24.)
3. “The real attitude of mind of the participants is a matter of
indifference. Even if they had the intention of not
participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this can
not eliminate their responsibility.” (R.G. 58, 401 of the
24.10.24.)
Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in the
nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged by the
application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are offensive
to law-governed people has been succinctly stated as follows:
“The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a
combination to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means,
where none would exist, even though the act contemplated were
actually committed by an individual, is that a combination of
persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a means to an
end, is so much more dangerous, because of its increased power
to do wrong, because it is more difficult to guard against and
prevent the evil designs of a group of persons than of a single
person, and because of the terror which fear of such a
combination tends to create in the minds of people.” (_Miller on
Criminal Law_, 1932, p. 110.)
The Charter, in Article 6, provides that “Leaders, organizers,
instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or
execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing
crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in
execution of such plan.” The individual defendants are arraigned at your
bar on this charge which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts
of others in execution of the common plan.
The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others in
terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in non-technical
but inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and executing a “common
plan” as well as participating in a “conspiracy.” It was feared that to
do otherwise might import into the proceedings technical requirements
and limitations which have grown up around the term “conspiracy.” There
are some divergences between the Anglo-American concept of conspiracy
and that of either Soviet, French, or German jurisprudence. It was
desired that concrete cases be guided by the broader considerations
inherent in the nature of the social problem, rather than controlled by
refinements of any local law.
Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude,
there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization accused
here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part of the
conspiracy under Article 6 even if the Charter had never mentioned
organizations at all. Voluntary affiliation constituted a definite act
of adherence to some common plan and purpose. These did not pretend to
be merely social or cultural groups; admittedly they were united for
action. In the case of several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of
confederation was evidenced by formal induction into membership, the
taking of an oath, the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the submission
to a discipline. That all members of each Nazi organization did combine
under a common plan to achieve some end by combined efforts is
abundantly established.
The criteria for determining the collective guilt of those who thus
adhered to a common plan obviously are those which would test the
legality of any combination or conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal
methods or aim at illegal ends? If so, the liability of each member of
one of these Nazi organizations for the acts of every other member is
not essentially different from the liability for conspiracy enforced in
Courts of the United States against business men who combine in
violation of the anti-trust laws, or of other defendants accused under
narcotic drugs laws, sedition acts, or other federal penal enactments.
Among the principles every day enforced in Courts of Great Britain and
the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these:
1. No meeting or formal agreement is necessary. It is sufficient,
although one performs one part and other persons other parts, if there
be concert of action, and working together understandingly with a common
design to accomplish a common purpose.
2. One may be liable even though he may not have known who his
fellow-conspirators were, or just what part they were to take, or what
acts they committed, and though he did not take personal part in them or
was absent when criminal acts occurred.
3. There may be liability for acts of fellow-conspirators although the
particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if they were done in
execution of the common plan.
4. It is not necessary to liability that one be a member of a conspiracy
at the same time as other actors, or at the time of criminal acts. When
one becomes a party to it, he adopts and ratifies what has gone before
and remains responsible until he abandons the conspiracy with notice to
his fellow-conspirators.
Of course, members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who
personally commit crimes are individually punishable for those crimes
exactly as are those who commit the same offenses without organizational
backing. But the very gist of the crime of conspiracy or membership in a
criminal association is liability for acts one did not personally commit
but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The crime is to combine with
others and to participate in the unlawful common effort, however
innocent the personal acts of the participant when considered by
themselves.
The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to implicate one in
a conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal plan.
There are countless examples of this doctrine in Anglo-American
jurisprudence.
The sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration in
determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the
vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership,
formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose and
submission to a discipline and chain of command, can not be less than
that which follows from informal cooperation with a nebulous group to a
common end as is sufficient in conspiracy. This meets the suggestion
that the prosecution is required to prove every member, or every part,
fraction, or division of the membership to be guilty of criminal acts.
The suggestion ignores the conspiratorial nature of the charge. Such an
interpretation also would reduce the Charter to an unworkable absurdity.
To concentrate in one International Tribunal inquiries requiring such
detailed evidence as to each member would set a task not possible of
completion within the lives of living men.
It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as,
“One should be convicted for his activities, not for his membership.”
But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi bodies was itself an
activity. It was not something passed out to a passive citizen like a
handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and abet a movement greatly.
Does anyone believe that Hjalmar Schacht sitting in the front row of the
Nazi Party Congress of 1935, wearing the insignia of the Party, was
included in the Nazi propaganda films merely for artistic effect? This
great banker’s mere loan of his name to this shady enterprise gave it a
lift and a respectability in the eyes of every hesitating German. There
may be instances in which membership did not aid and abet the
organizational ends and means, but individual situations of that kind
are for appraisal in the later hearings and not by this Tribunal. By and
large, the use of organization affiliation is a quick and simple, but at
the same time fairly accurate outline of the contours of a conspiracy to
do what the organization actually did. It is the only one workable at
this stage of the trial. It can work no injustice because before any
individual can be punished, he can submit the facts of his own case to
further and more detailed judicial scrutiny.
While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary legal
principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of criminality
is upon the prosecution. It is discharged, we think, when we establish
the following:
1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of
persons associated in some identifiable relationship with a collective
general purpose.
2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that
membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. That
does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. Nor does it
mean that an organization is not to be considered voluntary if the
defense proves that some minor fraction or small percentage of its
membership was compelled to join. The test is a common-sense one: Was
the organization on the whole one which persons were free to join or to
stay out of? Membership is not made involuntary by the fact that it was
good business or good politics to identify one’s self with the movement.
Any compulsion must be of the kind which the law normally recognizes,
and threats of political or economic retaliation would be of no
consequence.
3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was
designing to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the
Charter. No other act would authorize conviction of an individual and
therefore no other act would authorize conviction of an organization in
connection with the conviction of the individual.
4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of
such character that its membership in general may properly be charged
with knowledge of them. This again is not specifically required by the
Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish
the individual knowledge of every member of the organization or to rebut
the possibility that some may have joined in ignorance of its true
character.
5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the organization
and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which the organization
is declared to be criminal.
D. _Definition of Issues for Trial._
The progress of this trial will be expedited by clear definition of the
issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be the proper
criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are not
relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in the
specific questions asked by the Tribunal.
Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. That
is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized as
criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that does
not bear on a question that would be common to the case of every member.
Any matter which would be exculpating for some members but not for all
is irrelevant here.
We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that one or
many members were conscripted if in general the membership was
voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good defense for an
individual charged with membership in a criminal organization, but an
organization can have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts even if
a portion of its membership consists of persons who were compelled to
join it. The issue of conscription is not pertinent to this proceeding
but it is pertinent to the trials of individuals for membership in
organizations declared criminal by this Tribunal.
We also think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more
members of the named organizations were ignorant of its criminal
purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open and notorious.
An organization may have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts
although one or many of its members were without personal knowledge
thereof. If a person joined what he thought was a social club but what
in fact was a gang of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of knowledge
would not exonerate the gang considered as a group, although it might
possibly be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality brought
against him for mere membership in the organization. Even then the test
would be not what the man knew, but what, as a person of common
understanding, he should have known.
It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the
named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful acts. This
proposition is basic to the entire theory of the declaration of
organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality of
organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for aiding
crimes, although the precise perpetrators may never be found or
identified. We know that the Gestapo and SS, as organizations, were
given principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish
people in Europe—but beyond a few isolated instances, we can never
establish which members of the Gestapo or SS actually carried out the
murders. Any member guilty of direct participation in such crimes can be
tried on the charge of having committed specific crimes in addition to
the general charge of membership in a criminal organization. Therefore,
it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of the organizations
were themselves allegedly innocent of specific wrongdoing. The purpose
of this proceeding is not to reach instances of individual criminal
conduct, even in subsequent trials and, therefore, such considerations
are irrelevant here.
Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time during
which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment are claimed by
the Prosecution to have been criminal. The Prosecution believes that
each organization should be declared criminal during the period referred
to in the Indictment. We do not contend that the Tribunal is without
power to condition its declaration so as to cover a lesser period of
time than that set forth in the Indictment. The Prosecution feels,
however, that there is in the record at this time adequate evidence to
support the charge of criminality with respect to each of the named
organizations during the full period of time set forth in the
Indictment.
Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes of
persons included within the accused groups or organizations should be
excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of course,
necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some identifiable
group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not expected or
required to be bound by formalities of organization. In framing the
Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or concepts which
would involve this trial in legal technicalities about “juristic
persons” or “entities.” Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the
refinements of these fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is
a nontechnical one. “Group” or “organization” should be given no
artificial or sophistical meaning. The word “group” was used in the
Charter as a broader term, implying a looser and less formal structure
or relationship than is implied in the “organization.” The terms mean in
the context of the Charter what they mean in the ordinary speech of
people. The test to identify a group or organization is, we submit, a
natural and common-sense one.
It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal no doubt has
power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare criminal,
the precise composition and membership of groups and organizations is
not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter requirement and no
practical need for the Tribunal to define a group or organization with
such particularity that its precise composition or membership is thereby
determined. The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues
was a recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive
of such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend
persons who on more detailed inquiry will prove to be outside of it. An
effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of individuals,
few or many, would unduly protract the trial, transgress the limitation
of the Charter, and quite likely do some mischief by attempting to
adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence which is not directed to that
purpose.
The prosecution stands upon the language of the Indictment and contends
that each group or organization should be declared criminal as an entity
and that no inquiry should be entered upon and no evidence entertained
as to the exculpation of any class or classes of persons within such
descriptions. Practical reasons of conserving the Tribunal’s time
combine with practical considerations for the defendants. A single trial
held in one city to deal with questions of excluding thousands of
defendants living all over Germany could not be expected to do justice
to each member unless it was expected to endure indefinitely. Provision
for later, local trial of individual relationships protects the rights
of members better than can possibly be done in proceedings before this
Tribunal.
With respect to the Gestapo, the United States consents to exclude
persons employed in purely clerical, stenographic, janitorial or similar
unofficial routine tasks. As to the Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by
the position taken at the time of submission of the evidence, that the
following should be included: the Fuehrer, the _Reichsleitung_ (i.e.,
the _Reichsleiters_, main departments and officeholders), the
_Gauleiters_ and their staff officers, the _Kreisleiters_ and their
staff officers, the _Ortsgruppenleiters_, the _Zellenleiters_, and the
_Blockleiters_, but not members of the staff of the last three
officials. As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the
Declaration expressly exclude (1) wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) SA
controlled Home Guard Units (_SA Wehrmannschaften_) which were not
strictly part of the SA; (3) The _Marchabteilungen_ of the N.S.K.O.V.
(National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans); and (4) the SA
Reserve, so as to include only the active part of the organization, and
that members who were never in any part of that organization other than
the Reserve should be excluded.
The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the severability
of any class or classes of persons within the organizations accused
which would justify any further concessions and feels that no other part
of the named groups should be excluded. In this connection, we would
again stress the principles of conspiracy. The fact that a section of an
organization itself committed no criminal act, or may have been occupied
in technical or administrative functions, does not relieve that section
of criminal responsibility if its activities contributed to the
accomplishment of the criminal enterprise.
E. _Further Steps Before This Tribunal._
Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to this Tribunal
asking to be heard in connection with the accusations against
organizations. The volume of these applications has caused apprehension
as to further proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties yet to be
overcome, but my study indicates that the difficulties are greatly
exaggerated.
The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will
entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be anxious,
of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, not only
to do justice but to avoid the appearance of doing anything less than
justice. And we do not consider that expediting this trial is so
important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really
pertinent facts.
Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood of
applications indicates that their significance is not proportionate to
their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of the
right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied prisoner
of war and internment camps. The notice was published in all German
language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the radio. The 45,000
persons who responded with applications to be heard came principally
from about 15 prisoner of war and internment camps in British or United
States control. Those received included an approximate 12,000 from
Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser, 7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from
Staumuehle, 2,500 from Garmisch, and several hundred from each of the
others.
We undertook investigation of these applications from Auerbach camp as
probably typical of all. The camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly
SS members, and its prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923
officers. The notice of the International Tribunal was posted in each
barracks and was read to all inmates. The applications to the Tribunal
were forwarded without censorship. Applications to defend were made by
7,509 SS members.
Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to the
notice and that no action was directed or inspired from any other source
within the camp. All who were interrogated professed no knowledge of any
SS crimes or of SS criminal purpose, but expressed interest only in
their individual fate. Our investigators report no indication that the
SS members had additional evidence or information to submit on the
general question of the criminality of the SS as an organization. They
seemed to think it necessary to make the application to this Tribunal in
order to protect themselves.
Examination of the applications made to the Tribunal indicates that most
members do not profess to have evidence on the general issue triable
here. They assert that the writer has neither committed, witnessed, nor
known of the crimes charged against the organization. On a proper
definition of the issues such an application is insufficient on its
face.
A careful examination of the Tribunal’s notice to which these
applications respond will indicate that the notice contains no word
which would inform a member, particularly if a layman, of the narrowness
of the issues here, or of the later opportunity of each member, if and
when prosecuted, to present personal defenses. On the other hand, I
think the notice creates the impression that every member may be
convicted and punished by this Tribunal and that his only chance to be
heard is here.
In view of these facts we suggest consideration of the following program
for completion of this trial as to organizations.
1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope of the
issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it.
2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation on
issues and the opportunity for later, individual trial, be sent to all
applicants and published as was the original notice.
3. That a panel of masters be appointed as authorized in Article 17(e)
of the Charter to examine applications and report those insufficient on
their own statements, and to go to the camps and supervise the taking of
any relevant evidence. Defense counsel and prosecution representatives
should of course attend and be heard before the masters. The masters
should reduce any evidence to deposition form and report the whole to
the Tribunal to be introduced as a part of its record.
4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify this
task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps might well
be invited to choose one or more to represent them in presenting
evidence.
It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and defense counsel that
the prosecution has omitted from evidence many relevant documents which
show repetition of crimes by these organizations in order to save time
by avoiding cumulative evidence. It is not too much to expect that
cumulative evidence of a negative character will likewise be limited.
Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons who might be
affected by the declarations of criminality we have asked. Some people
seem more susceptible to the shock of a million punishments than to the
shock of 5 million murders. At most the number of punishments will never
catch up with the number of crimes. However, it is impossible to state
even with approximate accuracy the number of persons who might be
affected. Figures from German sources seriously exaggerate the number,
because they do not take account of heavy casualties in the latter part
of the war, and make no allowances for duplication of membership, which
was large. For example, the evidence is to the effect that 75 percent of
the Gestapo men also were members of the SS. We know that the United
States forces have in detention a roughly estimated 130,000 persons who
appear to be members of accused organizations. I have no figures from
other Allied forces. But how many of these actually would be prosecuted,
instead of being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can
foretell. Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: it is so
large that a thorough inquiry by this Tribunal, into each case, would
prolong its session beyond endurance. All questions as to whether
individuals or sub-groups of accused organizations should be excepted
from the Declaration of Criminality, should be left for local courts,
located near the home of the accused and near sources of evidence. These
courts can work in one or at most in two languages, instead of four, and
can hear evidence which both parties direct to the specific issues.
F. _Conclusion._
This is not the time to review the evidence against particular
organizations which, we take it, should be reserved for summation after
all the evidence is presented. But it is timely to say that the
selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment was not a
matter of chance. The chief reasons they were chosen are these:
collectively they were the ultimate repositories of all power in the
Nazi regime; they were not only the most powerful, but the most vicious
organizations in the regime; and they were organizations in which
membership was generally voluntary.
The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal
executors of the Nazi Party, which was the force lying behind and
dominating the whole German state. The Reichs Cabinet was the facade
through which the Nazi Party translated its will into legislative,
administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars on which the
security of the regime rested were the armed forces, directed and
controlled by the General Staff and High Command, and the police
forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. These organizations
exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime.
These organizations were also selected because, while representative,
they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable that
innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up in the same
net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, but not all
administrative officials or department heads or civil servants; only the
_Reichsregierung_, the very heart of Nazidom within the Government, is
named. The armed forces are accused, but not the average soldier or
officer, no matter how high ranking. Only the top policy-makers—the
General Staff and High Command—are named. The police forces are
accused, but not every policeman: not the ordinary police, which
performed only normal police functions. Only the most terroristic and
repressive police elements—the Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi
Party is accused, but not every Nazi voter, not even every member; only
the leaders, the _Politische Leiter_. (_See Chart No. 14._) And not even
every Party official or worker is included; only “the bearers of
sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the Party, who were the
actual commanding officers and their staff officers on the highest
levels, are accused. The “formations” or strong arms of the Party are
accused, but not every one of the seven formations, nor any of the
twenty or more supervised or affiliated party groups. Nazi organizations
in which membership was compulsory, either legally or in practice (like
the Hitler Youth and the _Deutsche Studentschaft_); Nazi professional
organizations (like the Civil Servants Organization, the National
Socialist Teachers Organization, and the National Socialist Lawyers
Organization); Nazi organizations having some legitimate purpose (like
the welfare organizations), have not been indicted. Only two formations
are named, the SA and the SS, the oldest of the Nazi organizations,
groups which had no purpose other than carrying out the Nazi schemes and
which actively participated in every crime denounced in the Charter.
In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling
repetition of these crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these
organizations than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual
defendants in the box. These defendants’ power for harm is spent. That
of these organizations goes on. If they are exonerated here, the German
people will infer that they did no wrong and will easily be regimented
in reconstituted organizations under new names behind the same program.
In administering retributive justice it would be possible to exonerate
these organizations only by concluding that no crimes have been
committed by the Nazi regime. Their sponsorship of every Nazi purpose
and their confederation to execute every measure to attain those ends is
beyond denial. A failure to condemn these organizations under the terms
of the Charter can only mean that such Nazi ends and means cannot be
considered criminal, and that the Charter of the Tribunal is considered
a nullity.
2. THE NAZI PARTY LEADERSHIP CORPS
The Nazi Party Leadership Corps—it is proposed to demonstrate—was
responsible for planning, directing, and supervising the criminal
measures carried into execution by the Nazi Party, which was the central
core of the common plan or conspiracy charged in Count I of the
Indictment. Moreover, it will be shown, the members of the Leadership
Corps themselves actively participated in the commission of illegal
measures in aid of the conspiracy. In the light of the evidence to be
discussed, the Leadership Corps may be fairly described as the brain,
the backbone, and the directing arms of the Nazi Party. Its
responsibilities are more massive and comprehensive than those of the
army of followers who blindly and faithfully did its bidding.
A. _Composition, Functions, Responsibilities, and Powers of the
Leadership Corps._
In considering the composition and organizational structure of the
Leadership Corps, preliminary reference is made to the organization
chart of the Nazi Party (_Chart Number 1_) as well as a chart of the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party appearing at page 9 of a magazine
published by the Chief Education Office of the Nazi Party entitled “_Das
Gesicht der Partei_” (The Face of the Party). These charts and the
evidence to follow show that the Leadership Corps constituted the sum of
the officials of the Nazi Party: it included the Fuehrer; the
_Reichsleiter_ and Reich office holders; the five categories of leaders
who were area commanders (called _Hoheitstraeger_, or “bearers of
sovereignty”) ranging all the way from the 40-odd _Gauleiter_ in charge
of large districts down through the intermediate political leaders to
the _Blockleiter_, charged with looking after 40 to 60 households; and
what may best be described as the Staff Officers attached to each of the
5 levels of _Hoheitstraeger_.
Organized upon a hierarchical basis, forming a pyramidal structure, the
principal Political Leaders on a scale of descending authority were:
_Fuehrer_
_Reichsleiter_ (Reich Leaders) and _Main Office_ and _Office
Holders_
_Gauleiter_ (District Leaders) and Staff Officers
_Kreisleiter_ (County Leaders) and Staff Officers
_Ortsgruppenleiter_ (Local Chapter Leaders) and Staff Officers
_Zellenleiter_ (Cell Leaders) and Staff Officers
_Blockleiter_ (Block Leaders) and Staff Officers
A large part of this and other evidence relating to the composition of
the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party is to be found in the 1943
edition of the _Organization Book of the NSDAP_, an authoritative primer
on Nazi organizations which was edited by the defendant, Reich
Organization Leader of the NSDAP, Dr. Robert Ley.
The _Reichsleitung_ of the Leadership Corps consisted of the
_Reichsleiter_ or Reich Leaders of the Party, the _Hauptaemter_ (Main
Offices) and the _Aemter_ (or Offices). The _Reichsleiter_ of the Party
were, next to Hitler, the highest officeholders in the Party hierarchy.
All the _Reichsleiter_ and Main Office and officeholders within the
_Reichsleitung_ were appointed by Hitler and were directly responsible
to him. _The Organization Book of the NSDAP_ puts it as follows:
“The Fuehrer appoints the following Political Directors:
“_Reichsleiter_ and all Political Directors, to include the
Directors of the Womens Leagues within the Reich Directorate or
_Reichsleitung_.” (_1893-PS_)
The significant fact is that through the _Reichsleitung_ perfect
coordination of Party and State machinery was guaranteed. The Party
Manual describes it this way:
“In the _Reichsleitung_ the arteries of the organization of the
German people and of the German State merge.” (_1893-PS_)
To demonstrate that the _Reichsleiter_ of the Leadership Corps included
the most powerful coalition of political overlords in Nazi Germany, it
is necessary only to mention their names. The list of _Reichsleiter_
includes the following defendants on trial: Rosenberg, Von Schirach,
Frick, Bormann, and Ley.
The evidence to be presented will show that Rosenberg was the leader of
an organization named for him, the _Einsatzstab_ Rosenberg, which
carried out a vast program of looting and plunder of art treasures
throughout occupied Europe. The evidence will further show that, as
Representative of the Fuehrer for the Supervision of Nazi Ideology and
Schooling, Rosenberg participated in an aggressive campaign to undermine
the Christian churches and to supersede Christianity by a German
National Church founded upon a combination of irrationality,
pseudo-scientific theories, mysticism, and the cult of the racial state.
It will be shown that the late Defendant Ley, acting as the agent of
Hitler and the Leadership Corps, directed the Nazi assault upon the
independent labor unions of Germany and before destroying himself first
destroyed the free and independent labor movement; and that he replaced
it by a Nazi organization, the German Labor front or DAF, which he
employed as a means of exploiting the German labor force in the
interests of the conspiracy and to instill Nazi ideology among the ranks
of the German workers.
It will be shown that Frick participated in the enactment of many laws
which were designed to promote the conspiracy in its several phases.
Frick shares responsibility for the grave injury done by the officials
of the Leadership Corps to the concept of the rule of law by virtue of
his efforts to give the color of law and formal legality to a large
volume of Nazi legislation violative of the rights of humanity, such as
the legislation designed to stigmatize and eliminate the Jewish people
of Germany and German-occupied Europe. As chief of the Party
Chancellery, immediately under Hitler, Bormann was an extremely
important force in directing the activities of the Leadership Corps. As
will be shown, a decree of 16 January 1942 provided that the
participation of the Party in all important legislation, governmental
appointments, and promotions had to be undertaken exclusively by
Bormann. He took part in the preparation of all laws and decrees issued
by the Reich authorities and gave his assent to those of the subordinate
governments.
The list of _Reichsleiter_ of the NSDAP set forth in the _National
Socialist Yearbook_ (1943 Edition) shows that the following 15
_Reichsleiter_ were in office in 1943 (_2473-PS_):
“_THE REICHSLEITERS OF THE NSDAP_
“Max Amann _Reichsleiter_ for the Press.
“Martin Bormann Chief of the Party Chancery.
“Phillipp Bouhler Chief of the Chancery of the Fuehrer of
the NSDAP. Chairman of the official Party
Investigation Commission for the
Protection of National Socialist Writings.
“Walter Darré On leave.
“Otto Dietrich Reich Press Chief of the NSDAP.
“Franz von Epp Chief of the _Kolonialpolitischen Amtes_.
“Karl Fiehler Chief of the main office for Municipal
Politics.
“Wilhelm Frick Leader of the National Socialist “faction”
in the Reichstag.
“Joseph Goebbels Reich Propaganda Leader of the NSDAP.
“Konstantin Hierl Leader of the Reich Labor.
“Heinrich Himmler Reich Leader of the SS. The Deputy of the
NSDAP, for all questions of Germandom.
“Robert Ley Reich Organization Leader of the NSDAP.
Leader of the German Labor Front.
“Victor Lutze Chief of Staff of the SA.
“Alfred Rosenberg Representative of the Fuehrer for the
supervision of all mental and ideological
training and education of the NSDAP.
“Baldur von Schirach Reich Leader for the Education of Youth of
the NSDAP.
“Franz Xaver Schwarz Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP.”
(_2473-PS_)
The principal functions of the _Reichsleiter_ included carrying out the
tasks and missions assigned to them by the Fuehrer or by the Chief of
the Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann. The _Reichsleiter_ were further
charged with insuring that Party policies were being executed in all the
subordinate areas of the Reich. The _Reichsleiter_ were also responsible
for insuring a continual flow of new leadership into the Party. With
respect to the function and responsibilities of the _Reichsleiter_, the
Organization Book of the NSDAP states as follows:
“The NSDAP represents the political conception, the political
conscience, and the political will of the German nation.
Political conception, political conscience, and political will
are embodied in the person of the Fuehrer. Based on his
directives and in accordance with the program of the NSDAP the
organs of the Reich Directorate directionally determine the
political aims of the German people. It is in the Reich
Directorate that the arteries of the organization of the German
people and the State merge. It is the task of the separate
organs of the Reich Directorate to maintain as close a contact
as possible with the life of the nation through their
sub-offices in the Gau * * *
“The structure of the Reich Directorate is thus that the channel
from the lowest Party office upwards shows the most minute
weaknesses and changes in the mood of the people * * *
“Another essential task of the Reich Directorate is to assure a
good selection of leaders. It is the duty of the Reich
Directorate to see that there is leadership in all phases of
life, a leadership which is firmly tied to National Socialist
ideology and which promotes its dissemination with all its
energy * * *
“* * * It is the supreme task of the Reich Organization Leader
to preserve the Party as a well-sharpened sword for the
Fuehrer.” (_1893-PS_)
The domination of the German Government by the top members of the
Leadership Corps was facilitated by a circular decree of the Reich
Minister of Justice, dated 17 February 1934, which established equal
rank for the offices within the _Reichsleitung_ of the Leadership Corps
and the Reich offices of the government. In this decree it was expressly
provided that
“the supreme offices of the _Reichsleitung_ are equal in rank to
the supreme Reich Government authorities.”
The Party Manual termed the control exercised over the machinery of
government by the Leadership Corps “the permeation of the State
apparatus with the political will of the Party.”
Domination by the Leadership Corps over the German State and Government
was facilitated by uniting in the same Nazi chieftains both high office
within the _Reichsleitung_ and corresponding offices within the
apparatus of government. For example, Goebbels was a _Reichsleiter_ in
charge of Party propaganda, but he was also a cabinet minister in charge
of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. Himmler held office within the
_Reichsleitung_ as head of the Main Office for “Volkdom” and as
Reichsfuehrer of the SS. At the same time, Himmler held the governmental
position of Reich Commission for the Consolidation of Germandom and was
the governmental head of the German police system (_Chart Number 1_).
This personal union of high office in the Leadership Corps and high
governmental position in the same Nazi Leaders greatly assisted the plan
of the Leadership Corps to dominate and control the German State and
Government.
In addition to the _Reichsleiter_, the _Reichsleitung_ (Reich Party
Directorate) included about eleven _Hauptamter_, or Main Offices, and
about four _Amter_, or Offices. The _Hauptamter_ of the Party included
such main organizations as those for personnel, training, technology
(headed by Speer), “Volkdom,” (headed by Himmler), civil servants,
communal policy, and the like. The _Amter_, or offices, of the Party
within the _Reichsleitung_ included the Office for Foreign Policy under
Rosenberg which actively participated in plans for aggression against
Norway, the Office for Colonial Policy, the Office for Geneology, and
the Office for Racial Policy.
Certain of the main offices and offices within the _Reichsleitung_
appeared again within the _Gauleitung_, or Gau Party Directorate, and
_Kreisleitung_, or County Party Directorate. Thus, the _Reichsleiter_
and main office and office holders within the _Reichsleitung_ exercised,
through functional channels running through subordinate offices on lower
regional levels, total control over the various sectors of the national
life of Germany.
(1) _Gauleiter._ For Party purposes Germany was divided into major
administrative regions, _Gaue_, which, in turn, were subdivided into
_Kreise_ (counties), _Ortsgruppen_ (local chapters), _Zellen_ (cells),
and _Blocke_ (blocks). Each _Gau_ was in charge of a _Gauleiter_ who was
the political leader of the _Gau_ or district. Each _Gauleiter_ was
appointed by and was responsible to Hitler himself. The _Organization
Book of the NSDAP_ states:
“The _Gau_ represents the concentration of a number of Party
counties, or _Kreise_. The _Gauleiter_ is directly subordinate
to the Fuehrer. He is appointed by the Fuehrer. The _Gauleiter_
bears overall responsibility to the Fuehrer for the sector of
sovereignty entrusted to him. The rights, duties, and
jurisdiction of the _Gauleiter_ result primarily from the
mission assigned by the Fuehrer and, apart from that, from
detailed directives.” (_1893-PS_)
The responsibility and function of the _Gauleiter_ and his staff
officers or office holders were essentially political, namely, to insure
the authority of the Nazi Party within his area, to coordinate the
activities of the Party and all its affiliated and supervised
organizations, and to enlarge the influence of the Party over people and
life in his _Gau_ generally. Following the outbreak of the war, when it
became imperative to coordinate the various phases of the German war
effort, the _Gauleiter_ were given additional important
responsibilities. The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich,
which was a sort of general staff for civil defense and the mobilization
of the German war economy, by a decree of 1 September 1939 (1939,
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 1565), appointed about sixteen
_Gauleiter_ as Reich Defense Commissars. Later, under the impact of
mounting military reverses and an increasingly strained war economy,
more and more important administrative functions were put on a _Gau_
basis; the Party Gaue became the basic defense areas of the Reich and
each _Gauleiter_ became a Reich Defense Commissar (Decree of the
Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich of 16 November 1942,
1942 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 649). In the course of the war,
additional functions were entrusted to the _Gauleiter_ so that at the
end, with the exception of certain special matters, such as police
affairs, almost all phases of the German war economy were coordinated
and supervised by them. For instance, regional authority over price
control was put under the _Gauleiter_ as Reich Defense Commissars, and
housing administration was placed under the _Gauleiter_ as _Gau_ Housing
Commissar. Toward the end of the war, the _Gauleiter_ were charged even
with military and quasi military tasks. They were made commanders of the
_Volkssturm_ in their areas and were entrusted with such important
functions as the evacuation of civilian population in the path of the
advancing Allied armies, as well as measures for the destruction of
vital installations.
The structure and organization of the Party _Gau_ were substantially
repeated in the lower levels of the Party organization such as the
_Kreise_, _Ortsgruppen_, Cells, and Blocks. Each of these was headed by
a political leader who, subject to the Fuehrer principle and the orders
of superior political leaders, was sovereign within his sphere. The
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was in effect a “hierarchy of
descending caesars.” Each of the subordinate Party levels, such as
_Kreise_, _Ortsgruppen_, and so on, was organized into offices or
_Amter_ dealing with the various specialized functions of the Party. But
the number of such departments and offices diminished as the Party unit
dropped in the hierarchy, so that, while the _Kreise_ office contained
all, or most of the offices in the _Gau_ (such as the deputy, the staff
office leader, an organization leader, school leader, propaganda leader,
press office leader, treasurer, judge of the Party Court, inspector, and
the like), the _Ortsgruppe_ had less and the _Zellen_ and _Blocke_ fewer
still.
(2) _Kreisleiter_ (_County Leaders_). The _Kreisleiter_ was appointed
and dismissed by Hitler upon the nomination of the _Gauleiter_ and
directly subordinate to the _Gauleiter_ in the Party hierarchy. The
_Kreis_ usually comprised a single county. The _Kreisleiter_, within the
_Kreis_, had in general the same position, powers, and prerogatives
granted the _Gauleiter_ in the _Gau_. In cities they constituted the
very core of Party power and organization. According to the
_Organization Book of the NSDAP_:
“The _Kreisleiter_ carries over-all responsibility towards the
_Gauleiter_ within his zone of sovereignty for the political and
ideological training and organization of the Political Leaders,
the Party members, as well as the population.” (_1893-PS_)
(3) _Ortsgruppenleiter_ (_Local Chapter Leaders_). The area of the
_Ortsgruppenleiter_ comprised one or more communes or, in a town, a
certain district. The _Ortsgruppe_ was composed of a combination of
blocks and cells and, according to local circumstances, contained up to
1500 households. The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ also had a staff of office
leaders to assist him in the various functional activities of the Party.
All other political leaders in his area of responsibility were
subordinate to and under the direction of the _Ortsgruppenleiter_. For
example, the leaders of the various affiliated organizations of the
Party, within his area, such as the German Labor Front, and the Nazi
organizations for lawyers, students, and civil servants, were all
subordinate to the _Ortsgruppenleiter_. In accordance with the Fuehrer
principle, the _Ortsgruppenleiter_ or Local Chapter Leaders were
appointed by the _Gauleiter_ and were directly under and subordinate to
the _Kreisleiter_.
The party Manual provides as follows with respect to the
_Ortsgruppenleiter_:
“As _Hoheitstraeger_ [Bearer of Sovereignty] all expressions of
the Party will emanate from the _Ortsgruppenleiter_; he is
responsible for the political and ideological leadership and
organization within his zone of sovereignty.
“The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ carries the over-all responsibility for
the political results of all measures initiated by the offices,
organizations, and affiliated associations of the Party. * * *
The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ has the right to protest to the
_Kreisleiter_ against any measures contrary to the interests of
the Party with regard to an outside political appearance in
public.” (_1893-PS_)
(4) _Zellenleiter_ (_Cell Leaders_). The _Zellenleiter_ was responsible
for four to eight blocks. He was the immediate superior of and had
control and supervision over the _Blockleiter_ (Block Leader). His
mission and duties, according to the Party Manual, corresponded to the
missions of the _Blockleiter_. (_1893-PS_)
(5) _Blockleiter_ (_Block Leaders_). The _Blockleiter_ was the one Party
official who was peculiarly in a position to have continuous contact
with the German people. The _block_ was the lowest unit in the Party
pyramidal organization. The _block_ of the Party comprised 40 to 60
households and was regarded by the Party as the focal point upon which
to press the weight of its propaganda. The _Organization Book of the
NSDAP_ states:
“The household is the basic community upon which the block and
cell system is built. The household is the organizational focal
point of all Germans united in an apartment and includes
roomers, domestic help, etc. * * * The _Blockleiter_ has
jurisdiction over all matters within his zone relating to the
Movement and is fully responsible to the _Zellenleiter_. * * *”
(_1893-PS_)
The _Blockleiter_, as in the case of other political leaders, was
charged with planning, disseminating, and developing a receptivity to
the policies of the Nazi Party among the population in his area of
responsibility. It was also the expressed duty of the _Blockleiter_ to
spy on the population. According to the Party Manual:
“It is the duty of the _Blockleiter_ to find people
disseminating damaging rumors and to report them to the
_Ortsgruppe_ so that they may be reported to the respective
State authorities.
