An avid Nazi, Frick was largely responsible for bringing the German

Nation under the complete control of the NSDAP. After Hitler became

Reich Chancellor, the new Minister of the Interior immediately began to

incorporate local governments under the sovereignty of the Reich. The

numerous laws he drafted, signed, and administered abolished all

opposition parties and prepared the way for the Gestapo and their

concentration camps to extinguish all individual opposition. He was

largely responsible for the legislation which suppressed the trade

unions, the church, the Jews. He performed this task with ruthless

efficiency.

Before the date of the Austrian aggression Frick was concerned only with

domestic administration within the Reich. The evidence does not show

that he participated in any of the conferences at which Hitler outlined

his aggressive intentions. Consequently the Tribunal takes the view,

that Frick was not a member of the common plan or conspiracy to wage

aggressive war as defined in this Judgment.

Six months after the seizure of Austria, under the provisions of the

Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, Frick became General

Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich. He was made

responsible for war administration, except the military and economic, in

the event of Hitler’s proclaiming a state of defense. The Reich

Ministries of Justice, Education, Religion, and the Office of Spatial

Planning were made subordinate to him. Performing his allotted duties,

Frick devised an administrative organization in accordance with wartime

standards. According to his own statement, this was actually put into

operation after Germany decided to adopt a policy of war.

Frick signed the law of 13 March 1938 which united Austria with the

Reich, and he was made responsible for its accomplishment. In setting up

German administration in Austria, he issued decrees which introduced

German law, the Nuremberg decrees, the Military Service Law, and he

provided for police security by Himmler.

He also signed the laws incorporating into the Reich the Sudetenland,

Memel, Danzig, the Eastern territories (West Prussia and Posen), and

Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnot. He was placed in charge of the actual

incorporation, and of the establishment of German administration over

these territories. He signed the law establishing the Protectorate of

Bohemia and Moravia.

As the head of the Central Offices for Bohemia and Moravia, the

Government General, and Norway, he was charged with obtaining close

cooperation between the German officials in these occupied countries and

the supreme authorities of the Reich. He supplied German civil servants

for the administrations in all occupied territories, advising Rosenberg

as to their assignment in the Occupied Eastern Territories. He signed

the laws appointing Terboven Reich Commissioner to Norway and

Seyss-Inquart to Holland.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

Always rabidly anti-Semitic, Frick drafted, signed, and administered

many laws designed to eliminate Jews from German life and economy. His

work formed the basis of the Nuremberg Decrees, and he was active in

enforcing them. Responsible for prohibiting Jews from following various

professions, and for confiscating their property, he signed a final

decree in 1943, after the mass destruction of Jews in the East, which

placed them “outside the law” and handed them over to the Gestapo. These

laws paved the way for the “final solution”, and were extended by Frick

to the incorporated territories and to certain of the occupied

territories. While he was Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia,

thousands of Jews were transferred from the Terezin Ghetto in

Czechoslovakia to Auschwitz, where they were killed. He issued a decree

providing for special penal laws against Jews and Poles in the

Government General.

The police officially fell under the jurisdiction of the Reichsminister

of the Interior. But Frick actually exercised little control over

Himmler and police matters. However, he signed the law appointing

Himmler Chief of the German Police, as well as the decrees establishing

Gestapo jurisdiction over concentration camps and regulating the

execution of orders for protective custody. From the many complaints he

received, and from the testimony of witnesses, the Tribunal concludes

that he knew of atrocities committed in these Camps. With knowledge of

Himmler’s methods, Frick signed decrees authorizing him to take

necessary security measures in certain of the incorporated territories.

What these “security measures” turned out to be has already been dealt

with.

As the Supreme Reich Authority in Bohemia and Moravia, Frick bears

general responsibility for the acts of oppression in that territory

after 20 August 1943, such as terrorism of the population, slave labor,

and the deportation of Jews to the concentration camps for

extermination. It is true that Frick’s duties as Reich Protector were

considerably more limited than those of his predecessor, and that he had

no legislative and limited personal executive authority in the

Protectorate. Nevertheless, Frick knew full well what the Nazi policies

of occupation were in Europe, particularly with respect to Jews, at that

time, and by accepting the office of Reich Protector he assumed

responsibility for carrying out those policies in Bohemia and Moravia.

German citizenship in the occupied countries as well as in the Reich

came under his jurisdiction while he was Minister of the Interior.

Having created a racial register of persons of German extraction, Frick

conferred German citizenship on certain groups of citizens of foreign

countries. He is responsible for Germanization in Austria, Sudetenland,

Memel, Danzig, Eastern territories (West Prussia and Posen), and Eupen,

Malmedy, and Moresnot. He forced on the citizens of these territories,

German law, German courts, German education, German police security, and

compulsory military service.

During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia

was practiced as described elsewhere in this Judgment, came under

Frick’s jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick, and aged

people, “useless eaters”, were being systematically put to death.

Complaints of these murders reached him, but he did nothing to stop

them. A report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that

275,000 mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was

responsible, fell victim to it.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Frick is not guilty on Count One. He is guilty

on Counts Two, Three, and Four.

_STREICHER_

Streicher is indicted on Counts One and Four. One of the earliest

members of the Nazi Party, joining in 1921, he took part in the Munich

Putsch. From 1925 to 1940 he was Gauleiter of Franconia. Elected to the

Reichstag in 1933, he was an honorary general in the SA. His persecution

of the Jews was notorious. He was the publisher of _Der Stürmer_, an

anti-Semitic weekly newspaper, from 1923 to 1945 and was its editor

until 1933.

_Crimes against Peace_

Streicher was a staunch Nazi and supporter of Hitler’s main policies.

There is no evidence to show that he was ever within Hitler’s inner

circle of advisers; nor during his career was he closely connected with

the formulation of the policies which led to war. He was never present,

for example, at any of the important conferences when Hitler explained

his decisions to his leaders. Although he was a Gauleiter there is no

evidence to prove that he had knowledge of those policies. In the

opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence fails to establish his connection

with the conspiracy or common plan to wage aggressive war as that

conspiracy has been elsewhere defined in this Judgment.

_Crimes against Humanity_

For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews,

Streicher was widely known as “Jew-Baiter Number One”. In his speeches

and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German

mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German People to

active persecution. Each issue of _Der Stürmer_, which reached a

circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such articles, often

lewd and disgusting.

Streicher had charge of the Jewish boycott of 1 April 1933. He advocated

the Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. He was responsible for the demolition on

10 August 1938, of the synagogue in Nuremberg. And on 10 November 1938

he spoke publicly in support of the Jewish pogrom which was taking place

at that time.

But it was not only in Germany that this defendant advocated his

doctrines. As early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the

Jewish race. Twenty-three different articles of _Der Stürmer_ between

1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which extermination “root

and branch” was preached. Typical of his teachings was a leading article

in September 1938 which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human

being, but “a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of

diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind”. Other

articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the

Jewish problem have been solved, and predicted that 50 years hence the

Jewish graves “will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals

has after all met its deserved fate”. Streicher, in February 1940,

published a letter from one of _Der Stürmer_’s readers which compared

Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely. Such

was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans

which caused them to follow the National Socialist policy of Jewish

persecution and extermination. A leading article of _Der Stürmer_ in May

1939 shows clearly his aim:

“A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A

punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them

that every murderer and criminal must expect: Death sentence and

execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be

exterminated root and branch.”

As the war in the early stages proved successful in acquiring more and

more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to

incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are 26 articles from

_Der Stürmer_, published between August 1941 and September 1944, 12 by

Streicher’s own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in

unequivocal terms.

He wrote and published on 25 December 1941:

“If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the

Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only

one way—the extermination of that people whose father is the

devil.”

And in February 1944 his own article stated:

“Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he

who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate,

annihilation, death.”

With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern

Territory, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda

of death. Testifying in this trial, he vehemently denied any knowledge

of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he

continually received current information on the progress of the “final

solution”. His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the

East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw

ghetto. The Jewish newspaper, _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, which

Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish

atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had

been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer

and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in

Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Rumania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in

Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November 1943 Streicher quoted

verbatim an article from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ which stated

that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented “This

is not a Jewish lie.” In December 1942, referring to an article in the

_London Times_ about the atrocities, aiming at extermination, Streicher

said that Hitler had given warning that the second World War would lead

to the destruction of Jewry. In January 1943 he wrote and published an

article which said that Hitler’s prophecy was being fulfilled, that

world Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that

Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors.

In the face of the evidence before the Tribunal it is idle for Streicher

to suggest that the solution of the Jewish problem which he favored was

strictly limited to the classification of Jews as aliens, and the

passing of discriminatory legislation such as the Nuremberg Laws,

supplemented if possible by international agreement on the creation of a

Jewish State somewhere in the world, to which all Jews should emigrate.

Streicher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews

in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly

constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection

with War Crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a Crime

against Humanity.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Streicher is not guilty on Count One, but that

he is guilty on Count Four.

_FUNK_

Funk is indicted under all four Counts. Funk, who had previously been a

financial journalist, joined the Nazi Party in 1931, and shortly

thereafter became one of Hitler’s personal economic advisers. On 30

January 1933 Funk was made Press Chief in the Reich Government, and on

11 March 1933 became Under Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda and

shortly thereafter a leading figure in the various Nazi organizations

which were used to control the press, films, music, and publishing

houses. He took office as Minister of Economics and Plenipotentiary

General for War Economy in early 1938 and as President of the Reichsbank

in January 1939. He succeeded Schacht in all three of these positions.

He was made a member of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the

Reich in August 1939, and a member of the Central Planning Board in

September 1943.

_Crimes against Peace_

Funk became active in the economic field after the Nazi plans to wage

aggressive war had been clearly defined. One of his representatives

attended a conference on 14 October 1938, at which Göring announced a

gigantic increase in armaments and instructed the Ministry of Economics

to increase exports to obtain the necessary exchange. On 28 January 1939

one of Funk’s subordinates sent a memorandum to the OKW on the use of

prisoners of war to make up labor deficiencies which would arise in case

of mobilization. On 30 May 1939 the Under Secretary of the Ministry of

Economics attended a meeting at which detailed plans were made for the

financing of the war.

On 25 August 1939 Funk wrote a letter to Hitler expressing his gratitude

that he was able to participate in such world-shaking events; that his

plans for the “financing of the war”, for the control of wage and price

conditions and for the strengthening of the Reichsbank had been

completed; and that he had inconspicuously transferred into gold all

foreign exchange resources available to Germany. On 14 October 1939,

after the war had begun, he made a speech in which he stated that the

economic and financial departments of Germany working under the Four

Year Plan had been engaged in the secret economic preparation for war

for over a year.

Funk participated in the economic planning which preceded the attack on

the U.S.S.R. His deputy held daily conferences with Rosenberg on the

economic problems which would arise in the occupation of Soviet

territory. Funk himself participated in planning for the printing of

ruble notes in Germany prior to the attack to serve as occupation

currency in the U.S.S.R. After the attack he made a speech in which he

described plans he had made for the economic exploitation of the “vast

territories of the Soviet Union” which were to be used as a source of

raw material for Europe.

