On 29 May 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had the rank of Reich

Minister without Portfolio, was appointed Reich Commissioner for the

occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has therefore been

considered responsible, by virtue of his functions, for all the acts

committed by the so-called German Civil Government from that date up to

the capitulation of the German Army. The speeches which he made afford

evidence that he was invested not only with purely administrative

functions but also with political authority.

It is, therefore, useless for him to try, as he did when he was

interrogated by my friend Mr. Thomas Dodd, to maintain that in Holland

he was nothing more than an official empowered to put his seal on

orders, in the same way that in Austria earlier he was practically only

a telegraph operator. This interrogation is dated 18 September 1945,

Pages 20 to 22. I do not insist further, as I did not wish to produce

these interrogations in order to avoid wasting the time of the Court

with the numerous interrogations which would have had to be cited in

cross-examination, and these documents will really remain for the

edification of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in?

M. MOUNIER: No, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as a matter of technical procedure. . . .

M. MOUNIER: I know in advance that you cannot accept this as proof

already constituted in your eyes, considering the rule. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.

M. MOUNIER: My intention, Mr. President, is the following—to

state. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me. Under

the article the prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the

defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the defendants.

If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation

in evidence. If they do not choose to do so, they need not do so. Under

such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be

furnished to the defendant until it is.

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President, I have not alluded to these statements

made by the defendant. I simply wish to point out that when the

defendant of whom I am now speaking is cross-examined, we shall be able

to confront him with the statements he made, or, at least, I hope so.

With the permission of the Court I shall first take up the subject of

the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s terrorist activities. These are shown by

the following measures:

First, a whole system of collective fines. In March 1941 he established

a system of collective fines which were imposed upon the Dutch cities

where he thought that elements of the resistance movement existed. Thus

the city of Amsterdam had to pay a fine of two and a half million.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established a system of hostages. On 18

May 1942 he published a proclamation announcing the arrest of 450

persons in important official positions, who were only suspected of

being in relation with the resistance movement.

In fact, the defendant has admitted before Mr. Dodd. . . . No, I stop,

Mr. President, I did not submit these interrogations. I shall pass over

this passage and only point it out in a general way, and I beg the Court

not to consider this fact as an infringement of the Charter. I am simply

pointing out to the Court that in this case, too, the Defendant

Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Reich Chancellor,

the shadow of the Führer, Hitler.

By the decree of 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German

tribunals, the judges of which he himself appointed, were to try not

only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens suspected of

activities hostile to the Reich, to the Nazi Party, or to the German

people.

At the same time the Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the death

penalty for those who had not properly performed the security jobs

assigned them by the Wehrmacht or the Security Police or who had failed

to inform the German command posts of all criminal projects directed

against the occupation forces which came to their knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18

May 1942. You did not give us any number as yet.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I ought to say that I am referring in a

general way to the official report of the Netherlands Government

(Document Number RF-1429). The government submitted a report. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is it stated there?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Did that also apply to the document of 7 July 1942 that

you just spoke of?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also

appointed the SS Obergruppenführer Rauter, General Commissioner for

Security. The latter is responsible for the murder of thousands of

Dutchmen executed with the passive consent of Seyss-Inquart, inasmuch as

Rauter’s appointment was always maintained and was never terminated.

On the other hand, the Netherlands Government charges the Defendant

Seyss-Inquart with the creation of a whole series of exceptional courts.

In May 1943 he established summary police jurisdiction, and in fact

through an ordinance issued by Hitler, Dutch prisoners of war who had

been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were once more

interned. A tough resistance showed itself in the Dutch factories and

the newly established summary jurisdiction sentenced several Dutch

citizens who were executed. Moreover, Seyss-Inquart did not fail to

boast of all these terrorist measures at a meeting of Dutch

collaborators and claimed responsibility for them.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart was Hitler’s supreme representative in

Holland. He should be considered as responsible, along with the

Defendant Sauckel, for the mass deportation of workers from Holland to

the Reich between 1940 and 1945. Whether or not the German military

authorities played any part themselves in the mobilization of labor,

Sauckel’s officials in Holland were normally placed under the authority

of the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, and he must be considered as

responsible for their actions. It was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who

signed the decree of the Reich Commissioner, Number 26 of 1942, which is

found in the official Dutch report, in an official publication ordering

the compulsory transport of Dutch labor to Germany. Those who would not

work for Germany got nothing to eat; the occupation authorities even

went so far as to make huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam and The

Hague in order to procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.

In regard to economic pillage during the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s

period of office as Commissioner, the Dutch economic system was

plundered like that of the other occupied countries. In the winter of

1941-42 woollen goods were requisitioned by order of Seyss-Inquart for

the German Army on the Eastern front. In 1943 textiles and every-day

household articles were requisitioned for the benefit of the bombed-out

German population. Under what the occupation authorities called the

“Action Böhm,” people of the Netherlands were compelled to sell wines

and various objects destined to form gifts for the German population for

the celebration of Christmas 1943.