“The _Blockleiter_ must not only be preacher and defender of the
National Socialist ideology towards the members of nation and
Party entrusted to his political care, but he must also strive
to achieve practical collaboration of the Party members within
his block zone * * *.”
“The _Blockleiter_ shall continuously remind the Party members
of their particular duties towards the people and the State * *
* The _Blockleiter_ keeps a list (card file) about the
households * * * In principle, the _Blockleiter_ will settle his
official business verbally and he will receive messages verbally
and pass them on in the same way. Correspondence will only be
used in cases of absolute necessity * * * The _Blockleiter_
conducts National Socialist propaganda from mouth to mouth. He
will eventually awaken the understanding of the eternally
dissatisfied as regards the frequently misunderstood or wrongly
interpreted measures and laws of the National Socialist
Government * * * It is not necessary to him to fall in with
complaints and gripes about possibly obvious shortcomings of any
kind in order to demonstrate * * * solidarity * * * A condition
to gain the confidence of all people is to maintain absolute
secrecy in all matters.” (_1893-PS_)
There were in Germany around a half million of these _Blockleiter_.
Large though this figure may appear, there can be no doubt that these
officials were in and of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Though
they stood at the broad base of the Party pyramid rather than at its
summit, where rested the _Reichsleiter_, by virtue of this fact they
were stationed at close intervals throughout the German civil
population. It may be doubted that the average German ever looked upon
the face of Heinrich Himmler. But the man in the street in Nazi Germany
could not have avoided an uneasy acquaintance with the _Blockleiter_ in
his neighbourhood. It was the block leaders who represented to the
people of Germany the police-state of Hitler’s Germany. In fact, the
_Blockleiter_ were little fuehrers with real power over the civilians in
their domains. The authority of the _Blockleiter_ to exercise coercion
and the threat of force upon the civil population is shown in an excerpt
from page 7 of the magazine published by the Chief Education Office of
the Party, entitled “The Face of the Party”:
“Advice and sometimes also the harsher form of education is
employed if the faulty conduct of an individual harms this
individual himself and thus also the community.”
(6) _Hoheitstraeger._ Within the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party
certain of the Political Leaders possessed a higher degree of
responsibility than others, were vested with special prerogatives, and
constituted a distinctive and elite group. These were the so-called
“_Hoheitstraeger_” (Bearers of Sovereignty) who represented the Party
within their area of jurisdiction, the so-called _Hoheitsgebiet_. The
Party Manual (_1893-PS_) states as follows:
“Among the Political Leaders, the _Hoheitstraeger_ assumed a
special position. Contrary to the other Political Leaders who
have departmental missions, the _Hoheitstraeger_ themselves are
in charge of a geographical sector known as the _Hoheitsgebiet_
[Sectors of Sovereignty].
“_Hoheitstraeger_ are:
“The _Fuehrer_
The _Gauleiter_
The _Kreisleiter_
The _Ortsgruppenleiter_
The _Zellenleiter_
The _Blockleiter_.
“_Hoheitsgebiet_ are:
“The _Reich_
The _Gau_
The _Kreis_
The _Ortsgruppe_
The _Zelle_
The _Block_.
“Within their sector of sovereignty the _Hoheitstraeger_ have
sovereign political rights. They represent the Party within
their sector. The _Hoheitstraeger_ supervise all Party Officers
within their jurisdiction and * * * are responsible for the
maintenance of discipline. * * * The directors of offices, etc.,
and of the affiliated organizations are responsible to their
respective _Hoheitstraeger_ as regards their special missions. *
* * The _Hoheitstraeger_ are superior to all Political Leaders,
managers, etc., within their sector. As regards personal
considerations, _Hoheitstraeger_ * * * are endowed with special
rights.
“The _Hoheitstraeger_ of the Party are not to be administrative
officials * * * but are to move in a continuous vital contact
with the Political Leaders of the population within their
sector. The _Hoheitstraeger_ are responsible for the proper and
good supervision of all members of the nation within their
sectors * * *.
“The Party intends to achieve a state of affairs in which the
individual German will find his way to the Party * * *.”
(_1893-PS_)
The distinctive character of the _Politischer Leiter_ (Political
Leaders) constituting the _Hoheitstraeger_, and their existence and
operation as an identifiable group, are indicated by the publication of
a magazine, entitled _Der Hoheitstraeger_, whose distribution was
limited by regulation of the Reich Organization Leader to the
_Hoheitstraeger_ and certain other designated _Politischer Leiter_. The
inside cover of this exclusive Party magazine reads as follows:
“_DER HOHEITSTRAEGER_, the contents of which is to be handled
confidentially, serves only for the orientation of the competent
leaders. It may not be loaned out to other persons * * *” [then
follows a list of the Hoheitstraeger and other Political Leaders
authorized to receive the magazine.] (_2660-PS_)
The magazine states that, in addition, the following were entitled to
receive it:
“Commandants, Unit Commanders and Candidates of Order Castles;
the Reich, Shock Troop and _Gaue_ Speakers of the NSDAP; the
Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals of SA, SS, NSFK, and
NSKK; Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals of the HJ.”
(_2660-PS_)
The fact that this magazine existed, that it derived its name from the
Commanding Officers of the Leadership Corps, that it was distributed to
the elite of the Leadership Corps—that a House Bulletin was circulated
down the command channels of the Leadership Corps—demonstrates that the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was an identifiable group or
organization within the meaning of Article 9 of the Charter.
An examination of the contents of the magazine _Der Hoheitstrager_
reveals a continuing concern by the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party
in measures and doctrines which were employed throughout the course of
the conspiracy. The plans and policies of the inner elite of the
Leadership Corps gain clarity through a random sampling of articles
published and policies advocated in various issues of the magazine _Der
Hoheitstrager_. From February 1937 to October 1938 these included the
following: anti-Semitic articles, attacks on Catholicism and the
Christian religion and clergy; the need for motorized armament; the
urgent need for expanded _Lebensraum_ and colonies; persistent attacks
on the League of Nations; the use of the Block and Cell in achieving
favorable votes in Party plebiscites; the intimate association between
the _Wehrmacht_ and the Political Leadership; the racial doctrines of
Fascism; the cult of “leadership”; the role of the _Gaue_,
_Ortsgruppen_, and _Zellen_ in the expansion of Germany; and related
matters.
(_a_) _Organization of Political Leaders._ The Political Leaders were
organized according to the leadership principle (_1893-PS_):
“The basis of the Party organization is the Fuehrer thought. The
public is unable to rule itself either directly or indirectly *
* * All Political Leaders stand as appointed by the Fuehrer and
are responsible to him. They possess full authority toward the
lower echelons * * * Only a man who has absorbed the school of
subordinate functions within the Party has a claim to the higher
Fuehrer offices. We can only use Fuehrers who have served from
the ground up. Any Political Leader who does not conform to
these principles is to be dismissed or to be sent back to the
lower offices, as _Blockleiter_, _Zellenleiter_ for further
training * * *
“The Political Leader is not an office worker but the Political
Deputy of the Fuehrer * * * Within the Political Leadership, we
are building the Political Leadership of the state * * * The
type of the Political Leader is not characterized by the office
which he represents. There is no such thing as a Political
Leader of the NSBO, etc., but there is only the Political Leader
of the NSDAP.” (_1893-PS_)
Each Political Leader was sworn in yearly. According to the Party Manual
(_1893-PS_), the wording of the oath was as follows:
“I pledge eternal allegiance to Adolf Hitler. I pledge
unconditional obedience to him and the Fuehrers appointed by
him.” (_1893-PS_)
The Organization Book of the NSDAP also provides:
“The Political Leader is inseparably tied to the ideology and
the organization of the NSDAP. His oath only ends with his death
or with his expulsion from the National Socialist community.”
(_1893-PS_)
(_b_) _Appointment of Political Leaders._ The appointment of the
political leaders constituting the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party
proceeded as follows, according to the Party Manual:
“The Fuehrer appointed the following Political Leaders:
“a. All _Reichsleiter_ and all Political Leaders within the
_Reichsleitung_ [Reich Party Directorate], including women’s
leaders.
“b. All _Gauleiter_, including the Political Leaders holding
offices in the _Gauleitung_ [Gau Party Directorate], including
_Gau_ women leaders.
“c. All _Kreisleiter_.
“The _Gauleiter_ appointed:
“a. The Political Leaders and women’s leaders within the _Gau_
Party Directorate.
“b. The Political Leaders and directors of women’s leagues in
the _Kreis_ Party Directorate.
“c. All _Ortsgruppenleiter_.
“The _Kreisleiter_ appoints the Political Leaders and the
Directors of the Women’s Leagues of the _Ortsgruppen_ including
the Block and Cell Leaders.” (_1893-PS_)
_c._ Power _of Hoheitstraeger to Call Upon Party Formations_. The
_Hoheitstraeger_ among the Leadership Corps were entitled to call upon
and utilize the various Party Formations as necessary for the execution
of Nazi Party policies.
The Party Manual makes it clear that the _Hoheitstrager_ has power and
authority to requisition the services of the SA:
“The _Hoheitstrager_ is responsible for the entire political
appearance of the Movement within his zone. The SA leader of
that zone is tied to the directives of the _Hoheitstrager_ in
that respect.
“The _Hoheitstrager_ is the ranking representative of the Party
to include all organizations within his zone. He may requisition
the SA located within his zone from the respective SA leader if
they are needed for the execution of a political mission. The
_Hoheitstrager_ will then assign the mission to the SA * * *
“Should the _Hoheitstrager_ need more SA for the execution of
political mission than is locally available, he then applies to
the next higher office of sovereignty which, in turn, requests
the SA from the SA office in his sector.” (_1893-PS_)
The _Hoheitstrager_ also had the same authority to call upon the
services of the SS and NSKK (_1893-PS_).
The _Hoheitstrager_ further, had authority to call upon the services of
the Hitler Youth (HJ):
“The Political Leader has the right to requisition the HJ in the
same manner as the SA for the execution of a political action.
“In appointing leaders of the HJ and the DJ, the office of the
HJ must procure the approval of the _Hoheitstrager_ of his zone.
This means that the _Hoheitstrager_ can prevent the appointment
of leaders unsuited for the leadership of youth. If his approval
has not been procured, an appointment may be cancelled if he so
requests.” (_1893-PS_)
An example of the use of the Party Formations at the call of the
Leadership Corps of the Party is provided by the action taken by the
_Reichsleiter_ for Party Organization of the NSDAP, Dr. Robert Ley,
leading to the deliberate dissolution of the Free Trade Unions on 2 May
1933. A directive issued by _Reichsleiter_ Ley on 21 April 1933
(_392-PS_) ordered the employment of the SA and the SS in occupying
trade union properties and in taking trade union leaders into protective
custody:
“* * * SA as well as SS are to be employed for the occupation of
trade union properties and for the taking of personalities who
come into question into protective custody.
“The _Gauleiter_ (i.e. Regional Director) is to proceed with his
measures on a basis of the closest understanding with competent
Regional Factory Cells Director. * * *
* * * * * *
“The following are to be taken into protective custody:
“All Trade Union Chairmen; the District Secretaries and the
Branch Directors of the ‘Bank for Workers, Employees and
Officials, Inc.’” (_392-PS_)
A decree issued by Hess as Deputy of the Fuehrer, dated 25 October 1934,
underwrites the authority of the _Hoheitstrager_ with respect to the
Party Formations:
“The political leadership within the Party and its political
representation towards all offices, State or others, which are
outside of the Party, lie solely and exclusively with the
_Hoheitstrager_, which is to say with me, the _Gauleiter_,
_Kreisleiter_, and _Ortsgruppenleiter_ * * *.
“The departmental workers of the Party organization, as well as
_Reichsleiter_, office directors, etc., as well as the leaders
of the SA, SS, HJ and the subordinate affiliations, may not
enter into binding agreements of a political nature with State
and other offices except when so authorized by their
_Hoheitstrager_.
“In places where the territories of the units of the SA, SS, HJ
and the subordinate affiliations do not coincide with the zones
of the _Hoheitstrager_, the _Hoheitstrager_ will give his
political directives to the ranking leader of each unit within
his zone of sovereignty.” (_2474-PS_)
It was the official policy of the Leadership Corps to establish close
and cooperative relations with the Gestapo. The Head of the German
Police and SS, Himmler, was a _Reichsleiter_ on the top level of the
Leadership Corps. A decree issued by Bormann, as Chief of Staff of the
Deputy of the Fuehrer, dated 26 June 1935, provided the following:
“In order to effect a closer contact between the offices of the
Party and its organizations with the Directors of the Secret
State Police [Gestapo], the Deputy of the Fuehrer requests that
the Directors of the Gestapo be invited to attend all of the
larger official rallies of the Party and its organization.”
(_d_) _Meetings of the Political Leaders._ The contention of the
Prosecution that the members of the Leadership Corps constituted a
distinctive and identifiable group or organization is strongly supported
by the fact that the various _Hoheitstraeger_ (such as the _Gauleiter_,
_Kreisleiter_, _Ortsgruppenleiter_, and so on) were under an absolute
obligation to meet and confer periodically, not only with the staff
officers on their own staffs, but with the political leaders and staff
officers immediately subordinate to them. For example, the _Gauleiter_
was bound to confer with his staff officers (such as his deputy, his
staff office leader, his organization leader, school leader, propaganda
leader, press leader, his _Gau_ Party Judge, and so on) every 8 to 14
days. Furthermore, the _Gauleiter_ was obligated to meet with the
various _Gauleiter_ subordinate to him once every 3 months for a 3-day
convention for the purpose of discussing and clarifying Nazi Party
policies and directives, for hearing basic lectures on Party policy, and
for the mutual exchange of information pertinent to the Party’s current
program. The _Gauleiter_ was also obligated to meet at least once a
month with the leaders of the Party formations and affiliated
organizations within his _Gau_ area, such as the leaders of the SA, SS,
Hitler Youth and others. These matters are set forth in the
_Organization Book of the NSDAP_ (_1893-PS_) as follows:
“Leader conferences in the District:
“(a) District Leaders (_Gauleiter_) with his staff every 8 to 14
days.
“(b) It is further absolutely necessary that the directors of
the _Gau_ offices will meet with the county directors of their
district once every three months for a three-day convention
(possibly at a district schooling castle) where they will have
an opportunity to overcome difficulties of personal and
professional nature, apart from hearing fundamental lectures, by
social gatherings in the presence of the bearer of the
sovereignty, by getting to know each other and by a mutual
exchange of ideas. Participation in these conferences is
compulsory and duty would not constitute an excuse under any
circumstances.
“(c) The arrangement of social meeting in the presence of
leaders of the organizations of RAD and NSFK of the respective
zone of sovereignty. In the course of these meetings differences
of opinion may be straightened out in discussions.
“(d) The bearer of sovereignty will meet at least once a month
with the leaders of the SA, SS, NSKK, HJ, as well as the RAD and
the NSFK who are within the zone for the purpose of mutual
orientation.” (_1893-PS_)
The _Organization Book of the Party_ imposes a similar requirement of
regular and periodical conferences and meetings upon all the other
_Hoheitstraeger_, including the _Kreisleiter_, _Ortsgruppenleiter_,
_Zellenleiter_, and _Blockleiter_.
The clear consequence of such regular and obligatory conferences and
meetings by all the _Hoheitstraeger_, both with their own staff officers
and with the political leaders and staff officers subordinate to them,
was that basic Nazi policies and directives issued by Hitler and the
leader of the Party Chancellery, Bormann, directly through the chain of
command of the _Hoheitstraeger_, and functional policies issued by the
various _Reichsleiter_ and Reich office holders through functional and
technical channels, were certain to be brought to the attention and
understanding of the bulk of the membership of the Leadership Corps.
When this fact is coupled with the further fact that all the members of
the Leadership Corps under the Leadership Principle and their sworn
oaths, were bound to obey blindly and without question orders received
from their competent superiors, it is clear that the general membership
of the Leadership Corps is responsible for measures taken or ordered by
that organization in furtherance of the conspiracy.
(7) _Statistics Relating to the Leadership Corps._ As previously shown,
the Leadership Corps comprised the sum of officials of the Nazi Party,
including, in addition to Hitler and the members of the _Reichsleitung_,
such as the _Reichsleiter_ and the Reich office holders, a hierarchy of
_Hoheitstraeger_ (ranging from the _Gauleiter_ down to the
_Blockleiter_) as well as the staff officers attached to the
_Hoheitstraeger_. According to page 10 of issue No. 8, 1939 of the
authoritative publication of the Leadership Corps, “_Der
Hoheitstrager_,” there were in 1939:
40 _Gaue_ and 1 Foreign
Organization _Gau_ each led by a _Gauleiter_.
808 _Kreise_ each led by a _Kreisleiter_.
28,376 _Ortsgruppen_ each led by a _Ortsgruppenleiter_.
89,378 _Zellen_ each led by a _Zellenleiter_.
463,048 _Blocke_ each led by a _Blockleiter_.
(_2958-PS_)
However, as shown by previous evidence, the Leadership Corps was
composed not only of the _Hoheitstraeger_ (such as _Gauleiter_,
_Kreisleiter_, _Ortsgruppenleiter_, _Zellenleiter_, and _Blockleiter_)
but also of the staff officers or office holders attached to these
_Hoheitstraeger_. The _Gauleiter_, for example, was assisted by a deputy
_Gauleiter_, several _Gau_ inspectors, and a staff which was divided
into main offices (_Hauptamter_) and offices (_Amter_), including such
departments as the _Gau_ staff Office, Treasury, Education Office,
Propaganda Office, Press Office, University Teachers, Communal Policy,
etc. As previously shown in evidence, the staff office structure of the
_Gau_ was substantially represented in the lower levels of the
Leadership Corps organization such as the _Kreise_, _Ortsgruppen_, and
so on. The _Kreise_ and the smaller territorial areas of the Party were
also organized into staff offices dealing with the various activities of
the Leadership Corps. But, of course, the importance and the number of
such staff offices diminished as the unit dropped in the hierarchy; so
that, while the _Kreisleiter_ staff contained all or most of the
departments mentioned for the _Gau_, the _Ortsgruppe_ had fewer
departments and the lower ones fewer still.
Firm figures have not been found as to the total number of staff
officers, as distinguished from the _Hoheitstraeger_ or political
commanders themselves included within the Leadership Corps.
It is the view of the prosecution that in defining the scope and
composition of the Leadership Corps, staff officers should be included
only down to and including the _Kreise_. Upon this basis, the Leadership
Corps of the Nazi Party constituted the Fuehrer, the members of the
_Reichsleitung_, the 5 levels of _Hoheitstraeger_ (ranging from
_Gauleiter_ down through the _Blockleiter_), and the staff officers
attached to the 40-odd _Gauleiter_ and the eight to nine hundred
_Kreisleiter_. Adopting this definition of the Leadership Corps, it will
be seen that the total figure for the membership of that organization,
based upon the statistics cited from the basic handbook for Germany,
amounts to around 700,000.
It is true that this figure is based upon an admittedly limited view of
the size of the membership of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party;
for the evidence has shown that the Leadership Corps in effect embraced
staff officers attached to the subordinate _Hoheitstraeger_, and
inclusion of such staff officers in the estimation of the size of the
Leadership Corps would have very considerably enlarged the final figure
estimated to a total of 2,000,000. The Prosecution, however, proposes to
exclude such subordinate staff officers for the reason that their
participation in and responsibility for the Conspiracy were measurably
less extensive than those of the staff officers and office holders on
the higher levels of the Leadership Corps. The subordinate staff
officers thus excluded were responsible functionally to the higher staff
officers with respect to their particular specialty, such as propaganda,
Party organization, and so on, and to their respective _Hoheitstraeger_
with respect to discipline and policy control. Likewise, such higher
staff officers participated in planning and policy discussions, and also
issued orders through technical channels to lower staff officers.
B. _Participation of the Leadership Corps in the Conspiracy._
The Program of the Nazi Party, proclaimed by Hitler, the Fuehrer of the
Leadership Corps, on 24 February 1920 (_1708-PS_), contained the chief
elements of the Nazi plan for domination and conquest. The first point
required the incorporation of all Germans into a Greater German Reich.
Point 2 demanded unilateral abolition of the Peace Treaties of
Versailles and St. Germain. Point 3 stated the demand for “land and
soil” (colonies). Point 4 proclaimed the Nazi doctrines of racial
discrimination and anti-Semitism. Point 6 proclaimed the fight against
the democratic-parliamentary system, as follows:
“* * * We demand that every public office, of any sort,
whatsover, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be
filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary
economy, office-holding only according to Party inclinations
without consideration of character or abilities.” (_1708-PS_)
Point 22 expressed the Nazi plans and policies for rearmament as
follows:
“We demand the abolition of the mercenary troops and formation
of a National Army.” (_1708-PS_)
The official Party Program declares on its face that:
“The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and
accordingly the primary political law of the State * * *
“All legal precepts are to be applied in the spirit of the Party
Program.
“Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in
the realization of the essential portions of the Party Program
from the fundamentals to the details.
“The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on 24 February
1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in
Munich and since that day has remained unaltered * * * The
National Socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points.”
(_1708-PS_)
As previously stated, the Party Program was binding upon the Political
Leaders of the Leadership Corps, and they were under a duty to support
and carry out that Program. As the Party Manual puts it:
“The Commandments of the National Socialists:
“The Fuehrer is always right * * *.
“The Program be your dogma.
“It demands your utter devotion to the Movement * * *.
“Right is what serves the Movement and thus Germany.
* * * * * *
“* * * Leader Corps is responsible for the complete penetration
of the German Nation with the National Socialist spirit * * *.”
(_1893-PS_)
The oath of the Political Leader to Hitler has been previously referred
to. In connection therewith, the Party Manual provides:
“The Political Leader is inseparably tied to the ideology and
the organization of the NSDAP. His oath only ends with his death
or with his expulsion from the National Socialist community.”
(_1893-PS_)
While the leadership principle assured the binding nature of Hitler’s
statements, program, and policies upon the entire Party and the
Leadership Corps, the leadership principle also established the full
responsibility of the individual Political Leader within the province
and jurisdiction of his office or position.
The leadership principle applied not only to Hitler as the supreme
leader, but also to the Political Leaders under him, and thus permeated
the entire Leadership Corps:
“The basis of the Party Organization is the Fuehrer thought * *
* All Political Leaders stand as appointed by the Fuehrer and
are responsible to him. They possess full authority toward the
lower echelons * * *.” (_1893-PS_)
The various _Hoheitstraeger_ of the Leadership Corps were, in their
respective areas of responsibility, themselves _Fuehrer_:
“Within their sector of sovereignty, the _Hoheitstraeger_
(_Gauleiter_, _Kreisleiter_, _Ortsgruppenleiter_,
_Zellenleiter_, _Blockleiter_) have sovereign political rights *
* * They are responsible for the entire political situation
within their sector * * *” (_1893-PS_)
As stated in the _Organization Book of the NSDAP_
“The Party is an order of ‘Fuehrer’.” (_1814-PS_)
The subjection of the entire membership of the Leadership Corps to the
fiat of the Fuehrer Principle is clearly shown in the following passage
from the Party Manual:
“* * * a solid anchorage for all the organizations within the
party structure is provided and a firm connection with the
sovereign leaders of the NSDAP is created in accordance with the
Fuehrer Principle.” (_1814-PS_)
(1) _Domination and Control of the German State and Government by the
Nazi Party, directed by the Leadership Corps._ On 23 March 1933 the
Reichstag enacted a law conferring power on the Reich Cabinet to
legislate on its own authority (_2001-PS_). Prominent members of the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party were members of the Reich Cabinet.
The presence of _Reichsleiter_ and other prominent members of the
Leadership Corps in the Cabinet facilitated the domination of the
Cabinet by the Nazi Party and the Leadership Corps. For example, a
decree of 13 March 1933 established the Ministry of Public Enlightenment
and Propaganda. The head of this ministry was Goebbels, who
simultaneously was _Reichsleiter_ for Propaganda of the NSDAP
(_2029-PS_). Examples of personal union between high officials in the
Leadership and Cabinet membership existed in the case of the Food
Minister, the Chief of the German Police, the Reich Labor Leader, the
Chief of the Party Organization in Foreign Countries, and the Reich
Youth Fuehrer (_2473-PS_). Moreover, the majority of the Reich
Ministries were occupied by leading old Party Members. All Reich
Ministers were accepted by the Party on 30 January 1937 and were
decorated with the Golden Party Insignia. (_1774-PS_)
A law of 14 July 1933 outlawed and forbade the formation of any
political parties other than the Nazi Party and made violation of this
decree a punishable crime. Thereby the one party State was established
and the Leadership Corps was rendered immune from the opposition of
organized political groups. This Law Against the Formation of New
Political Parties reads as follows:
“The National Socialist German Workers’ Party constitutes the
only political party in Germany. Whoever undertakes to maintain
the organizational structure of another political party or to
form a new political party will be punished with penal servitude
up to three years or with imprisonment of from six months to
three years, if the deed is not subject to a greater penalty
according to other regulations.” (_1388-PS_)
A law was enacted on 20 July 1933 providing for the dismissal of
officials who belonged to the Communist Party or who were otherwise
active in furthering the aims of Communism. The law also provided for
the dismissal of those who were in the future active for Marxism,
Communism, or Social Democracy (Law to Supplement the Law for the
Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 20 July 1933, (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 518)). (_1398-PS_)
On 13 October 1933 a “law to guarantee public peace” was enacted which
provided, _inter alia_, that the death penalty or other severe
punishment should be imposed upon any person who—
“* * * undertakes to kill a member of the SA or the SS, a
trustee or agent of the NSDAP * * * out of political motives or
on account of their official activity.” (_1394-PS_)
On 1 December 1933 a law was enacted “to secure the unity of Party and
State.” This law provided that the Nazi Party was the pillar of the
German State, and was linked to it indissolubly; it also made the Deputy
of the Fuehrer (then Hess) and the Chief of Staff of the SA (then Roehm)
members of the Reich Cabinet (_1395-PS_). The pertinent provisions of
this law read as follows:
“After the victory of the National Socialist Revolution, the
National Socialistic German Labor Party is the bearer of the
concept of the German State and is inseparably the State. It
will be a part of the public law. Its organization will be
determined by the Fuehrer * * *.
“The Deputy of the Fuehrer and the Chief of Staff of the SA will
become members of the Reich Government in order to insure close
cooperation of the offices of the Party and SA with the public
authorities * * *.” (_1395-PS_)
This law was a basic measure in enthroning the Leadership Corps in a
position of supreme political power in Germany. For it laid it down that
the Party, directed by the Leadership Corps, was the embodiment of the
State and, in fact, was the State. Moreover, this law made both the
Fuehrer’s Deputy and the Chief of Staff of the SA, which was a Party
Formation subject to the call of the _Hoheitstraeger_, Cabinet Members.
Thus, the Leadership Corps’ control of the Cabinet was further
solidified. The dominant position of the Leadership Corps is further
revealed by the provision that the Reichs-Chancellor would issue the
regulations carrying out this law in his capacity as Fuehrer of the Nazi
Party. The fact that Hitler, as Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps, could
promulgate rules which would have statutory force and be published in
the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, the proper compilation for State enactments, is
but a further reflection of the reality of the Party’s domination of the
German State.
In a declaration to the 1935 Party Congress at Nurnberg, Hitler stated:
“It is not the State which gives orders to us, it is we who give
orders to the State.” (_2775-PS_)
That categorical statement of the Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps
affirms the dominance of Party over State which the evidence makes
undeniably clear.
On 30 June 1934 Hitler, as Head of the Nazi Party, directed the massacre
of hundreds of SA-men and other political opponents. Hitler sought to
justify these mass murders by declaring to the Reichstag that “at that
hour I was responsible for the fate of the German nation and supreme
judge of the German people.” (The evidence relating to these events is
discussed in Section 4, infra.) On 3 July 1934 the Cabinet issued a
decree describing the murders of 30 June 1934, in effect, as legitimate
self-defense by the State. By this law the Reich Cabinet made themselves
accessories after the fact of these murders. The domination of State by
Party, however, makes the Cabinet’s characterization of these criminal
acts by Hitler and his top Party Leaders as state measures consistent
with political reality. The single article of the law of 3 July 1934
reads as follows:
“The measures taken on 30 June and 1 and 2 July 1934 to
counteract attempt at treason and high treason shall be
considered as national emergency defense.” (_2057-PS_)
On 12 July 1934 there was enacted a law defining the function of the
Academy for German law:
“Closely connected with the agencies competent for legislation,
it [the Academy] shall further the realization of the National
Socialist program in the realm of the law.” (_1391-PS_)
On 30 January 1933, Hitler, the Leader of the Nazi Party and Fuehrer of
the Leadership Corps, was appointed Chancellor of the Reich. When
President von Hindenburg died in 1934, the Fuehrer amalgamated in his
person the offices of Chancellor and Reich President. (_2003-PS_)
By a decree of 20 December 1934 Party uniforms and institutions were
granted the same protection as those of the State. This law was entitled
“Law Concerning Treacherous Acts Against the State and Party, and for
the Protection of Party Uniforms.” This law imposed heavy penalties upon
any person making false statements injuring the welfare or prestige of
the Nazi Party or its agencies. It authorized the imprisonment of
persons making or circulating malicious or baiting statements against
leading personalities of the Nazi Party. And it provided punishment by
forced labor for the unauthorized wearing of Party uniforms or symbols.
(_1393-PS_)
By a law of 15 September 1934, the Swastika flag of the Party was made
the official flag of the Reich (_2079-PS_). This law, enacted by the
Reichstag, indicates on its face that it issued from Nurnberg on the
Party Day of 15 September 1935. Article 2 of this law reads as follows:
“The Reich and National flag is the swastika flag.” (_2079-PS_) The
Swastika was the flag and symbol of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi
Party. The law making it the flag of the State constituted a recognition
that the Party and its Corps of Political Leaders were the sovereign
powers in Germany.
On 23 April 1936, a law was enacted granting amnesty for crimes which
the offender had committed “in his eagerness to fight for the National
Socialist Ideal.” (_1386-PS_)
In furtherance of the Conspiracy to acquire totalitarian control over
the German people, a law was enacted on 1 December 1936, which
incorporated the entire German youth within the Hitler Youth, thereby
achieving a “total mobilization of German youth” (_1392-PS_). The law
further provided that the task of educating the German youth through the
Hitler Youth was entrusted to the _Reichsleiter_ of German Youth in the
NSDAP. By this law a monopoly control over the entire German youth was
placed in the hands of a top official, a _Reichsleiter_, of the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the defendant von Schirach.
On 4 February 1938, the Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps of the NSDAP,
Hitler, issued a decree in which he took over directly the command of
the whole Armed Forces (_1915-PS_). In this decree, Hitler declared, in
part, as follows:
“From now on, I take over directly the command of the whole
Armed Forces.” (_1915-PS_)
By the decree of 4 February 1938, Hitler became Supreme Commander of the
Armed Forces. He was, at the time of its issuance, Fuehrer of the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. By virtue of the earlier law of 1
August 1934, he combined the office of Reich President with that of the
Chancellorship. In the final result, therefore, Hitler was Supreme
Commander of the Armed Forces, Head of the German State, and Fuehrer of
the Nazi Party.
With respect to the foregoing point, the Party Manual (_1893-PS_) states
as follows:
“* * * the Fuehrer created the National Socialist German
Workers’ Party. He filled it with his spirit and his will and
with it he conquered the power of the State on 30 January 1933.
The Fuehrer’s will is supreme in the Party.
“By authority of the law about the Chief of State of the German
Reich, dated 1 August 1934, the office of the Reich President
has been combined with that of the Reich Chancellery.
Consequently, the powers heretofore possessed by the Reich
President were transferred to the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. Through
this law, the conduct of Party and State has been combined in
one hand. By desire of the Fuehrer, a plebiscite was conducted
on this law on 19 August 1934. On this day, the German people
chose Adolf Hitler to be their sole leader. He is responsible
only to his conscience and to the German nation.” (_1893-PS_)
A decree of 16 January 1942 provided that the Party should participate
in legislation, official appointments, and promotions (_2100-PS_). The
decree further provided that such participation should be undertaken
exclusively by Bormann, Chief of the Party Chancellery and a
_Reichsleiter_ of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. The decree
provided that the Chief of the Party Chancellery was to take part in the
preparation of all laws and decrees issued by Reich authorities,
including those issued by the Ministerial Council for Defense of the
Reich, and to give his assent to those of the Laender and the Reich
governors; all communications between State and Party authorities,
unless within one _Gau_ only, were to pass through his hands. This
decree is of crucial importance in demonstrating the ultimate control
and responsibility imputable to the Leadership Corps for governmental
policy and actions taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. (_2100-PS_)
On or about 26 April 1942, Hitler declared in a speech that, in his
capacity as Leader of the Nation, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces,
Supreme Head of the Government, and as Fuehrer of the Party, his right
must be recognized to compel with all means at his disposal, every
German, whether soldier, judge, State official, or party official, to
fulfill his desire. He demanded that the Reichstag officially recognize
this asserted right. On 26 April 1942, the German Reichstag issued a
decision in which full recognition was given to the rights which the
Fuehrer had asserted (_1961-PS_). The Reichstag decreed as follows:
“At the proposal of the President of the Reichstag, on its
session of 26 April 1942, the greater German Reichstag has
approved of the rights which the Fuehrer has postulated in his
speech with the following decision:
“There can be no doubt, that in the present war, in which the
German people is faced with a struggle for its existence or
annihilation, the Fuehrer must have all the rights postulated by
him which serve to further or achieve victory.
Therefore—without being bound by existing legal regulations—in
his capacity as Leader of the Nation, Supreme Commander of the
Armed Forces, Governmental Chief and Supreme Executive Chief, as
Supreme Justice and Leader of the Party—the Fuehrer must be in
a position to force with all means at his disposal every German,
if necessary, whether he be common soldier or officer, low or
high official or judge, leading or subordinate official of the
Party, worker or employee—to fulfill his duties. In case of
violation of these duties, the Fuehrer is entitled, after
conscientious examination, regardless of so-called well-deserved
rights, to mete out due punishment and to remove the offender
from his post, rank and position without introducing prescribed
procedures.
“At the order of the Fuehrer, this decision is hereby made
public. Berlin, 26 April 1942.” (_1961-PS_)
Hitler himself perhaps best summarized the political realities of his
Germany, in showing the domination of the German State and Government by
the Leadership Corps and its following. The core of the matter was
stated by Hitler in his speech to the Reichstag on 20 February 1938,
when he declared in effect that every institution in Germany was under
the direction of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party:
“National Socialism has given the German people that leadership
which as Party not only mobilizes the nation but also organizes
it, so that on the basis of the natural principle of selection,
the continuance of a stable political leadership is safeguarded
forever * * * National Socialism * * * possesses Germany
entirely and completely since the day when, five years ago, I
left the house in Wilhelmsplatz as Reich Chancellor. There is no
institution in this state which is not National Socialist. Above
all, however, the National Socialist Party in these five years
not only has made the nation National Socialist, but also has
given itself that perfect organizational structure which
guarantees its permanence for all future. The greatest guarantee
of the National Socialist revolution lies in the complete
domination of the Reich and all its institutions and
organizations, internally and externally by the National
Socialist Party. Its protection against the world abroad,
however, lies in its new National Socialist armed forces. * * *
In this Reich, anybody who has a responsible position is a
National Socialist * * * Every institution of this Reich is
under the orders of the supreme political leadership * * * The
Party leads the Reich politically, the armed forces defend it
militarily * * * There is nobody in any responsible position in
this state who doubts that I am the authorized leader of this
Reich.” (_2715-PS_)
The supreme power which the Leadership Corps exercised over the German
State and Government is sharply pointed up by an article published in
the February 1939 issue of the authoritative magazine, “_Der
Hoheitstrager_”. In this article, addressed to all _Hoheitstraeger_, the
Leadership Corps is reminded that it has conquered the State and that it
possesses absolute and total power in Germany. The article is
significantly entitled, “Fight and Order—Not Peace and Order.” It
trumpets forth, in the accents of Caesarism, the battle call of the
Leadership Corps of German life:
“Fight? Why do you always talk of fighting? You have conquered
the State, and if something does not please you, then just make
a law and regulate it differently? Why must you always talk of
fighting? For you have every power! Over what do you fight?