Funk was not one of the leading figures in originating the Nazi plans

for aggressive war. His activity in the economic sphere was under the

Supervision of Göring as Plenipotentiary General of the Four Year Plan.

He did, however, participate in the economic preparation for certain of

the aggressive wars, notably those against Poland and the Soviet Union,

but his guilt can be adequately dealt with under Count Two of the

Indictment.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

In his capacity as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda and

Vice-Chairman of the Reichs Chamber of Culture, Funk had participated in

the early Nazi program of economic discrimination against the Jews. On

12 November 1938 after the pogroms of November, he attended a meeting

held under the chairmanship of Göring to discuss the solution of the

Jewish problem and proposed a decree providing for the banning of Jews

from all business activities, which Göring issued the same day under the

authority of the Four Year Plan. Funk has testified that he was shocked

at the outbreaks of 10 November, but on 15 November he made a speech

describing these outbreaks as a “violent explosion of the disgust of the

German People, because of a criminal Jewish attack against the German

People”, and saying that the elimination of the Jews from economic life

followed logically their elimination from political life.

In 1942 Funk entered into an agreement with Himmler under which the

Reichsbank was to receive certain gold and jewels and currency from the

SS and instructed his subordinates, who were to work out the details,

not to ask too many questions. As a result of this agreement the SS sent

to the Reichsbank the personal belongings taken from the victims who had

been exterminated in the concentration camps. The Reichsbank kept the

coins and bank notes and sent the jewels, watches, and personal

belongings to Berlin municipal pawn shops. The gold from the eyeglasses,

and gold teeth and fillings was stored in the Reichsbank vaults. Funk

has protested that he did not know that the Reichsbank was receiving

articles of this kind. The Tribunal is of the opinion that he either

knew what was being received or was deliberately closing his eyes to

what was being done.

As Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, Funk

participated in the economic exploitation of occupied territories. He

was president of the Continental Oil Company which was charged with the

exploitation of the oil resources of occupied territories in the East.

He was responsible for the seizure of the gold reserves of the

Czechoslovakian National Bank and for the liquidation of the Yugoslavian

National Bank. On 6 June 1942 his deputy sent a letter to the OKW

requesting that funds from the French Occupation Cost Fund be made

available for black market purchases. Funk’s knowledge of German

occupation policies is shown by his presence at the meeting of 8 August

1942, at which Göring addressed the various German occupation chiefs,

told them of the products required from their territories, and added:

“It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your

people will starve.”

In the fall of 1943 Funk was a member of the Central Planning Board

which determined the total number of laborers needed for German

industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually by deportation

from occupied territories. Funk did not appear to be particularly

interested in this aspect of the forced labor program, and usually sent

a deputy to attend the meetings, often SS General Ohlendorf, the former

Chief of the SD inside of Germany and the former Commander of

Einsatzgruppe D. But Funk was aware that the Board of which he was a

member was demanding the importation of slave laborers, and allocating

them to the various industries under its control.

As President of the Reichsbank, Funk was also indirectly involved in the

utilization of concentration camp labor. Under his direction the

Reichsbank set up a revolving fund of 12,000,000 Reichsmarks to the

credit of the SS for the construction of factories to use concentration

camp laborers.

In spite of the fact that he occupied important official positions, Funk

was never a dominant figure in the various programs in which he

participated. This is a mitigating fact of which the Tribunal takes

notice.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Funk is not guilty on Count One but is guilty

under Counts Two, Three, and Four.

_SCHACHT_

Schacht is indicted under Counts One and Two of the Indictment. Schacht

served as Commissioner of Currency and President of the Reichsbank from

1923 to 1930, was reappointed President of the Bank on 17 March 1933,

Minister of Economics in August 1934, and Plenipotentiary General for

War Economy in May 1935. He resigned from these two positions in

November 1937, and was appointed Minister without Portfolio. He was

reappointed as President of the Reichsbank for a 1-year term on 16 March

1937, and for a 4-year term on 9 March 1938, but was dismissed on 20

January 1939. He was dismissed as Minister without Portfolio on 22

January 1943.

_Crimes against Peace_

Schacht was an active supporter of the Nazi Party before its accession

to power on 30 January 1933, and supported the appointment of Hitler to

the post of Chancellor. After that date he played an important role in

the vigorous rearmament program which was adopted, using the facilities

of the Reichsbank to the fullest extent in the German rearmament effort.

The Reichsbank, in its traditional capacity as financial agent for the

German Government, floated long-term Government loans, the proceeds of

which were used for rearmament. He devised a system under which 5-year

notes, known as Mefo bills, guaranteed by the Reichsbank and backed, in

effect, by nothing more than its position as a bank of issue, were used

to obtain large sums for rearmament from the short-term money market. As

Minister of Economics and as Plenipotentiary General for War Economy he

was active in organizing the German economy for war. He made detailed

plans for industrial mobilization and the coordination of the Army with

industry in the event of war. He was particularly concerned with

shortages of raw materials and started a scheme of stock-piling, and a

system of exchange control designed to prevent Germany’s weak foreign

exchange position from hindering the acquisition abroad of raw materials

needed for rearmament. On 3 May 1935 he sent a memorandum to Hitler

stating that “the accomplishment of the armament program with speed and

in quantity is the problem of German politics, that everything else

therefore should be subordinated to this purpose.”

Schacht, by April 1936, began to lose his influence as the central

figure in the German rearmament effort when Göring was appointed

Coordinator for Raw Materials and Foreign Exchange. Göring advocated a

greatly expanded program for the production of synthetic raw materials

which was opposed by Schacht on the ground that the resulting financial

strain might involve inflation. The influence of Schacht suffered

further when, on 16 October 1936, Göring was appointed Plenipotentiary

for the Four Year Plan with the task of putting “the entire economy in a

state of readiness for war” within four years. Schacht had opposed the

announcement of this plan and the appointment of Göring to head it, and

it is clear that Hitler’s action represented a decision that Schacht’s

economic policies were too conservative for the drastic rearmament

policy which Hitler wanted to put into effect.

After Göring’s appointment, Schacht and Göring promptly became embroiled

in a series of disputes. Although there was an element of personal

controversy running through these disputes, Schacht disagreed with

Göring on certain basic policy issues. Schacht, on financial grounds,

advocated a retrenchment in the rearmament program, opposed as

uneconomical much of the proposed expansion of production facilities,

particularly for synthetics, urged a drastic tightening on Government

credit and a cautious policy in dealing with Germany’s foreign exchange

reserves. As a result of this dispute and of a bitter argument in which

Hitler accused Schacht of upsetting his plans by his financial methods,

Schacht went on leave of absence from the Ministry of Economics on 5

September 1937, and resigned as Minister of Economics and as

Plenipotentiary General for War Economy on 16 November 1937.

As President of the Reichsbank Schacht was still involved in disputes.

Throughout 1938 the Reichsbank continued to function, as the financial

agent for the German Government in floating long-term loans to finance

armaments. But on 32 March 1938 Schacht discontinued the practice of

floating short-term notes guaranteed by the Reichsbank for armament

expenditures. At the end of 1938, in an attempt to regain control of

fiscal policy through the Reichsbank, Schacht refused an urgent request

of the Reichsminister of Finance for a special credit to pay the

salaries of civil servants which were not covered by existing funds. On

2 January 1939 Schacht held a conference with Hitler at which he urged

him to reduce expenditures for armaments. On 7 January 1939 Schacht

submitted to Hitler a report signed by the Directors of the Reichsbank

which urged a drastic curtailment of armament expenditures and a

balanced budget as the only method of preventing inflation. On 19

January Hitler dismissed Schacht as President of the Reichsbank. On 22

January 1943 Hitler dismissed Schacht as Reichsminister without

Portfolio, because of his “whole attitude during the present fateful

fight of the German Nation.” On 23 July 1944 Schacht was arrested by the

Gestapo and confined in a concentration camp until the end of the war.

It is clear that Schacht was a central figure in Germany’s rearmament

program, and the steps which he took, particularly in the early days of

the Nazi regime, were responsible for Nazi Germany’s rapid rise as a

military power. But rearmament of itself is not criminal under the

Charter. To be a Crime against Peace under Article 6 of the Charter it

must be shown that Schacht carried out this rearmament as part of the

Nazi plans to wage aggressive wars.

Schacht has contended that he participated in the rearmament program

only because he wanted to build up a strong and independent Germany

which would carry out a foreign policy which would command respect on an

equal basis with other European countries; that when he discovered that

the Nazis were rearming for aggressive purposes he attempted to slow

down the speed of rearmament; and that after the dismissal of Von

Fritsch and Von Blomberg he participated in plans to get rid of Hitler,

first by deposing him and later by assassination.

Schacht, as early as 1936, began to advocate a limitation of the

rearmament program for financial reasons. Had the policies advocated by

him been put into effect, Germany would not have been prepared for a

general European war. Insistence on his policies led to his eventual

dismissal from all positions of economic significance in Germany. On the

other hand, Schacht, with his intimate knowledge of German finance, was

in a peculiarly good position to understand the true significance of

Hitler’s frantic rearmament, and to realize that the economic policy

adopted was consistent only with war as its object.

Moreover Schacht continued to participate in German economic life and

even, in a minor way, in some of the early Nazi aggressions. Prior to

the occupation of Austria he set a rate of exchange between the mark and

the schilling. After the occupation of Austria he arranged for the

incorporation of the Austrian National Bank into the Reichsbank and made

a violently pro-Nazi speech in which he stated that the Reichsbank would

always be Nazi as long as he was connected with it, praised Hitler,

defended the occupation of Austria, scoffed at objections to the way it

was carried out, and ended with “to our Führer a triple ‘Sieg Heil’.” He

has not contended that this speech did not represent his state of mind

at the time. After the occupation of the Sudetenland, he arranged for

currency conversion and for the incorporation into the Reichsbank of

local Czech banks of issue. On 29 November 1938 he made a speech in

which he pointed with pride to his economic policy which had created the

high degree of German armament, and added that this armament had made

Germany’s foreign policy possible.

Schacht was not involved in the planning of any of the specific wars of

aggression charged in Count Two. His participation in the occupation of

Austria and the Sudetenland (neither of which are charged as aggressive

wars) was on such a limited basis that it does not amount to

participation in the common plan charged in Count One. He was clearly

not one of the inner circle around Hitler which was most closely

involved with this common plan. He was regarded by this group with

undisguised hostility. The testimony of Speer shows that Schacht’s

arrest on 23 July 1944 was based as much on Hitler’s enmity towards

Schacht growing out of his attitude before the war as it was on

suspicion of his complicity in the bomb plot. The case against Schacht

therefore depends on the inference that Schacht did in fact know of the

Nazi aggressive plans.

On this all-important question evidence has been given for the

Prosecution, and a considerable volume of evidence for the Defense. The

Tribunal has considered the whole of this evidence with great care, and

comes to the conclusion that this necessary inference has not been

established beyond a reasonable doubt.