The same thing happened with regard to the organization of the black

market, for, in order to carry out the Four Year Plan, Seyss-Inquart

gave the Defendant Göring and the Defendant Speer competent assistance

in the pillage of the Dutch economic system. We can say in this way that

a huge black market was fostered and maintained. The Four Year Plan

utilized “snatchers” for these alleged purchases but when Dutch

prosecutors tried to intervene they were prevented from doing so by the

German police.

In 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued an ordinance permitting the

German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property of all persons

who could be accused of hostile activities against the German Reich. The

property of the royal family was, on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s

orders, confiscated by the General Commission for Security. The

occupation troops could help themselves to everything that was of use to

them.

This pillage was manifested in a particularly cruel manner by the abuses

which went on in connection with the requisition of food products.

In fact, the official report of the Dutch Government and the document

already submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution

under Document Number RF-139 (Exhibit Number RF-139), and Document

Number RF-140 (Exhibit Number RF-140) show that, from the very beginning

of the occupation, food stocks were systematically removed with the

consent of Seyss-Inquart—as was also the case with agricultural

produce, which was transported to Germany. When a railway strike broke

out in the north in September 1944, soon after the liberation of

southern Holland, Seyss-Inquart, in order to break the strike, gave

orders that no food stocks were to be moved from the northeast to the

West. As a result of this, it was impossible to establish food stocks in

the West.

Consequently, Seyss-Inquart must also be held responsible for the famine

which ensued during the winter of 1944-45, causing the death of some

25,000 Dutchmen.

In regard to works of art, the pillage was carried on in the same way.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for

organizing the removal of works of art from Holland, since he expressly

called in his friend, Dr. Mühlmann, who was a specialist in this branch.

In this connection I refer to the document submitted by the Economic

Section of the French Prosecution under Document Numbers RF-1343 and

RF-1344. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a whole series of measures

contrary to international law which did considerable harm to the

Netherlands.

In 1941 the Dutch authorities had established a currency control system

which allowed them to keep track of purchases made with German money,

either of goods or public funds, with the aim of preventing abuses which

would lead to the plundering of Holland’s wealth in the form of

materials or of currency.

On 31 March 1941 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart abolished the “currency”

frontier existing between the Reich and the occupied Dutch territory. By

so doing, he paved the way for all the abuses committed in monetary

matters by the occupying power, in addition to the impossible sums

demanded by Germany to defray the expenses of occupation: 500 million

Reichsmark on 24 March 1941.

The frontier control between Dutch occupied territory and Germany was

also abolished by order of Göring, in order to expedite the pillage of

the Netherlands’ economic system. When the war began to go badly for the

Wehrmacht, especially after 1 September 1944, the destruction became

systematic. The objectives aimed at by the Germans in the Netherlands

were the following: First, to demolish or put out of action factories,

shipyards, basins and docks, port installations, mines, bridges, railway

equipment. Second, to flood the western parts of Holland. Third, to

seize raw materials, semi-manufactured products, manufactured goods and

machines, sometimes by requisitioning, sometimes in return for payment

in money, but in many cases simply by force of arms. Fourth, to break

open safe-deposits containing securities, diamonds, _et cetera_, and to

take illegal possession of these. The result of these measures,

responsibility for which devolves wholly or to a great extent on the

Defendant Seyss-Inquart, was to throw Holland into a state of

unspeakable and undeserved misery.

I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of the Defendant

Seyss-Inquart.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will

take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the

Defendant Hess will be presented afterwards; and it is important that he

should finish that day, so that the Chief Prosecutor may have a full day

for his opening statement.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, both yesterday and today I have yielded most

willingly to the wishes of the Tribunal. I understand perfectly your

anxiety to expedite the trial as much as possible, and in view of this,

I shortened the remarks which I was going to make to you this morning.

For this reason, too, I state in the name of the French Prosecution that

I shall now forego the presentation of the cases of the other

defendants, which were on the schedule. I merely ask the Tribunal to

refer to the files which we have submitted, except in the case of Keitel

and Jodl. If it please the Court, my friend and colleague, M. Quatre,

will make a few remarks about these two defendants at the beginning of

this afternoon’s session. He will try to make them as short as possible.

In that way the British Delegation will have the two hours which it

needs to present the case of Hess.

Consequently, may it please the Court, M. Quatre will take the floor for

an hour at two o’clock and then give way to the British Delegation.

THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M.

Mounier, as to the documents against the other defendants, other than

Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in

them?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.

President, Your Honors, I have the honor today to bring to a close the

presentation of the French Prosecution by recapitulating the charges

against the Defendants Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. Before going into

my statement, I shall ask the Tribunal for permission to present a few

observations. First of all, to spare the time of the Tribunal, we have

joined the two defendants in the same brief. Their activities were

carried on so much in common that in separating them we would run the

risk of tedious repetitions and for this reason, I am condensing as far

as possible what I have to say.