Outer-politically? You have the Wehrmacht—it will wage the
fight if it is required. Inner-politically? You have the law and
the police which can change everything which does not agree with
you.” (_3230-PS_)
In view of the domination of the German State and Government by the Nazi
Party and the Leadership Corps thereof, as established by the foregoing
evidence, the Leadership Corps is responsible for the measures,
including legislative enactments, taken by the German State and
Government in furtherance of the Conspiracy formulated and carried out
by the co-conspirators and the organizations charged with criminality.
For example, as revealed by the above evidence, Point 4 of the original
Party Program declared that a Jew was not a member of the German race
and, therefore, was not entitled to citizenship. This premise was
incorporated into the law of the Third Reich by numerous anti-Semitic
and discriminatory laws. Consequently, it is submitted that, by virtue
of their control over the German State and Government, the Nazi Party
and the Leadership Corps share responsibility for, among other
enactments and measures furthering the Conspiracy, discriminatory laws
against the Jews.
(2) _Overt Acts and Crimes of the Leadership Corps._ The membership of
the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party actively participated in measures
designed to further the progress of the Conspiracy. The evidence will
show that the participation by the Leadership Corps in the Conspiracy
embraces such measures as anti-Semitic activities, war crimes committed
against members of the Allied forces, the forced labor program, measures
to subvert and undermine the Christian religion and persecute the
Christian clergy, the plundering and spoliation of cultural and other
property in German-occupied territories of Europe, and plans and
measures leading to the initiation and prosecution of aggressive war.
(_a_) _Crimes against Jews._ The _Gauleiter_ and _Kreisleiter_
participated in what were disingenuously described by the Nazis as the
“spontaneous uprising of the people” against the Jews throughout Germany
on 9 and 10 November 1938 in connection with the assassination of an
official of the German Embassy in Paris on 7 November. (The evidence
relating to these programs is discussed in Chapter XI on the
concentration camps, and Chapter XII on the persecution of the Jews.) It
will be recalled that in the teletyped directive from SS-Gruppenfuehrer
Heydrich, issued on 10 November 1938, to all police headquarters and SD
districts, all chiefs of the State Police were ordered to arrange with
the political leaders in the _Gaue_ and _Kreise_ the organization of the
so-called spontaneous demonstrations against the Jews (_3051-PS_).
Pursuant to this directive, a large number of Jewish shops and
businesses were pillaged and wrecked, synagogues were set on fire,
individual Jews were beaten up, and large numbers were taken off to
concentration camps. These events forcefully illustrate the employment
and participation of all the _Kreisleiter_ and _Gauleiter_ in illegal
measures designed to further the anti-Semitic program, which was an
original and continuing objective of the Leadership Corps.
(_b_) _Crimes against Allied Airmen._ The members of the Leadership
Corps of the Nazi Party participated in the murder, beating, and
ill-treatment of American airmen who landed in German or
German-controlled territory. American airmen who bailed out of disabled
planes over Germany were not treated as prisoners of war, but were
beaten and murdered by German civilians with the active condonence,
indeed at the instigation of the Leadership Corps. Such a course of
conduct by the Leadership Corps represented a deliberate violation by
the German Government of its obligations, under the Geneva Prisoners of
War Convention, to protect prisoners of war against acts of violence and
ill-treatment.
Heinrich Himmler was a _Reichsleiter_ of the Nazi Party and thus a top
official in the Leadership Corps by virtue of his positions as
Reichsfuehrer of the SS and Delegate for German Folkdom (_2473-PS; Chart
No. 1_). An order signed by Himmler (_R-110_), dated 10 August 1943,
reads as follows:
“It is not the task of the police to interfere in clashes
between Germans and English and American terror fliers who have
bailed out.” (_R-110_)
This order was transmitted in writing to all senior executive SS and
police officers, and orally to their subordinate officers and to all
_Gauleiter_.
Joseph Goebbels was a top-flight official in the Leadership Corps of the
Nazi Party by virtue of his position as Propaganda Leader of the Party
(_2473-PS; Chart No. 1_). In the issue of the _Voelkischer Beobachter_
for 26/29 May 1944, there appeared an article written by Goebbels, the
_Reichsleiter_ for Party Propaganda, in which he openly invited the
German civil population to murder Allied fliers shot down over Germany
(_1676-PS_). After alleging that Anglo-American pilots have engaged in
machine gun attacks against civilians, Goebbels continues:
“It is only possible with the aid of arms to secure the lives of
enemy pilots who were shot down during such attacks, for they
would otherwise be killed by the sorely tried population. Who is
right here? The murderers who, after their cowardly misdeeds,
await a humane treatment on the part of their victims, or the
victims who wish to defend themselves according to the
principle: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’? This
question is not hard to answer.” (_1676-PS_)
_Reichsleiter_ Goebbels then proceeds to answer his question in the
following language:
“It seems to us hardly possible and tolerable to use German
police and soldiers against the German people when it treats
murderers of children as they deserve.” (_1676-PS_)
On 30 May 1944, Bormann, _Reichsleiter_ and Chief of the Party
Chancellery, issued a circular letter on the subject which furnishes
indisputable proof that British and American fliers who were shot down
were lynched by the German population (_057-PS_). After alleging that in
recent weeks English and American fliers had repeatedly shot children,
women, peasants, and vehicles on the highway, Bormann then states:
“Several instances have occurred where members of the crews of
such aircraft, who have bailed out or who have made forced
landings, were lynched on the spot immediately after capture by
the populace, which was incensed to the highest degree. No
police measures or criminal proceedings were invoked against the
German civilians who participated in these incidents.”
(_057-PS_)
This letter of Bormann was distributed through the chain of command of
the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Express mention on the
distribution list is made of _Reichsleiter_, _Gauleiter_, _Kreisleiter_,
and leaders of the incorporated and affiliated organizations of the
Party. Bormann requested that the local group leaders
(_Ortsgruppenleiter_) be informed of the contents of his circular letter
only by oral means. (_057-PS_)
The effect of _Reichsleiter_ Bormann’s circular letter may be seen in an
order dated 25 February 1945 (_L-154_). This is an order from Albert
Hoffman, an important member of the Leadership Corps by virtue of his
position as _Gauleiter_ and National Defense Commissioner of the Gau
Westfalen-South, and it is addressed to all County Councillors, mayors,
and police officials, and to county leaders and county staff chiefs of
the _Volkssturm_. The order reads as follows:
“Fighter bomber pilots who are shot down are not to be protected
against the fury of the people. I expect from all police
officers that they will refuse to lend their protection to these
gangster types. Authorities acting in contradiction to the
popular sentiment will have to account to me. All police and
gendarmerie officials are to be informed immediately of this, my
attitude.” (_L-154_)
The obligations of belligerents towards prisoners of war are clearly set
forth in the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 27 July 1929, which
was ratified by both Germany and the United States. Article Two of the
Convention provides as follows:
“Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile power, but not
of the individuals or corps who have captured them.
“They must at all times be humanely treated and protected,
particularly against acts of violence, insults and public
curiosity.
“Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited.” (_3738-PS_)
The Geneva Prisoners of War Convention clearly imposes upon its
signatories the strict obligation to protect prisoners of war from
violence. The evidence just discussed shows that the German State
flagrantly violated its obligations under that Convention to protect
captured airmen who were shot down in German hands. The evidence also
proves that the entire hierarchy of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi
Party participated in the conspiracy to incite the German civil
population to murder Allied airmen and also ordered police and Party
officials to take no steps to secure the safety of these airmen.
(_c_) _Crimes against Foreign Labor and Civilians in Occupied Areas._
Alfred Rosenberg and Robert Ley were both _Reichsleiter_ of the NSDAP.
(_2473-PS_)
An agreement was concluded between the Reich Minister for the Occupied
Eastern Territories, _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg, and the Director of the
German Labor Front, _Reichsorganisationleiter_ Ley, relating to the
inspection and care of foreign workers. This agreement was based on an
earlier agreement of 2 June 1943 between the Deputy General for the
_Arbeitseinsatz, Gauleiter_ Fritz Sauckel, and the Leader of the German
Labor Front, _Reichsleiter_ for the Party Organization, Dr. Ley,
concerning a “central inspection for the care of foreign workers”
(_1913-PS_). The purpose of the two agreements was to coordinate
activities of the organizations concerned with respect to the
administration of plants and camps in which foreign workers were
employed. (_1914-PS_)
On 17 October 1944, _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg sent a letter to
_Reichsleiter_ Bormann, Chief of the Party Chancery, informing the
latter that he had sent a telegram to _Gauleiter_ urging them not to
interfere in the liquidation of certain listed companies and banks under
his supervision. Rosenberg emphasized to Bormann that any “delay of
liquidation or * * * independent confiscation of the property by the
_Gauleiter_ would impair or destroy an organized plan” for the
liquidation of a vast amount of property. (_327-PS_)
On 7 November 1943, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces
delivered a lecture at Munich to the _Reichsleiter_ and _Gauleiter_. The
Chief of Staff stated that his object was to give a review of the
strategic position at the outset of the fifth year of war. He stated his
realization that the Political Leaders in the Reich and Gau areas, in
view of their burdensome tasks in supporting the German War Effort, were
in need of information he could give. He stated, in part, as follows:
“_Reichsleiter_ Bormann has requested me to give you a review
today of the strategic position in the beginning of the fifth
year of war.
“No one—the Fuehrer has ordered—may know more or be told more
than he needs for his immediate task, but I have no doubt at all
in my mind, gentlemen, but that you need a great deal in order
to be able to cope with your tasks. It is in your _Gau_, after
all * * * that all the enemy propaganda, and the malicious
rumors concentrate that try to find themselves a place among our
people * * * Against this wave of enemy propaganda and cowardice
you need to know the true situation, and, for this reason, I
believe that I am justified in giving you a perfectly open and
uncovered account of the state of affairs * * *.” (_L-172_)
_Reichsleiter_ Bormann distributed to all _Reichsleiter_, _Gauleiter_,
and leaders of Party affiliated organizations, by an undated letter of
transmittal, an order of the Supreme Command of the _Wehrmacht_ relating
to self-defense by German guard personnel and German contractors and
workers against prisoners of war (_656-PS_). The order of the
_Wehrmacht_ states that the question of treatment of prisoners of war is
continually being discussed by _Wehrmacht_ and Party bureaus. The order
states that should prisoners of war refuse to obey orders to work, the
guard has “in the case of the most pressing need and danger, the right
to force obedience with the weapon if he has no other means. He can use
the weapon as much as is necessary to attain his goal * * *.” (_656-PS_)
On 18 April 1944, Reich Commissar Lohse, Reich Minister for the Occupied
Eastern Territories, in a letter to Reich Youth Leader Axmann, proposed
that the Hitler Youth participate in and supervise the military
education of the Estonian and Latvian youth (_347-PS_). Lohse stated in
this letter that “in the military education camps, the young Latvians
are trained under Latvian leaders in the Latvian language not because
this is our ideal, but because absolute military necessity demands
this.” Lohse further stated:
“* * * in contrast to the Germanic peoples of the West, military
education is no longer to be carried out through voluntary
enlistments but through _legal conscription_. The camps in
Estonia and Latvia * * * will have to be under German Leadership
and, as military education camps of the Hitler Youth, they must
be a symbol of our educational mission beyond Germany’s borders
* * * I consider the execution of the military education of the
Estonian and Latvian youth not only a military necessity, but
also a war mission of the Hitler Youth especially. I would be
thankful to you, Party member Axmann, if the Hitler Youth would
put itself at our disposal with the same readiness with which
they have so far supported our work in the Baltic area.”
(_347-PS_)
The _Reichsfuehrer_ of the SS, as shown earlier, was a _Reichsleiter_ of
the NSDAP (_2473-PS_). An order of the Reich Minister of the Interior,
Frick, dated 22 October 1938, provided as follows:
“The Reichsfuehrer SS and the Chief of the German Police * * *
can take the administrative measures necessary for the
maintenance of security and order, even beyond the legal limits
otherwise set on such measures.” (_1438-PS_)
This order related to the administration of the Sudeten-German
territory.
In a letter dated 23 June 1943 (_407-VI-PS_) _Gauleiter_ and
Plenipotentiary for the Direction of Labor, Fritz Sauckel, wrote to
Hitler advising him of the success of the forced labor program as of
that date. Sauckel stated:
“You can be assured that the District of Thueringen [_Gau_] and
I will serve you and our dear people with the employment of all
strength * * *.” (_407-VI-PS_)
On 1 September 1939, Hitler wrote a memorandum stating:
“_Reichsleiter_ Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with
the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain
physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that
persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can,
upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be
accorded a mercy death.
“(Signed) A. Hitler.” (_630-PS_)
A handwritten note on the face of the document states:
“Given to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940, [signed] Dr.
Guertner.” (_630-PS_)
In a memorandum recording an agreement between himself and Himmler, the
Minister of Justice Thierack stated that, on the suggestion of
_Reichsleiter_ Bormann, an agreement had been reached between Himmler
and himself with respect to “special treatment at the hands of the
police in cases where judicial sentences are not severe enough”
(_654-PS_). The agreement related that:
“The Reich Minister for Justice will decide whether and when
special treatment at the hands of the police is to be applied.
The Reich Fuehrer of SS will send the reports, which he sent
hitherto to Reichsleiter Bormann, to the Reich Minister for
Justice.” (_654-PS_)
If the views of the Reich Fuehrer of SS and the Reich Minister for
Justice disagreed,
“the opinion of Reichsleiter Bormann will be brought to bear on
the case, and he will possibly inform the Fuehrer * * *.
* * * * * *
“The delivery of antisocial elements from execution of their
sentence to the Reich Fuehrer of SS to be worked to death.
Persons under protective arrest, Jews, Gypsies, Russians and
Ukrainians, Poles with more than 3-year sentences, Czechs and
Germans with more than 8-year sentences, according to the
decision of the Reich Minister of Justice. First of all the
worst antisocial elements amongst those just mentioned are to be
handed over. I shall inform the Fuehrer of this through
Reichsleiter Bormann.” (_654-PS_)
With respect to the “administration of justice by the people,” the
memorandum states:
“This is to be carried out step by step as soon as possible * *
* I shall rouse the Party particularly to cooperate in this
scheme by an article in the _Hoheitstrager_ [NSDAP publication]
* * *.” (_654-PS_)
At a meeting of the NSDAP in Kiev, the theory of the master race as the
basis of German administrative policy in the East was expressed by Koch,
Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine:
“We are the master race * * * I will squeeze the last drop out
of the country . . . the people must work, work and work. We are
a master race * * * the lowest German worker is racially and
biologically a thousand times more valuable than the people
here.” (_1130-PS_)
A letter from RSHA (Reich Security Main Office) to police chiefs, dated
5 November 1942, recites an agreement between the Reich Fuehrer SS and
the Reich Minister of Justice, approved by Hitler, providing that
ordinary criminal procedure was no longer to be applied to Poles and
members of the Eastern populations (_L-316_). The agreement provided
that such people, including Jews and Gypsies, should henceforth be
turned over to the police. The principles applicable to a determination
of the punishment of German offenders, including appraisal of the
motives of the offender, were not to be applied to foreign offenders.
The letter stated:
“* * * the offense committed by a person of foreign extraction
is not to be regarded from the view of legal retribution by way
of justice, but from the point of view of preventing dangers
through police action. From this it follows that the criminal
procedure against persons of foreign extraction must be
transferred from Justice to the Police. The preceding statements
serve for personal information. There are no objections if the
_Gauleiter_ are informed in the usual form should the need arise
* * *.” (_L-316_)
With respect to the evacuation, deportation, and Germanization of the
civilian population of the incorporated eastern territories,
Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the
Consolidation of German Nationhood, issued several decrees requiring the
deportation to Germany of all Germans from such territories who had
renounced their nationality during the existence of the Polish State
(_R-112_). These decrees directed that persons affected by the
provisions thereof who failed to comply were to be sent to concentration
camps. After deportation to Germany, such persons were to be closely
supervised by NSDAP “Counsellors” and secret police to insure their
Germanization. Certain of the decrees directing such deportation are
addressed, _inter alia_, to the “_Gauleiter_” and the “Reich Governors
in the Reich _Gaue_.” (_R-112_)
In a conference with _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg, Hitler emphasized that he
“wished to have the Crimea cleaned out,” and Rosenberg stated that he
had given much consideration to renaming the towns in the Crimea in
order to invest the area with a German character. (_1517-PS_)
In a speech to a gathering of persons intimately concerned with the
Eastern problem on 20 June 1941, _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg stated that
the southern Russian territories and the northern Caucasus would have to
provide food for the German people:
“We see absolutely no obligation on our part to feed also the
Russian people with the products of that surplus territory. We
know that this is a harsh necessity, bare of any feelings * *
*.” (_1058-PS_)
Rosenberg stated that, as a consequence of the above policy, extensive
evacuations of Russians from that Area would have to take place.
(_1058-PS_)
_Gauleiter_ Wagner of the German-occupied Areas of Alsace prepared plans
and took measures leading to the expulsion and deportation of certain
groups within the Alsatian civil population. His plans called for the
forcible expulsion of certain categories of so-called undesirable
persons, as a means of punishment and compulsory Germanization. The
_Gauleiter_ supervised deportation measures in Alsace from July to
December 1940, in the course of which 105,000 persons were either
expelled or prevented from returning. A memorandum, dated 4 August 1942,
of a meeting of high SS and police officials, convened to receive the
reports and plans of the _Gauleiter_ relating to the Alsatian
evacuations, states that the persons deported were mainly—
“Jews, Gypsies and other foreign racial elements, criminals,
asocial and incurably insane persons, as well as Frenchmen and
Francophiles.” (_R-114_)
According to the memorandum, the _Gauleiter_ stated that the Fuehrer had
given him permission “to cleanse Alsace of all foreign, sick, or
unreliable elements,” and emphasized the political necessity of further
deportation. The memorandum further records that the SS and police
officials present at the above conference approved the _Gauleiter’s_
proposals for further evacuation. (_R-114_)
A second memorandum, dated 17 August 1942, relating to a conference
called by SS-Gruppenfuehrer Kaul, held at the _Gauleiter_ office at
Karlsruhe for the purpose of considering the deportation of Alsatians
into Germany, states that the _Gauleiter_ had reported to the Fuehrer
with respect to the proposed evacuation of Alsatians. It is further
stated that the Fuehrer verbally declared that “asocial and criminal
persons” were to be expelled. The _Gauleiter_ stated at the above
conference that the action leading to such evacuation had already begun.
The _Gauleiter_ further declared that he intended to offset the loss of
population as far as possible by transplantation of people from Baden,
“thus creating a uniform race mixture.” (_R-114_)
A memorandum by _Reichsleiter_ Bormann of a conference called by Hitler
at his headquarters on 16 July 1941 (_L-221_), states, in part, as
follows with respect to the maintenance of order in the occupied Eastern
areas:
“The Crimea has to be evacuated by all foreigners and to be
settled by Germans only * * *. We have now to face the task of
cutting up the giant cake according to our needs in order to be
able first, to dominate it, second, to administer it, and third,
to exploit it. The Russians have now ordered partisan warfare
behind our front. This partisan war * * * has some advantage for
us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us. * * *
Our iron principle is and has to remain: we must never permit
anybody but the Germans to carry arms * * *.” (_L-221_)
According to the above memorandum, the foregoing conference was attended
by _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg, Reich Minister Lammers, Field Marshal
Keitel, Reich Marshal Goering, and Bormann, and lasted about 20 hours.
The memorandum states that discussion occurred with respect to the
annexation by Germany of various parts of conquered Europe. The
memorandum also states that a long discussion took place with respect to
the qualifications of _Gauleiter_ Lohse, who was proposed by Rosenberg
at the conference as governor of the Baltic country. Discussion also
occurred with respect to the qualifications of other _Gauleiter_ and
commissioners for the administration of various areas of occupied
Russia. Goering stated that he intended to appoint _Gauleiter_ Terboven
for the “exploitation of the Kola Peninsula: the Fuehrer agrees.” With
respect to the security of the German administration in the eastern
areas, the memorandum states:
“This giant area would have to be pacified as quickly as
possible; the best solution was to shoot anybody who looked
sideways * * * Field Marshal Keitel emphasizes the inhabitants
themselves ought to be made responsible for their things because
it was, of course, impossible to put a sentry in front of every
shed or railway station. The inhabitants had to understand that
anybody who did not perform their duties properly would be shot,
and that they would be held responsible for each offense.”
(_L-221_)
(_d_) _Subversion of Christian Church and Persecution of the Clergy._
The evidence relating to the systematic effort of the conspirators to
eliminate the Christian churches in Germany is discussed in Section 6 of
Chapter VII. The evidence hereinafter taken up is limited to proving the
responsibility of the Leadership Corps and its members for participation
in illegal activities against the Christian church and clergy.
Bormann, who was a _Reichsleiter_ and Chief of the Nazi Party
Chancellery, issued a secret decree addressed to all _Gauleiter_,
entitled “Relationship of National Socialism and Christianity” (_D-75_).
In this decree _Reichsleiter_ Bormann flatly declared that National
Socialism and Christianity are incompatible and that the influence of
the churches in Germany must be eliminated:
“National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable. *
* * Our National Socialist ideology is far loftier than the
concepts of Christianity, which, in their essential points, have
been taken over from Jewry. For this reason also, we do not need
Christianity. * * * If, therefore, in the future our youth
learns nothing more of this Christianity, whose doctrines are
far below ours, Christianity will disappear by itself. * * * It
follows from the irreconcilability of National Socialist and
Christian concepts that a strengthening of existing confessions
and every demand of originating Christian confessions is to be
rejected by us. A differentiation between the various Christian
confessions is not to be made here. For this reason, also, the
thought of an erection of an Evangelical National Church by
merger of the various Evangelical churches has been definitely
given up, because the Evangelical Church is just as inimicable
to us as the Catholic Church. Any strengthening of the
Evangelical Church would merely react against us. * * *
“For the first time in German history, the Fuehrer consciously
and completely has the leadership of the people in his own hand.
With the Party, its components, and attached units, the Fuehrer
has created for himself, and thereby the German Reich
leadership, an instrument which makes him independent of the
Church. All influences which might impair or damage the
leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer, with the help
of the NSDAP, must be eliminated. More and more the people must
be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors. Of
course, the churches must and will, seen from their viewpoint,
defend themselves against this loss of power. But never again
must an influence on leadership of the people be yielded to the
churches. This influence must be broken completely and finally.
“Only the Reich Government and, by its direction, the Party, its
components and attached units have a right to leadership of the
people. Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers
and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so
must the possibility of Church influence also be totally
removed. Not until this has happened, does the State leadership
have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are
people and Reich secure in their existence for all the future.”
(_D-75_)
On 25 April 1941 a letter was issued from Bormann’s office to Rosenberg,
in his capacity as the Fuehrer’s Representative for the Supervision of
the Entire Mental and Ideological Training and Education of the NSDAP
(_070-PS_). In this letter Bormann’s office stated that measures had
been taken leading to the progressive cancellation of morning prayers
and other religious services and their substitution by Nazi mottos and
slogans:
“We are inducing schools more and more to reduce and abolish
religious morning services. Similarly the confessional and
general prayers in several parts of the Reich have already been
replaced by national socialist mottos. I would be grateful, to
know your opinion on a future national socialist morning service
instead of the present confessional morning services which are
usually conducted once per week * * *.” (_070-PS_)
In a letter from _Reichsleiter_ Bormann to _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg,
dated 22 February 1940, Bormann declared to Rosenberg that the Christian
religion and National Socialism are incompatible (_098-PS_). Bormann
cited, as examples of hostile divergence between Naziism and the
churches, the attitude of the latter on the racial question, celibacy of
the priests, monasteries and nunneries, etc. Bormann further declared
that the churches could not be subjugated through compromise, but only
through a new philosophy of life as prophesied in Rosenberg’s writings.
In this letter, Bormann proposed the creation of a National Socialist
Catechism, in order to give that part of the German youth which declines
to practice confessional religion, a moral foundation, and to lay a
moral basis for National Socialist doctrines, which were gradually to
supplant the Christian religions. Bormann suggested that some of the Ten
Commandments could be merged with the National Socialist Catechism and
stated that a few new Commandments should be added, such as: Thou shalt
be courageous; Thou shalt not be cowardly; Thou shalt believe in God’s
presence in the living nature, animals, and plants; Thou shalt keep thy
blood pure; etc. Deputy of the Fuehrer Bormann concluded that he
considered the problem so important that it should be discussed with the
members of the Reich Directorate, comprising the top leaders of the
Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, as soon as possible. (_098-PS_)
At one point in this letter, Bormann stated:
“Christianity and National Socialism are phenomena which
originated from entirely different basic causes. Both differ
fundamentally so strongly, that it will not be possible to
construct a Christian teaching which would be completely
compatible with the point of view of the National Socialist
ideology; just as the communications of Christian faith would
never be able to stand by the ideology of National Socialism in
its entirety * * *.” (_098-PS_)
After discussing various proposals for the formulation of a Nazi
religious credo for instruction in the German school system, Bormann
stated:
“The Fuehrer’s deputy finds it necessary that all these
questions should be thoroughly discussed in the near future in
the presence of the Reich Leaders [_Reichsleiter_] who are
especially effected by them * * *.” (_098-PS_)
In a circular letter, dated 17 June 1938, addressed by Bormann as
_Reichsleiter_ and Deputy of the Fuehrer to all _Reichsleiter_ and
_Gauleiter_, there was enclosed a copy of rules prepared by
_Reichsleiter_ Hierl, setting forth certain restrictive regulations with
respect to participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious
celebrations (_107-PS_). Pertinent portions of the directives issued by
_Reichsleiter_ Hierl read as follows:
“The Reich Labor Service is a training school in which the
German youth should be educated to national unity in the spirit
of National Socialism * * *.
“What religious beliefs a person has is not a decisive factor,
but it is decisive that he first of all feels himself a German.
“Every religious practice is forbidden in the Reich Labor
Service because it disturbs the comradelike harmony of all
working men and women.
“On this basis, every participation of the Reich Labor Service
in churchly, that is religious, arrangements and celebrations is
not possible.” (_107-PS_)
The position of Bormann as Deputy of the Fuehrer and chief of the Nazi
Party Chancellery, and the position of Rosenberg as the Fuehrer’s
Representative for the Whole Spiritual and Philosophical Education of
the Nazi Party, give to the foregoing views on religion and religious
policy the highest official backing. The anti-Christian utterances and
policies of these two conspirator-defendants reveal a community of mind
and intention amongst the most powerful leaders of the party which was
amply confirmed by the actual treatment of the churches since 1933 and
throughout the course of the conspiracy. An excerpt from page 514 of
“The Myth of the 20th Century,” written by Rosenberg, reads as follows:
“The idea of honor—national honor—is for us the beginning and
the end of our entire thinking and doing. It does not admit of
any equal-valued center of force along side of it, no matter of
what kind, neither Christian love, nor the Free-Masonic
humanity, nor the Roman philosophy.” (_2349-PS_)
In addition to promoting beliefs and practices fundamentally
incompatible with Christianity, the Leadership Corps participated in the
persecution of priests, clergy, and members of religious orders. A
Gestapo telegram, dated 24 July 1938, dispatched from Berlin to
Nurnberg, deals with demonstrations and acts of violence against Bishop
Sproll in Rottenburg (_848-PS_). The Gestapo office in Berlin wired its
Nurnberg office the following teletype account received from its
Stuttgart office of disorderly conduct and vandalism carried out by Nazi
Party members against Bishop Sproll:
“The Party on 23 July 1939 from 2100 on carried out the third
demonstration against Bishop Sproll. Participants, about
2500-3000, were brought in from outside by bus, etc. The
Rottenburg populace again did not participate in the
demonstration. This town took rather hostile attitude toward the
demonstrations. The action got completely out of hand of the
Party member responsible for it. The demonstrators stormed the
palace, beat in the gates and doors. About 150 to 200 people
forced their way into the palace, searched through the rooms,
threw files out of the windows and rummaged through the beds in
the rooms of the palace. One bed was ignited * * * The Bishop
was with Archbishop Groeber of Freiburg and the ladies and
gentlemen of his menage in the chapel at prayer. About 25 to 30
people pressed into this chapel and molested those present.
Bishop Groeber was taken for Bishop Sproll. He was grabbed by
the robe and dragged back and forth * * *.” (_848-PS_)
The Gestapo official in Stuttgart added that Bishop Groeber desired “to
turn to the Fuehrer and Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick,
anew”; and that he had found a full report of the demonstration after
“suppressing counter mass meetings.” (_848-PS_)
On 23 July 1938 the Reich Minister for Church Affairs, Kerrl, sent a
letter to the Minister of State and Chief of the Praesidium Chancellery,
Berlin, stating that Bishop Sproll had angered the population by
abstaining from the plebiscite of 10 April (_849-PS_). In this letter
Kerrl stated that the _Gauleiter_ and Governor of Wuerttemberg had
decided that, in the interest of preserving the State’s authority and in
the interest of quiet and order, Bishop Sproll could no longer remain in
office. The letter reads in part as follows:
“* * * The Reich Governor had explained to the Ecclesiastical
Board that he would no longer regard Bishop Sproll as Head of
the Diocese of Rottenburg on account of his refraining from the
election in the office and that he desired Bishop Sproll to
leave the Gau area * * * because he could assume no guarantee
for his personal safety; that in the case of the return of the
Bishop of Rottenburg he would see to it that all personal and
official intercourse with him on the part of State offices as
well as Party offices and the Armed Forces would be denied.”
(_849-PS_)
Kerrl further stated in the foregoing letter that his Deputy had moved
the Foreign Office, through the German Embassy at the Vatican, to urge
the Holy See to persuade Bishop Sproll to resign his Bishopric. Kerrl
concluded by stating that should the effort to procure the Bishop’s
resignation prove unsuccessful
“* * * the Bishop would have to be exiled from the land or there
would have to be a complete boycott of the Bishop by the
authorities * * *.” (_849-PS_)
On 14 July 1939 Bormann, in his capacity as Deputy of the Fuehrer,
issued a party regulation which required party members entering the
clergy or undertaking the study of theology to leave the party
(_840-PS_). The last paragraph of the regulation reads as follows:
“I decree that in the future party members who enter the clergy
or who turn to the study of theology have to leave the party.”
(_840-PS_)
In this directive Bormann also referred to an earlier decree, dated 9
February 1937, in which he had ruled that the admission of members of
the clergy into the party was to be avoided. In that decree also Bormann
referred with approval to a regulation of the Reich Treasurer of the
NSDAP, dated 10 May 1939, providing that—
“clergymen, as well as other fellow Germans, who are also
closely connected with the church, cannot be admitted into the
party.” (_840-PS_)
In the Allocution of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, to the Sacred College
on 2 June 1945, His Holiness, after declaring that he had acquired an
appreciation of the great qualities of the German people in the course
of 12 years of residence in their midst, expressed the hope that Germany
could rise to new dignity and new life once it had laid the satanic
specter raised by National Socialism, and after the guilty had expiated
the crimes they have committed (_3268-PS_). After referring to repeated
violations by the German government of the Concordat concluded in 1933,
His Holiness declared:
“The struggle against the Church did, in fact, become ever more
bitter: there was the dissolution of Catholic organizations; the
gradual suppression of the flourishing Catholic schools, both
public and private; the enforced weaning of youth from family
and Church; the pressure brought to bear on the conscience of
citizens, and especially of civil servants; the systematic
defamation, by means of a clever, closely-organized propaganda,
of the Church, the clergy, the faithful, the Church’s
institutions, teachings and history; the closing, dissolution,
confiscation of religious houses and other ecclesiastical
institutions; the complete suppression of the Catholic press and
publishing houses * * *.
“In the meantime the Holy See itself multiplied its
representations and protests to governing authorities in
Germany, reminding them, in clear and energetic language, of
their duty to respect and fulfill the obligations of the natural
law itself that were confirmed by the Concordat. In those
critical years, joining the alert vigilance of a Pastor to the
long-suffering patience of a father, Our great Predecessor Pius
XI fulfilled his mission as Supreme Pontiff with intrepid
courage.
“But when, after he had tried all means of persuasion in vain,
he saw himself clearly faced with deliberate violations of a
solemn pact, with a religious persecution masked or open, but
always rigorously organized, he proclaimed to the world, on
Passion Sunday 1937, in his Encyclical _Mit brennender Sorge_,
what National-Socialism really was; the arrogant apostasy from
Jesus Christ, the denial of His doctrine and of His work of
redemption, the cult of violence, the idolatry of race and
blood, the overthrow of human liberty and dignity * * *.
“From the prisons, concentration camps and fortresses are now
pouring out, together with the political prisoners, also the
crowds of those, whether clergy or laymen, whose only crime was
their fidelity to Christ and to the faith of their fathers or
the dauntless fulfillment of their duties as priests * * *.
“In the forefront, the number and harshness of the treatment
meted out to them, were the Polish priests. From 1940 to 1945,
2,800 Polish ecclesiastica and religious were imprisoned in that
camp; among them was the Auxiliary bishop of Wloclawek, who died
there of typhus. In April last there were left only 816, all the
others being dead except for two or three transferred to another
camp. In the summer of 1942, 480 German-speaking ministers of
religion were known to be gathered there; of these, 45 were
Protestants, all the others Catholic priests. In spite of the
continuous inflow of new internees, especially from some
dioceses of Bavaria, Rhenania and Westphalia, their number, as a
result of the high rate of mortality, at the beginning of this
year, did not surpass 350. Nor should we pass over in silence
those belonging to occupied territories, Holland, Belgium,
France (among whom the Bishop of Clermont), Luxembourg,
Slovenia, Italy. Many of those priests and laymen endured
indescribable sufferings for their faith and for their vocation.
In one case the hatred of the impious against Christ reached the
point of parodying on the person of an interned priest, with
barbed wire, the scourging and crowning with thorns of our
Redeemer.” (_3268-PS_)
The Leadership Corps participated in the confiscation of church and
religious property. A letter dated 19 April 1941 from _Reichsleiter_
Bormann to _Reichsleiter_ Rosenberg exposes the participation of the
_Gauleiter_ in measures relating to the confiscation of religious
property (_072-PS_). The letter reads in part as follows:
“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.” (_072-PS_)
On 21 February 1940, the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich,
wrote a letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, proposing that certain
listed churches and monasteries be confiscated for the accommodation of
so-called racial Germans. (Himmler was a _Reichsleiter_ in the
Leadership Corps by virtue of his position as Reichsfuehrer of the SS.)