_Conclusion._

The Tribunal finds that Schacht is not guilty on this Indictment, and

directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal when the Tribunal

presently adjourns.

_DÖNITZ_

Dönitz is indicted on Counts One, Two, and Three. In 1935 he took

command of the first U-boat flotilla commissioned since 1918, became in

1936 commander of the submarine arm, was made Vice-Admiral in 1940,

Admiral in 1942, and on 30 January 1943 Commander-in-Chief of the German

Navy. On 1 May 1945 he became the Head of State, succeeding Hitler.

_Crimes against Peace_

Although Dönitz built and trained the German U-boat arm, the evidence

does not show he was privy to the conspiracy to wage aggressive wars or

that he prepared and initiated such wars. He was a line officer

performing strictly tactical duties. He was not present at the important

conferences when plans for aggressive wars were announced, and there is

no evidence he was informed about the decisions reached there. Dönitz

did, however, wage aggressive war within the meaning of that word as

used by the Charter. Submarine warfare which began immediately upon the

outbreak of war, was fully coordinated with the other branches of the

Wehrmacht. It is clear that his U-boats, few in number at the time, were

fully prepared to wage war.

It is true that until his appointment in January 1943 as

Commander-in-Chief he was not an “Oberbefehlshaber”. But this statement

underestimates the importance of Dönitz’ position. He was no mere army

or division commander. The U-boat arm was the principal part of the

German fleet and Dönitz was its leader. The High Seas fleet made a few

minor, if spectacular, raids during the early years of the war, but the

real damage to the enemy was done almost exclusively by his submarines

as the millions of tons of Allied and neutral shipping sunk will

testify. Dönitz was solely in charge of this warfare. The Naval War

Command reserved for itself only the decision as to the number of

submarines in each area. In the invasion of Norway, for example, Dönitz

made recommendations in October 1939 as to submarine bases, which he

claims were no more than a staff study, and in March 1940 he made out

the operational orders for the supporting U-boats, as discussed

elsewhere in this Judgment.

That his importance to the German war effort was so regarded is

eloquently proved by Raeder’s recommendation of Dönitz as his successor

and his appointment by Hitler on 30 January 1943 as Commander-in-Chief

of the Navy. Hitler, too, knew that submarine warfare was the essential

part of Germany’s naval warfare.

From January 1943, Dönitz was consulted almost continuously by Hitler.

The evidence was that they conferred on naval problems about 120 times

during the course of the war.

As late as April 1945, when he admits he knew the struggle was hopeless,

Dönitz as its Commander-in-Chief urged the Navy to continue its fight.

On 1 May 1945 he became the Head of State and as such ordered the

Wehrmacht to continue its war in the East, until capitulation on 9 May

1945. Dönitz explained that his reason for these orders was to insure

that the German civilian population might be evacuated and the Army

might make an orderly retreat from the East.

In the view of the Tribunal, the evidence shows that Dönitz was active

in waging aggressive war.

_War Crimes_

Dönitz is charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to

the Naval Protocol of 1936, to which Germany acceded, and which

reaffirmed the rules of submarine warfare laid down in the London Naval

Agreement of 1930.

The Prosecution has submitted that on 3 September 1939 the German U-boat

arm began to wage unrestricted submarine warfare upon all merchant

ships, whether enemy or neutral, cynically disregarding the Protocol;

and that a calculated effort was made throughout the war to disguise

this practice by making hypocritical references to international law and

supposed violations by the Allies.

Dönitz insists that at all times the Navy remained within the confines

of international law and of the Protocol. He testified that when the war

began, the guide to submarine warfare was the German Prize Ordinance

taken almost literally from the Protocol, that pursuant to the German

view, he ordered submarines to attack all merchant ships in convoy, and

all that refused to stop or used their radio upon sighting a submarine.

When his reports indicated that British merchant ships were being used

to give information by wireless, were being armed, and were attacking

submarines on sight, he ordered his submarines on 17 October 1939 to

attack all enemy merchant ships without warning on the ground that

resistance was to be expected. Orders already had been issued on 21

September 1939 to attack all ships, including neutrals, sailing at night

without lights in the English Channel.

On 24 November 1939 the German Government issued a warning to neutral

shipping that, owing to the frequent engagements taking place in the

waters around the British Isles and the French Coast between U-boats and

Allied merchant ships which were armed and had instructions to use those

arms as well as to ram U-boats, the safety of neutral ships in those

waters could no longer be taken for granted. On 1 January 1940 the

German U-boat Command, acting on the instructions of Hitler, ordered

U-boats to attack all Greek merchant ships in the zone surrounding the

British Isles which was banned by the United States to its own ships and

also merchant ships of every nationality in the limited area of the

Bristol Channel. Five days later a further order was given to U-boats to

“make immediately unrestricted use of weapons against all ships” in an

area of the North Sea, the limits of which were defined. Finally on 18

January 1940, U-boats were authorized to sink, without warning, all

ships “in those waters near the enemy coasts in which the use of mines

can be pretended”. Exceptions were to be made in the cases of United

States, Italian, Japanese, and Soviet ships.

Shortly after the outbreak of war the British Admiralty, in accordance

with its _Handbook of Instructions_ of 1938 to the Merchant Navy, armed

its merchant vessels, in many cases convoyed them with armed escort,

gave orders to send position reports upon sighting submarines, thus

integrating merchant vessels into the warning network of naval

intelligence. On 1 October 1939 the British Admiralty announced that

British merchant ships had been ordered to ram U-boats if possible.

In the actual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is not prepared

to hold Dönitz guilty for his conduct of submarine warfare against

British armed merchant ships.

However, the proclamation of operational zones and the sinking of

neutral merchant vessels which enter those zones presents a different

question. This practice was employed in the war of 1914-18 by Germany

and adopted in retaliation by Great Britain. The Washington Conference

of 1922, the London Naval Agreement of 1930, and the Protocol of 1936

were entered into with full knowledge that such zones had been employed

in the first World War. Yet the Protocol made no exception for

operational zones. The order of Dönitz to sink neutral ships without

warning when found within these zones was therefore, in the opinion of

the Tribunal, a violation of the Protocol.

It is also asserted that the German U-boat arm not only did not carry

out the warning and rescue provisions of the Protocol but that Dönitz

deliberately ordered the killing of survivors of shipwrecked vessels,

whether enemy or neutral. The Prosecution has introduced much evidence

surrounding two orders of Dönitz—War Order Number 154, issued in 1939,

and the so-called “Laconia” Order of 1942. The Defense argues that these

orders and the evidence supporting them do not show such a policy and

introduced much evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal is of the opinion

that the evidence does not establish with the certainty required that

Dönitz deliberately ordered the killing of shipwrecked survivors. The

orders were undoubtedly ambiguous, and deserve the strongest censure.

The evidence further shows that the rescue provisions were not carried

out and that the Defendant ordered that they should not be carried out.

The argument of the Defense is that the security of the submarine is, as

the first rule of the sea, paramount to rescue, and that the development

of aircraft made rescue impossible. This may be so, but the Protocol is

explicit. If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot

sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his

periscope. These orders, then, prove Dönitz is guilty of a violation of

the Protocol.

In view of all of the facts proved and in particular of an order of the

British Admiralty announced on 8 May 1940, according to which all

vessels should be sunk at night in the Skagerrak, and the answers to

interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine

warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from

the first day that Nation entered the war, the sentence of Dönitz is not

assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of

submarine warfare.

Dönitz was also charged with responsibility for Hitler’s Commando Order

of 18 October 1942. Dönitz admitted he received and knew of the order

when he was Flag Officer of U-boats, but disclaimed responsibility. He

points out that the order by its express terms excluded men captured in

naval warfare, that the Navy had no territorial commands on land, and

that submarine commanders would never encounter commandos.

In one instance, when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, in 1943,

the members of the crew of an Allied motor torpedo boat were captured by

German Naval Forces. They were interrogated for intelligence purposes on

behalf of the local Admiral, and then turned over by his order to the SD

and shot. Dönitz said that if they were captured by the Navy their

execution was a violation of the Commando Order, that the execution was

not announced in the Wehrmacht communiqué, and that he was never

informed of the incident. He pointed out that the Admiral in question

was not in his chain of command, but was subordinate to the Army general

in command of the Norway occupation. But Dönitz permitted the order to

remain in full force when he became Commander-in-Chief, and to that

extent he is responsible.

Dönitz, in a conference of 11 December 1944, said “12,000 concentration

camp prisoners will be employed in the shipyards as additional labor”.

At this time Dönitz had no jurisdiction over shipyard construction, and

claims that this was merely a suggestion at the meeting that the

responsible officials do something about the production of ships, that

he took no steps to get these workers since it was not a matter for his

jurisdiction and that he does not know whether they ever were procured.

He admits he knew of concentration camps. A man in his position must

necessarily have known that citizens of occupied countries in large

numbers were confined in the concentration camps.

In 1945 Hitler requested the opinion of Jodl and Dönitz whether the

Geneva Convention should be denounced. The notes of the meeting between

the two military leaders on 20 February 1945 show that Dönitz expressed

his view that the disadvantages of such an action outweighed the

advantages. The summary of Dönitz’ attitude shown in the notes taken by

an officer, included the following sentence: “It would be better to

carry out the measures considered necessary without warning, and at all

costs to save face with the outer world.”

The Prosecution insisted that “the measures” referred to meant the

Convention should not be denounced, but should be broken at will. The

Defense explanation is that Hitler wanted to break the Convention for

two reasons: to take away from German troops the protection of the

Convention, thus preventing them from continuing to surrender in large

groups to the British and Americans, and also to permit reprisals

against Allied prisoners of war because of Allied bombing raids. Dönitz

claims that what he meant by “measures” were disciplinary measures

against German troops to prevent them from surrendering, and that his

words had no reference to measures against the Allies; moreover that

this was merely a suggestion, and that in any event no such measures

were ever taken, either against Allies or Germans. The Tribunal,

however, does not believe this explanation. The Geneva Convention was

not, however, denounced by Germany. The Defense has introduced several

affidavits to prove that British naval prisoners of war in camps under

Dönitz’ jurisdiction were treated strictly according to the Convention,

and the Tribunal takes this fact into consideration, regarding it as a

mitigating circumstance.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds Dönitz is not guilty on Count One of the Indictment,

and is guilty on Counts Two and Three.

_RAEDER_

Raeder is indicted on Counts One, Two, and Three. In 1928 he became

Chief of Naval Command and in 1935 Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine

(OKM); in 1939 Hitler made him Gross-Admiral. He was a member of the

Reich Defense Council. On 30 January 1943 Dönitz replaced him at his own

request, and he became Admiral Inspector of the Navy, a nominal title.

_Crimes against Peace_

In the 15 years he commanded it, Raeder built and directed the German

Navy; he accepts full responsibility until retirement in 1943. He admits

the Navy violated the Versailles Treaty, insisting it was “a matter of

honor for every man” to do so, and alleges that the violations were for

the most part minor, and Germany built less than her allowable strength.