This presentation consists of three parts. In an introduction, I have

endeavored to show the position of the two defendants in the general

design of their activities. The first part following this deals with the

preparation of plans of aggression, and will only be mentioned. It has

already been sufficiently expounded so that it need not be brought up

again.

The second part will claim my special attention. It concerns the

responsibility incurred by the defendants for the crimes committed in

the course of the war. In this connection, I shall not mention all the

documents, testimonies, and interrogatories concerning these two

defendants. If their guilt is a function of the repetition of their

crimes, its main characteristic is the criminal intent which caused

these crimes to be carried out. This criminal intent is made

particularly clear by the few documents to which I have limited myself.

I shall ask the Tribunal’s permission to make a few intentionally brief

quotations from these.

The documents quoted will be first quoted under the session number,

which you will find written in red in the margin of the copy before you.

I shall thereupon indicate the original number. If the document has

already been submitted, I shall furnish the date at which it was

submitted and the number under which it was submitted.

As Chief of the National Socialist Party and subsequently as Chancellor

of the Reich, Hitler endeavored to gain sole control of the German Army.

He wanted the unity which he had established between Party and State to

prevail throughout the Army, the State, and the Party. Only under these

conditions would the war machine be capable of fulfilling its function.

The initial impulse would come from the Party, the State would translate

it into action, and the Army would impose it, if necessary, both at home

and abroad.

To achieve this aim it was necessary first of all to impose legislation

which would in fact bring the whole military organization under the

Führer’s orders. It was also necessary to take steps to eliminate

personalities too unyielding to submit to these measures. The execution

of Von Schleicher in 1934 and the disgrace of Blomberg in 1938 are two

examples. All that remained was to provide for their replacement by

military chiefs whose conscience was sufficiently elastic to allow them

to play the part of faithful executives. Keitel and Jodl were among

these.

Their personal convictions and their rapid rise to eminence prove this.

Questioned on 3 August 1945 by Colonel Ecer of the Czechoslovakian

Military Judiciary, the Defendant Keitel spoke thus of his relations

with Hitler and the National Socialist Party, (Exhibit Number RF-1430,

formerly Document Number RF-710):

“In my innermost thoughts I was a faithful supporter of Adolf

Hitler and my political convictions were National Socialist.

When the Führer accorded me his confidence, my personal contact

with him further influenced me towards National Socialism. Today

I am still a firm partisan of Adolf Hitler, which does not imply

that I adhere to all the points of the program and policy of the

Party.”

On 7 November 1943, in a speech delivered in Munich to the leaders of

the Reich and of the provinces on the strategic position of Germany at

the beginning of the fifth year of the war, Jodl made the following

statement by way of peroration, Exhibit Number RF-1431, Document Number

L-172, submitted by the American Prosecution of 27 November 1945 under

Number USA-34:

“At this moment I should like to testify, not only with my lips

but from the bottom of my heart, that our trust and confidence

in the Führer are boundless.”

Keitel, who entered the Army in 1901, was still a colonel in 1931. Jodl,

who was 3 years younger, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel

only in 1932, in spite of the opportunities offered by the war of

1914-18. The past years had brought them only mediocre advancement.

Those which lay before them were to lead them to the heights of honor

and responsibility. They saw their star rising at last simultaneously

with that of the new master of Germany. The immediate result was their

admission to public life.

During the years preceding the war, Keitel did not cease to exercise

high functions in the most exalted ranks of the German Armed Forces. As

he was in special favor with the new master of Germany, he adopted every

possible means of strengthening the influence of Nazi ideology within

the Army from the moment of Hitler’s accession to power. His activities

in the Armed Forces Department were particularly fruitful. This was a

ministerial organization which temporarily replaced the Reich Ministry

of War and was responsible among other things for the preparation and

co-ordination of plans affecting the German Army. The defendant’s period

in office is rendered the more noteworthy by the fact that sweeping

changes in organization had just been effected. The Reichswehr of the

professional soldier was replaced by the Wehrmacht, recruited by

compulsory military service. It was not enough to call the whole youth

of Germany to the flag; it had to be clothed and fed and supplied with

powerful modern weapons. This increase in the number of men under arms,

these beginnings of a military economy and of a policy of rearmament,

were largely due to the efforts of the defendant, who at that time

enjoyed, in fact if not in theory, the prerogatives of a Minister of

War.

On 4 February 1938, when Hitler abolished the War Ministry and

proclaimed himself Commander-in-Chief, he transferred the chief powers

of the Ministry to the High Command of the Armed Forces and its chief,

Keitel, became at the same time Chief of the Führer’s personal staff.