After pointing out that, on political grounds, outright expropriation of
religious property would not be feasible at the time, Heydrich suggested
certain specious interim actions with respect to the church properties
in question, to be followed progressively by outright confiscation
(_R-101-A_). Heydrich’s letter makes the following statements:
“Enclosed is a list of church possessions which might be
available for the accommodation of Racial Germans. The list,
which please return, is supplemented by correspondence and
illustrated material pertinent to the subject.
“For political reasons, expropriation without indemnity of the
entire property of the churches and religious orders will hardly
be possible at this time.
“Expropriation with indemnity or in return for assignment of
other lands and grounds will be even less possible.
“It is therefore suggested that the respective authorities of
the Orders be instructed that they make available the
monasteries concerned for the accommodation of Racial Germans
and remove their own members to other less populous monasteries.
[Marginal note in pencil opposite this paragraph: “Very good!”]
“The final expropriation of these properties thus placed at our
disposal can then be carried out step by step in course of
time.” (_R-101-A_)
On 5 April 1940, the Chief of the Security Police and of the Security
Service SS sent a letter to the Reich Commissioner for the consolidation
of Germandom, enclosing a copy of the foregoing letter from Heydrich to
Himmler proposing the confiscation of church properties (_R-101-A_). The
letter of 5 April 1940 stated:
“The Reich Leader SS has agreed to the proposals made in the
enclosed letter and has ordered the matter to be dealt with by
collaboration between the Chief of the Security Police and
Security Service and your office.” (_R-101-A_)
A letter dated 30 July 1941 (_R-101-C_) written by an
SS-Standartenfuehrer whose signature is illegible, to the Reich Leader
of the SS, supplies further evidence of the participation of the
_Gauleiter_ in the seizure of church property:
“Further to report of 30 May 1941 this office considers it its
duty to call the Reich Leader’s attention to the development
which is currently taking place in the incorporated Eastern
countries with regard to seizure and confiscation of Church
property.
“As soon as the Reich Laws on expropriation had been introduced,
the Reich Governor and _Gauleiter_ in the Wartheland adopted the
practice of expropriating real estate belonging to churches for
use as dwellings. He grants compensation to the extent of the
assessed value and pays the equivalent amount into blocked
accounts.
“Moreover the East German Estate Administration Limited reports
that in the ‘_Warthegau_’ all real estate owned by the churches
is being claimed by the local _Gau_ administration
[_Gauselbstverwaltung_].” (_R-101-C_)
Another letter, this one from the Chief of the Staff Main Office to
Himmler, dated 30 March 1942, dealing with the confiscation of church
property, evidences the active participation of the Party Chancellery in
the confiscation of religious property (_R-101-D_). In this letter the
Chief of the Staff Main Office reports to Himmler concerning the policy
of the SS in suspending all payments of rent to monasteries and other
church institutions whose property had been expropriated. The letter
discusses a proposal made by the Reich Minister of the Interior, in
which the Party Chancery prominently participated, to the effect that
the church institutions should be paid amounts corresponding to current
mortgage charges on the premises without realizing any profit. The
writer further suggests that such payments should never be made directly
to the ecclesiastical institutions but rather should be made to the
creditors of such institutions:
“Such an arrangement would be in line with the basic idea of the
settlement originally worked out between the Party Chancery and
the Reich Minister of the Interior.” (_R-101-D_)
The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party participated in the suppression
of religious publications and interfered with free religious education.
In a letter dated 27 September 1940, _Reichsleiter_ and Deputy of the
Fuehrer Bormann transmitted to Rosenberg a photostatic copy of a letter
from _Gauleiter_ Florian to Hess, dated 23 September 1940, which
expresses the _Gauleiter’s_ intense disapproval on Nazi ideological
grounds of a religious pamphlet entitled “The Spirit and Soul of the
Soldiers,” written by a Major General von Rabenau (_064-PS_). The
_Gauleiter_ urges that the religious writings of General von Rabenau be
suppressed. Florian also discusses a conversation he had with General
von Rabenau at the close of a lecture delivered by the General to a
group of younger Army officers at Aachen. This conversation illumines
the hostile attitude of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party toward
the Christian churches:
“After he had affirmed the necessity of the churches, Rabenau
said, with emphasized self-assurance, something like the
following: ‘Dear Gauleiter, the Party is making mistake after
mistake in the business with the churches. Obtain for me the
necessary powers from the Fuehrer and I guarantee that I shall
succeed in a few months in establishing peace with the churches
for all times.’ After this catastrophic ignorance, I gave up the
conversation. Dear Party Member Hess: the reading of von
Rabenau’s pamphlet ‘Spirit and Soul of the Soldier’ has reminded
me again of this. In this brochure, Rabenau affirms the
necessity of the Church straight-forward and clearly, even if it
is prudently careful. He writes on page 28 ‘There could be more
examples; they would suffice to show that a soldier in this
world can scarcely get along without thoughts about the next
one.’ Because von Rabenau is falsely based spiritually, I
consider his activities as an educator in spiritual affairs as
dangerous, and I am of the opinion that his educational writings
are to be dispensed with absolutely and that the publication
section of the NSDAP can and must renounce these writings * * *
The churches with their Christianity are this danger against
which the struggle must always be carried on.” (_064-PS_)
That the Party Chancellery shared the _Gauleiter’s_ hostility to the
Christian churches is further revealed by Bormann’s instruction to
Rosenberg to “take action” on the _Gauleiter’s_ recommendation that the
General’s writings be suppressed. (_064-PS_)
Another letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 8 March 1940, enclosed a
copy of Bormann’s letter of the same date to _Reichsleiter_ Amann
(_089-PS_). Amann was a top member of the Leadership Corps by virtue of
his position as _Reichsleiter_ for the Press and Leader of the Party
Publishing Company. In this letter to Amann, Bormann expressed his
dismay and dissatisfaction that only 10 percent of the 3,000 Protestant
periodicals in Germany had ceased publication for what are described as
“paper saving” reasons. Bormann then advised Amann that “the
distribution of any paper whatsoever for such periodicals” was barred
(_089-PS_). Bormann also instructed Amann to make sharper restrictions
in the distribution of paper against religious writings in favor of
publications more acceptable to the Nazi ideology:
“I urge you [Bormann is addressing _Reichsleiter_ Amann] to see
to it in any redistribution of paper to be considered later that
the confessional writing, which according to experiences so far
gathered possesses very doubtful value for strengthening the
power of resistance of the people toward the external foe
receives still sharper restrictions in favor of literature,
politically and ideologically more valuable.” (_089-PS_)
A further letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 17 January 1940,
expressed the Party’s opposition to the circulation of religious
literature to the members of the German Armed Forces (_101-PS_).
Pertinent excerpts from Bormann’s letter read as follows:
“Nearly all the districts [_Gaue_] report to me regularly that
the churches of both confessions are administering spiritually
to members of the Armed Forces. This administering finds its
expression especially in the fact that soldiers are being sent
religious publications by the spiritual leaders of the home
congregations. These publications are, in part, very cleverly
composed. I have repeated reports that these publications are
being read by the troops and thereby exercise a certain
influence on the morale.
“I have, in the past, sought by sounding out the General Field
Marshal, the High Command of the Armed Forces, and * * * Reich
Director Amann, to restrict considerably the production and
shipment of publications of this type. The result of these
efforts remains unsatisfactory. As _Reichsleiter_ Amann has
repeatedly informed me, the restriction of these pamphlets by
means of the * * * paper rationing has not been achieved because
the paper * * * is being purchased on the open market.
“If the influencing of the soldiers by the church is to be
effectively combatted, this will only be accomplished by
producing many good publications in the shortest possible time
under the supervision of the Party * * *.
“Thus at the last meeting of the Deputy _Gauleiters_, comments
were uttered on this matter to the effect that a considerable
quantity of such publications are not available.
“I maintain that it is necessary that in the near future we
transmit to the Party Service Office down to
_Ortsgruppenleitern_ a list of additional publications of this
sort which should be sent to our soldiers by the _Ortsgruppen_.
* * *” (_101-PS_)
The Leadership Corps also participated in measures leading to the
closing and dissolution of theological schools and other religious
institutions. In a letter dated 17 April 1939 Bormann transmitted to
Rosenberg photostatic copy of a plan suggested by the Reich Minister for
Science, Education, and Training for the combining and closing of
certain specifically listed theological faculties (_122-PS_). In his
letter of transmittal Bormann requested Rosenberg to take “cognizance
and prompt action” with respect to proposed suppression of religious
institutions. The plan to suppress the religious institutions was
summarized as follows:
“To recapitulate, this plan would include the complete closing
of the theological faculties at Innsbruck, Salzburg, and Munich,
the transfer of the faculty of Graz to Vienna, and the vanishing
of four Catholic faculties; closing of three Catholic
theological faculties or higher schools, and of four evangelical
faculties in the Winter semester 1939/1940; closing of one
further Catholic and of three further evangelical faculties in
the near future.” (_122-PS_)
A final letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 24 January 1939,
enclosed for Rosenberg’s cognizance a copy of Bormann’s letter to the
Reich Minister for Knowledge and Education (_116-PS_). In the enclosed
letter, Bormann informed the Minister as to the Party’s position in
favor of restricting and suppressing theological faculties. Bormann
stated that, owing to the effects of the introduction of military
service, the consequences of the Four Year Plan, and the extraordinary
lack of replacements, it would become necessary to carry out a
reorganization of the German high schools. In view of these
developments, he requested the Minister to restrict and suppress the
theological faculties:
“* * * I would appreciate it very much if you would restrict the
theological faculties in so far as they cannot be wholly
suppressed in accordance with the above statement. I request in
this instance the omission of any expressed declaration to the
Churches or to other places, as well as the avoiding of a public
announcement of these measures. Complaints and the like must be
answered (if they are to be replied to) in the fashion that
these measures are being executed in the course of the economic
plan of reorganization and that similar things are happening to
other faculties.
“I would appreciate it very much if professional chairs thus
vacated can be then turned over to the newly created fields of
inquiry of these last years, such as Racial Research,
Archeological Studies, etc.” (_116-PS_)
From the foregoing evidence it is clear the Leadership Corps of the Nazi
Party shares in the responsibility for the measures taken to subvert the
Christian churches and persecute the Christian clergy, both in Germany
and in German-occupied territories of Europe. The Prosecution stresses
the significance of the appointment of Rosenberg, whose anti-Christian
views are open and notorious, as the Fuehrer’s Representative for the
Whole Spiritual and Philosophical Education of the Nazi Party. It was
precisely this position which gave Rosenberg his seat in the
_Reichsleitung_. But emphasis is placed not merely upon the fact that
anti-Christs such as Bormann and Rosenberg held directive positions
within the Leadership Corps, but upon the further fact that their
directives and orders were passed down the chain of command of the
Leadership Corps and caused the participation of its membership in acts
subversive of the Christian Church.
(_e_) _Destruction of the Free Trade Unions, Imposition of Nazi Control
over the Productive Labor Capacity of Germany._ The evidence relating to
the destruction of the independent trade unions is discussed in Section
5 of Chapter VII. The evidence hereinafter taken up is offered to prove
the responsibility of the Leadership Corps for participation in the
smashing of the unions and the imposition of Nazi Party control over the
productive labor capacity of the German nation.
Soon after the seizure of power (mid-April 1933), _Reichsleiter_ Robert
Ley was directed by Hitler to smash the independent unions.
_Reichsleiter_ Ley, in his speech to the Nurnberg Party Congress of
1936, declared:
“* * * My Fuehrer! When you, my Fuehrer, ordered me in mid-April
1933 to take over the trade unions, I could not understand why
you gave this order to me since I could not see any connection
between my task as Organizational Leader of the Party and my new
task. Very soon, however, your decision, my Fuehrer, became
clear to me and I recognized that the organizational measures of
the Party could only come to full fruition when supplemented by
the organization of the people, that is to say, by the
mobilization of the energies of the people and by their
concentration and alignment. If the _Party_ represents the
_concentration of the Political Leaders of the people_—as you,
my Fuehrer, have told us again and again—then the _people_ is
the _retinue_ and must be organized and trained according to the
same principles. _Leader and retinue, elite and community at
large_—these were the clear directives for my work. These were
the consequences:
“(1) _My tasks as Organizational Leader of the Party and as the
leader of the German Labor Front were a completely homogeneous
task: in other words, in everything I did I acted as Reich
Organization Leader of the NSDAP._
“(2) _The German Labor Front was an institution of the Party and
was led by it._
“(3) _The German Labor Front had to be organized regionally and
professionally according to the same principles as the Party._
“That is why trade union and employer associations had to be
smashed unrelentingly, and the basis of construction was formed,
as in the Party, by the cell and the local section
[_Ortsgruppe_].
* * * * * *
“_National Socialism has conquered the factory._ Factory troops
[_Die Werkschar_] are the National Socialist shock troops within
the factory, and their motto is:
‘THE FUEHRER IS ALWAYS RIGHT’.” (_2283-PS_)
In furtherance of the Nazi policy to destroy the independent trade
unions of Germany, Ley issued a Party directive on 21 April 1933
outlining what was termed a “coordination action” scheduled for 2 May
1933 against the General German Trade Union Federation and the General
Independent Employee Federation (_392-PS_). This directive ordered the
SA and the SS to occupy trade union premises, seize trade union funds,
and take into protective custody the higher union leaders.
Pertinent portions of Ley’s order provide:
“On Tuesday, 2 May 1933, the coordination action of the free
trade unions begins.
* * * * * *
“The essential part of the action is to be directed against the
General German Trade Union Federation and the General
Independent Employees Federation.
“Anything beyond that which is dependent upon the free trade
unions is left to the discretion of the _Gauleiter’s_ judgment.
“The _Gauleiter_ are responsible for the execution of the
coordination action in the individual areas. Supporters of the
action should be members of the National Socialist Factory Cell
Organizations * * *.
“SA as well as SS are to be employed for the occupation of trade
union properties and for taking into protective custody of
personalities who come into question.
“The _Gauleiter_ is to proceed with his measures on a basis of
the closest understanding with competent gau or regional factory
cells directors.
* * * * * *
“In the Reich, the following will be occupied:
The directing offices of the unions;
The trade union houses and offices of the fur trade
unions;
The Party houses of the Socialist Democratic Party of
Germany in so far as trade unions are involved there;
The branches and paying offices of the ‘Bank for
Workers, Employees and Officials, Inc.’
The district committees of the General German Trade
Union Federation and of the General Independent
Employees Federation.
The local committees of the General German Trade Union
Federation and of the General Independent Employees
Federation.
“The following are to be taken into protective custody:
All trade union chairmen;
The district secretaries and branch directors of the
Bank for Workers, Employees and Officials, Inc.
* * * * * *
“Exceptions are granted only with the permission of the
_Gauleiter_.
* * * * * *
“It is understood that this action is to proceed in a strongly
disciplined fashion. The _Gauleiter_ are responsible in this
respect. They are to hold the direction of the action firmly in
hand.
“Heil Hitler!
“(signed) Dr. Robert Ley.” (_392-PS_)
Ley’s order for the dissolution of the independent trade unions was
carried out as planned and directed. Trade union premises all over
Germany were occupied by the SA and the unions dissolved. On 2 May 1933,
the official NSDAP Press Service reported that the National Socialist
Factory Cells Organization (NSBO) had “eliminated the old leadership” of
“Free Trade Unions” and taken over their leadership (_2224-PS_):
“National Socialism, which today has assumed leadership of the
German working class, can no longer bear the responsibility for
leaving the men and women of the German working class, the
members of the largest trade organization in the world, the
German Trade Union Movement, in the hands of a people who do not
know a fatherland that is called Germany. Because of that, the
National Socialist Factory Cell Organization (NSBO) has taken
over the leadership of the trade unions. The NSBO has eliminated
the old leadership of the trade unions of the General German
Trade Unions League and of the General Independent Employees’
Federation * * *.
“On 2 May 1933, the National Socialist Factory Cell Organization
(NSBO) took over the leadership of all trade unions; all trade
union buildings were occupied and most stringent control has
been organized over financial and personnel matters of the
organization.” (_2224-PS_)
This assault on the independent unions directed by Ley in his capacity
as _Reichsleiter_ in charge of Party Organization, assisted by the
_Gauleiter_, and Party Formations, included the seizure of trade union
funds and property. In a speech on 11 September 1937 to the 5th Annual
Session of the German Labor Front (_1678-PS_), Ley admitted the
confiscation of trade union funds.
“Once I said to the Fuehrer: ‘My Fuehrer, actually I am standing
with one foot in jail, for today I am still the trustee of the
comrades “Leipart” and “Imbusch,” and should they some day ask
me to return their money, then it will be found that I have
spent it, either by building things, or otherwise. But they
shall never again find their property in the condition in which
they handed it over to me. Therefore I would have to be
convicted.’
“The Fuehrer laughed then and remarked that apparently I felt
extremely well in this condition.
“It was very difficult for us all. Today we laugh about it * *
*.” (_1678-PS_)
The plan of the Nazi conspirators to eliminate the Free Trade Unions was
advanced by the enactment on 19 May 1933 of a law which abolished
collective bargaining between workers and employers and replaced it with
a regulation of working conditions by Labor Trustees appointed by Hitler
(_405-PS_). After providing in Section 1 for the appointment by Hitler
of trustees of labor, this law provides, in Section 2:
“Until a new revision of the social constitution, the trustees
are to regulate the conditions for the conclusion of labor
contracts. This practice is to be legally binding for all
persons and replaces the system found on combinations of
workers, of individual employers or of combinations of employers
* * *.”(_405-PS_)
Having destroyed the independent unions and collective bargaining, the
next step of the Nazi conspirators was to Nazify industrial relations.
The Law of 20 January 1934, entitled “Law Regulating National Labor,”
imposed the Leadership Principle upon industrial enterprisers
(_1861-PS_). Section I, paragraph 1, provided that the enterpriser
should be the leader of the plant and the workers would “constitute his
followers.” Section 1, paragraph 2 reads as follows:
“The Leader of the plant makes the decisions for the employees
and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise, as far as
they are regulated by this law.
“He is responsible for the well-being of the employees and
laborers. The employees and laborers owe him faithfulness
according to the principles of the factory community.”
(_1861-PS_)
The trade unions having been dissolved and the Leadership Principle
superimposed upon the relationship of management and labor, the members
of the Leadership Corps joined in and directed measures designed to
replace the independent unions by the German Labor Front, the DAF, an
affiliated Party organization. On the very day the Nazi conspirators
seized and dissolved the Free Trade Unions, 2 May 1933, they publicly
proclaimed that a “united front of German workers” would be formed with
Hitler as honorary patron at a workers’ congress on 10 May 1933
(_2224-PS_). A release of the Nazi Party Press Agency stated:
“The National Socialist Party Press Agency is informed that a
great workers’ congress will take place on Wednesday, 10 May, in
the Russian House of Lords in Berlin. The United Front of German
workers will be formed there. Adolf Hitler will be asked to
assume the position of Honorary Patron.” (_2224-PS_)
The action committee, which supervised the smashing of the unions under
_Reichsleiter_ Ley, met with Hitler and reported that the independent
unions had been effectively dissolved. The Fuehrer then consented to be
Honorary Patron at the Great Workers’ Congress. (_2224-PS_)
The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was not only employed in measures
taken to dissolve the independent unions, but certain of its members
were given important and directive positions within the German Labor
Front, the Nazi Organization which replaced the free trade unions. On 10
May 1933, Hitler appointed Ley Leader of the German Labor Front (DAF)
(_1940-PS_). By the same edict, Hitler appointed _Gauleiter_ Forster as
Leader of the Employees’ Associations, and Schumann, Leader of the Nazi
Factory Cell Organization (NSBO), as Leader of the Workers’
Associations. The Hitler edict stated:
“The Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, has issued the following edict:
“I appoint the Chief of Staff of the Political Organization of
the NSDAP, Dr. Robert Ley, as leader of the German Labor Front.
“I appoint _Gauleiter_ Forster, Danzig, as leader of the
Employees’ Associations.
“I appoint the leader of the National Socialist Factory Cell
Organizations (NSBO), Schumann, as leader of the Workers’
Associations.
“Berlin, 10 May
“Adolf Hitler.” (_1940-PS_)
The Nazi conspirators employed the German Labor Front (DAF) as an
instrument for propagandizing its millions of compulsory members with
Nazi ideology. The control of the Leadership Corps over the German Labor
Front was assured not only by the designation of _Reichsleiter_ Ley as
head of the DAF, but by the employment of a large number of _Politischen
Leiter_ (political leaders) charged with disseminating Nazi ideology to
the large membership of the DAF. These facts are apparent from pages
185-187 of the _Organization Book of the NSDAP_ (_2271-PS_):
“The National Socialist Factory Cells Organization [NSBO], is a
union of the political leaders [_Politischen Leiter_] of the
NSDAP in the German Labor Front.
“The NSBO is the carrier of the organization of the German Labor
Front.
“The duties and responsibilities of the NSBO have passed over to
the DAF.
“The political leaders who have been transferred from the NSBO
to the German Labor Front guarantee the ideological education of
the DAF in the spirit of the National Socialistic idea.”
(_2271-PS_)
The foregoing evidence fixes upon the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party
responsibility for participation in the measures leading to the
destruction of the independent trade unions and to Nazi Party control
over the productive capacity of the German Labor Movement. Not only were
these actions directed by Ley in his capacity as _Reichsleiter_, but
they were supervised on a regional basis by the _Gauleiter_ as district
representatives of the Leadership Corps. Moreover, the German Labor
Front (DAF) which replaced the dissolved trade unions was an affiliated
organization of the NSDAP and, as such, remained under the control of
the Leadership Corps and was employed by it to nazify the labor
population of Germany.
(_f_) _Plunder of Art Treasures._ The Leadership Corps of the NSDAP is
also responsible for the plundering of art treasures by _Reichsleiter_
Rosenberg’s _Einsatzstab Rosenberg_, the activities of which are
discussed in full in Chapter XIV.
* * * * *
LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE NAZI PARTY
LEADERSHIP CORPS
│ │ │
Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page
│ │ │
│Charter of the International Military │ │
│ Tribunal, Article 9. │ I │ 6
│International Military Tribunal, │ │
│ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │
│ Appendix B. │ I │ 29, 69
│ ———— │ │
│Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │
│document indicates that the document │ │
│was received in evidence at the │ │
│Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │
│before a document number indicates │ │
│that the document was referred to │ │
│during the trial but was not formally │ │
│received in evidence, for the reason │ │
│given in parentheses following the │ │
│description of the document. The USA │ │
│series number, given in parentheses │ │
│following the description of the │ │
│document, is the official exhibit │ │
│number assigned by the court. │ │
│ ———— │ │
*004-PS │Report submitted by Rosenberg to │ │
│Deputy of the Fuehrer, 15 June 1940, │ │
│on the Political Preparation of the │ │
│Norway Action. (GB 140) │ III │ 19
│ │ │
*057-PS │Circular letter from Bormann to │ │
│Political Leaders, 30 May 1944, │ │
│concerning justice exercised by people│ │
│against Anglo-American murderers. (USA│ │
│329) │ III │ 102
│ │ │
*064-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 27 │ │
│September 1940, enclosing letter from │ │
│Gauleiter Florian criticizing churches│ │
│and publications for soldiers. (USA │ │
│359) │ III │ 109
│ │ │
070-PS │Letter of Deputy Fuehrer to Rosenberg,│ │
│25 April 1941, on substitution of │ │
│National Socialist mottos for morning │ │
│prayers in schools.(USA 349) │ III │ 118
│ │ │
*071-PS │Rosenberg letter to Bormann, 23 April │ │
│1941, replying to Bormann’s letter of │ │
│19 April 1941 (Document 072-PS). (USA │ │
│371) │ III │ 119
│ │ │
*072-PS │Bormann letter to Rosenberg, 19 April │ │
│1941, concerning confiscation of │ │
│property, especially of art treasures │ │
│in the East. (USA 357) │ III │ 122
│ │ │
*089-PS │Letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, 8 │ │
│March 1940, instructing Amann not to │ │
│issue further newsprint to │ │
│confessional newspapers. (USA 360) │ III │ 147
│ │ │
*090-PS │Letter from Rosenberg to Schwarz, 28 │ │
│January 1941, concerning registration │ │
│and collection of art treasures. (USA │ │
│372) │ III │ 148
│ │ │
*098-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 22 │ │
│February 1940, urging creation of │ │
│National Socialist Catechism, etc. to │ │
│provide moral foundation for NS │ │
│religion. (USA 350) │ III │ 152
│ │ │
*100-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 18 │ │
│January 1940, urging preparation of │ │
│National Socialist reading material to│ │
│replace Christian literature for │ │
│soldiers. (USA 691) │ III │ 160
│ │ │
*101-PS │Letter from Hess’ office signed │ │
│Bormann to Rosenberg, 17 January 1940,│ │
│concerning undesirability of religious│ │
│literature for members of the │ │
│Wehrmacht. (USA 361) │ III │ 160
│ │ │
107-PS │Circular letter signed Bormann, 17 │ │
│June 1938, enclosing directions │ │
│prohibiting participation of │ │
│Reichsarbeitsdienst in religious │ │
│celebrations. (USA 351) │ III │ 162
│ │ │
*116-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, │ │
│enclosing copy of letter, 24 January │ │
│1939, to Minister of Education │ │
│requesting restriction or elimination │ │
│of theological faculties. (USA 685) │ III │ 165
│ │ │
*122-PS │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 17 │ │
│April 1939, enclosing copy of Minister│ │
│of Education letter, 6 April 1939, on │ │
│elimination of theological faculties │ │
│in various universities. (USA 362) │ III │ 173
│ │ │
*136-PS │Certified copy of Hitler Order, 29 │ │
│January 1940, concerning establishment│ │
│of “Hohe Schule”. (USA 367) │ III │ 184
│ │ │
*137-PS │Copy of Order from Keitel to │ │
│Commanding General of Netherlands, 5 │ │
│July 1940, to cooperate with the │ │
│Einsatzstab Rosenberg. (USA 379) │ III │ 185
│ │ │
*141-PS │Goering Order, 5 November 1940, │ │
│concerning seizure of Jewish art │ │
│treasures. (USA 368) │ III │ 188
│ │ │
*145-PS │Order signed by Rosenberg, 20 August │ │
│1941, concerning safeguarding the │ │
│cultural goods in the Occupied Eastern│ │
│Territories. (USA 373) │ III │ 189
│ │ │
*149-PS │Hitler Order, 1 March 1942, │ │
│establishing authority of Einsatzstab │ │
│Rosenberg. (USA 369) │ III │ 190
│ │ │
*154-PS │Letter from Lammers to high State and │ │
│Party authorities, 5 July 1942, │ │
│confirming Rosenberg’s powers. (USA │ │
│370) │ III │ 193
│ │ │
315-PS │Note of a meeting held in the Reich │ │
│Ministry for Enlightenment and │ │
│Propaganda, 10 March 1943, concerning │ │
│treatment of foreign workers employed │ │
│in the Reich. │ III │ 251
│ │ │
*327-PS │Letter of Rosenberg to Bormann, 17 │ │
│October 1944, concerning liquidation │ │
│of property in Eastern Occupied │ │
│Territories. (USA 338) │ III │ 257
│ │ │
*347-PS │Letter from Lohse to Reich Youth │ │
│Leader Axmann, 18 April 1944. (USA │ │
│340) │ III │ 267
│ │ │
*374-PS │TWX Series of Orders signed by │ │
│Heydrich and Mueller, issued by │ │
│Gestapo Headquarters Berlin, 9-11 │ │
│November 1938, concerning treatment of│ │
│Jews. (USA 729) │ III │ 277
│ │ │
*392-PS │Official NSDAP circular entitled “The │ │
│Social Life of New Germany with │ │
│Special Consideration of the German │ │
│Labor Front”, by Prof. Willy Mueller │ │
│(Berlin, 1938). (USA 326) │ III │ 380
│ │ │
405-PS │Law Concerning Trustees of Labor, 19 │ │
│May 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│ │
│I, p. 285. │ III │ 387
│ │ │
*407-V and VI-PS│Letter from Sauckel to Hitler, 15 │ │
│April 1943, concerning labor │ │
│questions. (USA 209; USA 228) │ III │ 391
│ │ │
*630-PS │Memorandum of Hitler, 1 September │ │
│1939, concerning authorization of │ │
│mercy killings. (USA 342) │ III │ 451
│ │ │
*654-PS │Thierack’s notes, 18 September 1942, │ │
│on discussion with Himmler concerning │ │
│delivery of Jews to Himmler for │ │
│extermination through work. (USA 218) │ III │ 467
│ │ │
656-PS │Letter, undated, from Bormann to │ │
│Political leaders, enclosing Order of │ │
│Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, 29 │ │
│January 1943, relating to self-defense│ │
│against prisoners of war. (USA 339) │ III │ 470
│ │ │
*840-PS │Party Directive, 14 July 1939, making │ │
│clergy and theology students │ │
│ineligible for Party membership. (USA │ │
│355) │ III │ 606
│ │ │
*848-PS │Gestapo telegram from Berlin to │ │
│Nurnberg, 24 July 1938, dealing with │ │
│demonstrations against Bishop Sproll │ │
│in Rottenburg. (USA 353) │ III │ 613
│ │ │
*849-PS │Letter from Kerrl to Minister of │ │
│State, 23 July 1938, with enclosures │ │
│dealing with persecution of Bishop │ │
│Sproll. (USA 354) │ III │ 614
│ │ │
*1058-PS │Excerpt from a speech, 20 June 1941, │ │
│by Rosenberg before people most │ │
│intimately concerned with Eastern │ │
│Problem, found in his “Russia File”. │ │
│(USA 147) │ III │ 716
│ │ │
*1117-PS │Goering Order, 1 May 1941, concerning │ │
│establishment of Einsatzstab Rosenberg│ │
│in all Occupied Territories. (USA 384)│ III │ 793
│ │ │
1118-PS │Letter from Rosenberg to Goering, 18 │ │
│June 1942, and related correspondence.│ III │ 793
│ │ │
*1130-PS │Note, 11 April 1943, and report of │ │
│speech by Koch in Kiev on 5 March │ │
│1943, concerning treatment of civilian│ │
│population in Ukraine. (USA 169) │ III │ 797
│ │ │
*1164-PS │Secret letter, 21 April 1942, from SS │ │
│to all concentration camp commanders │ │
│concerning treatment of priests. (USA │ │
│736) │ III │ 820
│ │ │
1386-PS │Law concerning the granting of │ │
│amnesty, 23 April 1936. 1936 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 378. │ III │ 960
│ │ │
1388-PS │Law concerning confiscation of │ │
│Property subversive to People and │ │
│State, 14 July 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 479. │ III │ 962
│ │ │
1389-PS │Law creating Reich Labor Service, 26 │ │
│June 1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 769. │ III │ 963
│ │ │
1391-PS │Statute of the Academy for German Law,│ │
│2 July 1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│pp. 605-607. │ III │ 970
│ │ │
1392-PS │Law on the Hitler Youth, 1 December │ │
│1936. 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 993. │ III │ 972
│ │ │
1393-PS │Law on treacherous attacks against │ │
│State and Party, and for the │ │
│Protection of Party Uniforms, 20 │ │
│December 1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │
│Part I, p. 1269. │ III │ 973
│ │ │
1394-PS │Law to guarantee Public Peace, 13 │ │
│October 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 723, Art. 1-3. │ III │ 976
│ │ │
1395-PS │Law to insure the unity of Party and │ │
│State, 1 December 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016. │ │
│(GB 252) │ III │ 978
│ │ │
1397-PS │Law for the reestablishment of the │ │
│Professional Civil Service, 7 April │ │
│1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 175. │ III │ 981
│ │ │
1398-PS │Law to supplement the Law for the │ │
│restoration of the Professional Civil │ │
│Service, 20 July 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 518. │ III │ 986
│ │ │
1402-PS │The Homestead Law of 29 September │ │
│1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 685. │ III │ 990
│ │ │
1412-PS │Decree relating to payment of fine by │ │
│Jews of German nationality, 12 │ │
│November 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │
│Part I, p. 1579. │ IV │ 6
│ │ │
1415-PS │Police regulation concerning │ │
│appearance of Jews in public, 28 │ │
│November 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │
│Part I, p. 1676. │ IV │ 6
│ │ │
1416-PS │Reich Citizen Law of 15 September │ │
│1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 1146. │ IV │ 7
│ │ │
*1417-PS │First regulation to the Reichs │ │
│Citizenship Law, 14 November 1935. │ │
│1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│1333. (GB 258) │ IV │ 8
│ │ │
1419-PS │Law concerning Jewish tenants, 30 │ │
│April 1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 864. │ IV │ 10
│ │ │
1422-PS │Thirteenth regulation under Reich │ │
│Citizenship Law, 1 July 1943. 1943 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 372. │ IV │ 14
│ │ │
1438-PS │Fuehrer concerning administration of │ │
│Sudeten-German territory, 22 October │ │
│1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 1453. │ IV │ 17
│ │ │
*1481-PS │Gestapo order, 20 January 1938, │ │
│dissolving and confiscating property │ │
│of Catholic Youth Women’s Organization│ │
│in Bavaria. (USA 737) │ IV │ 50
│ │ │
*1517-PS │Memorandum from Rosenberg concerning │ │
│discussion with the Fuehrer, 14 │ │
│December 1941. (USA 824) │ IV │ 55
│ │ │
**1654-PS │Law of 16 March 1935 reintroducing │ │
│universal military conscription. 1935 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 369. │ │
│(Referred to but not offered in │ │
│evidence.) │ IV │ 163
│ │ │
1662-PS │Order eliminating Jews from German │ │
│economic life, 12 November 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1580. │ IV │ 172
│ │ │
1665-PS │Order concerning treatment of property│ │
│of Nationals of the former Polish │ │
│State, 17 September 1940. 1940 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1270. │ IV │ 173
│ │ │
1674-PS │Second decree for the execution of the│ │
│law regarding the change of surnames │ │
│and forenames, 17 August 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1044. │ IV │ 185
│ │ │
*1676-PS │Speech concerning the enemy air terror│ │
│by Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels, 28-29 │ │
│March 1944. Voelkischer Beobachter. │ │
│(USA 334) │ IV │ 186
│ │ │
*1678-PS │Speech of Dr. Robert Ley. Documents of│ │
│German Politics, Vol. V, pp. 373, 376.│ │
│(USA 365) │ IV │ 190
│ │ │
*1708-PS │The Program of the NSDAP. National │ │
│Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153. │ │
│(USA 255; USA 324) │ IV │ 208
│ │ │
*1774-PS │Extracts from Organizational Law of │ │
│the Greater German Reich by Ernst │ │
│Rudolf Huber. (GB 246) │ IV │ 349
│ │ │
*1814-PS │The Organization of the NSDAP and its │ │
│affiliated associations, from │ │
│Organization book of the NSDAP, │ │
│editions of 1936, 1938, 1940 and 1943,│ │
│pp. 86-88. (USA 328) │ IV │ 411
│ │ │
*1815-PS │Documents on RSHA meeting concerning │ │
│the study and treatment of church │ │
│politics. (USA 510) │ IV │ 415
│ │ │
1817-PS │Bureau for factory troops, from │ │
│Organization Book of the NSDAP, 1936 │ │
│edition, p. 211. │ IV │ 457
│ │ │
1855-PS │Extract from Organization Book of the │ │
│NSDAP, 1937, p. 418. │ IV │ 495
│ │ │
1861-PS │Law on the regulation of National │ │
│labor, 20 January 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 45. │ IV │ 497
│ │ │
*1893-PS │Extracts from Organization Book of the│ │
│NSDAP, 1943 edition. (USA 323) │ IV │ 529
│ │ │
*1913-PS │Agreement between Plenipotentiary │ │
│General for Arbeitseinsatz and German │ │
│Labor Front concerning care of │ │
│non-German workers. 1943 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 588. │ │
│(USA 227) │ IV │ 547
│ │ │
*1914-PS │Extracts from Decrees, Regulations, │ │
│Announcements, 1943 Edition, Part I, │ │
│pp. 318-319. (USA 336) │ IV │ 550
│ │ │
1915-PS │Decree concerning leadership of Armed │ │
│Forces, 4 February 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 111. │ IV │ 552
│ │ │
1939-PS │Speech by Ley published in Forge of │ │
│the Sword, with an introduction by │ │
│Marshal Goering, pp. 14-17. │ IV │ 581
│ │ │
1940-PS │Fuehrer edict appointing Ley leader of│ │
│German Labor Front. Voelkischer │ │
│Beobachter, Munich (Southern German) │ │
│edition, p. 1. │ IV │ 584
│ │ │
1961-PS │Decision of the Greater German │ │
│Reichstag, 26 April 1942. 1942 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 247. │ IV │ 600
│ │ │
1964-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer regarding │ │
│special jurisdiction of Reich Minister│ │
│of Justice, 20 August 1942. 1942 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 535. │ IV │ 601
│ │ │
2000-PS │Law for protection of German blood and│ │
│German honor, 15 September 1935. 1935 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, No. 100, p.│ │
│1146. │ IV │ 636
│ │ │
2001-PS │Law to Remove the Distress of People │ │
│and State, 24 March 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 141. │ IV │ 638
│ │ │
2003-PS │Law concerning the Sovereign Head of │ │
│the German Reich, 1 August 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 747. │ IV │ 639
│ │ │
2016-PS │Order concerning the jurisdiction of │ │
│SS courts and Police courts in the │ │
│Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, 15 │ │
│July 1942. 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 475. │ IV │ 649
│ │ │
2029-PS │Decree establishing the Reich Ministry│ │
│of Public Enlightenment and │ │
│Propaganda, 13 March 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 104. │ IV │ 652
│ │ │
2057-PS │Law relating to National Emergency │ │
│Defense Measures of 3 July 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 529. │ IV │ 699
│ │ │
2079-PS │Reich Flag Law of 15 September 1935. │ │
│1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│1145. │ IV │ 707
│ │ │
2100-PS │Decree on position of leader of Party │ │
│Chancellery, 24 January 1942. 1942 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 35. │ IV │ 726
│ │ │
2118-PS │Police decree on identification of │ │
│Jews, 1 September 1941. 1941 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 547. │ IV │ 750
│ │ │
2120-PS │Law on passports of Jews, 5 October │ │
│1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 1342. │ IV │ 754
│ │ │
2224-PS │The End of the Marxist Class Struggle,│ │
│published in National Socialist Party │ │
│Press Agency, 2 May 1933, pp. 1-2. │ │
│(USA 364) │ IV │ 864
│ │ │
2225-PS │The Front of German Workers has been │ │
│Erected, published in National │ │
│Socialist Party Press Agency, 3 May │ │
│1933, p. 1. │ IV │ 868
│ │ │
2230-PS │Agreement between Ley and Lutze, chief│ │
│of staff of SA, published in │ │
│Organization Book of NSDAP, 1938, pp. │ │
│484-485b, 486c. │ IV │ 871
│ │ │
2270-PS │Coordination of Cooperatives, │ │
│published in National Socialist Party │ │
│Press Agency release of 16 May 1933. │ IV │ 938
│ │ │
2271-PS │The National Socialist Factory Cells │ │
│Organization, published in │ │
│Organization Book of NSDAP, pp. │ │
│185-187. │ IV │ 940
│ │ │
*2283-PS │The Fifth Day of the Party Congress, │ │
│from Voelkischer Beobachter, Munich │ │
│(Southern German) Edition, Issue 258, │ │
│14 September 1936. (USA 337) │ IV │ 971
│ │ │
2325-PS │Decree in execution of Article 118 of │ │
│German Municipal Order, 26 March 1935.│ │
│1935 Reichsgesetzblatt Part I, p. 470.│ IV │ 1034
│ │ │
2336-PS │Special Circular on Securing of │ │
│association of German Labor Front │ │
│against hidden Marxist sabotage, 27 │ │
│June 1933. │ IV │ 1052
│ │ │
*2349-PS │Extracts from “The Myth of 20th │ │
│Century” by Alfred Rosenberg, 1941. │ │
│(USA 352) │ IV │ 1069
│ │ │
*2473-PS │Extracts from National Socialist │ │
│Yearbook, 1943, showing party │ │
│positions of other Cabinet members in │ │
│1943. (USA 324) │ V │ 226
│ │ │
2474-PS │Directive of 25 October 1934, Decrees │ │
│of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, signed │ │
│by Hess. (USA 327) │ V │ 227
│ │ │
*2660-PS │Distribution Plan for Gaue, Kreise, │ │
│and Ortsgruppen, from The Bearers of │ │
│Sovereignty, 2nd Issue, 3rd Year, │ │
│February 1939. (USA 325) │ V │ 365
│ │ │
*2715-PS │Speech by Hitler to the Reichstag on │ │
│20 February 1938, published in The │ │
│Archive, February 1938, Vol. 47, pp. │ │
│1441-1442. (USA 331). │ V │ 376
│ │ │
*2775-PS │Hitler’s speech, published in Nurnberg│ │
│Party Congress, 1934. (USA 330) │ V │ 418
│ │ │
*2958-PS │Extract from The Statistics of the │ │
│NSDAP, Issue 8, 1939, p. 10. (USA 325)│ V │ 663
│ │ │
*3051-PS │Three teletype orders from Heydrich to│ │
│all stations of State Police, 10 │ │
│November 1938, on measures against │ │
│Jews, and one order from Heydrich on │ │
│termination of protest actions. (USA │ │
│240) │ V │ 797
│ │ │
*3063-PS │Letters of transmission enclosing │ │
│report about events and judicial │ │
│proceedings in connection with │ │
│anti-semitic demonstrations of 9 │ │
│November 1938. (USA 332) │ V │ 868
│ │ │
*3230-PS │Fight and Order—Not Peace and Order! │ │
│from the Bearer of Sovereignty, │ │
│February 1939, p. 15. (USA 325) │ V │ 937
│ │ │
*3268-PS │Allocution of His Holiness Pope Pius │ │
│XII, to the Sacred College, 2 June │ │
│1945. (USA 356) │ V │ 1038
│ │ │
3738-PS │Geneva Convention of 1929 relative to │ │
│treatment of Prisoners of War. │ VI │ 599
│ │ │
*D-75 │SD Inspector Bierkamp’s letter, 12 │ │
│December 1941, to RSHA enclosing copy │ │
│of secret decree signed by Bormann, │ │
│entitled Relationship of National │ │
│Socialism and Christianity. (USA 348) │ VI │ 1035
│ │ │
*D-728 │Circular, 15 March 1945, from NSDAP │ │
│Gauleitung Hessen-Nassau to the │ │
│“Kreis”-Leaders of the Gau, concerning│ │
│Action by the Party to keep Germans in│ │
│check until end of the War. (GB 282) │ VII │ 174
│ │ │
*L-154 │Letter from Hoffman, 25 February 1945,│ │
│concerning action to be taken against │ │
│pilots who are shot down. (USA 335) │ VII │ 904
│ │ │
*L-172 │“The Strategic Position at the │ │
│Beginning of the 5th Year of War”, a │ │
│lecture delivered by Jodl on 7 │ │
│November 1943 at Munich to Reich and │ │
│Gauleiters. (USA 34) │ VII │ 920
│ │ │
*L-221 │Bormann report on conference of 16 │ │
│July 1941, concerning treatment of │ │
│Eastern populations and territories. │ │
│(USA 317) │ VII │ 1086
│ │ │
*L-316 │RSHA Order of 5 November 1942, signed │ │
│by Streckenbach, concerning │ │
│jurisdiction over Poles and Eastern │ │
│Nationals. (USA 346) │ VII │ 1104
│ │ │
*R-101-A │Letter from Chief of the Security │ │
│Police and Security Service to the │ │
│Reich Commissioner for the │ │
│Consolidation of German Folkdom, 5 │ │
│April 1940, with enclosures concerning│ │
│confiscation of church property. (USA │ │
│358) │ VIII │ 87
│ │ │
R-101-C │Letter to Reich Leader SS, 30 July │ │
│1941, concerning treatment of church │ │
│property in incorporated Eastern │ │
│areas. (USA 358) │ VIII │ 91
│ │ │
*R-101-D │Letter from Chief of Staff of the │ │
│Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) to │ │
│Reich Leader SS, 30 March 1942, │ │
│concerning confiscation of church │ │
│property. (USA 358) │ VIII │ 92
│ │ │
*R-110 │Himmler order of 10 August 1943 to all│ │
│Senior Executive SS and Police │ │
│officers. (USA 333) │ VIII │ 107
│ │ │
*R-112 │Orders issued by Reich Commissioner │ │
│for the Consolidation of German │ │
│nationhood, 16 February 1942, 1 July │ │
│1942, 28 July 1942. (USA 309) │ VIII │ 108
│ │ │
*R-114 │Memoranda of conferences, 4 and 18 │ │
│August 1942, concerning directions for│ │
│treatment of deported Alsatians. (USA │ │
│314) │ VIII │ 122
│ │ │
*Chart No. 1 │National Socialist German Workers’ │ │
│Party. (2903-PS; USA 2) │ VIII │ 770
3. THE REICH CABINET
The Reich Cabinet, or _Reichsregierung_, unlike most of the other Nazi
organizations, was not especially created by the Nazi Party to carry out
or implement its purposes. The _Reichsregierung_ had, before the Nazis
came to power, a place in the constitutional and political history of
the country. As with other cabinets of duly constituted governments, the
executive power of the realm was concentrated in that body. The Nazi
conspirators well realized this fact. Their aim for totalitarian control
over the State could not be secured, they realized, except by acquiring,
holding, and utilizing the machinery of the State. And this they did.