These violations, as well as those of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement

of 1935, have already been discussed elsewhere in this Judgment.

Raeder received the directive of 24 June 1937 from Von Blomberg

requiring special preparations for war against Austria. He was one of

the five leaders present at the Hossbach Conference of 5 November 1937.

He claims Hitler merely wished by this conference to spur the Army to

faster rearmament, insists he believed the questions of Austria and

Czechoslovakia would be settled peacefully, as they were, and points to

the new naval treaty with England which had just been signed. He

received no orders to speed construction of U-boats, indicating that

Hitler was not planning war.

Raeder received directives on “Fall Grün” and the directives on “Fall

Weiss” beginning with that of 3 April 1939; the latter directed the Navy

to support the Army by intervention from the sea. He was also one of the

few chief leaders present at the meeting of 23 May 1939. He attended the

Obersalzberg briefing of 22 August 1939.

The conception of the invasion of Norway first arose in the mind of

Raeder and not that of Hitler. Despite Hitler’s desire, as shown by his

directive of October 1939 to keep Scandinavia neutral, the Navy examined

the advantages of naval bases there as early as October. Admiral Karls

originally suggested to Raeder the desirable aspects of bases in Norway.

A questionnaire, dated 3 October 1939, which sought comments on the

desirability of such bases, was circulated within SKL. On 10 October

Raeder discussed the matter with Hitler; his War Diary entry for that

day says Hitler intended to give the matter consideration. A few months

later Hitler talked to Raeder, Quisling, Keitel, and Jodl; OKW began its

planning and the Naval War Staff worked with OKW staff officers. Raeder

received Keitel’s directive for Norway on 27 January 1940 and the

subsequent directive of 1 March, signed by Hitler.

Raeder defends his actions on the ground it was a move to forestall the

British. It is not necessary again to discuss this defense, which has

heretofore been treated in some detail, concluding that Germany’s

invasion of Norway and Denmark was aggressive war. In a letter to the

Navy, Raeder said: “The operations of the Navy in the occupation of

Norway will for all time remain the great contribution of the Navy to

this war.”

Raeder received the directives, including the innumerable postponements,

for the attack in the West. In a meeting of 18 March 1941 with Hitler he

urged the occupation of all Greece. He claims this was only after the

British had landed and Hitler had ordered the attack, and points out the

Navy had no interest in Greece. He received Hitler’s directive on

Yugoslavia.

Raeder endeavored to dissuade Hitler from embarking upon the invasion of

the U.S.S.R. In September 1940 he urged on Hitler an aggressive

Mediterranean policy as an alternative to an attack on Russia. On 14

November 1940 he urged the war against England “as our main enemy” and

that submarine and naval air force construction be continued. He voiced

“serious objections against the Russian campaign before the defeat of

England”, according to notes of the German Naval War Staff. He claims

his objections were based on the violation of the Non-Aggression Pact as

well as strategy. But once the decision had been made, he gave

permission 6 days before the invasion of the Soviet Union to attack

Russian submarines in the Baltic Sea within a specified warning area and

defends this action because these submarines were “snooping” on German

activities.

It is clear from this evidence that Raeder participated in the planning

and waging of aggressive war.

_War Crimes_

Raeder is charged with War Crimes on the High Seas. The Athenia, an

unarmed British passenger liner, was sunk on 3 September 1939, while

outward bound to America. The Germans 2 months later charged that Mr.

Churchill deliberately sank the Athenia to encourage American hostility

to Germany. In fact, it was sunk by the German U-boat 30. Raeder claims

that an inexperienced U-boat commander sank it in mistake for an armed

merchant cruiser, that this was not known until the U-30 returned

several weeks after the German denial and that Hitler then directed the

Navy and Foreign Office to continue denying it. Raeder denied knowledge

of the propaganda campaign attacking Mr. Churchill.

The most serious charge against Raeder is that he carried out

unrestricted submarine warfare, including sinking of unarmed merchant

ships, of neutrals, non-rescue and machine-gunning of survivors,

contrary to the London Protocol of 1936. The Tribunal makes the same

finding on Raeder on this charge as it did as to Dönitz, which has

already been announced, up until 30 January 1943 when Raeder retired.

The Commando Order of 18 October 1942, which expressly did not apply to

naval warfare, was transmitted by the Naval War Staff to the lower naval

commanders with the direction it should be distributed orally by

flotilla leaders and section commanders to their subordinates. Two

commandos were put to death by the Navy, and not the SD, at Bordeaux on

10 December 1942. The comment of the Naval War Staff was that this was

“in accordance with the Führer’s special order, but is nevertheless

something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform.”

Raeder admits he passed the order down through the chain of command, and

he did not object to Hitler.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Raeder is guilty on Counts One, Two, and Three.

_VON SCHIRACH_

Von Schirach is indicted under Counts One and Four. He joined the Nazi

Party and the SA in 1925. In 1929 he became the leader of the National

Socialist Students Union. In 1931 he was made Reichs Youth Leader of the

Nazi Party with control over all Nazi youth organizations, including the

Hitler Jugend. In 1933, after the Nazis had obtained control of the

Government, Von Schirach was made Leader of Youth in the German Reich,

originally a position within the Ministry of the Interior, but, after 1

December 1936, an office in the Reich Cabinet. In 1940 Von Schirach

resigned as head of the Hitler Jugend and Leader of Youth in the German

Reich, but retained his position as Reichsleiter with control over Youth

Education. In 1940 he was appointed Gauleiter of Vienna, Reichs Governor

of Vienna, and Reichs Defense Commissioner for that territory.

_Crimes against Peace_

After the Nazis had come to power Von Schirach, utilizing both physical

violence and official pressure, either drove out of existence or took

over all youth groups which competed with the Hitler Jugend. A Hitler

decree of 1 December 1936 incorporated all German youth within the

Hitler Jugend. By the time formal conscription was introduced in 1940,

97 percent of those eligible were already members.

Von Schirach used the Hitler Jugend to educate German Youth “in the

spirit of National Socialism” and subjected them to an intensive program

of Nazi propaganda. He established the Hitler Jugend as a source of

replacements for the Nazi Party formations. In October 1938 he entered

into an agreement with Himmler under which members of the Hitler Jugend

who met SS standards would be considered as the primary source of

replacements for the SS.

Von Schirach also used the Hitler Jugend for pre-military training.

Special units were set up whose primary purpose was training specialists

for the various branches of the service. On 11 August 1939 he entered

into an agreement with Keitel under which the Hitler Jugend agreed to

carry out its pre-military activities under standards laid down by the

Wehrmacht and the Wehrmacht agreed to train 30,000 Hitler Jugend

instructors each year. The Hitler Jugend placed particular emphasis on

the military spirit and its training program stressed the importance of

return of the colonies, the necessity for Lebensraum, and the noble

destiny of German youth to die for Hitler.

Despite the warlike nature of the activities of the Hitler Jugend,

however, it does not appear that Von Schirach was involved in the

development of Hitler’s plan for territorial expansion by means of

aggressive war, or that he participated in the planning or preparation

of any of the wars of aggression.

_Crimes against Humanity_

In July 1940 Von Schirach was appointed Gauleiter of Vienna. At the same

time he was appointed Reichs Governor for Vienna and Reichs Defense

Commissioner, originally for Military District 17, including the Gaue of

Vienna, Upper Danube, and Lower Danube and, after 17 November 1942, for

the Gaue of Vienna alone. As Reichs Defense Commissioner, he had control

of the civilian war economy. As Reichs Governor he was head of the

municipal administration of the City of Vienna, and, under the

supervision of the Minister of the Interior, in charge of the

governmental administration of the Reich in Vienna.

Von Schirach is not charged with the commission of War Crimes in Vienna,

only with the commission of Crimes against Humanity. As has already been

seen, Austria was occupied pursuant to a common plan of aggression. Its

occupation is, therefore, a “crime within the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal”, as that term is used in Article 6 (c) of the Charter. As a

result, “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other

inhumane acts” and “persecutions on political, racial, or religious

grounds” in connection with this occupation constitute a Crime against

Humanity under that Article.

As Gauleiter of Vienna, Von Schirach came under the Sauckel decree,

dated 6 April 1942, making the Gauleiters Sauckel’s plenipotentiaries

for manpower with authority to supervise the utilization and treatment

of manpower within their Gaue. Sauckel’s directives provided that the

forced laborers were to be fed, sheltered, and treated so as to exploit

them to the highest possible degree at the lowest possible expense.

When Von Schirach became Gauleiter of Vienna the deportation of the Jews

had already been begun, and only 60,000 out of Vienna’s original 190,000

Jews remained. On 2 October 1940 he attended a conference at Hitler’s

office and told Frank that he had 50,000 Jews in Vienna which the

General Government would have to take over from him. On 3 December 1940

Von Schirach received a letter from Lammers stating that after the

receipt of the reports made by Von Schirach, Hitler had decided to

deport the 60,000 Jews still remaining in Vienna to the General

Government because of the housing shortage in Vienna. The deportation of

the Jews from Vienna was then begun and continued until the early fall

of 1942. On 15 September 1942 Von Schirach made a speech in which he

defended his action in having driven “tens of thousands upon tens of

thousands of Jews into the ghetto of the East” as “contributing to

European culture”.

While the Jews were being deported from Vienna, reports, addressed to

him in his official capacity, were received in Von Schirach’s office

from the office of the Chief of the Security Police and SD which

contained a description of the activities of Einsatzgruppen in

exterminating Jews. Many of these reports were initialed by one of Von

Schirach’s principal deputies. On 30 June 1944 Von Schirach’s office

also received a letter from Kaltenbrunner informing him that a shipment

of 12,000 Jews was on its way to Vienna for essential war work and that

all those who were incapable of work would have to be kept in readiness

for “special action”.

The Tribunal finds that Von Schirach, while he did not originate the

policy of deporting Jews from Vienna, participated in this deportation

after he had become Gauleiter of Vienna. He knew that the best the Jews

could hope for was a miserable existence in the ghettos of the East.

Bulletins describing the Jewish extermination were in his office.

While Gauleiter of Vienna Von Schirach continued to function as

Reichsleiter for Youth Education and in this capacity he was informed of

the Hitler Jugend’s participation in the plan put into effect in the

fall of 1944 under which 50,000 young people between the ages of 10 and

20 were evacuated into Germany from areas recaptured by the Soviet

forces and used as apprentices in German industry and as auxiliaries in

units of the German Armed Forces. In the summer of 1942 Von Schirach

telegraphed Bormann urging that a bombing attack on an English cultural

town be carried out in retaliation for the assassination of Heydrich

which, he claimed, had been planned by the British.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Von Schirach is not guilty on Count One. He is

guilty under Count Four.

_SAUCKEL_

Sauckel is indicted under all four Counts. Sauckel joined the Nazi Party

in 1923, and became Gauleiter of Thuringia in 1927. He was a member of

the Thuringian legislature from 1927 to 1933, was appointed

Reichsstatthalter for Thuringia in 1932, and Thuringian Minister of the

Interior and head of the Thuringian State Ministry in May 1933. He

became a member of the Reichstag in 1933. He held the formal rank of

Obergruppenführer in both the SA and the SS.