The defendant was to retain these functions until the German Army

capitulated. As Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Keitel

did not exercise direct authority over the three services composing the

Armed Forces: the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, which were directly

under Hitler. His particular function was the co-ordination of matters

affecting the three services; he acted as liaison agent between Hitler

and these three services, but he did more than this. His main role was

that of adviser. He collated the information reaching him from the

different services under his orders. This included reports from the

Operations Staff under Jodl, information from the office of Admiral

Canaris, reports made by the economic Armament Office under General

Thomas, and by the administrative, financial, and legal branches. No

matter how personal and authoritative Hitler’s way of working may have

been, it did not exclude the regular and constant participation of

Keitel in the acts of his master. It was he who was in a position to

carry out his chief’s demands, to suggest, to prepare, or to modify his

decisions.

If we consider his qualifications as a member of the Defense Council of

the Reich and as a member of the Secret Cabinet Council and also

consider their political importance, it is easy to see the scope of the

role played by the defendant in every sphere, whether in the preparation

of military plans in the strict sense of the term, the life or conduct

of the German Army, the distribution of manpower, or the utilization of

the economic resources of Germany.

Whenever a meeting was held at general headquarters or at the

Chancellery, Keitel was present. He was present when Hitler made

decisions of major importance. He was at his side on marches into the

countries to be annexed. When orders by Hitler had to be transmitted, he

in his turn would give orders, elaborating his chief’s ideas and adding

his personal contribution. In countersigning Hitler’s decrees, Keitel

did not alter the validity of these texts as regards the law of the

Third Reich, but he gave Hitler a guarantee of their usefulness for the

Wehrmacht and their execution to the last detail. It was in that way in

particular that he acknowledged responsibility.

Like Keitel, Jodl was one of those men who staked their success on the

success of the new regime and its creator. His attitude, his orders, and

his activities show that he was a general inspired by political

considerations, attached to Hitler, who showered favors on him. In

assuming the direction of the general Operations Staff of the High

Command of the Armed Forces, he also took an active and important part

in the elaboration of his chief’s orders.

Hitler represented the exclusive right to make decisions (Page 9 of my

brief) but the two defendants who shared his every-day life during the

period of hostilities brought his decisions into being, elaborated them,

and ensured their execution.

Jodl fulfilled this role of counsellor, although in theory his authority

was by no means equal to Keitel’s. This did not prevent him from

intervening in matters outside the field of pure operations, but in

which he likewise engaged his personal responsibility.

This responsibility of the two defendants has a bearing on the

preparation and execution of plans of aggression. We shall not come back

to this point. In this matter our British colleague, Mr. Roberts, has

brought out perfectly the role played by these two defendants, and we

shall consider more particularly their responsibility in the conduct of

the war.

First of all, their responsibility for the murder and ill-treatment of

civilians, collective sanctions, and the murder of hostages (Page 13 of

my brief).

From the beginning of the war and keeping pace with the occupation of

new territories by the German armies, there appeared measures against

the civilian population, in violation of the laws of war and of the law

of nations. These violations range from the apparently harmless to the

most severe sanctions, the most cruel treatment, the most senseless and

inhuman executions.

If we turn to the occupied territories in the East, towards Norway,

towards the western countries, we find everywhere the same reactions,

the same scrupulous execution of the same directives. On 16 September

1941, Keitel signed an order regarding the repression of communist

insurrectionary movements in the occupied territories. This is Exhibit

Number RF-1432, Document Number 389-PS. If the Tribunal will permit me,

I should like to read briefly from this document. Keitel’s directives

are the following:

“Every case of insurrection against the German occupying power

is to be attributed to communist initiative irrespective of the

particular circumstances.

“The most severe measures are to be taken to nip the rising in

the bud at the first signs, so as to uphold the authority of the

forces of occupation and to prevent such movements from

spreading. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the

countries in question human life often means nothing and that

intimidation can be achieved only by unusual severity. In this

case, the death penalty must as a general rule be considered a

fitting reprisal for the death of a German soldier.”

THE PRESIDENT: We have had this read already.

M. QUATRE: I am sorry, Mr. President. On 5 May 1942, addressing himself

to Belgium and France in particular, Keitel ordered hostages to be taken

and executed in these two countries. They were to be chosen from the

nationalists, the democrats, and the communists. This is Exhibit Number

RF-1433 (Document Number 1590-PS), the original of which is now in the

hands of the Prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,

which will not fail to submit it in the course of its presentation. This

order merely confirms previous directives, since orders given in August

and September 1941 by General Von Stülpnagel, Commander-in-Chief in

France, already concerned the execution of hostages. This is Exhibit

Number RF-1434 (Document Number 1588-PS) submitted 29 January 1946 by

the French Prosecution under Exhibit Number RF-274.

To impose order in the occupied territories and to protect the members

of the German Army from attempted violence, Keitel did not hesitate to

violate the stipulations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention,

which forbid the use by the occupying power of all means of coercion or

collective reprisals and which, on the contrary, impose respect for the

lives of individuals.