Under the Nazi regime the _Reichsregierung_ gradually became a primary
agent of the Nazi Party, with functions and policies formulated in
accordance with the objectives and methods of the Party itself. The
_Reichsregierung_ became—at first gradually and then with more
rapidity—polluted by the infusion of the Nazi conspirators sixteen of
whom are accused in the Indictment. Its purpose came to be to clothe
every scheme and purpose of the Party, however vile, with the semblance
of legality.
A. _Composition and Nature of the Reichsregierung._
The term _Reichsregierung_ literally translated means “Reich
Government”. Actually, it was commonly taken to refer to the ordinary
Reich Cabinet. In the Indictment the term _Reichsregierung_ is defined
to include not only those persons who were members of the ordinary Reich
Cabinet, but also persons who were members of the Council of Ministers
for the Defense of the Reich (_Ministerrat fuer die Reichsverteidigung_)
and the Secret Cabinet Council (_Geheimer Kabinettsrat_). The most
important body, however, was the ordinary cabinet. Between it and the
other two groups there was in reality only an artificial distinction.
There existed, in fact, a unity of personnel, action, function, and
purpose that obliterated any academic separation. As used in the
Indictment, the term “ordinary cabinet” means Reich Ministers, i.e.,
heads of departments of the central government; Reich Ministers without
portfolio; State Ministers acting as Reich Ministers; and other
officials entitled to take part in Cabinet meetings. Altogether, 48
persons held positions in the ordinary cabinet. 17 of them have been
indicted as defendants. Of the remaining 31, eight are believed to be
dead.
(1) _The Ordinary Cabinet._ Into the ordinary cabinet were placed the
leading Nazi trusted henchmen. Then, when new governmental agencies or
bodies were created, either by Hitler or by the Cabinet itself, the
constituents of these new bodies were taken from the rolls of the
ordinary cabinet.
When the first Hitler Cabinet was formed on 30 January 1933, there were
10 ministries which could be classified as departments of the central
government. This fact appears from the minutes of the first meeting of
that cabinet, which were found in the files of the Reich Chancellery and
bear the typed signature of one Weinstein, who is described in the
minutes as “Responsible for the Protocol—Counsellor in the Ministry”
(_351-PS_). The ten ministers who attended are set forth:
“Reichs Minister of Foreign Affairs (von Neurath); Reichs
Minister of the Interior (Frick); Reichs Minister of Finance
(Graf Schwerin von Krosigk); Reichs Minister of Economy; Reichs
Minister for Food and Agriculture (Dr. Hugenberg); Reichs
Minister of Labor (Seldte); Reichs Minister of Justice [no name
given; the post was filled two days later by Gurtner]; Reichs
Defense Minister (von Blomberg); the Reichs Postmaster General;
and Reichs Minister for Transportation (Freiherr von
Eltz-Ruebanach).” (_351-PS_)
In addition, Goering attended as Reichs Minister (he held no portfolio
at that time) and Reichs Commissar for Aviation. Dr. Perecke attended as
Reich Commissar for Procurement of Labor. Two state secretaries were
present—Dr. Lammers of the Reichs Chancellery and Dr. Meissner of the
Reich’s Presidential Chancellery. In addition, Funk was present as
Reichs Press Chief, and von Papen was present as Deputy of the Reichs
Chancellor and Reichs Commissar for the State of Prussia. (_351-PS_)
Not long afterwards new ministries or departments were created, into
which leading Nazi figures were placed. On 13 March 1933, the Ministry
of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda was created, and Paul Josef
Goebbels was named as Reich Minister of Popular Enlightenment and
Propaganda (_2029-PS_). On 5 May 1933 the Ministry of Air (_2089-PS_),
on 1 May 1934 the Ministry of Education (_2078-PS_), and on 16 July 1935
the Ministry for Church Affairs (_2090-PS_) were created. Goering was
made Air Minister; Bernhard Rust, Gauleiter of South Hanover, was named
Education Minister; and Hans Kerrl was named Minister for Church
Affairs. Two Ministries were added after the war started. On 17 March
1940 the Ministry of Armaments and Munitions was established
(_2091-PS_). Dr. Fritz Todt, a high party official, was appointed to
this post. Speer succeeded him. The name of this department was changed
to “Armaments and War Production” in 1943 (_2092-PS_). On 17 July 1941,
when the seizure of Eastern territories was in progress, the Ministry
for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created. There was no published
decree for this act. A file found in the Presidential Chancellery
contains a typewritten copy of the decree of Hitler establishing that
post (_1997-PS_). The decree provides:
“Decree of the Fuehrer concerning the administration of the
newly-occupied Eastern Territories dated 17 July 1941.”
“In order to maintain public order and public life in the
newly-occupied Eastern territories I decree that:
“As soon as the military operations in the newly-occupied
territories are over, the administration of these territories
shall be transferred from the military establishments to the
civil-administration establishments. I shall from time to time
determine by special decree, the territories which according to
this are to be transferred to the civil administration and the
time when this is to take place.
“The Civil Administration in the newly occupied Eastern
territories, where these territories are not included in the
administration of the territories bordering on the Reich or the
General government, is subject to the ‘Reich Minister for the
Occupied Eastern territories.’
* * * * * *
“I appoint Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg as Reich Minister for
the Occupied Eastern Territories. He will hold office in
Berlin.” (_1997-PS_)
During the years 1933 to 1945, one ministry was dropped—the Ministry of
Defense (later called War). This took place on 4 February 1938, when
Hitler took over command of the whole Armed Forces. At the same time he
created the office of the “Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed
Forces” or Chief of the OKW. This was held by Keitel. The decree
accomplishing this change provides in part as follows:
“He [the Chief of the supreme command of the armed forces] is
equal in rank to a Reich Minister. At the same time, the supreme
command takes the responsibility for the affairs of the Reichs
Ministry of War, and by my order, the chief of the supreme
command of the Armed Forces exercises the authority formerly
belonging to the Reichs Minister.” (_1915-PS_)
Another change in the composition of the cabinet during the years in
question should be noted. The post of vice-chancellor was never refilled
after the departure of von Papen on 30 July 1934.
In addition to the heads of departments mentioned above, the ordinary
cabinet also contained Reich Ministers without portfolio. Among these
were Frank, Seyss-Inquart, Schacht (after he left the Economics
Ministry), and von Neurath (after he was replaced as Ministry of the
Interior). Other positions also formed an integral part of the cabinet.
Those were the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Hess, and later his successor, the
Leader of the Party Chancellery, Bormann; the Chief of Staff of the SA,
Ernst Roehm, for the seven months prior to his assassination; the Chief
of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers; and, as already mentioned, the Chief
of the OKW, Keitel. These men had either the title or rank of Reich
Minister.
The Cabinet also contained other functionaries, such as State Ministers
acting as Reich Ministers. Only two persons fell within this
category—the Chief of the Presidential Chancellery, Otto Meissner, and
the State Minister of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Karl
Hermann Frank. In addition, as named in the Indictment, the ordinary
cabinet included “others entitled to take part in Cabinet meetings”.
Many governmental agencies were created by the Nazis between the years
1933 and 1945, but the peculiarity of these creations was that in most
instances the new officials were given the right to participate in
cabinet meetings. Among those entitled to take part in Cabinet meetings
were the Commanders in Chief of the Army and the Navy; the Reich Forest
Master; the Inspector General for Water and Power; the Inspector General
of German Roads; the Reich Labor Leader; the Reich Youth Leader; the
Chief of the Foreign Organization in the Foreign Office; the
Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of
the Interior; the Prussian Finance Minister; and the Cabinet Press
Chief. These posts and officials comprising the ordinary cabinet all
appear on the chart entitled “Organization of the Reich Government,” and
authenticated by Frick (_Chart Number 18_). The persons who held these
posts in the ordinary cabinet varied between the years 1933 to 1945.
Their names are listed in the chart (_Chart Number 18_), which discloses
that 17 of these officials are defendants in these proceedings.
(2) _The Secret Cabinet Council._ Proof that there was only an
artificial distinction between the ordinary cabinet, the Secret Cabinet
Council, and the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, is
shown by the unity of personnel among the three subdivisions. Thus, on 4
February 1938, Hitler created the Secret Cabinet Council (_2031-PS_):
“To advise me in conducting the foreign policy I am setting up a
secret cabinet council.
“As president of the secret cabinet council, I nominate:
Reichsminister Freiherr von Neurath
“As members of the secret cabinet council I nominate:
Reichsminister for Foreign Affairs, Joachim von Ribbentrop
Prussian Prime Minister, Reichsminister of the Air, Supreme
Commander of the Air Forces, General Field Marshall Hermann
Goering
The Fuehrer’s Deputy, Reichsminister Rudolf Hess
Reichsminister for the Enlightenment of the people and of
Propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Reichsminister and Chief of the Reichs Chancellery Dr.
Hans-Heinrich Lammers
The Supreme Commander of the Army, General Walther von
Brauchitsch
The Supreme Commander of the Navy, Grand Admiral Dr. (honorary)
Erich Raeder
The Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces Lt. Gen.
Wilhelm Keitel.” (_2031-PS_)
It will be noted that every member of this group was either a
Reichsminister or, as, in the case of the Army, Navy, and OKW heads, had
the rank and authority of a Reich Minister.
(3) _The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich._ On 30
August 1939 Hitler established the Council of Ministers for the Defense
of the Reich (better known as the Ministerial Council). This was the
so-called war cabinet. The decree establishing this Council provided
(_2018-PS_):
“Article I
“(1) A Ministerial Council for Reich Defense shall be
established as a standing committee out of the Reich Defense
Council.
“(2) The standing members of the Ministerial Council for Reich
Defense shall include: General Field Marshall Goering as
chairman; Fuehrer’s Deputy [Hess]; Commissioner General (or
Plenipotentiary) for Reich Administration [Frick]; Commissioner
General (or Plenipotentiary) for Economy [Funk]; Reich Minister
and Chief of the Reich Chancellery [Dr. Lammers]; Chief of the
High Command for the Armed Forces [Keitel].
“(3) The chairman may draw on other members of the Reich Defense
Council including further personalities for advice.”
(_2018-PS_).
Again, all members of this group were also members of the ordinary
Cabinet.
The Reich Defense Council, for secret war planning, was created by the
Cabinet on 4 April 1933 (cf. the unpublished Reich Defense Law of 21 May
1935 (_2261-PS_)). The membership of that Council when first created is
shown by the minutes of the second session of the working committee of
the delegates for Reich Defense, dated 22 May 1933 and signed by Keitel
(_EC-177_):
“_Composition of the Reich Defense Council_:
_President_: Reichs Chancellor
_Deputy_: Reichswehr Minister
_Permanent Members_: Minister of the:
Reichswehr
Foreign Affairs
Interior
Finance
Economic Affairs
Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
Air
Chief of the Army Command Staff
Chief of the Navy Command Staff
“Depending on the case: The remaining ministers, other
personalities, e.g., leading industrialists, etc.” (_EC-177_)
All but the Chiefs of the Army and Navy Command Staff were at that time
members of the ordinary cabinet.
The composition of this Reich Defense Council was changed by an
unpublished law on 4 September 1938, which provided as follows
(_2194-PS_):
“* * * (2) The leader and Reich Chancellor is chairman in the
RVR. His permanent deputy is General Field Marshall Goering. He
has the right to call conferences of the RVR. Permanent members
of the RVR are
“The Reich Minister of Air and Supreme Commander of the Air Force,
The Supreme Commander of the Army,
The Supreme Commander of the Navy,
The Chief of the OKW,
The Deputy of the Fuehrer,
The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery,
The President of the Secret Cabinet Council,
The Chief Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration,
The Chief Plenipotentiary for Economics,
The Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs,
The Reich Minister of the Interior,
The Reich Finance Minister,
The Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda,
The President of the Reichsbank Directorate.
“The other Reich Ministers and the Reich offices directly
subordinate to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor are consulted if
necessary. Further personalities can be called as the case
demands.” (_2194-PS_)
On that date all the members also belonged to the ordinary cabinet, for
by that time the supreme commanders of the Army and Navy had been given
ministerial rank and authorized to participate in cabinet meetings
(_2098-PS_). It is also worth noting that two members of the Reich
Defense Council also appear in the Ministerial Council under the same
title—The Plenipotentiary for Administration, and the Plenipotentiary
for Economy. The former post was held by Frick, while the latter was
first held by Schacht and then by Funk. These facts are verified by
Frick on the Nazi governmental organization chart (_Chart Number 18_).
Many other ministries were subordinated to these two posts for
war-planning aims and purposes. These two officials, together with the
Chief of the OKW, formed a powerful triumvirate known as the “Three-Man
College” (Frick, Funk, and Keitel) which figured prominently in war
plans and preparations.
B. _Functions of the Reichsregierung._
The utilization of the ordinary cabinet as a manpower reservoir for
other governmental agencies, the chronological development of the
offshoots of the ordinary cabinet, and the cohesion between all of these
groups, is apparent from the Nazi governmental organization chart
(_Chart Number 18_). The chart shows the following offshoots of the
ordinary cabinet: 1933, the Reich Defense Council; 1935, the Three-Man
College; 1936, the Delegate for the Four Year Plan; 1938, the Secret
Cabinet Council; 1939, The Ministerial Defense Council; and 1944, the
Delegate for Total War Effort (Goebbels). In every case these important
Nazi agencies were staffed with personnel taken from the ordinary
cabinet.
(1) _The Ordinary Cabinet._ The unity, cohesion, and interrelationship
of the sub-divisions of the _Reichsregierung_ was not the result of a
co-mixture of personnel alone. It was also realized by the method in
which it operated. The ordinary cabinet consulted together both by
meetings and through the so-called circulation procedure. Under the
latter procedure, which was chiefly used when meetings were not held,
drafts of laws prepared in individual ministries were distributed to
other cabinet members for approval or disapproval.
The man primarily responsible for the circulation of drafts of laws
under this procedure was Dr. Lammers, the Leader and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery. Lammers has described that procedure in an affidavit
(_2999-PS_):
“* * * I was Leader of the Reich Chancellery (_Leiter der
Reichskanzlei_) from 30 January 1933 until the end of the war.
In this capacity I circulated drafts of proposed laws and
decrees submitted to me by the Minister who had drafted the law
or decree, to all members of the Reich Cabinet. A period of time
was allowed for objections, after which the law considered as
being accepted by the various members of the Cabinet. This
procedure continued throughout the whole war. It was followed
also in the Council of Ministers for Defense of the Reich
(_Ministerrat fuer die Reichsverteidigung_).” (_2999-PS_)
A memorandum dated 9 August 1943, which bears the facsimile signature of
Frick and is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery, illustrates how the circulation procedure worked
(_1701-PS_). Attached to the memorandum is a draft of the law in
question and a carbon copy of a letter dated 22 December 1943 from
Rosenberg to the Reich Minister of the Interior, containing his comments
on the draft:
“To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, in
_Berlin W8_.
“For the information of the other Reich ministers.
“Subj: Law on the treatment of enemies of the society.
“In addition to my letter of 19 March, 1942.
“_Enclosures: 55.—_
“After the draft of the law on the treatment of enemies of the
society has been completely rewritten, I am sending the enclosed
new draft with the consent of the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr.
Thierack, and ask that the law be approved in a circulatory
manner. The necessary number of prints is attached.” (_1701-PS_)
(2) _Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich._ The same
procedure was followed in the Council of Ministers when that body was
created. And the decrees of the Council of Ministers were also
circulated to the members of the ordinary Cabinet. A memorandum found in
the files of the Reich Chancellery and addressed to the members of the
Council of Ministers, dated 17 September 1939, and bearing the typed
signature of Dr. Lammers, Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery, states (_1141-PS_):
“Matters submitted to the Council of Ministers for the Reich
Defense have heretofore been distributed only to the members of
the Council. I have been requested by some of the
Reichsministers who are not permanent members of the Council to
inform them of the drafts of decrees which are being submitted
to the Council, so as to enable them to check these drafts from
the point of view of their respective offices. I shall follow
this request so that all the Reichsministers will in future be
informed of the drafts of decrees which are to be acted upon by
the Council for the Reich Defense. I therefore request to add
forty-five additional copies of the drafts, as well as of the
letters which usually contain the arguments for the drafts, to
the folders submitted to the Council.” (_1141-PS_)
Von Stutterheim, who was an official of the Reich Chancellery, comments
on this procedure at page 34 of a pamphlet entitled “_Die
Reichskanzlei_”:
“* * * It must be noted that the peculiarity in this case is
that the subjects dealt with by the Cabinet Council—(Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich), are distributed not
merely among the members of the Cabinet Council, but also among
all the members of the Cabinet (_Kabinett_) who are thereby
given the opportunity of guarding the interests of their spheres
of office by adding their appropriate standpoints in the Cabinet
Council legislation, even if they do not participate in making
the decree.” (_2231-PS_)
For a time the Cabinet consulted together through actual meetings. The
Council of Ministers did likewise, but those members of the Cabinet who
were not already members of the Council also attended the meetings of
the Ministerial Council. And where they did not attend in person, they
were usually represented by the state secretaries of their Ministries.
The minutes of six meetings of the Council of Ministers, on 1, 4, 8, and
19 September 1939, on 16 October 1939, and on 15 November 1939,
demonstrate this procedure. (_2852-PS_)
At the meeting held on 1 September 1939, which was probably the first
meeting since the Council was created on 30 August 1939, the following
were in attendance:
“Present were the permanent members of the Council of Ministers
for the Reich Defense: The Chairman and Generalfield Marshall,
Goering; the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Hess [a line appears through
the name Hess]; the Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration,
Dr. Frick; the Plenipotentiary for Economy, Funk; the Reich
Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers; and
the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Keitel,
represented by Major General Thomas.” (_2852-PS_)
These were the regular members of the Council. Also present was the
Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture, Darré, and seven State
Secretaries: Koerner, Neumann, Stuckart, Posse, Landfried, Backe, and
Syrup (_2852-PS_). These State Secretaries were from the several
Ministries or other supreme Reich authorities. Koerner was the Deputy of
Goering in the Four-Year Plan; Stuckart was in the Ministry of the
Interior; Landfried was in the Ministry of Economics; Syrup was in the
Ministry of Labor.
The minutes dated 8 September 1939 (_2852-PS_) note that in addition to
all members of the Ministerial Council, the following also were present:
“The Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture * * * Darré; State
Minister * * * Popitz;”
Then come the names of nine State Secretaries from the several
Ministries, and then:
“SS Gruppenfuehrer * * * Heydrich;”
The close integration of the Ministerial Council with the ordinary
Cabinet is seen by the following excerpt from the minutes of the same
date (8 September 1939):
“The Council of Ministers for the Reich Defense ratified the
decree for the change of the Labor Service Law which had already
been passed as law by the Reich Cabinet. (_Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 1744.)”
The minutes of the meeting of 19 September 1939 (_2852-PS_) show the
following Reich Ministers to be present in addition to four members of
the Council:
“Also: The Reich Minister for Finance, Count Schwerin von
Krosigk.
The Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture, Darré.
The Reich Minister for Enlightenment and Propaganda, Dr.
Goebbels.
State Minister * * * Dr. Popitz.” (_2852-PS_)
Then come the names of eight State Secretaries. Others present included:
“SS Gruppenfuehrer * * * Heydrich; General of the Police
(_Ordnungpolizei_) Daluege.” (_2852-PS_)
The minutes dated 15 November 1939 show the same co-mixture of
Ministers, State Secretaries, and similar functionaries. In addition,
the following were also present:
“Reichsleiter, Dr. Ley; Reichsleiter, Bouhler; Reichsfuehrer SS,
Chief of German Police in the Reich Ministry of Interior,
Himmler; The Reich Labor Service Leader, Hierl * * * Reich
Commissioner for Price Control, Wagner * * * as well as experts
(_Sachbearbeiter_) of the German Labor Front and the Reich Labor
Service.” (_2852-PS_)
Some of the decrees passed and matters discussed at these meetings of
the Ministerial Council are significant. At the first meeting of 1
September 1939 14 decrees were ratified by the Council. Decree No. 6
concerned
“* * * the organization of the administration and about the
German safety police in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
(_RGBl_, I, page 1681).” (_2852-PS_)
At the meeting of the Council on 19 September 1939 the following
occurred;
“The Chairman of the Council, Generalfieldmarshall Goering, made
comments regarding the structure of civil administration in the
occupied Polish territory. He expressed his intentions regarding
the economic evacuation measures in this territory. Then the
questions of decreasing wages and the questions of working hours
and the support of members of families of inducted workers were
discussed.”
* * * * * *
“The Chairman directed that all members of the Council regularly
receive the situation reports of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Then the
question of the population of the future Polish Protectorate was
discussed and the placement of Jews living in Germany.”
(_2852-PS_)
Finally, at the meeting of 15 November 1939 the discussion concerned,
among other things, the “treatment of Polish Prisoners of War”.
(_2852-PS_)
The minutes of these meetings (_2852-PS_) not only establish the close
working union between agencies of the state and the party, especially
the SS, but also tends to establish that the _Reichsregierung_ was
responsible for the policies adopted and put into effect by the
government.
C. _Powers of The Reichsregierung._
But mere working alliances would be meaningless unless there was power.
And the _Reichsregierung_ had power. Short of Hitler himself, it had
practically all the power a government can exercise.
(1) _The Ordinary Cabinet._ The Nazi conspirators secured the passage by
the Reichstag of the “Law for the Protection of the People and the
Reich,” of 24 March 1933 (_2001-PS_), which vested the Cabinet with
legislative powers even to the extent of deviating from previously
existing constitutional law. These powers were retained even after the
members of the cabinet were changed, and the several states, provinces,
and municipalities, which had formerly exercised semi-autonomous powers,
were transformed into mere administrative organs of the central
government. The ordinary cabinet emerged all-powerful from this rapid
succession of events. Frick waxed eloquent upon that achievement in an
article which he wrote for the 1935 National Socialist Year Book:
“The relationship between the Reich and the States has been put
on an entirely new basis, never known in the history of the
German people. It gives to the Reich cabinet (_Reichsregierung_)
unlimited power. It even makes it its duty, to build a
completely unified leadership and administration of the Reich.
From now on, there is only one national authority: The one of
the Reich! Thus, the German Reich has become a unified state,
and the entire administration in the states is only carried out
by order or in the name of the Reich. The state borders are now
only administration, technical are boundaries but no longer
boundaries of sovereignty! In calm determination, the Reich
Cabinet (_Reichsregierung_) realizes step by step, supported by
the confidence of the entire German people, the great longing of
the Nation. The creation of the national socialist German,
unified state.” (_2380-PS_)
The heightened legislative power of the Cabinet is also emphasized in an
article written by Dr. Franz Medicus, an official in the Reich Ministry
of the Interior, and published in 1939 in Volume 4 of “_Das Dritte Reich
in Aufbau_”:
“* * * Worked out by the Reich Minister of the Interior, the
‘Law for Alleviation of the Distress of People and Reich’, in
short called ‘Enabling Law’, was issued on 24 March 1933, broke
with the liberal principle of ‘division of power’ by
transferring the legislature from the Reichstag to the Reich
Cabinet, so that legislation by _personally responsible persons_
took the place of ‘anonymous’ legislation.” (_2849-PS_)
When the Ministerial Council was formed in 1939, it too was given
legislative powers (cf. Article II of the decree of 30 August 1939
(_2018-PS_)). The ordinary cabinet also continued to legislate
throughout the war. Because of the fusion of personnel between the
Ministerial Council and the ordinary cabinet, questions were bound to
arise as to what forum should lend its name to a particular law. Dr.
Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery and a member of both agencies,
wrote a letter on 14 June 1942 to the Plenipotentiary for Reich
Administration about these questions (_352-PS_):
“To the Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration
(_Generalbevollmaechtigter die Reich Verwaltung_)
“Subject: The Jurisdiction of the Council of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich (_Ministerat fuer die Reichsverteidigung_)
“Your letter of 3 June 1942, No. 493/42/2882.—Recently the
Fuehrer announced in accord with the opinions of the Reich
Marshal of the Greater German Reich as shown in my letter of 20
Feb. 1940-RK. 624-B—that he believes it practical to reserve
certain legislative missions for the Reich Cabinet. With this he
has not limited the competency of the Council of Ministers for
the defense of the Reich but given a directive as to how
legislation should be handled under the point of view of
practicability. I have no doubt that the Fuehrer, as well as the
Reich Marshal, have not changed their point of view, in
particular, regarding the fact, that at the present there should
be only legislation important in the cause of war, and that they
will stress the fact that the Fuehrer himself and the Reich
Cabinet should not be eliminated from the powers of legislation.
It will have to be tested from time to time what measures will
be reserved for the Reich Cabinet. My letter of 20 February
1940, and the opinions of the Fuehrer therein expressed may
serve as a directive even if the limitations indicated by me are
no longer applicable in their full meaning. I would therefore
suggest not basing the discussions with the Reich Minister of
Finance on the question of competency of the Reich Cabinet or
the Council of Ministers for the Defence of the Reich, but on
the question of whether it would be practical to achieve
settlement through either Reich law or a Decree from the Council
of Ministers for the defense of the Reich in the sense of the
opinions voiced by the Fuehrer.