_Crimes against Peace_

The evidence has not satisfied the Tribunal that Sauckel was

sufficiently connected with the common plan to wage aggressive war or

sufficiently involved in the planning or waging of the aggressive wars

to allow the Tribunal to convict him on Counts One or Two.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

On 21 March 1942 Hitler appointed Sauckel Plenipotentiary General for

the Utilization of Labor, with authority to put under uniform control

“the utilization of all available manpower, including that of workers

recruited abroad and of prisoners of war”. Sauckel was instructed to

operate within the fabric of the Four Year Plan, and on 27 March 1942

Göring issued a decree as Commissioner for the Four Year Plan

transferring his manpower sections to Sauckel. On 30 September 1942

Hitler gave Sauckel authority to appoint Commissioners in the various

occupied territories, and “to take all necessary measures for the

enforcement” of the Decree of 21 March 1942.

Under the authority which he obtained by these decrees, Sauckel set up a

program for the mobilization of the labor resources available to the

Reich. One of the important parts of this mobilization was the

systematic exploitation, by force, of the labor resources of the

occupied territories. Shortly after Sauckel had taken office, he had the

governing authorities in the various occupied territories issue decrees,

establishing compulsory labor service in Germany. Under the authority of

these decrees Sauckel’s commissioners, backed up by the police

authorities of the occupied territories, obtained and sent to Germany

the laborers which were necessary to fill the quotas given them by

Sauckel. He described so-called “voluntary” recruiting by a whole batch

of male and female agents just as was done in the olden times for

shanghaiing”. That real voluntary recruiting was the exception rather

than the rule is shown by Sauckel’s statement on 1 March 1944, that “out

of five million foreign workers who arrived in Germany not even 200,000

came voluntarily”. Although he now claims that the statement is not

true, the circumstances under which it was made, as well as the evidence

presented before the Tribunal, leave no doubt that it was substantially

accurate.

The manner in which the unfortunate slave laborers were collected and

transported to Germany, and what happened to them after they arrived,

has already been described. Sauckel argues that he is not responsible

for these excesses in the administration of the program. He says that

the total number of workers to be obtained was set by the demands from

agriculture and from industry; that obtaining the workers was the

responsibility of the occupation authorities transporting them to

Germany that of the German railways, and taking care of them in Germany

that of the Ministries of Labor and Agriculture, the German Labor Front,

and the various industries involved. He testifies that insofar as he had

any authority he was constantly urging humane treatment.

There is no doubt, however, that Sauckel had over-all responsibility for

the slave labor program. At the time of the events in question he did

not fail to assert control over the fields which he now claims were the

sole responsibility of others. His regulations provided that his

commissioners should have authority for obtaining labor, and he was

constantly in the field supervising the steps which were being taken. He

was aware of ruthless methods being taken to obtain laborers, and

vigorously supported them on the ground that they were necessary to fill

the quotas.

Sauckel’s regulations also provided that he had responsibility for

transporting the laborers to Germany, allocating them to employers and

taking care of them, and that the other agencies involved in these

processes were subordinate to him. He was informed of the bad conditions

which existed. It does not appear that he advocated brutality for its

own sake, or was an advocate of any program such as Himmler’s plan for

extermination through work. His attitude was thus expressed in a

regulation:

“All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as

to exploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest

conceivable degree of expenditure.”

The evidence shows that Sauckel was in charge of a program which

involved deportation for slave labor of more than 5,000,000 human

beings, many of them under terrible conditions of cruelty and suffering.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Sauckel is not guilty on Counts One and Two. He

is guilty under Counts Three and Four.

_JODL_

Jodl is indicted on all four Counts. From 1935 to 1938 he was Chief of

the National Defense Section in the High Command. After a year in

command of troops, in August 1939 he returned to become Chief of the

Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces. Although his

immediate superior was Defendant Keitel, he reported directly to Hitler

on operational matters. In the strict military sense, Jodl was the

actual planner of the war and responsible in large measure for the

strategy and conduct of operations.

Jodl defends himself on the ground he was a soldier sworn to obedience,

and not a politician; and that his staff and planning work left him no

time for other matters. He said that when he signed or initialed orders,

memoranda, and letters, he did so for Hitler and often in the absence of

Keitel. Though he claims that as a soldier he had to obey Hitler, he

says that he often tried to obstruct certain measures by delay, which

occasionally proved successful as when he resisted Hitler’s demand that

a directive be issued to lynch Allied “terror fliers”.

_Crimes against Peace_

Entries in Jodl’s diary of 13 and 14 February 1938 show Hitler

instructed both him and Keitel to keep up military pressure against

Austria begun at the Schuschnigg conference by simulating military

measures, and that these achieved their purpose. When Hitler decided

“not to tolerate” Schuschnigg’s plebiscite, Jodl brought to the

conference the “old draft”, the existing staff plan. His diary for 10

March shows Hitler then ordered the preparation of “Case Otto”, and the

directive was initialed by Jodl. Jodl issued supplementary instructions

on 11 March, and initialed Hitler’s order for the invasion on the same

date.

In planning the attack on Czechoslovakia, Jodl was very active,

according to the Schmundt Notes. He initialed items 14, 17, 24, 36, and

37 in the Notes. Jodl admits he agreed with OKH that the “incident” to

provide German intervention must occur at the latest by 1400 on X-1 Day,

the day before the attack, and said it must occur at a fixed time in

good flying weather. Jodl conferred with the propaganda experts on

“imminent common tasks” such as German violations of international law,

exploitation of them by the enemy and refutations by the Germans, which

“task” Jodl considered “particularly important”.

After Munich, Jodl wrote:

“Czechoslovakia as a power is out . . . . The genius of the

Führer and his determination not to shun even a World War have

again won the victory without the use of force. The hope remains

that the incredulous, the weak, and the doubtful people have

been converted and will remain that way.”

Shortly after the Sudeten occupation, Jodl went to a post command and

did not become Chief of the Operations Staff in OKW until the end of

August 1939.

Jodl discussed the Norway invasion with Hitler, Keitel, and Raeder on 12

December 1939; his diary is replete with late entries on his activities

in preparing this attack. Jodl explains his comment that Hitler was

still looking for an “excuse” to move meant he was waiting for reliable

intelligence on the British plans, and defends the invasion as a

necessary move to forestall them. His testimony shows that from October

1939 Hitler planned to attack the West through Belgium, but was doubtful

about invading Holland until the middle of November. On 8 February 1940,

Jodl, his deputy Warlimont, and Jeschonnek, the Air Forces planner,

discussed among themselves the “new idea” of attacking Norway, Denmark,

and Holland, but guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. Many of the 17

orders postponing the attack in the West for various reasons including

weather conditions, until May 1940, were signed by Jodl.

He was active in the planning against Greece and Yugoslavia. The Hitler

order of 11 January 1941 to intervene in Albania was initialed by Jodl.

On 20 January, 4 months before the attack, Hitler told a conference of

German and Italian generals in Jodl’s presence that German troop

concentrations in Rumania were to be used against Greece. Jodl was

present on 18 March when Hitler told Raeder all Greece must be occupied

before any settlement could be reached. On 27 March, when Hitler told

the German High Command that the destruction of Yugoslavia should be

accomplished with “unmerciful harshness”, and the decision was taken to

bomb Belgrade without a declaration of war, Jodl was also there.

Jodl testified that Hitler feared an attack by Russia and so attacked

first. This preparation began almost a year before the invasion. Jodl

told Warlimont as early as 29 July 1940 to prepare the plans since

Hitler had decided to attack; and Hitler later told Warlimont he had

planned to attack in August 1940 but postponed it for military reasons.

He initialed Hitler’s directive of 12 November 1940 that preparations

verbally ordered should be continued and also initialed “Case

Barbarossa” on 18 December. On 3 February 1941 Hitler, Jodl, and Keitel

discussed the invasion, and he was present on 14 June when final reports

on “Case Barbarossa” were made.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

On 18 October 1942 Hitler issued the Commando Order and a day later a

supplementary explanation to commanding officers only. The covering

memorandum was signed by Jodl. Early drafts of the order were made by

Jodl’s staff, with his knowledge. Jodl testified he was strongly opposed

on moral and legal grounds, but could not refuse to pass it on. He

insists he tried to mitigate its harshness in practice by not informing

Hitler when it was not carried out. He initialed the OKW memorandum of

25 June 1944 reaffirming the Order after the Normandy landings.

A plan to eliminate Soviet commissars was in the directive for “Case

Barbarossa”. The decision whether they should be killed without trial

was to be made by an officer. A draft contains Jodl’s handwriting

suggesting this should be handled as retaliation, and he testified this

was his attempt to get around it.

When in 1945 Hitler considered denouncing the Geneva Convention, Jodl

argued the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. On 21 February he

told Hitler adherence to the Convention would not interfere with the

conduct of the war, giving as an example the sinking of a British

hospital ship as a reprisal and calling it a mistake. He said he did so

because it was the only attitude Hitler would consider, that moral or

legal arguments had no effect and argues he thus prevented Hitler from

denouncing the Convention.

There is little evidence that Jodl was actively connected with the slave

labor program, and he must have concentrated on his strategic planning

function. But in his speech of 7 November 1943 to the Gauleiters he said

it was necessary to act “with remorseless vigor and resolution” in

Denmark, France, and the Low Countries to compel work on the Atlantic

Wall.

By teletype of 28 October 1944 Jodl ordered the evacuation of all

persons in northern Norway and burning of their houses so they could not

help the Russians. Jodl says he was against this, but Hitler ordered it

and it was not fully carried out. A document of the Norwegian Government

says such an evacuation did take place in northern Norway and 30,000

houses were damaged. On 7 October 1941, Jodl signed an order that Hitler

would not accept an offer of surrender of Leningrad or Moscow, but on

the contrary he insisted that they be completely destroyed. He says this

was done because the Germans were afraid those cities would be mined by

the Russians as was Kiev. No surrender was ever offered.

His defense, in brief, is the doctrine of “superior orders”, prohibited

by Article 8 of the Charter as a defense. There is nothing in

mitigation. Participation in such crimes as these has never been

required of any soldier and he cannot now shield himself behind a

mythical requirement of soldierly obedience at all costs as his excuse

for commission of these crimes.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Jodl is guilty on all four Counts.

_VON PAPEN_

Von Papen is indicted under Counts One and Two. He was appointed

Chancellor of the Reich on 1 June 1932, and was succeeded by Von

Schleicher on 2 December 1932. He was made Vice Chancellor in the Hitler

Cabinet on 30 January 1933, and on 13 November 1933 Plenipotentiary for

the Saar. On 26 July 1934 he was appointed Minister to Vienna, and was

recalled on 4 February 1938. On 29 April 1939 he was appointed

Ambassador to Turkey. He returned to Germany when Turkey broke off

diplomatic relations with Germany in August 1944.