These were not isolated cases of violation; the same things are repeated

in all the occupied countries. These preventive arrests were built up

into a system. They are well suited to the goal that the High Command

had set itself: That of assuring in this manner a certain attitude on

the part of the population which should be advantageous from a military

point of view. The terms of Exhibit Number RF-1433, which I have just

quoted, are perfectly definite:

“. . . the military commanders should always have on hand a

certain number of hostages of various political leanings. . . .

“It is important that these should include personalities in the

public eye. . . .

“In cases of attempted violence, hostages belonging to the same

group as the guilty person are to be shot.”

The reign of terror thus instituted was to reach its climax in the

regulations for applying the Nacht und Nebel decree, issued by Keitel on

12 December 1941. This is Exhibit Number RF-1436, which I submit today

as Document Number 669-PS. If the Tribunal will allow me, I shall read a

few characteristic lines indicating Keitel’s intentions.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had it more than once already.

M. QUATRE: I apologize, Mr. President, and I shall go on. This is the

starting point of the deportations to which France, among other

countries, has contributed in such a great degree. It is unnecessary to

labor the point. You know the treatment inflicted upon these women and

men, torn from their homes in contempt of every law; and the atrocities

committed on them are present to all our minds.

Let us likewise call attention to Exhibit Number RF-1437 (Document

Number UK-20) submitted 9 January 1946 as Exhibit Number GB-163. That is

an order of 26 May 1943, signed on his behalf, in which Keitel

prescribed in Paragraph 3 that detailed investigations are to be made in

given cases regarding the relatives of Frenchmen fighting for the

Russians, if these relatives reside in the occupied zone of France. If

the investigation reveals that these relatives have helped to facilitate

their flight from France, severe measures are to be taken.

On 22 September 1943 the High Command of the Armed Forces, this time

over Jodl’s signature, sent the Commander-in-Chief in Denmark a telegram

interesting from two points of view. It is Exhibit Number RF-1438

(Document Number UK-56) already submitted on 31 January 1946, under

Exhibit Number RF-335. The first paragraph authorizes the enrollment of

Danish nationals in the military formations of the occupying army, in SS

formations. Apart from being injurious to the honor of the individuals,

it contravenes the terms of the preamble of the Hague Convention, which

stipulates that, in cases not included in the regular provisions, the

population and the belligerents must remain under the safeguard of the

laws of humanity and the exigencies of the public conscience. This

attempt at Germanization ignored completely the exigencies of the public

conscience.

As for the second paragraph of this telegram ordering the Jews to be

deported from Denmark to Germany, that is the application of the general

principle of the deportation of Jewish populations which was to lead to

their utter extermination. The Tribunal is sufficiently informed on this

point, so it is unnecessary to labor it.

I now come to the unwarranted devastation and destruction of cities,

towns, and villages (Page 20 of my brief). The policy of terrorism

carried on by the German armies in France against the resistance

movement, against the Free French Forces, broke all bounds when the

occupying power took steps, not against the members of the resistance

forces themselves, but against the inhabitants of villages and towns

suspected of harboring these resistance forces or giving them aid. I

quote in this connection from a brochure put out by the High Command of

the German Armed Forces under the date of 6 May 1944, which bears the

signature of the Defendant Jodl in the name of the Chief of the OKW.

This is Exhibit Number RF-1439, formerly Document Number F-665,

submitted 31 January 1946 under Exhibit Number RF-411. Paragraph 161 of

this notice reads as follows:

“The cleaning up of villages suspected of concealing bands needs

experience. The forces of the Security Service and the rural

Secret Police are to be employed. The real helpers of the bands

are to be identified and the most rigorous measures taken

against them. Collective measures against the populations of

entire villages, including the burning of the places in

question, can be ordered only in exceptional cases and then only

by divisional commanders, SS leaders, or chiefs of police.”

(Page 21 of my brief.)

But what the Defendant Jodl had ordered as an exceptional measure became

the general rule in France in the spring and in the summer of 1944.

Actions which had been exceptional when this order was signed now took

on the aspect of large-scale operations, ordered and carried out in

violation of the law of nations by army units assisted by the forces of

the Security Service and the rural secret police.

On the pretext of investigating or making reprisals against local

resistance elements, German officers and men scrupulously carried out

the orders given by the Chief of the Operations Staff.

It was in this way that the withdrawal of German armies in France was

marked by dead towns such as those which bore the names of

Oradour-sur-Glane, Maillé, Cerizay, Saint-Dié, and Vassieux-en-Vercors.

Jodl is responsible for these “mopping-up” operations, which began with

the most arbitrary arrests and went on by progressive stages to torture,

the wholesale massacre of men, women, old people, and children—even

infants in arms—and the looting and burning of the villages themselves.

No distinction was made among the inhabitants; all of them, even the

babies, were “genuine auxiliaries.”

Never have the necessities of war justified such measures, all of which

constituted violations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention.