(signed) Dr. Lammers” (_352-PS_).
Other officials possessed legislative powers. Hitler was of course one.
Goering, as Deputy of the Four Year Plan, could and did issue decrees
with the effect of law. The Cabinet delegated power to issue laws
deviating from existing law to the Plenipotentiaries of Economy and
Administration and the Chief of the OKW, the so-called Three-Man
College. This was done in the Secret Defense Law of 1938 (_2194-PS_).
These three officials—Frick, Funk, and Keitel—however, were also
members of the Council of Ministers and of the ordinary cabinet as well.
It can therefore be said, in the language of the Indictment, that the
_Reichsregierung_ “possessed * * * legislative * * * powers of a very
high order in the system of the German government.”
The executive and administrative powers of the Reich were concentrated
in the central government primarily as the result of two basic Nazi laws
that reduced the separate states (called _Laender_) to mere geographical
divisions. One was the law of 30 January 1934, known as the Law for the
Reconstruction of the Reich (_2006-PS_). By that law the States were
deprived of their independent status as States, their legislative
assemblies were abolished, and their sovereign powers were transferred
to the Reich. The other was the Reich Governor’s Law, enacted by the
Cabinet on 30 January 1935 (_2008-PS_), which made all Reich Governors
(_Statthalters_) permanent delegates of and subject to the order of the
cabinet and, more especially, of the Reich Minister of the Interior. As
a result, the ordinary cabinet was possessed of wide powers, which are
set forth in “Administration Law,” periodical published in 1944 which
was edited by Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, State Secretary in the Reich
Ministry of the Interior, and Dr. Harry V. Rosen-v. Hoewel, an
_Oberregierungsrat_ in the Reich Ministry of the Interior (_2959-PS_).
The description of the powers and functions of all the ministries of the
ordinary cabinet illustrates the extent of control vested in the
_Reichsregierung_:
III. _The Reich Ministers_
“There are at present twenty-one Reich Ministers, namely:
“I. 15 Reich Ministers with a definite portfolio.
The Ministries of the Reich Ministers mentioned under 2, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are united with the corresponding Ministries of
Prussia.
“1. The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs (Foreign Office).
(_a_) He handles all matters touching on the relations of the
Reich to foreign countries.
(_b_) Under him are the diplomatic and consular representatives
as well as the Reich office for Foreign Trade.
“2. The Reich Minister of the Interior.
(_a_) To his portfolio belong general administration, local
administration, police administration, administration of
officials, public health, welfare, geodetic system, sport system
and the Reich Labor Service.
(_b_) Under him are the general and internal administrations,
for example, the Reich Governors, the state governments
(_Landesregierung_) the superior Presidents, the governmental
Presidents, as well as police officials and the Reich Labor
Service.
Furthermore, there are under him numerous central intermediary
boards, for example, the Reich Health Office, the Reich
Archives, the Reich Genealogical Office.
“3. The Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.
(_a_) To his portfolio belong the intellectual influences on the
nation, recruiting for the state, culture and economics, and the
instruction of domestic and foreign public opinion.
(_b_) Under him are, among other things, the Reich Propaganda
Offices and the film censorship offices. Furthermore, he
exercises supervision over the Reich Chamber of Culture, the
Recruiting Council of German Economics, the Reich Radio Company,
and the Institute of Politics (_Hochschule fuer Politik_).
“4. The Reich Minister of Aviation and Supreme Commander of the
Air Force.
He administers civil and military aviation.
“5. The Reich Minister of Finances.
(_a_) To his portfolio belong the budget and financial system of
the Reich, as well as the administration of taxes; monopolies,
and tariffs.
(_b_) Under him are namely: the administration of taxes and
tariffs, as well as the administration of Reich monopolies.
“6. The Reich Minister of Justice.
(_a_) He is in charge of all matters related to the judicial
system.
(_b_) Under him are all judicial agencies and the Reich Patent
Office.
“7. The Reich Ministry of Economics.
(_a_) To his portfolio belong the basic economic political
questions of German economy, the supply of the civilian
population with goods for consumption and the regulation of
their distribution, the handling of foreign economic questions
in the framework of policy on foreign trade of the Reich and the
supreme supervision over the institutes of credit.
(_b_) Under him are the Reich administration of mines, the Reich
office of Statistics, the Supervisory Office for Private
Insurance, the Gau Chambers of Economy, the State Economic
Offices, (_Landeswirtschaftsamt_) the Savings Banks, and the
State Insurance Offices.
“8. The Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture.
(_a_) He is in charge of all farmers and of the agriculture, as
well as the food administration.
(_b_) Under him are the State Food Offices
(_Landesernaechrungsamt_) the State Administration of Large
Estates (_Domaenen verwaltung_) the Administration of Rural
Affairs and the Agricultural Credit Offices. Furthermore, he
exercises state supervision over the Reich Food Supply of which
he is the leader.”
* * * * * *
“14. Reich Minister for Armament and War Production.
He has to bring to a level of highest production all offices
active in producing arms and munitions. Furthermore, he is
responsible for the field of raw materials and production in
industry and manual labor.
“15. The Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
(_a_) He administers the recently occupied (i.e. former
Soviet-Russian) Eastern territories, insofar as they are under
civil administration and not subordinated to the Chief of Civil
Administration for the district of Bialystok (cf. page 70) or
insofar as they are incorporated in the General Gouvernment (cf.
page 100).
(_b_) Under him are the Reich Commissars, the General
Commissars, Head Commissars, and District Commissars, in the
recently occupied Eastern territories.” (_2959-PS_)
Other important powers and functions contained in the ordinary cabinet
were not included in the foregoing list. For example, upon the creation
of the People’s Court on 24 April 1934, it was placed within the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice (_2014-PS_). With the
acquisition and occupation of new territories, the integration and
coordination thereof were placed within the Ministry of the Interior.
The Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, (in some cases in cooperation
with other Reich Ministers) was, by law, given regulatory powers over
such territories. The territory and the applicable law may be listed as
follows:
(1) The Saar (1935, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 66).
(2) Austria (1938, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 237).
(3) Memel (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 54).
(4) Bohemia and Moravia (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
485).
(5) Sudetenland (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 780).
(6) Danzig (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 1547).
(7) Incorporated Poland (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
2042).
(8) Occupied Poland (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
2077).
(9) Eupen, Malmedy and Moresnet (1940, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part
I, page 803).
(10) Norway (1941, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 765).
Such were the powers and functions of the ordinary cabinet.
(2) _The Secret Cabinet Council._ Of the other two subdivisions of the
_Reichsregierung_—the Secret Cabinet Council and the Ministerial
Council—the Secret Cabinet Council had no legislative or administrative
powers. It was created by Hitler on 4 February 1938
“To advise me in conducting the foreign policy * * *.”
(_2031-PS_)
Its position in the Nazi regime is described by Ernst Rudolf Huber, a
leading Nazi Constitutional Lawyer, in his book entitled
“_Verfassungsrecht des Grossdeutschen Reiches_” (“Constitutional Law of
the Greater German Reich”). In this book, which was an authoritative,
widely used work on Nazi Constitutional Law, Huber states (_1774-PS_):
“A privy cabinet council, to advise the Fuehrer in the basic
problems of foreign policy, has been created by the decree of 4
February 1938 (_RGBl._ I, 112). This privy cabinet council is
under the direction of Reich Minister v. Neurath, and includes
the Foreign Minister, the Air Minister, the Deputy Commander for
the Fuehrer, the Propaganda Minister, the Chief of the Reich
Chancellery, the Commanders-in-Chief of the Supreme Command of
the Armed Forces. The privy cabinet council constitutes a select
staff of collaborators of the Fuehrer which consists exclusively
of members of the Government of the Reich; thus, it represents a
select committee of the Reich Government for the deliberation on
foreign affairs.” (_1774-PS_)
(3) _The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich._ The powers
concentrated in the Ministerial Council, which did possess legislative
and administrative functions, at its creation in 1939, are best
expressed by the lecture which Frick gave before the University of
Freiburg on 7 March 1940. The lecture, published in a pamphlet entitled
“The Administration in Wartime,” contains these statements (_2608-PS_):
“* * * The composition of the Ministerial Council for the
defense of the Reich shows the real concentration of power in
it. General Field Marshal Goering is the chairman and also the
Supreme Director of the War Economy and Commissioner for the
Four Year Plan. He is joined by the Plenipotentiary General for
the Reich Administration, who directs the entire civilian
administration with the exception of the economic
administration, and the Plenipotentiary General for Economy. The
Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces is the liaison man
to the Armed Forces. It is primarily his duty to coordinate the
measures for civilian defense in the area of administration and
economy with the genuine military measures for the defense of
the Reich. The Deputy of the Fuehrer represents the Party, thus
guaranteeing the unity between Party and State also within the
Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. The Reich
Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery is in charge of the
business management of the Ministerial Council for the Defense
of the Reich.”
* * * * * *
“The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich, the
highest legislative and executive organ in wartime next to the
Fuehrer, created a subordinate organ for the purpose of the
defense of the Reich: The Commissioners for the Reich Defense,
who have their headquarters at the seat of the individual corps
area.” (_2608-PS_)
With such power concentrated in the _Reichsregierung_ and to such a high
degree, the Nazi conspirators possessed a formidable weapon to
effectuate their plans.
D. _Acts and Decrees of the Reichsregierung._
Under the Nazi regime the _Reichsregierung_ became the instrument of the
Nazi party.
(1) _Execution of the Nazi Party Program._ In the original Cabinet of 30
January 1933 only three cabinet members were members of the
Party—Goering, Frick, and Hitler. As new Ministries were added to the
Cabinet, prominent Nazis were placed at their head. On 30 January, 1937,
Hitler accepted into the Party those Cabinet members who were not
already members. This action is reported in the _Voelkischer
Beobachter_, South German Edition, of 1 February 1937 (_2964-PS_):
“In view of the anticipated lifting of the ban for party
membership, the Fuehrer, as the first step in this regard,
personally carried out the enlistment into the party of the
members of the Cabinet, who so far had not belonged to it and he
handed them simultaneously the Gold Party Badge, the supreme
badge of honor of the party. In addition, the Fuehrer awarded
the Gold Party Badge to Generaloberst Freiherr von Fritsch;
Generaladmiral Dr. H. C. Raeder; the Prussian Minister of
Finance, Professor Popitz; and the Secretary of State and Chief
of the Presidential Chancellery, Dr. Meissner.
“The Fuehrer also honored with the gold party badge the party
members State Secretary Dr. Lammers, State Secretary Funk, State
Secretary Koerner and State Secretary General of the Airforce
Milch.” (_2964-PS_)
It was possible to refuse the party membership thus conferred. Only one
man, von Eltz-Ruebenach, who was the Minister of Post and Minister of
Transport at the time, did this. His letter from von Eltz-Ruebenach to
Hitler, dated 30 January 1937, reads as follows (_1534-PS_):
“My Fuehrer:
“I thank you for the confidence you have placed in me during the
four years of your leadership and for the honor you do me in
offering to admit me to the party. My conscience forbids me
however to accept this offer. I believe in the principles of
positive Christianity and must remain faithful to my Lord and to
myself. Party membership however would mean that I should have
to face without contradiction the steadily aggravating attacks
by party offices on the Christian confessions and those who want
to remain faithful to their religious convictions.
“This decision has been infinitely difficult for me. For never
in my life have I performed my duty with greater joy and
satisfaction than under your wise state leadership.
“I ask to be permitted to resign.
“With German Greetings:
Yours very obediently,
“(signed) Baron v. Eltz” (_1534-PS_).
But the Nazis did not wait until all members of the cabinet were party
members. Shortly after they came to power, they quickly assured
themselves of active participation in the work of the Cabinet. On 1
December 1933, the Cabinet passed a law securing the unity of party and
state (_1395-PS_). In Article 2 of that law the Deputy of the Fuehrer,
Hess, and the Chief of Staff of the SA, Roehm, were made members of the
Cabinet (_1395-PS_). Lest mere membership in the Cabinet would not be
effective, Hitler endowed his deputy with greater powers of
participation. An unpublished decree signed by Hitler, dated 27 July
1934, and addressed to the Reich Ministers, provides (_D-138_):
“I decree that the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Reich Minister Hess,
will have the capacity of a participating Reich Minister in
connection with the preparation of drafts for laws in all Reich
Administrative spheres. All legislative work is to be sent to
him when it is received by the other Reich Minister concerned.
This also applies in cases where no one else participates except
the Reich Minister making the draft. Reich Minister Hess will be
given the opportunity to comment on drafts suggested by experts.
“This order will apply in the same sense to legislative
ordinances. The Deputy of the Fuehrer in his capacity of Reich
Minister can send as representative an expert on his staff.
These experts are entitled to make statements to the Reich
Ministers on his behalf.
“[signed] Adolph Hitler” (_D-138_).
Hess himself made pertinent comment on his right of participation on
behalf of the party, in a letter dated 9 October 1934, on the stationery
of the NSDAP, addressed to the Reich Minister for Enlightenment of the
People and Propaganda (_D-139_):
“By a decree of the Fuehrer dated 27 July 1934, I have been
granted the right to participate in the legislation of the Reich
as regards both formal laws and legal ordinances. This right
must not be rendered illusory by the fact that I am sent the
drafts of laws and decrees so late and am then given a limited
time, so that it becomes impossible for me to deal with the
material concerned during the given time. I must point out that
my participation means the taking into account of the opinion of
the NSDAP as such, and that in the case of the majority of
drafts of laws and decrees, consult with the appropriate
departments of the Party before making my comment. Only by
proceeding in this manner can I do justice to the wish of the
Fuehrer as expressed in the decree of the Fuehrer of 27 July
1934.
“I must therefore ask the Reich Ministers to arrange that drafts
of laws and decrees reach me in sufficient time. Failing this, I
would be obliged in future to refuse my agreement to such drafts
from the beginning and without giving the matter detailed
attention, in all cases where I am not given a sufficiently long
period for dealing with them.
“Heil,
“[signed] R. Hess.” (_D-139_).
A handwritten note attached to the letter reads:
“1. The identical letter seems to have been addressed to all
Reich Ministers. In our special field the decree of 27 July 1934
has hardly become applicable so far. A reply does not seem
called for.
“2. File in file 7B (?)
“[signed] “R” (_D-139_).
The participating powers of Hess were later broadened, according to a
letter dated 12 April 1938 from Doctor Lammers to the Reich Ministers
(_D-140_):
“* * * The Deputy of the Fuehrer will also have participation
where the Reich Ministers give their agreement to the State Laws
and legislative ordinances of States under paragraph 3 of the
first decree concerning reconstruction of the Reich of Feb 2nd
1934 (Reich Law Gazette I 81). Where the Reich Ministers have
already, at an earlier date been engaged in the preparation of
such laws or legislative ordinances, or have participated in
such preparation, the Deputy of the Fuehrer likewise becomes
participating Reich Minister. Laws and legislative decrees of
the Austrian State are equally affected hereby.
“[signed] Dr. LAMMERS” (_D-140_).
After Hess’ flight to England, Bormann, as Leader of the Party
Chancellery, took over the same functions. He was given the authority of
a Reich Minister and made a member of the cabinet. (_2099-PS_)
The Nazi constitutional lawyer, Ernst Rudolf Huber, has this to say
about the unity of party and Cabinet (_1774-PS_):
“Unity of party and Reich-Cabinet (_Reichsregierung_) is
furthermore secured by the numerous personal unions i.e.
association of Central State Offices with corresponding party
offices. Such personal unions exist in the cases of Food
Minister and the Propaganda Minister, the Chief of the German
Police and the Reich Labor Leader, the Chief of the Organization
in foreign countries, and the Reich Youth Fuehrer. Furthermore,
the majority of the Reich Ministries is occupied by leading old
party members. Finally, all Reich Ministers have been accepted
by the party on 30 January 1937 and have been decorated with
golden party insignia.” (_1774-PS_)
In 1943, out of 16 Reich Leaders (_Reichsleiters_) of the NSDAP, eight
were members of the Cabinet: Martin Bormann; Walter Darré; Otto
Dietrich; Wilhelm Frick; Paul Josef Goebbels; Constantin Hierl; Heinrich
Himmler; Alfred Rosenberg (_2473-PS_). Through its domination of the
Cabinet the Nazi Party strove to secure the fulfilment of its program
under a facade of legality.
(_a_) _Decrees of the Ordinary Cabinet._ To the Nazi Cabinet, the Nazi
Party program of 25 points (_1708-PS_) was more than a mere political
platform; it was a mandate for action. And the Cabinet acted.
Point 1 of this program declared:
“We demand the inclusion of all Germans in a greater Germany on
the grounds of the right of self-determination.” (_1708-PS_)
In implication of this demand the Nazi Cabinet enacted, among others,
the following laws: the law of 3 February 1938 concerning the obligation
of German citizens in foreign countries to register (1938
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 113); the law of 13 March 1938 for the
reunion of Austria with Germany (1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
237) (_2307-PS_); the law of November 1938 for the reintegration of the
German Sudetenland with Germany (1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
1641); the law of 23 March 1939 for the reintegration of Memel in
Germany (1939 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 559).
Point 2 of the Party platform stated in part:
“We demand * * * the cancellation of the treaties of Versailles
and St. Germain.” (_1708-PS_)
The following acts of the Cabinet supported this part of the program:
The proclamation of 14 October 1933 to the German people concerning
Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations and the Disarmament
Conference (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 730); the
proclamation and law of 16 March 1935, for the establishment of the
_Wehrmacht_ and compulsory military service (1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, pages 369, 375) (_1654-PS_); and the defense law of 21 May 1935
implementing the last-named law (1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
609).
Point 4 of the Party platform read as follows:
“Only those who are members of the ‘Volk’ can be citizens. Only
those who are of German blood, without regard to religion, can
be members of the ‘Volk’. No Jew, therefore, can be a member of
the ‘Volk’.” (_1708-PS_)
Among the cabinet laws which implemented this point were these: the law
of 14 July 1933 for the recall of naturalization and the deprivation of
citizenship (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 480); the law of 7
April 1933 permitting persons of non-Aryan descent to be refused
permission to practice law (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 188)
(_1401-PS_); the law of 25 April 1933 restricting the number of
non-Aryans in schools and higher institutions (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 225) (_2022-PS_); the law of 29 September 1933 excluding
persons of Jewish blood from the peasantry (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 685) (_1402-PS_); the law of 26 June 1936, forbidding
people of Jewish blood to hold positions of authority in the army (1936
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 518) (_1398-PS_); the law of 19 March
1937 excluding Jews from the Reich Labor Service (1937
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 325); the law of 28 March 1938 on the
legal status of Jewish religious communities (1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 338); and the law of 6 July 1938 prohibiting Jews from
participating in six different types of business (1938
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 823).
Point 23 of the platform proclaimed:
“We demand legislative action against conscious political lies
and their broadcasting through the press.” (_1708-PS_)
To carry out this point numerous Cabinet laws were passed, of which the
following are merely examples: the law of 22 September 1933 for the
establishment of the Reich Culture Chamber (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 661) (_2082-PS_); the law of 4 October, 1933 regarding
editors (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 713) (_2083-PS_); and
the law of 15 May 1934 regarding the theater (1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 411).
All the laws referred to above and hereafter were enacted specifically
in the name of the Cabinet (_Reichsregierung_). A typical introductory
paragraph reads:
“The Reich Cabinet (_die Reichsregierung_) has enacted the
following law which is hereby promulgated. * * *” [Law of 1
August 1934, 1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 747].
(_2003-PS_)
In furtherance of the Nazi plans to acquire totalitarian control of
Germany (cf. Section 1-2 of Chapter VII), the Cabinet passed the
following laws: Law of 26 May 1933, providing for the confiscation of
Communist property (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 293)
(_1396-PS_); Law of 14 July 1933 against the new establishment of
parties (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 479); Law of 14 July
1933 providing for the confiscation of property of Social Democrats and
others (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 479) (_1388-PS_); and Law
of 1 December 1933 securing the unity of party and state (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 1016). (_1395-PS_)
In the course of consolidating Nazi control of Germany, (cf. Section 3
of Chapter VII) the following laws were enacted by the Cabinet: Decree
of the Cabinet, 21 March 1933, creating special courts (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 136) (_2076-PS_); Law of 31 March 1933
for the integration of States into the Reich (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 153) (_2004-PS_); Law of 7 April 1933 for the
reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 175) (_1397-PS_); Law of 7 April 1933
for the integration of states into the Reich (1933 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 173) (_2005-PS_); Law of 30 June 1933 eliminating non-Aryan
civil servants or civil servants married to non-Aryans (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 433) (_1400-PS_); Law of 20 July 1933
providing for the discharge of Communist officials (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 518) (_1398-PS_); Law of 24 April 1934
creating the People’s Court (1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 341)
(_2014-PS_); Law of 1 August 1934 uniting the office of President and
Chancellor (1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 747) (_2003-PS_); Law
of 30 January 1935, Reich Governors Law, further reducing the
independence of the states (1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 65);
Law of 30 January 1935 providing for the abolition of representatives or
deliberative bodies in the municipalities (1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
Part I, page 49) (_2008-PS_); Law of 26 January 1937, the comprehensive
civil service law (1937 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 39); and Law
of 18 March 1938 providing for the submission of one list of candidates
to the electorate for the entire Reich (1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part
I, page 258). (_2355-PS_)
Nazi extermination of political internal resistance in Germany, through
the purge of political opponents and through acts of terror, (cf.
Section 4 of Chapter VII), was facilitated and legalized by the
following Cabinet laws: Law of 14 July 1933 against the new
establishment of parties (containing a penal clause) (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 479) (_1388-PS_); Law of 3 July 1934
concerning measures for emergency defense of the State (legalizing the
Roehm purge) (1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 529) (_2057-PS_);
Law of 20 December 1934 on treacherous acts against state and party and
for the protection of party uniforms (1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I,
page 1269) (_1393-PS_); Law of 24 April 1934 making the creation of new
or continuance of existing parties an act of treason (1934
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 341) (_2014-PS_); Law of 28 June 1935
changing the Penal Code permitting punishment under analogous law (1935
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 839) (_1962-PS_); Law of 16 September
1939 permitting second prosecution of an acquitted person before a
special court, the members of which were named by Hitler (1939
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 1841). (_2550-PS_)
The destruction of the free trade unions in Germany, (cf. Section 5 of
Chapter VII), was made possible by the following Cabinet laws: Law of 4
April 1933 concerning factory representative councils and economic
organizations (controlling employee representation) (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 161) (_1770-PS_); Law of 19 May 1933
concerning Trustees of Labor (abolishing collective bargaining) (1933
_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 285) (_405-PS_); Law of 20 January
1934 regulating National Labor (introducing leadership principle into
industrial relations (1934 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 45)
(_1861-PS_); and Law of 26 June 1935 establishing Reich Labor Service
(compulsory labor service) (1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 769).
(_1389-PS_)
Even the anti-Jewish Nurnberg laws of 15 September 1935, although
technically passed by the Reichstag, were nevertheless worked out by the
Ministry of the Interior. Dr. Franz A. Medicus, who served as
_Ministerialdirigent_ in the Ministry of the Interior, made this
statement in a book published in 1940 (_2960-PS_):
“* * * The work of the Reich Ministry of Interior forms the
basis for the three Nurnberg Laws passed by a resolution of the
Reichstag on the occasion of the Reich party meeting of Freedom.
“The ‘Reich Citizenship Law’ as well as the ‘Law for the
protection of German blood and German honor’ (Blood Protection
Law) opened extensive tasks for the Ministry of Interior not
only in the field of administration. The same applies to the
‘Reich Flag Law’ that gives the foundation for the complete
re-organization of the use of the flag * * *” (_2960-PS_).
(_b_) _Decrees of The Council of Ministers._ Decrees of the Council of
Ministers similarly supplied the “legal” basis for other criminal
actions of the Nazi conspirators. Among these laws are the following:
Decree of 5 August 1940 imposing a discriminatory tax on Polish workers
in Germany (1940 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 1077); Decree of 4
December 1941 regarding penal measures against Jews and Poles in the
occupied Eastern Territories (1941 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page
759) (_2746-PS_); and Decree of 30 June 1942 concerning the employment
of Eastern Workers (1942 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 419).
(_2039-PS_)
Almost immediately upon Hitler’s coming to power, the Cabinet
participated in the Nazi conspiracy to wage aggressive war. This fact
appears clearly from the minutes of the second session of the working
committee of the Delegates for Reich Defense, dated 22 May 1933 and
signed by Keitel (_EC-177_); from a letter dated 24 June 1935 and signed
by von Blomberg, the Reichs Minister of War, which transmits a copy of
the secret, unpublished Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935 and also a copy
of the decision of the Reich Cabinet of 21 May 1935 in the Council for
the Defense of the Reich (_2261-PS_); and from a letter dated 5
September 1939 transmitting a copy of the secret, unpublished Reich
Defense Law of 4 September 1938 (a note dated 4 September 1938 attached
to this law states that the Reich Defense law of 21 May 1935 and the
decisions of the Cabinet previously mentioned are repeated) (_2194-PS_).
These three documents, important in the conspiracy to wage aggressive
war emphasize the participation of the Reich Cabinet and Reich
Ministers, through legislative enactments, in the conspiracy.
The Reich Defense Council was a creation of the Cabinet. On 4 April 1933
the Cabinet decided to form that agency (_2261-PS_). The circumstances
of its creation were discussed at the meeting of 22 May 1933 (_EC-177_):
“_Thoughts about a Reich Defense Council_
“All great European powers which are at freedom to arm, have a
RVR. One does not have to refer to history to prove the
necessity of this institution. The war has shown conclusively
that the cooperation with the various ministries has not been
close enough. The consequences did not fail to materialize. The
soldier is not in a position to have a say in all matters. The
disadvantages of the past system were caused by parallel efforts
of the various ministries in matters of the Reich defense. To
avoid these mistakes a _central agency_ has been created which
occupies itself already in peacetime in the widest sense with
the problems of Reich Defense. This working staff will continue
its existence in time of war.
“In accordance with the cabinet decision of the 4 April 1933 the
Reich Defense Council, which until now had been prepared for war
emergency, will go into immediate action.
“In time of peace its task will be to decide about all measures
for the preparation of the defense of the Reich, while surveying
and utilizing all powers and means of the nation.” (_EC-177_)
The composition of the Reich Defense Council is thereupon set out.
Hitler was President; the Minister of Defense was his deputy; and he,
plus six more ministers (there were only ten at that time) and the
Chiefs of the Army and Navy Command Staffs were permanent members. The
remaining ministers, as well as “leading industrialists”, were subject
to call. Of the defendants who were then members of the Council, there
was von Neurath as Foreign Affairs Minister; Frick as Interior Minister,
Goering as Air Minister; and Raeder as Chief of the Navy Command Staff.
(_EC-177_)
The presence of Cabinet ministers was indispensable. The cabinet by that
time could legislate for the Reich. It had a definite role to play in
this planning, as Keitel pointed out (_EC-177_):
“_Col. Keitel_:—Points out once more the urgency of the tasks,
since it had been possible to do only very little in this
connection during the last years. He asks the delegates to
consider the Reich Defense at all times and represent it
accordingly at the drafting of new laws. Experiences of the wars
are available and are at the disposal of the various ministries;
(e.g. Reich Archives, Memorandum of an administrative official
about gasoline supply). All these sources must be taken
advantage of for the future. The task of the full time delegates
is also to bring about a close cooperation of the ministries
with each other.” (_EC-177_)
Each separate ministry, moreover, was scheduled for a definite task.
“* * * In the work plans the questions and ideas are laid down,
which have come up in the _Reichswehr_ Ministry and must be
considered in case of mobilization. Up to the present time the
support on the part of other Ministries was frequently based
only on personal helpfulness since any authority from above was
lacking. The following work plans are finished.
“_a._ Work Plan for the Reich Ministry of Economics.
Work Plan for the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Work Plan for the Reich Ministry of Labor.
“These three are composed in one work plan for the preparation
of a war economy.
“_b._ Work Plan for the Reich Postal Ministry.
“_c._ Work Plan for the Reich Traffic Ministry.
“Request the plans to be worked through carefully by the
competent Ministries. The plans will be discussed beginning of
June, when proposals for improvements may be made. The other
Ministries which have no work plans yet will receive them later
on. The Office of Air Raid Protection will work out a work plan
in conjunction with the Reich Commissariat for Aviation.”
(_EC-177_)
The secrecy of all undertakings was stressed:
“_Security and Secrecy._”
“Question has been brought up by the Reich Ministries.
“The secrecy of all Reich Defense work has to be maintained very
carefully. Communications with the outside by _messenger
service_ only, has been settled already with the Post Office,
Finance Ministry, Prussian Ministry of the Interior and the
Reichswehr Ministry. _Main Principle of security_: No document
must be lost since, otherwise, the enemy propaganda would make
use of it. Matters communicated orally cannot be proven; they
can be denied by us in Geneva. Therefore, the _Reichswehr_
Ministry has worked out security directives for the Reich
Ministries and the Prussian Ministry of the Interior.”
(_EC-177_)
As time went on and greater concentration of power was needed, the
Cabinet made changes and additions to this secret war planning body.
Article 6 of the Secret Defense Law of 1935 (_2261-PS_) provided:
“(1) The Fuehrer and Reichschancellor will appoint a
plenipotentiary-general for war economy to direct the entire war
economy.
“(2) It is the task of the plenipotentiary-general for war
economy to put all economic forces in the service of carrying on
the war and to secure the life of the German people
economically.
“(3) Subordinate to him are:
The Reichsminister for Economy.
The Reichsminister for Food and Agriculture.
The Reichs Labor Minister.
The Reichs Forest Master, and all Reichs’ agencies immediately
subordinate to the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor. Furthermore the
financing of the war effort (in the province of the Reichs
Finance Ministry and of the Reichsbank) will be carried on under
his responsibility.
“(4) The Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy is authorized,
within his realm of responsibility to issue legal regulations,
which may deviate from the existing laws.” (_2261-PS_)
Schacht was named as Plenipotentiary for War Economy. It will be noted
that the Reich Ministers for Food and Agriculture and for Labor, and the
Reichs Forest Master (who by this time had Cabinet rank) had not been
included in the original membership of the Reichs Defense Council. Darré
was Minister for Food and Agriculture, Seldte for Labor, and Goering was
Reich Forest Master.
On the same day the Law was passed, the Cabinet made these decisions
covering the newly-created Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy
(_EC-177_):
“1. The Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy appointed by the
Fuehrer and Reichschancellor will begin his work already in
peacetime * * *.
“2. The Reichsminister of War and the Plenipotentiary for War
Economy will effect the preparations for mobilization in closest
cooperation on both sides.
“3. The Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy will be a
permanent member of the Reich Defense Council
(_Reichsverteidigungsrat_). Within the working committee he
represents through his leadership staff the interests of war
economy.” (_EC-177_)
The complete reorganization of this Reich Defense Council took place in
1938, under the Secret Defense Law of 4th September of that year. By
that time, there had been a reorganization of the Armed Forces: the
chief of the OKW had been created and the War Ministry had been
abolished (_2194-PS_). The Reich Defense Council in 1938 was composed of
Goering, as permanent deputy and Minister of Air and Supreme Commander
of the Air Force; Raeder as Supreme Commander of the Navy; Hess as
Deputy of the Fuehrer; von Neurath as President of the Secret Cabinet
Council; Frick as Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration; Keitel
as Chief of the OKW; Funk as Plenipotentiary for Economics; Ribbentrop
as Minister of Foreign Affairs; Schacht as President of the Reichsbank
directorate (_2261-PS_). An important part of the Reich Defense Council
was the Working Committee. The minutes of the twelfth meeting of the
Reich Defense Working Committee, on 14 May 1936, read (_EC-407_):
“1. _The National Minister of War and Supreme Commander of the
Armed Forces_, General Field Marshal von Blomberg, opened the
12th meeting of the Reichs Defense Committee by expressing
thanks for the work accomplished and pointing out in principle
the necessity of a preparation for a total mobilization with
emphasis on the most important measures to be taken at this
time. (Among others; mobilization schedule, legal basis,
preparations in the demilitarized zone.) He further indicates
the assignment of the national resources (_Reichsressort_) to
finance its measures for preparation of the Reichs defense out
of its budget.
“2. The _chairman_ of the _Reichs Defense_ Committee, Lieutenant
General Keitel, states:
“In today’s and future meetings of the Reichs Defense Committee
a cross section of the general situation concerning all matters
of the national defense is presented. The picture of the
situation does not appear in the reports of the meetings.
“The open discussion of State secrets before our large committee
gives the special obligation to the chairman of the Reichs
Defense Committee of pointing out its _secrecy_.
“Today’s sessions takes place under the auspices of the
restoration of the State authority in the demilitarized zone.
“The difficulties of the economic situation, which are presented
today, must be mastered.” (_EC-407_)
This Working Committee was still functioning in 1939. The Mobilization
Book for Civil Administration of 1939 states, in part (_1639-A-PS_):
“D. _Terms for Mobilization Preparations by the Civil
Administration._
“The acceptance of all new measures in the Mobilization Book for
Civil Administration must be requested from the Chief of the
Reich Defense Committee (Department of State Defense in the
Armed Forces High Command).” (_1639-A-PS_)
The composition of the Working Committee was redefined by the Secret Law
of 1938 as follows (_2194-PS_):
“_The Reich Defense Committee_ [_Reichsverteidigungsausschuss_]
(RVA):
“(1) The Reich Defense Committee is the working Committee of the
RVR. It prepares the decisions of the RVR, sees to their
execution, and secures collaboration between armed forces, chief
Reich offices, and party.
“(2) Presiding is the chief of the OKW. He regulates the
activity of the committee and gives the directions to the GBV
and GBW and to the Reich ministries not subordinated to them and
to the chief Reich offices according to the decisions of the
RVR, which directions are necessary for securing their uniform
execution.
“(3) The RVA is composed of the OKW, deputy of the commissioner
for the four year plan, the leader staffs of the GBV and GBW,
and the Reich Defense officials.
“(4) Chief office officials for the Reich defense
(_RV-Referenten_) and their deputies are commissioned by the
deputy of the leader, by the Reich Chancellery, by each Reich
Ministry, by the Reich Leader of the SS and chief of the German
police, by the Reich work leaders, by the Reich Forest Master,
by the Chief Inspector for the German Road Net, by the Reich
Office for Regional Order, by the Reichsbank directorate, and in
the Prussian state ministry. RV-Referent and his deputy are
immediately subordinate to the minister or the state secretary,
and to the chief of the Reich office, resp.” (_2194-PS_)
The GBV and the GBW mentioned in the portion quoted above are,
respectively, the Plenipotentiaries for Administration and for Economy.
Under them were grouped other ministries, some of which were already
permanent members of the Council. By paragraph 3 of the Secret Law the
following were made subordinate to the Plenipotentiary for
Administration: the Ministers of the Interior, Justice, Science and
Education, Churches; the Reich Authority for Spatial Planning; and, for
limited purposes, the Minister of Finance. Subordinate to and under the
direction of the Plenipotentiary for Economy (a position formerly held
by Schacht under the title “War Economy” and later held by Funk) were
the ministers of Economics, Food, Agriculture, Labor, and for limited
purposes, the Reich Finance Ministry and the Reichsbank; the Reich
Forest Master; and the Commissioner for Price Control from the 4-Year
Plan.