_Crimes against Peace_

Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the

Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30

January 1933. As Vice Chancellor in that Cabinet he participated in the

Nazi consolidation of control in 1933. On 16 June 1934, however, Von

Papen made a speech at Marburg which contained a denunciation of the

Nazi attempts to suppress the free press and the church, of the

existence of a reign of terror, and of “150 percent Nazis” who were

mistaking “brutality for vitality”. On 30 June 1934, in the wave of

violence which accompanied the so-called Röhm Purge, Von Papen was taken

into custody by the SS, his office force was arrested, and two of his

associates, including the man who had helped him work on the Marburg

speech, were murdered. Von Papen was released on 3 July 1934.

Notwithstanding the murder of his associates, Von Papen accepted the

position of Minister to Austria on 26 July 1934, the day after Dollfuss

had been assassinated. His appointment was announced in a letter from

Hitler which instructed him to direct relations between the two

countries “into normal and friendly channels” and assured him of

Hitler’s “complete and unlimited confidence”. As Minister to Austria,

Von Papen was active in trying to strengthen the position of the Nazi

Party in Austria for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. In early

1935 he attended a meeting in Berlin at which the policy was laid down

to avoid everything which would give the appearance of German

intervention in the internal affairs of Austria. Yet he arranged for

200,000 marks a month to be transmitted to “the persecuted National

Socialist sufferers in Austria”. On 17 May 1935 he reported to Hitler

the results of a conference with Captain Leopold, the leader of the

Austrian Nazis, and urged Hitler to make a statement recognizing the

national independence of Austria, and predicting that the result might

be to help the formation of a coalition between Schuschnigg’s Christian

Socialists and the Austrian Nazis against Starhemberg. On 27 July 1935

Von Papen reported to Hitler that the union of Austria and Germany could

not be brought about by external pressure but only by the strength of

the National Socialist movement. He urged that the Austrian Nazi Party

change its character as a centralized Reich German party and become a

rallying point for all National Germans.

Von Papen was involved in occasional Nazi political demonstrations,

supported Nazi propaganda activities and submitted detailed reports on

the activities of the Nazi Party, and routine reports relating to

Austrian military defenses. His Austrian policy resulted in the

agreement of 11 July 1936, which nominally restored relations between

Germany and Austria to “normal and friendly form”, but which had a

secret supplement providing for an amnesty for Austrian Nazis, the

lifting of censorship on Nazi papers, the resumption of political

activities by Nazis and the appointment of men friendly to the Nazis in

the Schuschnigg Cabinet.

After the signing of this agreement Von Papen offered to resign, but his

resignation was not accepted. Thereafter he proceeded to bring continued

pressure on the Austrian Government to bring Nazis into the Schuschnigg

Cabinet and to get them important positions in the Fatherland Front,

Austria’s single legal party. On 1 September 1936 Von Papen wrote Hitler

advising him that anti-Nazis in the Austrian Ministry of Security were

holding up the infiltration of the Nazis into the Austrian Government

and recommended bringing “slowly intensified pressure directed at

changing the regime”.

On 4 February 1938 Von Papen was notified of his recall as Minister to

Austria, at the same time that Von Fritsch, Von Blomberg, and Von

Neurath were removed from their positions. He informed Hitler that he

regretted his recall because he had been trying since November 1937 to

induce Schuschnigg to hold a conference with Hitler and Schuschnigg had

indicated his willingness to do so. Acting under Hitler’s instructions,

Von Papen then returned to Austria and arranged the conference which was

held at Berchtesgaden on 12 February 1938. Von Papen accompanied

Schuschnigg to that conference, and at its conclusion advised

Schuschnigg to comply with Hitler’s demands. On 10 March 1938 Hitler

ordered Von Papen to return to Berlin. Von Papen was in the Chancellery

on 11 March when the occupation of Austria was ordered. No evidence has

been offered showing that Von Papen was in favor of the decision to

occupy Austria by force, and he has testified that he urged Hitler not

to take this step.

After the annexation of Austria Von Papen retired into private life and

there is no evidence that he took any part in politics. He accepted the

position of Ambassador to Turkey in April 1939, but no evidence has been

offered concerning his activities in that position implicating him in

crimes.

The evidence leaves no doubt that Von Papen’s primary purpose as

Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and

strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about

Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and

bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against

political morality, however bad these may be. Under the Charter Von

Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of

aggressive war. There is no evidence that he was a party to the plans

under which the occupation of Austria was a step in the direction of

further aggressive action, or even that he participated in plans to

occupy Austria by aggressive war if necessary. But it is not established

beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the purpose of his activity, and

therefore the Tribunal cannot hold that he was a party to the common

plan charged in Count One or participated in the planning of the

aggressive wars charged under Count Two.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment,

and directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal, when the

Tribunal presently adjourns.

_SEYSS-INQUART_

Seyss-Inquart is indicted under all Four Counts. Seyss-Inquart, an

Austrian attorney, was appointed State Councillor in Austria in May 1937

as a result of German pressure. He had been associated with the Austrian

Nazi Party since 1931, but had often had difficulties with that Party

and did not actually join the Nazi Party until 13 March 1938. He was

appointed Austrian Minister of Security and Interior with control over

the police, pursuant to one of the conditions which Hitler had imposed

on Schuschnigg in the Berchtesgaden Conference of 12 February 1938.

_Activities in Austria_

Seyss-Inquart participated in the last stages of the Nazi intrigue which

preceded the German occupation of Austria, and was made Chancellor of

Austria as a result of German threats of invasion.

On 12 March 1938 Seyss-Inquart met Hitler at Linz and made a speech

welcoming the German forces and advocating the reunion of Germany and

Austria. On 13 March he obtained the passage of a law providing that

Austria should become a province of Germany and succeeded Miklas as

President of Austria when Miklas resigned rather than sign the law.

Seyss-Inquart’s title was changed to Reich Governor of Austria on 15

March 1938, and on the same day he was given the title of a general in

the SS. He was made a Reich Minister without Portfolio on 1 May 1939.

On 11 March 1939 he visited the Slovakian Cabinet in Bratislava and

induced them to declare their independence in a way which fitted in

closely with Hitler’s offensive against the independence of

Czechoslovakia.

As Reich Governor of Austria, Seyss-Inquart instituted a program of

confiscating Jewish property. Under his regime Jews were forced to

emigrate, were sent to concentration camps, and were subject to pogroms.

At the end of his regime he cooperated with the Security Police and SD

in the deportation of Jews from Austria to the East. While he was

Governor of Austria, political opponents of the Nazis were sent to

concentration camps by the Gestapo, mistreated, and often killed.

_Criminal Activities in Poland and the Netherlands_

In September 1939 Seyss-Inquart was appointed Chief of Civil

Administration of South Poland. On 12 October 1939 Seyss-Inquart was

made Deputy Governor General of the General Government of Poland under

Frank. On 18 May 1940 Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissioner for

Occupied Netherlands. In these positions he assumed responsibility for

governing territory which had been occupied by aggressive wars and the

administration of which was of vital importance in the aggressive war

being waged by Germany.

As Deputy Governor General of the General Government of Poland,

Seyss-Inquart was a supporter of the harsh occupation policies which

were put in effect. In November 1939, while on an inspection tour

through the General Government, Seyss-Inquart stated that Poland was to

be so administered as to exploit its economic resources for the benefit

of Germany. Seyss-Inquart also advocated the persecution of Jews and was

informed of the beginning of the AB action which involved the murder of

many Polish intellectuals.

As Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands, Seyss-Inquart was

ruthless in applying terrorism to suppress all opposition to the German

occupation, a program which he described as “annihilating” his

opponents. In collaboration with the local Higher SS and Police Leaders

he was involved in the shooting of hostages for offenses against the

occupation authorities and sending to concentration camps all suspected

opponents of occupation policies including priests and educators. Many

of the Dutch police were forced to participate in these programs by

threats of reprisal against their families. Dutch courts were also

forced to participate in this program, but when they indicated their

reluctance to give sentences of imprisonment because so many prisoners

were in fact killed, a greater emphasis was placed on the use of summary

police courts.

Seyss-Inquart carried out the economic administration of the Netherlands

without regard for rules of the Hague Convention, which he described as

obsolete. Instead, a policy was adopted for the maximum utilization of

economic potential of the Netherlands, and executed with small regard

for its effect on the inhabitants. There was widespread pillage of

public and private property which was given color of legality by

Seyss-Inquart’s regulations, and assisted by manipulations of the

financial institutions of the Netherlands under his control.

As Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, Seyss-Inquart immediately

began sending forced laborers to Germany. Until 1942 labor service in

Germany was theoretically voluntary, but was actually coerced by strong

economic and governmental pressure. In 1942 Seyss-Inquart formally

decreed compulsory labor service, and utilized the services of the

Security Police and SD to prevent evasion of his order. During the

occupation over 500,000 people were sent from the Netherlands to the

Reich as laborers and only a very small proportion were actually

volunteers.

One of Seyss-Inquart’s first steps as Reich Commissioner of the

Netherlands was to put into effect a series of laws imposing economic

discriminations against the Jews. This was followed by decrees requiring

their registration, decrees compelling them to reside in ghettos and to

wear the Star of David, sporadic arrests and detention in concentration

camps, and finally, at the suggestion of Heydrich, the mass deportation

of almost 120,000 of Holland’s 140,000 Jews to Auschwitz and the “final

solution”. Seyss-Inquart admits knowing that they were going to

Auschwitz, but claims that he heard from people who had been to

Auschwitz that the Jews were comparatively well off there, and that he

thought that they were being held there for resettlement after the war.

In light of the evidence and on account of his official position it is

impossible to believe this claim.

Seyss-Inquart contends that he was not responsible for many of the

crimes committed in the occupation of the Netherlands because they were

either ordered from the Reich, committed by the Army, over which he had

no control, or by the German Higher SS and Police Leader, who, he

claims, reported directly to Himmler. It is true that some of the

excesses were the responsibility of the Army, and that the Higher SS and

Police Leader, although he was at the disposal of Seyss-Inquart, could

always report directly to Himmler. It is also true that in certain cases

Seyss-Inquart opposed the extreme measures used by these other agencies,

as when he was largely successful in preventing the Army from carrying

out a scorched earth policy, and urged the Higher SS and Police Leaders

to reduce the number of hostages to be shot. But the fact remains that

Seyss-Inquart was a knowing and voluntary participant in War Crimes and

Crimes against Humanity which were committed in the occupation of the

Netherlands.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Seyss-Inquart is guilty under Counts Two, Three,

and Four. Seyss-Inquart is not guilty on Count One.

_SPEER_

Speer is indicted under all four Counts. Speer joined the Nazi Party in

1932. In 1934 he was made Hitler’s architect and became a close personal

confidant. Shortly thereafter he was made a department head in the

German Labor Front and the official in charge of capital construction on

the staff of the deputy to the Führer, positions which he held through

1941. On 15 February 1942, after the death of Fritz Todt, Speer was

appointed Chief of the Organization Todt and Reich Minister for

Armaments and Munitions (after 2 September 1943, for Armaments and War

Production). The positions were supplemented by his appointments in

March and April 1942 as General Plenipotentiary for Armaments and as a

member of the Central Planning Board, both within the Four Year Plan.