I come now (Page 23 of my brief) to the mobilization of civilian workers

and to the deportation of civilians for forced labor. The decree

appointing Sauckel Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, under date of

21 March 1942, is signed by Hitler, Lammers, Chief of the Reich

Chancellery, and the Defendant Keitel. This is Exhibit Number RF-1440

(Document Number 1666-PS) submitted by the American Prosecution on 12

December 1945 under Exhibit Number USA-208.

The first paragraph provides for the recruiting of all available

civilian labor for employment in the German war industry and

particularly in the armament industry. All unemployed workers in

Germany, the Protectorate, the Government General, and all the occupied

territories were liable for this. This constitutes a violation of

Article 52 of the Hague Convention.

On 7 November 1943, in the course of the speech to which we have already

alluded, the Defendant Jodl, speaking of the tasks incumbent upon the

populations of German-occupied territories, declared in Exhibit Number

RF-1431 (Document Number L-172) which I quoted some time ago:

“In my opinion the time has come when we must have no scruples

in taking stern and resolute measures in Denmark, Holland,

France, and Belgium in order to force thousands of unemployed to

work on fortifications, which is more essential than any other

work. The necessary orders have already been given.”

Sauckel would not have expressed himself otherwise. Jodl also champions

this requisitioning of services to utilize the potential labor of the

western occupied territories for military purposes in the exclusive

interest of Germany. It matters little that the Hague Convention

prohibits such procedure. For him, too, total warfare and the triumph of

Germany take precedence over respect for international conventions or

the customs of war.

I now come to the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel in the sphere

of economic spoliation and looting of art treasures. I shall be

extremely brief. I point out to the Tribunal three documents which have

already been submitted to it. I simply refer to them: Exhibit Number

RF-1441 submitted yesterday by my colleague of the Economic Section

under Exhibit Number RF-1302, and Exhibit Number RF-1400 (Document

Number 137-PS) submitted 18 December 1945 by the American Prosecution

under Number USA-379, and finally Exhibit Number RF-1443 (Document

Number 138-PS), submitted yesterday under Exhibit Number RF-1310.

In regard to this, I shall merely submit to the Tribunal today a short

letter consisting of five lines, addressed by Keitel to Rosenberg, Chief

of the Einsatzstab. This is Exhibit Number RF-1444, (Document Number

148-PS) which reads as follows:

“Most Honored Reich Minister.

“In reply to your letter of 20 February I inform you that I have

instructed the High Command of the Army to make the necessary

arrangements with your delegate for the work of your special

units in the operational area.”

It can therefore be said that Rosenberg’s activities received the

continued support and assistance of the Army from the very first and in

this way Keitel also made a personal contribution to the looting of the

art treasures of France and the western countries. These measures were

at first invested with an appearance of legal justification. They did

not take place, according to Keitel, by virtue of a right to take, but

simply as a guarantee for future peace negotiations. But these measures

quickly degenerated into a general plundering of the art treasures of

all kinds possessed by these western countries, in violation of the

stipulations of Articles 46, 47, and 56 of the Hague Convention, which

forbid the confiscation of private property and the pillage or seizure

of works of art and science by the members of the occupying army.

I have now reached the last main part of my brief, which concerns (Page

28) the violations of conventions and laws of war relating to prisoners

of war. In this field, in particular, Keitel and Jodl have made

themselves guilty of peculiarly unwarrantable measures, contrary to the

laws of war.

To begin with, they have violated Article 6 of the Appendix to the Hague

Convention, which stipulates that “work carried out by war prisoners

shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with war

operations.”

Now, in a memorandum signed on his behalf, dated 31 October 1941,

Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, forces Russian prisoners of war, interned

in the Reich, to perform work connected with war operations. This is

proved by Exhibit Number RF-1445 (Document Number EC-194) submitted by

the American Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number

USA-214. In this text Keitel expresses himself thus:

“The Führer has just ordered that even the labor capacity of

Russian prisoners of war must be placed at the disposal of the

German war economy on a large scale.”

That is the signal for the immediate setting up of a program for

incorporating these prisoners into the German war economy. It is true

that in 1941, this document concerns only Russian prisoners of war; but

from 21 March 1942, the incorporation of all war prisoners into the

German war industry, and more especially the armament industry, is put

into practice. The decree signed by Hitler appointing Sauckel

Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, to which reference already has

been made, provides, likewise, for the use of all prisoners of war in

the German armaments industry. This is shown by Document RF-1440, which

reveals the violation of Articles 27, 31, 32, and 33 of the Geneva

Convention.

One month later, on 20 April 1942, Sauckel expressed himself thus, in

his mobilization program for the labor forces, Exhibit Number RF-1446

(Document Number 016-PS) submitted 11 December 1945 by the American

Prosecution, under Exhibit Number USA-168:

“It is absolutely necessary to make the fullest possible use of

all prisoners of war and to employ the greatest possible number

of new civilian workers, both men and women, if the labor

program in this war is to be realized.”