Paragraph 5 of the law (_2194-PS_) shows that subordinated to the Chief
of the OKW were the Reich Postal Minister, the Reich Transportation
Minister, and the General Inspector for German Highways.
This concentration of power by the Cabinet was for one purpose only: to
plan secretly with the strongest means at hand for the waging of
aggressive war. Further evidence of this objective is contained in an
affidavit by Frick covering the place, activities, and scope of the
Reich Defense Council, including the Three-Man College (_2986-PS_):
“I, Wilhelm Frick, being first duly sworn, depose and say:
“I was Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration
(_Generalbevollmaechtigter fuer die Reichsverwaltung_) from the
time when this office was created, until 20 August 1943.
Heinrich Himmler was my deputy in this capacity. Before the
outbreak of the war my task as Plenipotentiary for Reich
Administration was the preparation of organization in the event
of war, such as, for instance, the appointment of liaison men in
the different ministries who would keep in touch with me. As
Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration, I, together with the
Plenipotentiary for Economy and OKW formed what was called a
‘3-Man College’ (_Dreierkollegium_). We also were members of the
Reich defense Council (_Reichsverteidigungsrat_), which was
supposed to plan preparations and decrees in case of war which
later on were published by the Ministerial Council for the
Defense of the Reich. Since, as soon as the war started,
everything had to be done speedily and there would have been no
time for planning, such measures and decrees were prepared in
advance in case of war. All one then still had to do was to pull
out of the drawer the war orders that had been prepared. Later
on, after the outbreak of the war, these decrees were enacted by
the Ministerial Council for the defense of the Reich.
“(_Signed_) _Dr. Wilhelm Frick_” (_2986-PS_).
* * * * *
LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE REICH CABINET
│ │ │
Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page
│ │ │
│Charter of the International Military │ │
│ Tribunal, Article 9. │ I │ 6
│International Military Tribunal, │ │
│ Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H);│ │
│ Appendix B. │ I │ 29, 68
│ ———— │ │
│Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │
│document indicates that the document │ │
│was received in evidence at the │ │
│Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**)│ │
│before a document number indicates │ │
│that the document was referred to │ │
│during the trial but was not formally │ │
│received in evidence, for the reason │ │
│given in parentheses following the │ │
│description of the document. The USA │ │
│series number, given in parentheses │ │
│following the description of the │ │
│document, is the official exhibit │ │
│number assigned by the court. │ │
│ ———— │ │
351-PS │Minutes of First Meeting of Cabinet of│ │
│Hitler, 30 January 1933. (USA 389) │ III │ 270
│ │ │
*352-PS │Letter from Dr. Lammers to the │ │
│Plenipotentiary of Administration, 14 │ │
│June 1942, concerning the jurisdiction│ │
│of the Council of Ministers for the │ │
│Defense of the Reich. (USA 398) │ III │ 276
│ │ │
405-PS │Law Concerning Trustees of Labor, 19 │ │
│May 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│ │
│I, p. 285. │ III │ 387
│ │ │
*1141-PS │Letter from Dr. Lammers to Members of │ │
│the Council of Ministers for Defense │ │
│of the Reich, 17 September 1939. (USA │ │
│393) │ III │ 805
│ │ │
1388-PS │Law concerning confiscation of │ │
│Property subversive to People and │ │
│State, 14 July 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 479. │ III │ 962
│ │ │
1389-PS │Law creating Reich Labor Service, 26 │ │
│June 1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 769. │ III │ 963
│ │ │
1393-PS │Law on treacherous attacks against │ │
│State and Party, and for the │ │
│Protection of Party Uniforms, 20 │ │
│December 1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │
│Part I, p. 1269. │ III │ 973
│ │ │
1395-PS │Law to insure the unity of Party and │ │
│State, 1 December 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016. │ │
│(GB 252) │ III │ 978
│ │ │
1396-PS │Law concerning the confiscation of │ │
│Communist property, 26 May 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 293. │ III │ 979
│ │ │
1397-PS │Law for the reestablishment of the │ │
│Professional Civil Service, 7 April │ │
│1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 175. │ III │ 981
│ │ │
1398-PS │Law to supplement the Law for the │ │
│restoration of the Professional Civil │ │
│Service, 20 July 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 518. │ III │ 986
│ │ │
1400-PS │Law changing the regulations in regard│ │
│to public officer, 30 June 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 433. │ III │ 987
│ │ │
1401-PS │Law regarding admission to the Bar, 7 │ │
│April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 188. │ III │ 989
│ │ │
1402-PS │The Homestead Law of 29 September │ │
│1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 685. │ III │ 990
│ │ │
*1534-PS │Eltz letter of resignation, 30 January│ │
│1937. (USA 402) │ IV │ 95
│ │ │
*1639-A-PS │Mobilization book for the Civil │ │
│Administration, 1939 Edition, issued │ │
│over signature of Keitel. (USA 777) │ IV │ 143
│ │ │
**1654-PS │Law of 16 March 1935 reintroducing │ │
│universal military conscription. 1935 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 369. │ │
│(Referred to but not offered in │ │
│evidence.) │ IV │ 163
│ │ │
*1701-PS │Memorandum from Frick to the Reich │ │
│Minister and Chief of the Reich │ │
│Chancellery, 9 August 1943, enclosing │ │
│draft law and memorandum of comment │ │
│thereon by Rosenberg, 22 December │ │
│1943. (USA 392) │ IV │ 203
│ │ │
1708-PS │The Program of the NSDAP. National │ │
│Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153. │ │
│(USA 255; USA 324) │ IV │ 208
│ │ │
1770-PS │Law concerning factory representative │ │
│councils and economic organizations, 4│ │
│April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 161. │ IV │ 343
│ │ │
*1774-PS │Extracts from Organizational Law of │ │
│the Greater German Reich by Ernst │ │
│Rudolf Huber. (GB 246) │ IV │ 349
│ │ │
1861-PS │Law on the regulation of National │ │
│labor, 20 January 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 45. │ IV │ 497
│ │ │
1862-PS │Ordinance for execution of Four Year │ │
│Plan, 18 October 1936. 1936 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 887. │ IV │ 499
│ │ │
1915-PS │Decree concerning leadership of Armed │ │
│Forces, 4 February 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 111. │ IV │ 552
│ │ │
1942-PS │Hess’ participation in legislative │ │
│process, published in Legal │ │
│Regulations and Legal Problems of the │ │
│Movement, by Dr. O. Gauweiler, p. 20. │ IV │ 584
│ │ │
1962-PS │Law to change the Penal Code of 28 │ │
│June 1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 839. │ IV │ 600
│ │ │
*1997-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer, 17 July 1941, │ │
│concerning administration of Newly │ │
│Occupied Eastern Territories. (USA │ │
│319) │ IV │ 634
│ │ │
2001-PS │Law to remove the Distress of People │ │
│and State, 24 March 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 141. │ IV │ 638
│ │ │
2003-PS │Law concerning the Sovereign Head of │ │
│the German Reich, 1 August 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 747. │ IV │ 639
│ │ │
2004-PS │Preliminary law for the coordination │ │
│of Federal States under the Reich, 31 │ │
│March 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 153. │ IV │ 640
│ │ │
2005-PS │Second law integrating the “Laender” │ │
│with the Reich, 7 April 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 173. │ IV │ 641
│ │ │
2006-PS │Law for the reconstruction of the │ │
│Reich, 30 January 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 75. │ IV │ 642
│ │ │
2008-PS │German Communal Ordinance, 30 January │ │
│1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 49. │ IV │ 643
│ │ │
2014-PS │Law amending regulations of criminal │ │
│law and criminal procedure, 24 April │ │
│1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 341. │ IV │ 648
│ │ │
*2018-PS │Fuehrer’s decree establishing a │ │
│Ministerial Council for Reich Defense,│ │
│30 August 1939. 1939 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1539. │ │
│(GB 250) │ IV │ 650
│ │ │
2022-PS │Law against overcrowding of German │ │
│schools and Higher Institutions, 25 │ │
│April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 225. │ IV │ 651
│ │ │
2029-PS │Decree establishing the Reich Ministry│ │
│of Public Enlightenment and │ │
│Propaganda, 13 March 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 104. │ IV │ 652
│ │ │
2030-PS │Decree concerning the Duties of the │ │
│Reich Ministry for Public │ │
│Enlightenment and Propaganda, 30 June │ │
│1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 449. │ IV │ 653
│ │ │
2031-PS │Decree establishing a Secret Cabinet │ │
│Council, 4 February 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 112. (GB│ │
│217) │ IV │ 654
│ │ │
2039-PS │Decree concerning the conditions of │ │
│employment of Eastern workers, 30 June│ │
│1942. 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 419. │ IV │ 655
│ │ │
2047-PS │Law for the extension of the law │ │
│concerning the removal of the distress│ │
│of People and Reich, 30 January 1937. │ │
│1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│105. │ IV │ 660
│ │ │
2048-PS │Law for the extension of the law │ │
│concerning the removal of the distress│ │
│of People and Reich, 30 January 1939. │ │
│1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 95.│ IV │ 660
│ │ │
2057-PS │Law relating to National Emergency │ │
│Defense Measures of 3 July 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 529. │ IV │ 699
│ │ │
2073-PS │Decree concerning the appointment of a│ │
│Chief of German Police in the Ministry│ │
│of the Interior, 17 June 1936. 1936 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 487. │ IV │ 703
│ │ │
2075-PS │Decree for appointment of a chief of │ │
│organization of Germans abroad within │ │
│the Foreign Office, 30 January 1937. │ │
│1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│187. │ IV │ 704
│ │ │
2076-PS │Decree of the Government concerning │ │
│formation of Special Courts, 21 March │ │
│1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│pp. 136-137. │ IV │ 705
│ │ │
2078-PS │Decree concerning establishment of │ │
│Ministry for Science, Education and │ │
│Popular Culture, 1 May 1934. 1934 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 365. │ IV │ 706
│ │ │
2082-PS │Law relating to the Reich Chamber of │ │
│Culture of 22 September 1933. 1933 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 661. │ IV │ 708
│ │ │
2083-PS │Editorial control law, 4 October 1933.│ │
│1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│713. │ IV │ 709
│ │ │
2089-PS │Decree relating to Reich Air Ministry,│ │
│5 May 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ │
│Part I, p. 241. │ IV │ 719
│ │ │
2090-PS │Decree relating to coordination of │ │
│Jurisdiction of Reich and Prussia in │ │
│relation to church affairs, 16 July │ │
│1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 1029. │ IV │ 720
│ │ │
2091-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich │ │
│Chancellor appointing a Reich Minister│ │
│for Armaments and Munitions, 17 April │ │
│1940. 1940 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 513. │ IV │ 720
│ │ │
2092-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer for │ │
│concentration of war economy, 2 │ │
│September 1943. 1943 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 529. │ IV │ 721
│ │ │
2093-PS │First Executive Order relating to │ │
│transfer of forestry and hunting │ │
│matters to the Reich, 12 July 1934. │ │
│1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│617. │ IV │ 723
│ │ │
2094-PS │Decree of Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor│ │
│concerning Reich Labor Leader in Reich│ │
│Ministry ofInterior, 30 January 1937. │ │
│1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 95.│ IV │ 723
│ │ │
2095-PS │Decree of Fuehrer on Establishment of │ │
│Supreme Reich Authority—“The Reich │ │
│Labor Leader”, 20 August 1943. 1943 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 495. │ IV │ 724
│ │ │
2097-PS │Decree of Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor│ │
│relating to designation of Chief of │ │
│Praesidialkanzlei, 1 December 1937. │ │
│1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. │ │
│1317. │ IV │ 724
│ │ │
*2098-PS │Decree relating to Status of Supreme │ │
│Commanders of Army and Navy, 25 │ │
│February 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,│ │
│Part I, p. 215. (GB 206) │ IV │ 725
│ │ │
2099-PS │Fuehrer decree relating to Chief of │ │
│Party Chancellery of 29 May 1941. 1941│ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 295. │ IV │ 725
│ │ │
2100-PS │Decree on position of leader of Party │ │
│Chancellery, 24 January 1942. 1942 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 35. │ IV │ 726
│ │ │
2101-PS │Decree of Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor│ │
│concerning Inspector General of German│ │
│Highways administration of 3 April │ │
│1941. 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │ │
│p. 192. │ IV │ 727
│ │ │
2102-PS │Decree of Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor│ │
│concerning Inspector General for Water│ │
│and Power, 29 July 1941. 1941 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 467. │ IV │ 727
│ │ │
2103-PS │Decree of Fuehrer on Cabinet │ │
│Legislation, 10 May 1943. 1943 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 295. │ IV │ 729
│ │ │
*2194-PS │Top secret letter from Ministry for │ │
│Economy and Labor, Saxony, to Reich │ │
│Protector in Bohemia and Moravia, │ │
│enclosing copy of 1938 Secret Defense │ │
│Law of 4 September 1938. (USA 36) │ IV │ 843
│ │ │
2231-PS │Excerpt from von Stutterheim, “Die │ │
│Reichskanzlei” (1940), pp. 19-34. │ IV │ 873
│ │ │
*2261-PS │Directive from Blomberg to Supreme │ │
│Commanders of Army, Navy and Air │ │
│Forces, 24 June 1935; accompanied by │ │
│copy of Reich Defense Law of 21 May │ │
│1935 and copy of Decision of Reich │ │
│Cabinet of 12 May 1935 on the Council │ │
│for defense of the Reich. (USA 24) │ IV │ 934
│ │ │
*2307-PS │Law concerning reunion of Austria with│ │
│German Reich, 13 March 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 237. (GB│ │
│133) │ IV │ 997
│ │ │
2355-PS │Second Law relating to right to vote │ │
│for Reichstag, 18 March 1938. 1938 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 258. │ IV │ 1098
│ │ │
*2380-PS │Articles from National Socialist │ │
│Yearbook, 1935. (USA 396). │ V │ 6
│ │ │
*2473-PS │Extracts from National Socialist │ │
│Yearbook, 1943, showing party │ │
│positions of other Cabinet members in │ │
│1943. (USA 324) │ V │ 226
│ │ │
2550-PS │Law on modification of rules of │ │
│general criminal procedure, 16 │ │
│September 1939. 1939 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1841. │ V │ 293
│ │ │
*2608-PS │Frick’s lecture, 7 March 1940, on “The│ │
│Administration in Wartime”. (USA 714) │ V │ 327
│ │ │
2746-PS │Decree concerning organization of │ │
│Criminal Jurisdiction against Poles │ │
│and Jews in Incorporated Territories, │ │
│4 December 1941. 1941 │ │
│Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, pp. │ │
│759-761. │ V │ 386
│ │ │
2847-PS │Extracts from Reichs Ministerialblatt,│ │
│1933, regarding Cabinet change in the │ │
│Common Business Order of Reich │ │
│Ministries, para. 57c, the Circulation│ │
│of Drafts. │ V │ 509
│ │ │
2848-PS │File memorandum from files of Council │ │
│of Ministers, initialled L. │ V │ 510
│ │ │
2849-PS │Extract from The Third Reich, Vol. 4, │ │
│p. 81. │ V │ 511
│ │ │
*2852-PS │Minutes of meetings of Council of │ │
│Ministers for Reich Defense. (USA 395)│ V │ 512
│ │ │
2957-PS │Extract from German Civil Servants │ │
│Calendar, 1940, p. 111. │ V │ 663
│ │ │
*2959-PS │The Reich Minister, published in New │ │
│Formation of Justice and Economy, p. │ │
│66. (USA 399) │ V │ 664
│ │ │
*2960-PS │The Reich Ministry of Interior, │ │
│published in Publications on the State│ │
│Structure. (USA 406) │ V │ 668
│ │ │
2961-PS │Regulations for the leadership of the │ │
│German People, 1940, p. 62. │ V │ 668
│ │ │
*2964-PS │Memorial meeting of the Reich Cabinet,│ │
│published in Voelkischer Beobachter, │ │
│Munich edition, 1 February 1937. (USA │ │
│401) │ V │ 672
│ │ │
2970-PS │Extracts concerning The New │ │
│Construction of the State from New │ │
│Formation of Law and Economy. │ V │ 677
│ │ │
*2986-PS │Affidavit of the defendant, Wilhelm │ │
│Frick, 19 November 1945. (USA 409) │ V │ 688
│ │ │
*2999-PS │Affidavit of Hans Heinrich Lammers, 22│ │
│November 1945. (USA 391) │ V │ 725
│ │ │
3787-PS │Report of the Second Meeting of the │ │
│Reich Defense Council, 25 June 1939. │ │
│(USA 782) │ VI │ 718
│ │ │
*3863-PS │Extracts from Operations in the Third │ │
│Reich by Lammers. (GB 320) │ VI │ 786
│ │ │
*D-138 │Decree of 27 July 1934, providing for │ │
│participation of Fuehrer’s deputy in │ │
│the drafting of all legislation. (USA │ │
│403) │ VI │ 1055
│ │ │
*D-139 │Letter from Hess to Goebbels, 9 │ │
│October 1934, concerning participation│ │
│in legislation of the Reich. (USA 404)│ VI │ 1056
│ │ │
*D-140 │Letter from Lammers to Reich │ │
│Ministers, 12 April 1938. (USA 405) │ VI │ 1057
│ │ │
*EC-177 │Minutes of second session of Working │ │
│Committee of the Reich Defense held on│ │
│26 April 1933. (USA 390) │ VII │ 328
│ │ │
*EC-407 │Minutes of Twelfth Meeting of Reichs │ │
│Defense Council, 14 May 1936. (GB 247)│ VII │ 462
│ │ │
**Chart No. 6 │Reich Cabinet and Subsidiaries. │ │
│(Enlargement displayed to Tribunal.) │ VIII │ 775
│ │ │
*Chart No. 18 │Organization of the Reich Government. │
│(2905-PS; USA 3) │ End of VIII
4. THE STURMABTEILUNG (SA)
The _Sturmabteilung_, or SA, is the organization which the world
remembers as the “Brown Shirts” or Storm Troops—the gangsters of the
early days of Nazi terrorism. Since it was the first of the
organizations created by the Nazis as instruments to effectuate their
illegal objectives, the SA occupied a place of peculiar importance in
the scheme of the conspirators. Unlike some of the other organizations,
the functions of the SA were not fixed or static. The SA was an agency
adapted to many designs and purposes, and its role in the conspiracy
changed from time to time various phases toward the final
objective—abrogation of the Versailles Treaty and acquisition of the
territory of other peoples and nations. If the conspiracy is likened to
a pattern, with its various parts fitting together like the pieces of a
jig-saw puzzle, the piece representing the SA would be found to
constitute the essential link in the pattern.
The SA participated in the conspiracy as a distinct and separate unit,
having a legal character of its own. An ordinance passed in March, 1935,
provided that the SA and certain other agencies were thereafter to be
considered “components” of the Nazi Party (_1725-PS_). This ordinance
further provided, in Article 5, that:
“* * * The affiliated organizations can possess their own legal
character.” (_1725-PS_)
Similarly, the 1943 Organization Book of the Nazi Party which
characterizes the SA as an “entity,” declares:
“The Fuehrer prescribes the law of conduct; he commands its use.
The Chief of Staff represents the SA as a complete entity on the
mandate of the Fuehrer.” (_3220-PS_)
While the SA was composed of many individual members, they acted as a
unit. They were closely bound together by many common factors, including
uniform membership standards and disciplinary regulations; a common and
distinctive uniform; common aims and objectives; common activities,
duties, and responsibilities; and a fanatical adherence to the
ideologies conceived by the Nazis. Although membership in the SA was
voluntary, the SA man was expected to withdraw if
“he can no longer agree with SA views or if he is not in a
position to fulfill completely the duties imposed upon him as a
member of the SA.” (_2354-PS_)
The SA man was well schooled in the philosophies and activities which he
was required to adopt in his daily life. Uniformity of action and
thought in such matters was in part obtained by the publication and
distribution of a weekly periodical entitled “_Der SA-Mann_.” This
publication was principally devoted to fostering various aspects of Nazi
ideology. In addition, “_Der SA-Mann_” reported upon the activities of
the SA and its constituent groups.
The SA developed from scattered bands of street ruffians into a cohesive
unit organized on a military basis, with military training and military
functions, and with an aggressive spirit and philosophy. The
organization extended throughout the entire Reich and was organized
vertically into local subdivisions. Horizontally, there were special
units including military, cavalry, communications, engineer, and medical
units. These various groups and branches were coordinated by the SA
Headquarters and operational offices, located in Munich.
A. _The Relationship Between The SA and The Nazi Party._
The affiliation between the SA and the Nazi leaders was closely
maintained, for the purpose of enabling the conspirators to employ the
SA for any activity necessary in effectuating the objectives of the
conspiracy. The SA was conceived and created by Hitler, in 1921, at the
very inception of the conspiracy. Hitler retained the direction of the
SA throughout the conspiracy, delegating responsibility for its
leadership to a Chief of Staff. Goering was an early leader of the SA,
and maintained close connection with it throughout the conspiracy. Hess
participated in many of the early battles of the SA and was leader of an
SA group in Munich. Frank, Streicher, von Schirach, and Sauckel each
held the position of _Obergruppenfuehrer_ in the SA, a position
corresponding to the rank of Lieutenant General; and Bormann was a
member of the Staff of the SA High Command.
The close relationship between the SA and leaders of the Nazi Party is
demonstrated by the fact that the _Hoheitstraeger_ (Bearers of
Sovereignty) of the Nazi Leadership Corps were authorized to call upon
the SA for assistance in carrying out particular phases of the Party
program. For example, at page 71 of the Organization Book of the Nazi
Party (1943 edition) the following statement is made (_1893-PS_):
“The _Hoheitstraeger_ is responsible for the entire political
appearance of the Movement within this zone. The SA leader of
that zone is tied to the directives of the _Hoheitstraeger_ in
that respect.
“The _Hoheitstraeger_ is the ranking representative of the Party
to include all organizations within his zone. He may requisition
the SA located within his zone for the respective SA leader if
they are needed for the execution of a political mission. The
_Hoheitstraeger_ will then assign the mission to the SA * * *.
“Should the _Hoheitstraeger_ need more SA for the execution of
political mission than is locally available, he then applies to
the next higher office of sovereignty which, in turn, requests
the SA from the SA office in his sector.” (_1893-PS_)
This close relationship is further shown by an ordinance for the
execution of a Hitler decree (_2383-PS_):
“The leader of affiliated organizations, as well as the leaders
of the party women’s organization, are subordinate to the
sovereign bearer (_Hoheitstraeger_) politically, functionally,
disciplinarily, and personally.”
* * * * * *
“The formations of the NSDAP, with exception of the SS, for whom
special provisions apply, are subordinated to the sovereign
bearer (_Hoheitstraeger_) politically and in respect to
commitment. Responsibility for the leadership of the units rests
in the hands of the unit leader.” (_2383-PS_)
It was in compliance with the authority of the Leadership Corps that the
SA was used in the seizure of trade union properties.
In addition, the SA demonstrated its close affiliation to the Nazi Party
by participating in various ways in election proceedings. A pamphlet
entitled “The SA,” depicting the history and general activities of the
SA, written by an SA Sturmfuehrer upon orders from SA Headquarters,
declares that the SA stood—
“at the foremost front of election fights.” (_2168-PS_)
Further evidence of the close relationship between the SA and Nazi
leaders is found in the distribution list of the confidential
publication of the Nazi Leadership Corps, which shows that this strictly
confidential magazine was distributed to Lieutenant-Generals and
Major-Generals of the SA. (_2660-PS_)
The interest and participation of Nazi leaders in the activities of the
SA is clearly shown in the issues of “_Der SA-Mann_” for the period from
1934 to March 1939 (_3050-A-E-PS_). Throughout these volumes there
appear photographs of Nazi leaders participating in SA activities. The
following are descriptions of a few of these photographs, together with
the page numbers upon which they appear:
Photograph of Himmler, Huhnlein (Fuehrer of NSKK) and
Lutze, bearing caption: “They lead the soldiers of
National Socialism,” 15 June, 1935, p. 1.
Photograph of Hitler at SA Ceremony, carrying SA Battle
Flag. The picture bears the caption: “As in the fighting
years the Fuehrer, on Party Day of Freedom, dedicates
the new regiments with the Blood Banner,” 21 September,
1935, p. 4.
Photograph of Lutze and Hitler, 19 September, 1936, p.
4.
Photograph of Hitler and SA officers, 1 January, 1938,
p. 3.
Photograph of Streicher with SA men, and reviewing SA
Troops, 25 November, 1938, p. 1.
Photograph of Goering in SA uniform reviewing SA
marching troops under the caption: “Honor Day of the
SA,” 21 September, 1935, p. 3.
Photographs of Goering, Hess, and Hitler in SA uniform
at the ceremonies dedicated to SA men killed in the
Munich Putsch, 16 November, 1935, p. 3.
Photograph of Goering marching in SA uniform, 19
September, 1936, p. 3.
Photographs of Goering at ceremonies held upon occasion
of his being made Obergruppenfuehrer of the
Feldherrnhalle Regiment of the SA, 23 January, 1937, p.
3.
Photograph of Goering leading Feldherrnhalle Regiment of
SA in parade, 18 September, 1937, p. 3.
The work of the SA did not end with the seizure of the German government
by the Nazis, but affiliation between the SA and Nazi leaders continued
thereafter. The importance of the SA in connection with the Nazi
Government and control of Germany is shown by the law of 1 December 1933
entitled, “The Law on Securing the Unity of Party and State”
(_1395-PS_):
“* * * The Deputy of the Fuehrer and the Chief of Staff of SA
become members of the Reich Government in order to insure close
cooperation of the offices of the Party and SA with the public
authorities.” (_1395-PS_)
Similarly, a decree promulgated by Hitler providing for supervision of
premilitary training by the SA declares:
“The offices of the Party and State are to support the SA in
this training program and to value the possession of the
certificate for the SA military insignia.” (_2383-PS_)
The complete control of the SA by the Nazis at all times is shown by the
so-called “Roehm Purge” of June 1934 (see _2407-PS_). Roehm had been
Chief of Staff of the SA for several years, and was responsible for the
development of SA into a powerful, organization. SA members were
required to take a personal oath of fidelity to Roehm. But when his
policies conflicted with those of the Nazi leaders, he was removed,
murdered, and replaced by Victor Lutze. This drastic action was
accomplished without revolt or dissension in the ranks of the SA, and
with no change in its objectives or program. The SA remained “a reliable
and strong part of the National Socialist Movement * * * full of
obedience and blind discipline,” whose function was to “create and form
the new German citizens.” (_2407-PS_)
The importance of the SA in the Nazi plan for the utilization of the
people of Germany is shown in Hitler’s pronouncement “The Course for the
German Person,” which appears in the issue of “_Der SA-Mann_” for 5
September 1936, at page 22. Hitler’s statement reads as follows:
“The boy, he will enter the Young Volk, and the lad, he will
enter the Hitler Youth, the young man will go into the SA, in
the SS, and in other units, and the SA and SS men will one day
enter into the labor service and from there to the Army, and the
soldier of the Volk will return again into the Organization of
the Movement, the Party, in the SA and SS and never again will
our Volk decay as it once was decayed”.
Thus the SA was constantly available to the conspirators as an
instrument to further their aims. It was natural that Victor Lutze, the
former Chief of Staff of the SA, in a pamphlet entitled “The Nature and
Tasks of the SA,” declared:
“The SA cannot be independent of the National Socialist Movement
but can only exist as a part of it.” (_2471-PS_)
B. _Participation by the SA in the Conspiracy._
The principal functions performed by the SA in furtherance of the
objectives of the conspiracy may be classified into four distinct
phases, each of which corresponds with a particular phase in the
progression of the conspiracy.
The first phase consists of the use of the SA and its members as the
instrument for the dissemination of Nazi ideology throughout Germany.
The employment of SA for this purpose continued throughout the entire
period of the conspiracy. In the second phase, the period prior to the
Nazi seizure of power, the SA was a militant group of fighters whose
function was to combat all opponents of the Party. In the third phase,
the period of several years following the Nazi seizure of power, the SA
participated in various measures designed to consolidate the control of
the Nazis, including the dissolution of the trade unions, the
persecution of the church, and Jewish persecutions. During this period
the SA continued to serve as a force of political soldiers whose purpose
was to combat members of political parties considered hostile to the
Nazi Party. The fourth aspect of SA activities consisted of its
employment as an agency for the building up of an armed force in Germany
in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and for the preparation of the
youth of Germany for the waging of an aggressive war.
(1) _The Propagation of Nazi Doctrine._ From the very start the Nazi
leaders emphasized the importance of the SA’s mission to disseminate
Nazi doctrines. The responsibility of propagating National Socialist
ideology remained constant throughout. This is shown in an excerpt from
_Mein Kampf_ in which Hitler declared:
“* * * As the directing idea for the inner training of the
_Sturmabteilung_, the intention was always dominant, aside from
all physical education, to teach it to be the unshakeable
convinced defender of the National Socialist idea.” (_2760-PS_)
Hitler’s pronouncement as to the function of SA in this respect became
the guiding principle of SA members, for _Mein Kampf_ was taken to
express the basic philosophy of the SA. The Organization Book of the
Nazi Party declares that the training of SA members should consist of—
“The training and rearing upon the basis of the teachings and
aims of the Fuehrer as they are put down in ‘Mein Kampf’ and in
the Party program, for all spheres of our life and our National
Socialist ideology.” (_2354-PS_)
The Party Organization Book also declares that the SA is the
“training and rearing instrument of the Party.” (_2354-PS_)
Similarly, in an article which appeared in “_Der SA-Mann_”, at page 1 of
the issue of January 1934, the functions of the SA were set forth as
follows:
“First, to be the guaranty of the power of the National
Socialist State against all attacks from without as well as from
within.
“Second, to be the high institute of education of the people for
the living National Socialism.”
The function of the SA as propagandist of the Party was more than a
responsibility which SA took unto itself. It was a responsibility
recognized by the law of Germany. The law for “Securing the Unity of
Party and State,” promulgated by the Reich Cabinet in 1933, provided:
“The members of the National Socialistic German Labor Party and
the SA (including their subordinate organizations) as the
leading and driving force of the National Socialist State will
bear greater responsibility toward Fuehrer, people and State.”
(_1395-PS_)
As the principal ideology bearers of the Nazi Party SA members were “the
soldiers of an idea,” to use the expression employed by Nazi writers.
Examples of the use of the SA as Nazi propagandist will be seen in the
description of the other functions performed by the SA. For in each case
the SA combined its propagandist responsibility instrument with the
other functions which it performed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
(2) _Strong-Arm Terrorization of Political Opponents._ In the early
stages of the Nazi Movement the SA combined propaganda with violence
along the lines expressed by Hitler in _Mein Kampf_:
“The Young Movement from the first day, espoused the standpoint
that its idea must be put forward spiritually but that the
defense of this spiritual platform must, if necessary, be
secured by strong-arm means.” (_2760-PS_)
So that the Nazis might better spread their philosophies, the SA was
employed to gain possession and control of the streets for the Nazis.
Its function was to beat up and terrorize all political opponents. The
importance of this function is explained in a pamphlet written by SA
Sturmfuehrer Bayer, upon orders from SA Headquarters (_2168-PS_):
“Possession of the streets is the key to power in the State—for
this reason the SA marched and fought. The public would have
never received knowledge from the agitative speeches of the
little Reichstag faction and its propaganda or from the desires
and aims of the Party if the martial tread and battle song of
the SA Companies had not beat the measure for the truth of a
relentless criticism of the state of affairs in the governmental
system. They wanted the young Movement to keep silent. Nothing
was to be read in the press about the labor of the National
Socialists, not to mention the basic aims of its platform. They
simply did not want to awake any interest in it. However, the
martial tread of the SA took care that even the drowsiest
citizens had to see at least the existence of a fighting troop.”
(_2168-PS_)
And in _Mein Kampf_ Hitler defined the task of the SA as follows:
“We have to teach the Marxists that the master of the streets in
the future is National Socialism, exactly as it will once be the
Master of the State.” (_2760-PS_)
The importance of the work of SA in the early days of the Movement was
indicated by Goebbels in a speech which appeared in _Das Archiv_ in
October 1935:
“* * * The inner-political opponents did not disappear due to
mysterious unknown reasons but because the Movement possessed a
strong-arm within its organization and the strongest strong-arm
of the Movement is the SA * * *.” (_3211-PS_)
Specific evidence of the activities of the SA during the early period of
the Nazi Movement (1922-31) is to be found in a series of articles
appearing in “_Der SA-Mann_” entitled, “SA Battle Experiences Which We
Will Never Forget.” Each of these articles is an account of a street or
meeting-hall battle waged by the SA against a group of political
opponents in the early days of the Nazi struggle for power. These
articles demonstrate that during this period it was the function of SA
to employ physical violence in order to destroy all forms of thought and
expression which might be considered hostile to Nazi aims or philosophy.
The titles of these articles are sufficiently descriptive to constitute
evidence of SA activities. Some of these titles, together with the page
and reference of “_Der SA-Mann_” upon which they appear, follow:
Article entitled: “We subdue the Red Terror,” 24 February, 1934: p.
4.
Article entitled: “Nightly Street Battles on the Czech Border,” 8
September, 1934: p. 12.
Article entitled: “Street Battle in Chemnitz,” 6 October, 1934: p.
5.
Article entitled: “Victorious SA,” 20 October, 1934: p. 7.
Article entitled: “SA Against Sub-Humanity,” 20 October, 1934: p. 7.
Article entitled: “For the Superiority of the Street,” 10 November,
1934: p. 10.
Article entitled: “The SA Conquers Rastenburg,” 26 January,
1936[_sic_]: p. 7.
Article entitled: “Company 88 Receives its Baptism of Fire,” 23
February, 1935: p. 5.
Article entitled: “Street Battles at Pforghein,” 23 February, 1935:
p. 5.
Article entitled: “The SA Breaks the Red Terror,” 1 June, 1935: p.
7.
Article entitled: “The Blood Sunday of Berlin,” 10 August, 1935: p.
10.
Article entitled: “West Prussian SA Breaks the Red Terror in
Christburg,” 24 August, 1935: p. 15.
Portrait symbolizing the SA Man as the “Master of the Streets,”
entitled, “Attention: Free the Streets,” 11 September, 1937: p. 1.
Article entitled: “9 November, 1923, in Nurnberg,” 30 October, 1937.
As an example of the nature of these articles, the article appearing in
the Franken Edition of “_Der SA-Mann_” for 30 October 1937, at page 3,
is typical. It is entitled: “9 November 1923 in Nurnberg,” and reads in
part as follows:
“We stayed overnight in the Coliseum. Then in the morning we
found out what had happened in Munich. ‘Now a revolution will
also be made in Nurnberg,’ we said. All of a sudden the Police
came from the Maxtor Guard and told us that we should go home,
that the Putsch in Munich failed. We did not believe that and we
did not go home. Then came the State Police with fixed bayonets
and drove us out of the hall. One of us then shouted ‘Let’s go
to the Cafe Habsburg!’ By the time we arrived, however, the
Police again had everything surrounded. Some shouted then: ‘The
Jewish place will be stormed * * * Out with the Jews!’ Then the
Police started to beat us up. Then we divided into small groups
and roamed through town and wherever we caught a Red or a Jew we
knew, a fist fight ensued.
“Then in the evening we marched, although the Police had
forbidden it, to a meeting in Furth. During the promenade again
the police attempted to stop us. It was all the same to us.