Speer was a member of the Reichstag from 1941 until the end of the war.

_Crimes against Peace_

The Tribunal is of opinion that Speer’s activities do not amount to

initiating, planning, or preparing wars of aggression, or of conspiring

to that end. He became the head of the armament industry well after all

of the wars had been commenced and were under way. His activities in

charge of German armament production were in aid of the war effort in

the same way that other productive enterprises aid in the waging of war;

but the Tribunal is not prepared to find that such activities involve

engaging in the common plan to wage aggressive war as charged under

Count One or waging aggressive war as charged under Count Two.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

The evidence introduced against Speer under Counts Three and Pour

relates entirely to his participation in the slave labor program. Speer

himself had no direct administrative responsibility for this program.

Although he had advocated the appointment of a General Plenipotentiary

for the Utilization of Labor because he wanted one central authority

with whom he could deal on labor matters, he did not obtain

administrative control over Sauckel. Sauckel was appointed directly by

Hitler, under the decree of 21 March 1942, which provided that he should

be directly responsible to Göring, as Plenipotentiary of the Four Year

Plan.

As Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions and General

Plenipotentiary for Armaments under the Four Year Plan, Speer had

extensive authority over production. His original authority was over

construction and production of arms for the OKW. This was progressively

expanded to include naval armaments, civilian production and finally, on

1 August 1944, air armament. As the dominant member of the Central

Planning Board, which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German

production and the allocation and development of raw materials, Speer

took the position that the Board had authority to instruct Sauckel to

provide laborers for industries under its control and succeeded in

sustaining this position over the objection of Sauckel. The practice was

developed under which Speer transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the

total number of workers needed. Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated

it to the various industries in accordance with instructions supplied by

Speer.

Speer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would be

supplied by foreign laborers serving under compulsion. He participated

in conferences involving the extension of the slave labor program for

the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was present at a conference

held during 10 and 12 August 1942 with Hitler and Sauckel, at which it

was agreed that Sauckel should bring laborers by force from occupied

territories where this was necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the

industries under Speer’s control. Speer also attended a conference in

Hitler’s headquarters on 4 January 1944, at which the decision was made

that Sauckel should obtain “at least 4 million new workers from occupied

territories” in order to satisfy the demands for labor made by Speer,

although Sauckel indicated that he could do this only with help from

Himmler.

Sauckel continually informed Speer and his representatives that foreign

laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of 1 March 1944

Speer’s deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about his failure to live

up to the obligation to supply 4 million workers from occupied

territories. In some cases Speer demanded laborers from specific foreign

countries. Thus, at the conference of 10-12 August 1942 Sauckel was

instructed to supply Speer with “a further million Russian laborers for

the German armament industry up to and including October 1942”. At a

meeting of the Central Planning Board on 22 April 1943 Speer discussed

plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal mines, and flatly

vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit should be made up by

German labor.

Speer has argued that he advocated the reorganization of the labor

program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of German labor in

war production in Germany and on the use of labor in occupied countries

in local production of consumer goods formerly produced in Germany.

Speer took steps in this direction by establishing the so-called

“blocked industries” in the occupied territories which were used to

produce goods to be shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries

were immune from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker

who had been ordered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he went

to work for a blocked industry. This system, although somewhat less

inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still illegal. The system of

blocked industries played only a small part in the over-all slave labor

program, although Speer urged its cooperation with the slave labor

program, knowing the way in which it was actually being administered. In

an official sense, he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly

urged its extension.

Speer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced labor, as

Chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt functioned

principally in the occupied areas on such projects as the Atlantic Wall

and the construction of military highways, and Speer has admitted that

he relied on compulsory service to keep it adequately staffed. He also

used concentration camp labor in the industries under his control. He

originally arranged to tap this source of labor for use in small

out-of-the-way factories; and later, fearful of Himmler’s jurisdictional

ambitions, attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as

possible.

Speer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in armament

industries but contends that he utilized Soviet prisoners of war only in

industries covered by the Geneva Convention.

Speer’s position was such that he was not directly concerned with the

cruelty in the administration of the slave labor program, although he

was aware of its existence. For example, at meetings of the Central

Planning Board he was informed that his demands for labor were so large

as to necessitate violent methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the

Central Planning Board on 30 October 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that

many slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and stated:

“There is nothing to be said against SS and police taking drastic steps

and putting those known as slackers into concentration camps.” Speer,

however, insisted that the slave laborers be given adequate food and

working conditions so that they could work efficiently.

In mitigation it must be recognized that Speer’s establishment of

blocked industries did keep many laborers in their homes and that in the

closing stages of the war he was one of the few men who had the courage

to tell Hitler that the war was lost and to take steps to prevent the

senseless destruction of production facilities, both in occupied

territories and in Germany. He carried out his opposition to Hitler’s

scorched earth program in some of the Western countries and in Germany

by deliberately sabotaging it at considerable personal risk.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Speer is not guilty on Counts One and Two, but

is guilty under Counts Three and Four.

_VON NEURATH_

Von Neurath is indicted under all four Counts. He is a professional

diplomat who served as German Ambassador to Great Britain from 1930 to

1932. On 2 June 1932 he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the

Von Papen Cabinet, a position which he held under the Cabinets of Von

Schleicher and Hitler. Von Neurath resigned as Minister of Foreign

Affairs on 4 February 1938, and was made Reich Minister without

Portfolio, President of the Secret Cabinet Council, and a member of the

Reich Defense Council. On 18 March 1939 he was appointed Reich Protector

for Bohemia and Moravia, and served in this capacity until 27 September

1941. He held the formal rank of Obergruppenführer in the SS.

_Crimes against Peace_

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Von Neurath advised Hitler in connection

with the withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of

Nations on 14 October 1933, the institution of rearmament, the passage

on 16 March 1935 of the law for universal military service, and the

passage on 21 May 1935 of the secret Reich Defense Law. He was a key

figure in the negotiation of the Naval Accord entered into between

Germany and England on 18 June 1935. He played an important part in

Hitler’s decision to reoccupy the Rhineland on 7 March 1936, and

predicted that the occupation could be carried through without any

reprisals from the French. On 18 May 1936 he told the American

Ambassador to France that it was the policy of the German Government to

do nothing in foreign affairs until “the Rhineland had been digested”,

and that as soon as the fortifications in the Rhineland had been

constructed and the countries of central Europe realized that France

could not enter Germany at will, “all those countries will begin to feel

very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation

will develop”.

Von Neurath took part in the Hossbach conference of 5 November 1937. He

has testified that he was so shocked by Hitler’s statements that he had

a heart attack. Shortly thereafter he offered to resign, and his

resignation was accepted on 4 February 1938, at the same time that Von

Fritsch and Von Blomberg were dismissed. Yet with knowledge of Hitler’s

aggressive plans he retained a formal relationship with the Nazi regime

as Reich Minister without Portfolio, President of the Secret Cabinet

Council and a member of the Reich Defense Council. He took charge of the

Foreign Office at the time of the occupation of Austria, assured the

British Ambassador that this had not been caused by a German ultimatum,

and informed the Czechoslovakian Minister that Germany intended to abide

by its arbitration convention with Czechoslovakia. Von Neurath

participated in the last phase of the negotiations preceding the Munich

Pact, but contends that he entered these discussions only to urge Hitler

to make every effort to settle the issues by peaceful means.

_Criminal Activities in Czechoslovakia_

Von Neurath was appointed Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia on 18

March 1939. Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by military force. Hacha’s

consent, obtained as it was by duress, cannot be considered as

justifying the occupation. Hitler’s decree of 16 March 1939,

establishing the Protectorate, stated that this new territory should

“belong henceforth to the territory of the German Reich”, an assumption

that the Republic of Czechoslovakia no longer existed. But it also went

on the theory that Bohemia and Moravia retained their sovereignty

subject only to the interests of Germany as expressed by the

Protectorate. Therefore even if the doctrine of subjugation should be

considered to be applicable to territory occupied by aggressive action,

the Tribunal does not believe that this Proclamation amounted to an

incorporation which was sufficient to bring the doctrine into effect.

The occupation of Bohemia and Moravia must therefore be considered a

military occupation covered by the rules of warfare. Although

Czechoslovakia was not a party to the Hague Convention of 1907, the

rules of land warfare expressed in this Convention are declaratory of

existing international law and hence are applicable.

As Reich Protector, Von Neurath instituted an administration in Bohemia

and Moravia similar to that in effect in Germany. The free press,

political parties, and trade unions were abolished. All groups which

might serve as opposition were outlawed. Czechoslovakian industry was

worked into the structure of German war production, and exploited for

the German war effort. Nazi anti-Semitic policies and laws were also

introduced. Jews were barred from leading positions in Government and

business.

In August 1939 Von Neurath issued a proclamation warning against any

acts of sabotage and stating that “the responsibility for all acts of

sabotage is attributed not only to individual perpetrators but to the

entire Czech population.” When the war broke out on 1 September 1939,

8,000 prominent Czechs were arrested by the Security Police in Bohemia

and Moravia and put into protective custody. Many of this group died in

concentration camps as a result of mistreatment.

In October and November 1939 Czechoslovakian students held a series of

demonstrations. As a result, on Hitler’s orders, all universities were

closed, 1,200 students imprisoned, and the nine leaders of the

demonstration shot by Security Police and SD. Von Neurath testified that

he was not informed of this action in advance, but it was announced by

proclamation over his signature posted on placards throughout the

Protectorate, which he claims, however, was done without his authority.

On 31 August 1940 Von Neurath transmitted to Lammers a memorandum which

he had prepared dealing with the future of the Protectorate, and a

memorandum with his approval prepared by Carl Herman Frank on the same

subject. Both dealt with the question of Germanization and proposed that

the majority of the Czechs might be assimilated racially into the German

Nation. Both advocated the elimination of the Czechoslovakian

intelligentsia and other groups which might resist Germanization, Von

Neurath’s by expulsion, Frank’s by expulsion or “special treatment.”

Von Neurath has argued that the actual enforcement of the repressive

measures was carried out by the Security Police and SD who were under

the control of his State Secretary, Carl Herman Frank, who was appointed

at the suggestion of Himmler and who, as a Higher SS and Police Leader,

reported directly to Himmler. Von Neurath further argues that

anti-Semitic measures and those resulting in economic exploitation were

put into effect in the Protectorate as the result of policies decided

upon in the Reich. However this may be, he served as the chief German

official in the Protectorate when the administration of this territory

played an important role in the wars of aggression which Germany was

waging in the East, knowing that War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

were being committed under his authority.

In mitigation it must be remembered that Von Neurath did intervene with

the Security Police and SD for the release of many of the Czechoslovaks

who were arrested on 1 September 1939, and for the release of students

arrested later in the fall. On 23 September 1941 he was summoned before

Hitler and told that he was not being harsh enough and that Heydrich was

being sent to the Protectorate to combat the Czechoslovakian resistance

groups. Von Neurath attempted to dissuade Hitler from sending Heydrich,

but in vain, and when he was not successful, offered to resign. When his

resignation was not accepted he went on leave, on 27 September 1941, and

refused to act as Protector after that date. His resignation was

formally accepted in August 1943.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Von Neurath is guilty under all four Counts.