In this way Sauckel succeeded in incorporating 1,658,000 prisoners of

war into the war economy of the Reich by 6 February 1943, as he

announced in a speech made at Posen. This is shown by Exhibit Number

RF-1447 (Document Number 1739-PS), submitted on 8 January 1946 by the

French Prosecution under Exhibit Number RF-10.

The 1,658,000 prisoners of war were the following: Belgians, 55,000;

French, 932,000; British, 45,000; Yugoslavs, 101,000; Poles, 33,000;

Russians, 488,000; Others, 4,000; Total: 1,658,000.

The fact that such a large contingent was put at the disposal of the

German war economy implies perfect collusion between Sauckel’s labor

services and Keitel, who, in his capacity of Chief of the High Command,

was responsible for this reservoir of manpower and the use to which it

was put.

These flagrant violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were later

accompanied by measures inspired or authorized by the defendants, which

were even more serious because they no longer violated only the war

prisoners’ rights as such but also involved physical assaults on their

persons, which might even cause their deaths. These violations have a

bearing, first of all, on the violation of security (Page 32 of my

brief).

Exhibit Number RF-1448, (Document Number 823-PS), submitted 30 January

1946 under Exhibit Number RF-359 offers us a report drawn up by the

office of the Operations Staff for the Chief of the High Command. It

relates to the establishment of camps for British and American Air Force

prisoners in German bombed towns. The Operations Staff of the Luftwaffe

proposed this arrangement so that the presence of these air force

prisoners might protect the population of the cities concerned against

possible attacks by the British and American Air Forces and in order to

transfer all the existing camps for air force prisoners to these places.

Jodl approved this measure on behalf of the General Staff of the High

Command, considering that if it was limited to the establishment of new

camps, it would not be contrary to international law.

If we did not know the reason underlying this decision we might believe,

like the Defendant Jodl, that it does not run counter to international

law. But this measure, as the first lines of this document specify, is

above all an indirect means of safeguarding the German urban population.

The Allied war prisoners are only a means of warding off possible air

attacks; and to attain this end no hesitation is shown in aggravating

their condition by exposing them to the dangers of war. This is a grave

violation of the obligation regarding the safety of prisoners imposed by

Article 9 of the Geneva Convention upon the power detaining prisoners of

war.

Keitel writes only two words on the first page of the document—“No

objections”—and adds his initials.

I now come (Page 34) to the measures taken against escaped prisoners.

The nature of these measures later became particularly serious, as is

shown by Exhibit Number RF-1449 (Document Number 1650-PS), submitted on

13 December 1945 by the American Prosecution under Number USA-246. The

Tribunal is sufficiently informed as to this and it is not necessary, I

think, for me to read it.

This document reveals the “Aktion Kugel” which was designed to put a

stop to the escapes of officers and noncommissioned officers. Its only

purpose was to turn escaped prisoners over to police organizations. This

is the Sonderbehandlung mentioned in orders and reports, but this

“special treatment,” as you know, is nothing more or less than

extermination.

Yet, in the terms of Article 47 and succeeding articles of the Geneva

Convention, only disciplinary punishment in the form of arrest can be

inflicted by the detaining power on escaped prisoners of war. Keitel did

not hesitate to abandon these methods for more radical means.

DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The French prosecutor is

about to refer to a document which is in the document book under RF-711

and has been presented to the Court under Document RF-1450. This

document is marked as a summary of an interrogation of General Westhoff,

and it forms a particularly grave charge against the Defendant Keitel.

It concerns the shooting of R.A.F. officers who had escaped from the

Camp of Sagan. I protest against the use of this document in evidence

for the following reasons:

1. The original is not an affidavit but only a summarized report of

General Westhoff’s statements. 2. The report submitted is not signed by

Colonel Williams, who conducted the interrogation. It is not signed at

all but has only a translator’s note on it. 3. One cannot see, from the

document, who drafted it. 4. In addition, one cannot see from that

report whether General Westhoff was questioned under oath. 5. General

Westhoff is, as far as I know, right here in Nuremberg. 6. There is a

protocol concerning General Westhoff’s interrogation. For these reasons

I ask the Court to verify whether that document, which has been

presented as a résumé of General Westhoff’s interrogation, can be

admitted in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: [_Turning to M. Quatre._] Well, what do you say to the

various points raised by Dr. Nelte?

M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I recognize the soundness of the request by

the Defense and I shall be in a position at the end of this session to

produce before the Tribunal the complete minutes of the interrogation of

General Westhoff, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.

I regret not being able to produce them at the moment. I received these

minutes late for certain reasons and I thought it better not to add them

to my document book.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the document which you have

submitted to us cannot be admitted. It is a mere résumé. The Tribunal

thinks, also, that it can allow the interrogatory to be used only if a

copy of it is handed to the defendants’ counsel and the witness who made

the interrogatory is submitted to the defendants’ counsel for

cross-examination, if they wish to cross-examine him. Otherwise you must

call General Westhoff and examine him orally. Is that clear? I will

repeat it if you like.