Already in the next moment we attacked the police in our anger
so that they were forced to flee. We marched on to the Geissmann
Hall. There again they tried to stop us. But the Landsturm,
which was also there, attacked the protection forces like
persons possessed, and drove them from the streets. After the
meeting we dissolved and went to the edge of town. From there we
marched in close column back to Nurnberg. In the Wall Street
near the Plaerrer the Police came again. We simply shoved them
aside. They did not trust themselves to attack, for what would a
blood bath have meant? We decided beforehand not to take
anything from anyone. Also in Furth they had already noticed
that we were up to no good. A large mass of people accompanied
us on the march. We marched with unrolled flags and sang so that
the streets resounded: Comrade reach me your hand; we want to
stand together, even though they have false impressions, the
spirit must not die, Swastika on the steel helmet,
black—white—red armband, we are known as Storm Troop (SA)
Hitler!”
Through such means the SA was chiefly responsible for destroying all
political elements hostile to the Nazis, including liberalism and
capitalism. This is shown by an article which appeared on 6 January,
1934, at page 1 of “_Der SA-Mann_,” entitled “The SA Man in the New
State!”
“The New Germany would not have been without the SA man and the
new Germany would not exist if the SA man would now, with the
feeling of having fulfilled his duty, quietly and unselfishly
and modestly step aside or if the new State would send him home
much like the Moors who had done his obligations.
* * * * * *
“What has been accomplished up until now, the taking over of the
power in the State and the ejection of those elements which are
responsible for the pernicious developments of the post war
years as bearers of Marxist liberalism, and capitalism are only
the preliminaries, the spring-board for the real aims of
National Socialism.
“Being conscious of the fact that the real National Socialist
construction work would be building in an empty space without
the usurpation of power by Adolf Hitler, the movement and the SA
man as the aggressive bearer of its will primarily have directed
all their efforts thereupon, to achieve the platform of
continued striving and to obtain the fundamental for the
realization of our desires in the State by force * * *
“* * * Out of this comes the further missions of the SA for the
completion of the German revolution. First: To be the guaranty
of the power of the National Socialist State against all attacks
from without as well as within. Second: To be the high institute
of education of the people for the living National Socialism.
Third: to build a bridge over which the present day German youth
can march free and unhampered as first generation into the
formed Third Reich.”
(3) _Consolidation of Nazi Control of Germany._ The Third function of
the SA was to carry out various programs designed to consolidate Nazi
control of the German State, including particularly the dissolution of
the trade unions and the Jewish persecutions. In the words of an SA
officer, it was the function of the SA to be the “tool for strengthening
the structure of the new State,” and “to clean up” all that was “worth
cleaning up.” It was generally employed, says the SA man, “where
communism and elements hostile to the State still insolently dared to
rebel.” (_2168-PS_)
SA groups were employed to destroy political opposition by force and
brutality where necessary. As an example, an affidavit of William F.
Sollman reads as follows:
“* * * From 1919 until 1933 I was a Social Democrat and a member
of the German Reichstag. Prior to March 11, 1933, I was the
editor-in-chief of a chain of daily newspapers, with my office
in Cologne, Germany, which led the fight against the Nazi Party.
“On March 9, 1933, members of the SS and SA came to my home in
Cologne and destroyed the furniture and my personal records. At
that time I was taken to the Brown House in Cologne where I was
tortured, being beaten and kicked for several hours. I was then
taken to the regular government prison in Cologne where I was
treated by two medical doctors * * * and released the next day.
On March 11, 1933, I left Germany.” (_3221-PS_)
Prior to the organization of the Gestapo on a national scale local SA
meeting places were designated as arrest points, and SA members took
into custody Communists and other persons who were actually or
supposedly hostile to the Nazi Party. This activity is described in an
affidavit of Raymond H. Geist, former U. S. Consul in Berlin:
“* * * At the beginning of the Hitler regime, the only
organization which had meeting places throughout the country was
the SA (Storm Troopers). Until the Gestapo could be organized on
a national scale the thousands of local SA meeting places became
‘arrest points.’ There were at least fifty of these in Berlin.
Communists, Jews, and other known enemies of the Nazis party
were taken to these points, and, if they were enemies of
sufficient importance, they were immediately transferred to the
Gestapo headquarters.” (_1759-PS_)
In addition, SA members served as guards at concentration camps during
this consolidation period and participated in mistreatment of the
persons there imprisoned. A report to Hitler by the public prosecutor of
Dresden concerning the _Knollprosse_ of one Vogel, who was accused of
mistreatment of the persons imprisoned in a concentration camp, reads as
follows (_787-PS_):
“The prosecuting authority in Dresden has indicted
Oberregierungsrat Erich Vogel in Dresden (case designation 16
STA 4 107/34) on account of bodily injury while in office. The
following subject matter is the basis of the process:
“Vogel belongs to the Gestapo office of the province of Saxony
since its foundation and is chief of Main section II, which
formerly bore the title ZUB (_Zentralstelle fuer
Umsturzbekaempfung_) (Central office for combatting overthrow).
In the process of combatting efforts inimical to the State Vogel
carried out several so called borderland actions in the year
1933 in which a large number of politically unreliable persons
and persons who had become political prisoners in the border
territories were taken into protective custody (_Schutzhaft_)
and brought to the Hohnstein protective custody camp. In the
camp serious mistreatment of the prisoners has been going on at
least since summer of 1933. The prisoners were not only, as in
protective custody camp Bredow near Stettin, beaten into a state
of unconsciousness for no reason with whips and other tools but
were also tortured in other ways, as for instance with a
drip-apparatus especially constructed for the purpose, under
which the prisoners had to stand so long that they came away
with serious purulent wounds of the scalp. The guilty SA-leaders
and SA-men were sentenced to punishment of six years to nine
months of imprisonment by the main criminal court of the
provincial court in Dresden of 15 May 1935 (16 STA. 3431.34).
Vogel, whose duties frequently brought him to the camp, took
part in this mistreatment, insofar as it happened in the
reception room of the camp during completion of the reception
formalities, and in the supply room, during issuing of the
blankets. In this respect it should be pointed out that Vogel
was generally known to the personnel of the camp—exactly
because of his function as head of the ZUB—and his conduct
became at least partly a standard for the above-named conduct of
the SA-leaders and men.”
* * * * * *
“In his presence, for instance, the SA-men Mutze dealt such
blows to one man, without provocation, that he turned around on
himself. As already stated, Vogel not only took no steps against
this treatment of the prisoners, but he even made jokes about it
and stated that it amused him the way things were popping here.
“In the supply room Vogel himself took a hand in the beating
amid the general severe mistreatment. The SA-men there employed
whips and other articles and beat the prisoners in such a manner
that serious injuries were produced; the prisoners partly became
unconscious and had to lie in the dispensary a long time. Vogel
was often present in the supply room during the mistreatment. At
least in the following cases he personally laid violent hands
upon prisoners.”
* * * * * *
“* * * the prisoner was laid across the counter in the usual
manner, held fast by the head and arms, and then beaten for a
considerable time by the SA men with whips and other articles.
Along with this Vogel himself took part in the beating for a
time, and after this mistreatment slapped him again, so that the
prisoner appeared green and blue in the face. The prisoner is
the tinsmith Hans Kuehitz, who bore the nickname Johnny. Upon
his departure Vogel gave the head of the supply room,
Truppenfuehrer Meier from 6 to 8 reichsmarks with the stated
reason that the SA men ‘had sweated so.’ The money was then
distributed by Meier to those SA-comrades who had taken part in
the mistreatment.” (_787-PS_)
Similarly, the SA participated in the seizure and dissolution of the
German trade unions in 1933, a measure taken by the Nazis under the
direction of Robert Ley. An official Nazi Party circular containing an
order promulgated by Robert Ley concerning the program for the seizure
of the union properties read as follows:
“SA, as well as SS, are to be employed for the occupation of
trade union properties and for the taking into protective
custody all personalities who come into the question.”
(_392-PS_)
The SA also participated extensively in the Jewish persecutions
conducted by the Nazis. The affidavit of Mr. Geist, former U. S. Consul
in Berlin (_1759-PS_) sets forth numerous instances of attacks upon
Jewish-American citizens. Mr. Geist also declares that on the morning
after the Nazis’ acquisition of power, SA groups roamed the streets of
Berlin seizing and beating Jewish persons and other political opponents
of the Nazi Party. Thereafter SA men participated in many attacks of
physical violence upon Jews, including Jewish-American citizens. In
addition, uniformed SA men were employed as a display of threatening
force in order to coerce Jewish persons to dispose of their property at
greatly reduced values. (_1759-PS_)
SA participation in the Jewish program of 10 to 11 November, 1938, is
disclosed in a confidential report of an SA Brigade Fuehrer to his Group
Commander, dated 29 November, 1938 (_1721-PS_):
“TO: SA Group Electrical Palatinate (Kurpfalz)
_MANNHEIM_
“The following order reached me at 3 o’clock on 10 November
1938.
‘On the order of the Gruppenfuehrer, all the Jewish synagogues
within the 50th Brigade are to be blown up or set fire
immediately.
‘Neighboring houses occupied by Aryans are not to be damaged.
The action is to be carried out in civilian clothes. Rioting and
plundering are to be prevented. Report of execution of orders to
reach Brigade Fuehrer or office by 8:30.’
“I immediately alerted the Standartenfuehrer and gave them the
most exact instructions; the execution of the order began at
once.
“I hereby report that the following were destroyed in the area
of * * *
“_Standarte 115_
1. Synagogue at Darmstadt, Bleichstrasse Destroyed by fire
2. Synagogue at Darmstadt, Fuchsstrasse Destroyed by fire
3. Synagogue at Ober/Ramstadt Interior and furnishings
wrecked
4. Synagogue at Graefenhausen Interior and furnishings
wrecked
5. Synagogue at Griesheim Interior and furnishings
wrecked
6. Synagogue at Pfungstadt Interior and furnishings
wrecked
7. Synagogue at Eberstadt Destroyed by fire”
* * * * * *
“_Standarte 145_
1. Synagogue at Bensheim Destroyed by fire
2. Synagogue at Lorch in Hessen Destroyed by fire
3. Synagogue at Heppenheim Destroyed by fire
4. Prayer House Alsbach Destroyed by fire
5. Meeting room Alsbach Destroyed by fire
6. Synagogue at Rimbach Furnishings completely
destroyed”
* * * * * *
“_Standarte 168_
1. Synagogue in Seligenstadt Destroyed by fire
2. Synagogue in Offenbach Destroyed by fire
3. Synagogue in Klein-Krotzenburg Destroyed by fire
4. Synagogue in Steinheim on the Main Destroyed by fire
5. Synagogue in Muehlheim on the Main Destroyed by fire
6. Synagogue in Sprendlingen Destroyed by fire
7. Synagogue in Langen Destroyed by fire
8. Synagogue in Egelsbach Destroyed by fire”
* * * * * *
“_Standarte 186_
1. Synagogue in Beerfelden Blown up
2. Synagogue in Michelstadt Furnishings wrecked
3. Synagogue in Koenig Furnishings wrecked
4. Synagogue in Hoechst i/Odenwald Furnishings wrecked
5. Synagogue in Gross-Umstadt Furnishings wrecked
6. Synagogue in Dieburg Furnishings wrecked
7. Synagogue in Babenhausen Furnishings wrecked
8. Synagogue in Gross-Bieberau Destroyed by fire
9. Synagogue in Fraenk. Crumbach Furnishings destroyed
10. Synagogue in Reichelsheim Furnishings destroyed”
* * * * * *
“_Standarte 221_
1. Synagogue and Chapel in Gross-Gerau Destroyed by fire
2. Synagogue in Ruesselsheim Torn down and furnishings
destroyed
3. Synagogue in Dornheim Furnishings destroyed
4. Synagogue in Wolfskehlen Furnishings destroyed”
“The Fuehrer of Brigade 50 (STARKENBURG)
“/s/[Illegible]
“Brigadefuehrer” (_1721-PS_)
In connection with the persecutions of the Jews, the SA again performed
its propaganda function. It was the function of the SA to create and
foster among the people an anti-Jewish spirit. Evidence of this function
is to be found in the issues of “_Der SA-Mann_”. Article after article
in this publication was devoted to propaganda designed to engender
hatred toward the Jewish race. The nature of these articles is apparent
from some of the titles:
Article entitled: “Finish up with the Jew”, with
subtitle: “We want no women to buy from Jews, and no
Jewish girl friends,” 27 July, 1935, p. 4.
Article entitled: “The Jewish World Danger,” 2 February,
1935, p. 5.
Article entitled: “Jewish Worries,” (defending the
practices of excluding Jews from certain resorts). 20
July, 1935, p. 4.
Article entitled: “Jews aren’t wanted Here,” with
pictures posted on outskirts of villages showing signs
bearing the same message. (1 June, 1935, p. 1.) The last
portion of this article reads as follows:
“Since the day when National Socialism unrolled its flag and the march
began for the Germany for Germans, our battle also included the Jewry *
* * Let the Jew continue with his methods against New Germany. We know
that at the end we will remain the victor for
Snake remains a snake, and
Jew remains a Jew! * * *
* * * “German women, if you buy from Jews and German girl, if you carry
on with Jews, then both of you betray your German Volk and your Fuehrer,
Adolf Hitler, and commit a sin against your German Volk and its future!
Then, also, outside of the last German village, the sign will stand
‘Jews are not wanted here!’ and then, finally, no German citizen will
again cross the threshold of a Jewish store. To achieve this goal is the
mission of the SA man as political soldier of the Fuehrer. Next to his
word and his explanations stands his example”.
Article entitled: “God Save the Jew,” 17 August, 1935,
p. 1.
Photograph showing SA men gathered around trucks upon
which are posted signs reading: “Read _The Stuermer_ and
you will know the Jew.” 24 August, 1935, p. 3.
Photograph apparently representing public SA rally
showing large sign which reads: “He who knows a Jew
knows a devil,” 24 August, 1935, p. 3.
Article entitled: “The Face of the Jew” (with portrait
of a Jew holding the hammer and sickle), 5 Oct., 1935,
p. 6.
Article entitled: “Jews, Blacks and Reactionaries,” 2
November, 1935, p. 2.
Article entitled: “The Camouflaged Benjamin—Jewish
Cultural Bolshevism in German music,” 23 November, 1935,
p. 2.
Article entitled: “The Jewish Assassination,” 15
February, 1936, p. 1.
Article entitled: “Murder—The Jewish Slogan,” 4 April,
1936, p. 11.
Series of articles entitled: “The Jewish Mirror.” Eight
weekly installments beginning 22 May 1936, p. 17.
Series of articles entitled: “Gravediggers of World
Culture,” beginning 5 December, 1936, p. 6 and
continuing weekly to 13 March 1937.
Article entitled: “Rumania to the Jews?” 2 January,
1937, p. 6.
Article entitled: “Bismarck’s Position on Jews,” 2
January, 1937, p. 7.
Article entitled: “Jewry is a Birth Error,” 13 February
1937, p. 5.
Article entitled: “The Protection of the German Blood,”
24 April, 1937, p. 1.
Article entitled: “Crooked Ways to Money and Power,” 24
April, 1937, p. 1.
Article entitled: “The Camouflage of Jewry—Beginning or
End?” 22 May, 1937, p. 14.
Article entitled: “How come still German Jews?” 18 June,
1938, p. 2.
Article entitled: “Westheimer Jew Servants,” 22 January,
1938, p. 2.
Article entitled: “The Poor Jew—Well, Well!!” 19 March,
1938, p. 15.
Article entitled: “Jewish Methods, Churchly Parallel,” 9
September, 1938, p. 4.
Article entitled: “Jews and Free Masons,” 13 January,
1939, p. 15.
Article entitled: “Friends of the World Jewry—Roosevelt
and Ickes,” 3 February, 1939, p. 14.
The circulation of these articles was not intended to be confined to
members of the SA. On the contrary, the plan was to educate the members
of the SA with this philosophy, and for the SA in turn to disseminate it
into the minds of the German people. This fact is demonstrated in the
introduction to a series of anti-Jewish articles entitled “Gravediggers
of World Culture,” which began in the issue of 5 December, 1936, at page
6. This introduction stated in part as follows:
“We suggest that the comrades especially take notice of this
series of articles and see that they are further circulated.”
(_3050-A-E-PS_)
In addition, intensive campaigns were conducted to persuade the public
to purchase and read “_Der SA-Mann_,” and various issues were posted in
public places so that the general public might read them. “_Der
SA-Mann_” itself contained several photographs showing particular issues
posted upon street bulletin boards. There are also several photographs
showing advertising displays, one of which reads as follows “_Der
SA-Mann_ belongs in every house, every hotel, every inn, every waiting
room, and every store” (page 3 of the issue of 31 October, 1936).
(_3050-A-E-PS_)
In view of such widespread publicity for the objectives and methods of
the SA, it is inconceivable that volunteers for membership did not know
of the criminal character of this organization.
(4) _Fostering of Militarism._ In the final phase of the SA in the
conspiracy—its participation in the preparation for aggressive
warfare—the SA was again employed to inculcate a particular Nazi
ideology into the minds of the German people. It was the function of the
SA to prepare Germany mentally for the waging of an aggressive war.
At all times, and especially during the period from 1933-39, SA leaders
emphasized to SA members the duty and responsibility of creating and
fostering a militaristic spirit throughout Germany. In 1933, Hitler
established the so-called SA sports program and at that time, according
to Sturmfuehrer Bayer in his pamphlet “The SA,”
“the SA was “commissioned to obtain an increase of and
preservation of a warlike power and a warlike spirit as the
expression of an aggressive attitude”. (_2168-PS_)
In 1937, Hitler renewed the so-called sports program and then declared
the program to be a means “for the fostering of a military spirit” among
the German people. (_3050-A-E-PS_)
The Organization Book of the Party is to the same effect. The function
of the SA is characterized as follows:
“While the political organization of the NSDAP has carried out
the political leadership, the SA is the training and education
instrument of the Party for the realization of the
world-philosophical soldier-like attitude.
“Consequently, the young German in the SA is being inculcated in
the first instance from the standpoint of world philosophy and
character, and trained as the bearer of National Socialist armed
will.” (_3220-PS_)
The contents of a number of articles designed to serve as war propaganda
material may be gained from their titles, which are very graphic. A
number of articles relate to the Nazi _Lebensraum_ philosophy:
Article entitled: “The German Living Space,” 5 January,
1935, p. 13.
Article entitled: “Folk and Space—A Geopolitical View,”
27 April, 1935, p. 13.
Article entitled: “The Enlargement of our Living Space,”
25 April, 1936, p. 10.
Article entitled: “Our Right, Our Colonies,” 10 October,
1936, p. 15.
Article entitled: “Our Right for Colonies,” 18 December,
1937, p. 7.
Article entitled: “Space and Folk,” 14 October, 1938, p.
3.
Article entitled: “Colonies for Germany,” 2 January,
1937, p. 4. This article reads in part as follows:
“The German Ambassador in London, Herr von Ribbentrop, recently,
on occasion of a reception in the Anglo-German Fellowship * * *
has renewed, in a speech which aroused great interest, the
unretractable claim of Germany for the restitution of its
colonies which had been snatched away.
“Shortly thereafter the Reichsbank president and Reich Minister
of Economics, Dr. Schacht, published in the English magazine,
‘Foreign Affairs,’ a detailed article on the German colonial
problem. * * *
“For the rest Dr. Schacht laid out the categorical demand that
Germany must, in order to solve its raw materials problem, get
colonies, which must be administered by Germany, and in which
the German standard currency must be in circulation.”
The next group consists of articles condemning the Versailles Treaty:
Article entitled: “What is the Situation regarding our
battle for Equal Rights?” 7 April 1934, p. 4.
Article entitled: “The Dictate of Versailles,” 30 June,
1934, p. 15. This article reads in part as follows:
“* * * The dictate of Versailles established the
political, economical and financial destruction
of Germany in 440 artfully—one could also
say—devilishly devised paragraphs; this work of
ignominy is a sample of endless and partly
contradictory repetitions in constantly new
forms. Not too many have occupied themselves
with this thick book to a great extent, for one
could only do it with abomination * * *”
Article entitled: “The Unbearable Limitations of our
Fleet,” 7 July, 1934, p. 15.
Article entitled: “Versailles after 15 years,” 19
January, 1935, p. 13. This article reads in part as
follows:
“This terrible word ‘Versailles,’ since a blind
nation ratified it, has become a word of
profanity for all those who are infatuated in
the spirit of this enormous production of
hatred. The Versailles dictate is German fate in
the fullest sense of the word. Every German
stood up under the operation of this fate during
the past 15 years. Therefore, every last German
must also grasp the contents of this dictate so
that one single desire of its absolute
destruction fills the whole German Volk.”
Article entitled: “How about Germany’s fight for Equal
Rights?” 16 March, 1935, p. 1.
Article entitled: “Through Adolf Hitler’s Acts: Free
from Versailles,” 30 January, 1937, pp. 12-13.
Article entitled: “Versailles will be Liquidated,” 13
February, 1937. This article reads in part as follows,
p. 4:
“The National Socialist Movement has again
achieved a victory, for upon its flag since the
beginning of the fight stands: The liquidation
of the Versailles Treaty. For this fight the SA
marched year after year * * *.”
A third group consists of articles describing preparations for war
allegedly being carried on by other nations:
Article entitled: “Military Training of the English
Youth” (showing pictures of Eton students wearing
traditional Eton dress—tall hats and frock
coats—marching with rifles), 26 January, 1935, p. 14.
Article entitled: “The Army of the Soviet Union” (with
pictures of self-propelled artillery and tanks. One
picture bears the quotation “The Artillery of the Red
Army is already extensively motorized”), 16 March, 1935,
p. 14.
Photograph of Russian Artillery bearing the notation
“Soviet Russian Heavy artillery on maneuver,” 16 March,
1935, p. 1.
Article entitled: “Armies of Tomorrow” (discussion of
anticipated developments in motorized and mechanized
warfare. One section of the article is devoted to “plans
of foreign countries with respect to motorized armies”),
30 March, 1935, p. 14.
Article entitled: “The Red Danger in the East,” 4 April,
1936, p. 13.
Article entitled: “The Red Army Today,” 4 April, 1936,
p. 13.
Article entitled: “Russia prepares for World War,” 29
August, 1936, p. 10.
Article entitled: “Red Terrorism Nailed Down,” 19 June,
1937, p. 7.
Cartoon bearing title “Stalin Wants World Revolution,”
26 February, 1938, p. 13.
These lists of articles are not exhaustive. These articles are merely
typical of many in similar vein which appear throughout the issues of
“_Der SA-Mann_.”
(5) _The Training of German Youth for Aggressive Warfare._
The important responsibility of training the youth of Germany in the
technique of war, and of preparing them physically and spiritually for
the waging of aggressive warfare, was delegated to the SA. Hitler
characterized this task of the SA in these words:
“Give the German Nation six million perfectly trained bodies in
sport, all fanatically inspired with the love for the Fatherland
and trained to the highest offensive spirit and a National
Socialist State will, if necessary, have created an Army out of
them in less than two years.” (_3215-PS_)
The military character of the SA is demonstrated by its organizational
structure (_2168-PS)_. As appears from the SA organizational chart,
(_Chart Number 8_) it was organized into units closely corresponding to
those of the German army. The organizational scheme consisted of
divisions, regiments, battalions, companies, platoons, and squads. In
addition, there were special units and branches, including cavalry,
signal corps, engineer corps, and medical corps. There were also three
officer training schools (_2168-PS_). SA members wore distinctive
uniforms adapted to military functions, bore arms, and engaged in
training, forced marches, and other military exercises. These facts are
disclosed in photographs and articles in “_Der SA-Mann_”.
SA members, moreover, were governed by general regulations which closely
resemble service regulations of an armed force (_2820-PS_). According to
these regulations, “discipline and obedience are the foundations as
strong as steel for each military unit.” These regulations further
provide for punishment for disobedience. The punishments provided
demonstrate the militaristic character of the SA. They include the
following:
Reprimand in private;
Reprimand in presence of superiors and announcement
thereof at formations;
Prohibition of right to wear the service uniform;
House arrest;
Arrest and confinement in jail;
Demotion in rank;
Prohibition of right to carry weapon. (_2820-PS_)
Preparation for war through the SA training program was commenced in
Germany as early as 1933, but the scope of this program was not made
public because it constituted a violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
The strict secrecy with which the program was surrounded is shown by an
order from the Chief of Staff of the SA dated 25 July, 1933 (_D-44_):
“Further to my instruction Z II 1351/33 dated 11 July 33, I find
cause to ask all SA authorities to exercise the greatest caution
with regard to any publicity given to the SA service not only in
the press, but also in the information and news sheets of the
individual SA units.
“Only during the last few days, the Reich Ministry of the
Interior, at the request of the Foreign Office, has given strict
instructions to all Reich authorities according to which the
most severe control is to be exercised on all publications which
might give other countries an opening to construe German
infringements of the terms of the Versailles Treaty. “As is
known from the Geneva negotiations, our opponents have piled up
material collected in Germany and submitted to them, which they
use against us on every occasion during the conferences.
“From this point of view, the information sheets circulating
among the subordinate SA units cause the liveliest concern. I
hold all higher SA leaders responsible that any such internal
information sheets appearing in the district of their command
are submitted to the most stringent control _before they go into
print_, and I feel compelled to draw attention to the threat of
a prosecution for treason, pronounced by official instructions
issued in the last few days, in cases where such reports,
printed no doubt in good faith, are publicized and therefore
exposed to the danger of falling into the wrong hands.
“On principle, pictures of the technical specialized units of
the SA and SS, in particular of the signals, motorized and
possibly also of the air wings which now exist outside these
formations, are forbidden, such pictures enabling other
countries to prove the alleged formation of technical troop
units.” (_D-44_)
Secrecy was also required in the order assigning a _Wehrmacht_ officer
to the SA in January, 1934, to assist in the SA Training Program
(_2823-PS_). A memorandum from SA Headquarters dated 20 January, 1934
designates an officer of the _Wehrmacht_ to assist in the military
training of SA members and goes on to provide:
“For the purpose of disguise, Lt. Col. Auleb will wear SA
uniform with insignia of rank according to more detailed
regulations of the Supreme SA leaders”. (_2823-PS_)
The military training program of the SA was for many years conducted
under the guise of a sports program. This plan was created by Hitler as
early as 1920 in founding what he called the National Socialist Sport
Troop (SA). Hitler’s declaration at the time of the creation of this
sports organization was as follows:
“The Sport Troop * * * is but the bearer of the military thought
of a free people.” (_3215-PS_)
The fact that the so-called Sports Program was in reality closely
associated with and in fact a means of providing military training for
German youth, is shown by the following characterization of the program
by Lutze, the Chief of Staff of the SA, in an article written in 1939
(_3215-PS_):
“* * * This goal setting also served for the decrees of the
Fuehrer to the SA of 1935 regarding the renewing of, in 1936
regarding the evaluation of, in 1937 regarding the yearly
repetitive exercises of the SA sport badge. Parallel to this
decree of the Fuehrer for the physical betterment and military
training the organizational and development missions within the
SA were met. Out of the conception that the preservation and
intensification of the military power of our people must
especially be requested by military and physical exercises, the
training was especially carried out systematically in these
fields. In 25 schools of the troop and in 3 Reichsfuehrer
schools of the SA yearly 22,000 to 25,000 officers and non-coms
were trained since 1934 in special educational courses until
they possessed the education and examination certificates. In
clearly outlined training directives the training goals which
had to be achieved yearly were given and at the same time the
yearly Reich competitive contests were established. Hand in hand
the training of the Fuehrer Corps and corresponding
organizational measures and the training at the front proceeded
on the broadest basis.” (_3215-PS_)
The military nature of the Sports Program is likewise demonstrated by
the tests and standards required to obtain the sports award. The
Organization Book of the Party lists these tests as follows (_2354-PS_):
“The performance test includes three groups of exercises:
Body exercises,
Military sports,
Topographical (naval) services.
“Group I: Body exercises;
100-meter race,
Broad jump,
Shot-put,
Throwing of hand grenades,
3000-meter race.
“Group II: Military sports;
25-Kilometer march with pack,
Firing of small-caliber arms,
Aimed throwing of hand grenades,
200-meter cross-country race with gas masks over 4 obstacles,
Swimming or bicycle riding,
Basic knowledge of first aid in case of accidents.
“Group III: Terrain service;
Orientation,
Terrain observation,
Estimate of terrain,
Estimate of distance,
Camouflage,
Observing and reporting,
Utilization of terrain and general behavior in terrain
service.” (_2354-PS_)
In 1939, the SA Sports Program was formally recognized, in a decree
issued by Hitler, as a military training program. At the same time the
SA was openly declared to be an agency for pre- and post-military
training, that is, military training prior to and following military
service in the _Wehrmacht_ (_2383-PS_).
The decree provided in part as follows:
“Der Fuehrer. In amplification of my decree of the 15th
February, 1935, and 18th March, 1937, regarding the acquisition
of the SA sport insignia and the yearly repetitive exercises, I
lift the SA sport insignia to the SA military insignia and make
it as a basis for pre-imposed military training.
“I designate the SA as standard bearer of this training.
“These soldiers who honourably were discharged out of the active
military service and who were serviceable soldiers are to be
placed into the Army ranks for the retaining of their spiritual
and physical energy and to be attached to the SA insofar as no
other organization of the Party (the SS, NSKK, and SFK) have
received them for special training.” (_2383-PS_)
The SA military training program was not confined to its members, but
extended to the entire youth of Germany. Thus the Chief of Staff of the
SA, in re-establishing the sports program in 1935, declared (_2354-PS_):
“In order to give conscious expression to the fostering of a
valiant spirit in all parts of the German people, I further
decide that this SA Sport Insignia can also be earned and worn
by persons who are not members of the movement, inasfar as they
comply racially and ideologically with the National Socialist
requirements”. (_2354-PS_)
The pamphlet entitled “The SA”, shows that responsibility for conducting
this nation-wide program was lodged in the operational main office of
the SA (_2168-PS_). According to the pamphlet it was the duty of this
office to—
“Prepare the fighting training of the bodies of all Germans
capable of bearing arms (_Wehrfahig_) and as preparation
therefore must organize the execution of corporal exercises
(basic physical training) and sports achievements, so that the
widest stratum of the population is laid hold upon and will be
kept in condition to bear arms (_Wehrtuchtig_) both physically
and spiritually, as well as ideologically in character up to
greatest old age.” (_2168-PS_)
The extent to which the SA carried the military training program into
the lives of the German people may be seen from the following excerpt
from “Das Archiv” (_3215-PS_):
“Next to the companies of the SA were the sport badge
associations (SAG) in which all the militaristic nationals
entered who were prepared to voluntarily answer the call of the
SA for the preservation of military proficiency. Up until now
around 800,000 nationals outside of the SA could successfully
undergo the physical betterment as well as the political
military training of the SA on the basis of the SA sport badge.
“As pronounced proof heretofore it may be shown that alone
13,400 officers and around 30,000 non-coms in the Reserve Corps
of the Wehrmacht from its (SA) own ranks stand at the disposal
of the SA and can be employed at any time for the direction of
SA military forces * * *”. (_3215-PS_)
In 1939, the extension of the SA military program to non-SA members was
officially recognized by Hitler. This occurred in the ordinance for the
execution of the Hitler decree of 16 January, 1942:
“Every German man who has completed his seventeenth year and who
shows preliminary requirements for honorary service with the
weapon, has the _customary_ duty to win the SA military insignia
in preparation for military service.
“During the years in the Hitler Youth following his sixteenth
year, he is to prepare himself for the winning of the SA
military insignia.” (_2383-PS_)
The SA, in its military training program, was no mere marching and
drilling society. It embraced every phase of the technique of modern
warfare. This appears clearly from the articles on military training
which appear throughout the issues of “_Der SA-Mann”. The titles of
these articles indicate their substance. The foll_owing are a few
examples:
Article entitled: “Defense Platoon and the Company in
Battle” (with diagrams), 27 January, 1934, p. 10.
Article entitled: “_Die Luftwaffe_” (with diagrams on
Aircraft Gunnery), 3 February 1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “Pistol Shooting,” 17 February, 1934,
p. 7.
Article entitled: “Orientation in Terrain,” 10 March,
1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “First Aid—ABC,” 17 March, 1934, p.
7.
Article entitled: “We go into the Terrain” (relating to
map study and map symbols), 24 March, 1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “What every SA Man must know about
Aviation,” 21 April, 1934, p. 13.
Article entitled: “Expert firing in German National
Sport” (relating to small caliber firing), 12 May, 1934,
p. 7.
Article entitled: “Chemical Warfare,” 19 May, 1934, p.
13.
Article entitled: “What every SA Man should know about
Aviation,” 19 May, 1934, p. 12.
Article entitled: “Flame Throwers on the Front,” 26 May,
1934, p. 14.
Article entitled: “Modern Battle Methods in the View of
the SA Man,” 2 June, 1934, p. 14.
Article entitled: “The Significance of Tanks and Motors
in Modern War,” 4 August, 1934, p. 13.
Article entitled: “The Rifle 98,” 8 September, 1934, p.
7.
Article entitled: “The Combat Battalion” (with
description of tactical missions and maneuvers of the
battalion), 15 September, 1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “Air Strategy and Air Tactics,” 29
September, 1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “Gas Protection and the Gas Mask,” 6
October, 1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “The Pistol 08” (with diagram of the
pistol, its nomenclature and field stripping), 6
October, 1934, p. 7.
Article entitled: “Training the SA in Map and Terrain
Study,” 24 November, 1934, p. 4.
Article entitled: “The Defense,” with subheading “What
does the War of Tomorrow look like?” 1 December, 1934,
p. 13.
Series of articles by a Wehrmacht officer entitled:
“Training in the Army of the Third Reich,” beginning on
12 January, 1935, p. 13.
Series of articles entitled: “Construction and
Composition of various units of the Modern Army,”
written by a Brigadier General in the
_Wehrmacht_—beginning 26 January, 1935, p. 15, and
ending 20 April, 1935, p. 16.
Article entitled: “Small caliber firing” (with sketches
of ammunition, rifles, targets, and aiming technique),
26 January, 1935, p. 19.
Article entitled: “Armies of Tomorrow” (discussion of
anticipated developments in motorized and mechanized
warfare. One section of the article is devoted to “Plans
of foreign countries with respect to motorized armies”),
30 March, 1935, p. 14.
The issues of “_Der SA-Mann_” also contain many photographs and articles
demonstrating SA participation in military exercise, including forced
marching, battle maneuvers, obstacle runs, small calibre firing, and the
like. Among these photographs and articles are the following:
Each issue of “_Der SA-Mann_” contains advertisements
for the sale of various items of military equipment,
including uniforms, steel helmets, rifles, boots,
grenades, field glasses, ammunition, etc. (See, for
example, 20 January, 1934, p. 16; and 9 March, 1935, p.
16.)
Picture of SA men marching in military formation
executing “goose step,” 14 April, 1934, p. 8.
Group of pictures showing SA Troops marching in military
formations and in full pack and bearing flags being
reviewed by Hitler. Title of page is “SA Marches into
the New Year,” 12 January, 1935, p. 3.
Photographs of uniformed SA Troops marching in streets
of Saarbrucken with caption: “In the streets of free
Saarbrucken thuds the marching steps of the SA,” 9
March, 1935, p. 3.