_FRITZSCHE_

Fritzsche is indicted on Counts One, Three, and Four. He was best known

as a radio commentator, discussing once a week the events of the day on

his own program, “Hans Fritzsche Speaks.” He began broadcasting in

September 1932; in the same year he was made the head of the Wireless

News Service, a Reich Government agency. When, on 1 May 1933, this

agency was incorporated by the National Socialists into their Reich

Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Fritzsche became a

member of the Nazi Party and went to that Ministry. In December 1938 he

became head of the Home Press Division of the Ministry; in October 1942

he was promoted to the rank of Ministerial Director. After serving

briefly on the Eastern Front in a propaganda company, he was, in

November 1942, made head of the Radio Division of the Propaganda

Ministry and Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of the

Greater German Radio.

_Crimes against Peace_

As head of the Home Press Division Fritzsche supervised the German press

of 2,300 daily newspapers. In pursuance of this function he held daily

press conferences to deliver the directives of the Propaganda Ministry

to these papers. He was, however, subordinate to Dietrich, the Reich

Press Chief, who was in turn a subordinate of Goebbels. It was Dietrich

who received the directives to the press of Goebbels and other Reich

Ministers, and prepared them as instructions, which he then handed to

Fritzsche for the press.

From time to time, the “Daily Paroles of the Reich Press Chief”, as

these instructions were labeled, directed the press to present to the

people certain themes, such as the Leadership Principle, the Jewish

problem, the problem of living space, or other standard Nazi ideas. A

vigorous propaganda campaign was carried out before each major act of

aggression. While Fritzsche headed the Home Press Division, he

instructed the press how the actions or wars against Bohemia and

Moravia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union should be dealt with.

Fritzsche had no control of the formulation of these propaganda

policies. He was merely a conduit to the press of the instructions

handed him by Dietrich. In February 1939 and before the absorption of

Bohemia and Moravia, for instance, he received Dietrich’s order to bring

to the attention of the press Slovakia’s efforts for independence, and

the anti-Germanic policies and politics of the existing Prague

Government. This order to Dietrich originated in the Foreign Office.

The Radio Division, of which Fritzsche became the head in November 1942,

was one of the 12 divisions of the Propaganda Ministry. In the beginning

Dietrich and other heads of divisions exerted influence over the

policies to be followed by radio. Towards the end of the war, however,

Fritzsche became the sole authority within the Ministry for radio

activities. In this capacity he formulated and issued daily radio

“paroles” to all Reich propaganda offices, according to the general

political policies of the Nazi regime, subject to the directives of the

Radio-Political Division of the Foreign Office, and the personal

supervision of Goebbels.

Fritzsche, with other officials of the Propaganda Ministry, was present

at Goebbels’ daily staff conferences. Here they were instructed in the

news and propaganda policies of the day. After 1943 Fritzsche himself

occasionally held these conferences, but only when Goebbels and his

State Secretaries were absent. And even then his only function was to

transmit the Goebbels’ directives relayed to him by telephone.

This is the summary of Fritzsche’s positions and influence in the Third

Reich. Never did he achieve sufficient stature to attend the planning

conferences which led to aggressive war; indeed according to his own

uncontradicted testimony he never even had a conversation with Hitler.

Nor is there any showing that he was informed of the decisions taken at

these conferences. His activities cannot be said to be those which fall

within the definition of the common plan to wage aggressive war as

already set forth in this Judgment.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

The Prosecution has asserted that Fritzsche incited and encouraged the

commission of War Crimes by deliberately falsifying news to arouse in

the German People those passions which led them to the commission of

atrocities under Counts Three and Four. His position and official duties

were not sufficiently important, however, to infer that he took part in

originating or formulating propaganda campaigns.

Excerpts in evidence from his speeches show definite anti-Semitism on

his part. He broadcast, for example, that the war had been caused by

Jews and said their fate had turned out “as unpleasant as the Führer

predicted.” But these speeches did not urge persecution or extermination

of Jews. There is no evidence that he was aware of their extermination

in the East. The evidence moreover shows that he twice attempted to have

publication of the anti-Semitic _Der Stürmer_ suppressed, though

unsuccessfully.

In these broadcasts Fritzsche sometimes spread false news, but it was

not proved he knew it to be false. For example, he reported that no

German U-boat was in the vicinity of the _Athenia_ when it was sunk.

This information was untrue; but Fritzsche, having received it from the

German Navy, had no reason to believe it was untrue.

It appears that Fritzsche sometimes made strong statements of a

propagandistic nature in his broadcasts. But the Tribunal is not

prepared to hold that they were intended to incite the German People to

commit atrocities on conquered peoples, and he cannot be held to have

been a participant in the crimes charged. His aim was rather to arouse

popular sentiment in support of Hitler and the German war effort.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Fritzsche is not guilty under this Indictment,

and directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal when the Tribunal

presently adjourns.

_BORMANN_

Bormann is indicted on Counts One, Three, and Four. He joined the

National Socialist Party in 1925, was a member of the Staff of the

Supreme Command of the SA from 1928 to 1930, was in charge of the Aid

Fund of the Party, and was Reichsleiter from 1933 to 1945. From 1933 to

1941 he was Chief of Staff in the Office of the Führer’s Deputy and,

after the flight of Hess to England, became Head of the Party

Chancellery on 12 May 1941. On 12 April 1943 he became Secretary to the

Führer. He was political and organizational head of the Volkssturm and a

general in the SS.

_Crimes against Peace_

Bormann in the beginning a minor Nazi, steadily rose to a position of

power and, particularly in the closing days, of great influence over

Hitler. He was active in the Party’s rise to power and even more so in

the consolidation of that power. He devoted much of his time to the

persecution of the churches and of the Jews within Germany.

The evidence does not show that Bormann knew of Hitler’s plans to

prepare, initiate, or wage aggressive wars. He attended none of the

important conferences when Hitler revealed piece by piece these plans

for aggression. Nor can knowledge be conclusively inferred from the

positions he held. It was only when he became head of the Party

Chancellery in 1941, and later in 1943 Secretary to the Führer when he

attended many of Hitler’s conferences, that his positions gave him the

necessary access. Under the view stated elsewhere which the Tribunal has

taken of the conspiracy to wage aggressive war, there is not sufficient

evidence to bring Bormann within the scope of Count One.

_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_

By decree of 29 May 1941 Bormann took over the offices and powers held

by Hess; by the decree of 24 January 1942 these powers were extended to

give him control over all laws and directives issued by Hitler. He was

thus responsible for laws and orders issued thereafter. On 1 December

1942 all Gaue became Reich defense districts, and the Party Gauleiters

responsible to Bormann were appointed Reich Defense Commissioners. In

effect, this made them the administrators of the entire civilian war

effort. This was so not only in Germany, but also in those territories

which were incorporated into the Reich from the absorbed and conquered

territories.

Through this mechanism Bormann controlled the ruthless exploitations of

the subjected populace. His order of 12 August 1942 placed all Party

agencies at the disposal of Himmler’s program for forced resettlement

and denationalization of persons in the occupied countries. Three weeks

after the invasion of Russia, he attended the conference of 16 July 1941

at Hitler’s field quarters with Göring, Rosenberg, and Keitel; Bormann’s

reports show that there were discussed and developed detailed plans of

enslavement and annihilation of the population of these territories. And

on 8 May 1942 he conferred with Hitler and Rosenberg on the forced

resettlement of Dutch personnel in Latvia, the extermination program in

Russia, and the economic exploitation of the Eastern territories. He was

interested in the confiscation of art and other properties in the East.

His letter of 11 January 1944 called for the creation of a large scale

organization to withdraw commodities from the occupied territories for

the bombed-out German populace.

Bormann was extremely active in the persecution of the Jews, not only in

Germany but also in the absorbed and conquered countries. He took part

in the discussions which led to the removal of 60,000 Jews from Vienna

to Poland in cooperation with the SS and the Gestapo. He signed the

decree of 31 May 1941 extending the Nuremberg Laws to the annexed

Eastern territories. In an order of 9 October 1942 he declared that the

permanent elimination of Jews in Greater German territory could no

longer be solved by emigration, but only by applying “ruthless force” in

the special camps in the East. On 1 July 1943 he signed an ordinance

withdrawing Jews from the protection of the law courts and placing them

under the exclusive jurisdiction of Himmler’s Gestapo.

Bormann was prominent in the slave labor program. The Party leaders

supervised slave labor matters in the respective Gaue, including

employment, conditions of work, feeding, and housing. By his circular of

5 May 1943 to the Leadership Corps, distributed down to the level of

Ortsgruppenleiter, he issued directions regulating the treatment of

foreign workers, pointing out they were subject to SS control on

security problems, and ordered the previous mistreatment to cease. A

report of 4 September 1942 relating to the transfer of 500,000 female

domestic workers from the East to Germany showed that control was to be

exercised by Sauckel, Himmler, and Bormann. Sauckel by decree of 8

September directed the Kreisleiter to supervise the distribution and

assignment of these female laborers.

Bormann also issued a series of orders to the Party leaders dealing with

the treatment of prisoners of war. On 5 November 1941 he prohibited

decent burials for Russian prisoners of war. On 25 November 1943 he

directed Gauleiter to report cases of lenient treatment of prisoners of

war. And on 13 September 1944 he ordered liaison between the Kreisleiter

with the camp commandants in determining the use to be made of prisoners

of war for forced labor. On 29 January 1943 he transmitted to his

leaders OKW instructions allowing the use of firearms, and corporal

punishment on recalcitrant prisoners of war, contrary to the Rules of

Land Warfare. On 30 September 1944 he signed a decree taking from the

OKW jurisdiction over prisoners of war and handing them over to Himmler

and the SS.

Bormann is responsible for the lynching of Allied airmen. On 30 May 1944

he prohibited any police action or criminal proceedings against persons

who had taken part in the lynching of Allied fliers. This was

accompanied by a Goebbels’ propaganda campaign inciting the German

people to take action of this nature, and the conference of 6 June 1944,

where regulations for the application of lynching were discussed.

His Counsel, who has labored under difficulties, was unable to refute

this evidence. In the face of these documents, which bear Bormann’s

signature, it is difficult to see how he could do so even were the

defendant present. Counsel has argued that Bormann is dead and that the

Tribunal should not avail itself of Article 12 of the Charter, which

gives it the right to take proceedings _in absentia_. But the evidence

of death is not conclusive, and the Tribunal, as previously stated, is

determined to try him _in absentia_. If Bormann is not dead and is later

apprehended, the Control Council for Germany may, under Article 29 of

the Charter, consider any facts in mitigation, and alter or reduce his

sentence, if deemed proper.

_Conclusion_

The Tribunal finds that Bormann is not guilty on Count One, but is

guilty on Counts Three and Four.