The document you have submitted to us is rejected. You can either call

General Westhoff as a witness, in which case, of course, he will be

liable to cross-examination; or you can put in the interrogatory after

you have supplied a copy of it to Defense Counsel, and then General

Westhoff, who made the interrogatory, will be liable to

cross-examination by the Defense Counsel.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal allow me to intervene for one

moment?

The document to which my learned friend referred a moment ago as having

been certified by myself is a report of the United Nations War Crimes

Commission, which I received from the Chairman, Lord Reith, and

certified as such a report. It therefore, in my respectful submission,

becomes admissible under Article 21 of the Charter. It is not merely a

transcript of the interrogation. That is the document to which my

learned friend referred and that is available and can be procured quite

shortly.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I follow that point, but at the same time that

does not altogether meet the situation. If it is true that General

Westhoff is in Nuremberg at the present moment, it would scarcely be

fair that a document of that sort should be put in unless the person who

made the statement or from whose interrogatory the statement was

composed was submitted for cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, My Lord, I should

like the Tribunal to consider that point because the Tribunal has not

got the document in front of it; but it is a report to the United

Nations War Crimes Commission, based on the interrogatory. It therefore,

in my respectful submission, becomes admissible as a report within the

actual words of Article 21 and therefore is a matter which the Tribunal

shall, under the Charter, take judicial notice of.

THE PRESIDENT: Would your submission be that the right course would be

to take that report into consideration and leave it to the defendants,

if they wished it, to call General Westhoff?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be my submission—that is my

submission because of the effect of Article 21 or the course which is

contemplated in view of the special powers and special validity given to

such reports by Article 21.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the interrogation

was made by the Prosecution in Nuremberg?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told that the interrogation was made in

London. I did not know that General Westhoff was in Nuremberg. I will

make inquiries on that point.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, were you able to inform us whether or not the

interrogation was made in Nuremberg or in London?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told it was made in London.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is now?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not know he was in Nuremberg until Your

Lordship mentioned it, but I can easily verify that point.

DR. NELTE: Last week I received a letter from General Westhoff, from the

witnesses’ block of the prison here in Nuremberg, with answers to other

questions. So you see that he was here last week.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if I might just add one or two words to

clarify the position. I do this because this is a matter to which the

British Government, in particular, attached very great importance.

The position was that last September—on 25 September—the British

Government sent a full report of this incident to the United Nations War

Crimes Commission. That report included statements before a court of

inquiry, statements of Allied witnesses, statements taken from German

witnesses, including General Westhoff, a copy of the official lists of

the dead, and a report of the protecting power. All that was sent by the

British Government to the United Nations War Crimes Commission last

September; and the statement of General Westhoff, which I certified as

being a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, was part of

an appendix to that report which was then in the custody of the United

Nations War Crimes Commission and of which a copy was sent to me here.

I provided that to my French colleagues and that refers to an earlier

report made by General Westhoff at an interrogation which took place in

London as a part of the matter of that report.

The document which my learned friend was adducing today was a summary of

a subsequent interrogation of General Westhoff taken in Nuremberg. My

Lord, I wanted to get the position perfectly clear, if I could, to the

Tribunal, because, as I say, the incident is one of some importance and

the British Government report will be, I hope, tendered the Tribunal by

my Soviet colleague, as the incident lies to the east of the line which

we have drawn through the center of Berlin and therefore falls within

the Soviet case.

But I do not want the Tribunal to be under any misapprehension as to the

nature of the earlier report that was made, the one which my learned

friend referred to as being able to put in later should the Tribunal

desire it.

THE PRESIDENT: But you are agreed that the document which is now being

offered to the Tribunal is not a government document within Article 21

of the Charter?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I quite respectfully agree that that is not

really the document on which I intervened. I intervened on the second

one.

THE PRESIDENT: At this stage we are not concerned with that document,

only with the document offered in evidence to which Dr. Nelte objected,

and that document is not a government document within Article 21.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That I understand is so, but I was really

intervening to explain that the second document comes. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand, yes. The Tribunal allows the

objection of Dr. Nelte. It considers that the document which has been

submitted is not a governmental document within Article 21 of the

Charter and is therefore rejected. The Tribunal adheres to the decision

which I announced just before we adjourned, namely, that if the

Prosecution desires to do so, they can produce the interrogation of

which the document submitted to them is understood by them to be a

résumé; and if they do so, then they must produce the witness, General

Westhoff, for cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel. In the

alternative, they can produce and call General Westhoff himself and

then, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination by the

defendants’ counsel.

M. QUATRE: I take notice of the Tribunal’s decisions and I should like

to state that as I am eager not to lose time, and much time has already

been lost in the course of today’s session, we shall not make use of

this document now, nor shall we call General Westhoff. I shall simply

request the Tribunal to note that we reserve the right to call General

Westhoff, if necessary, when the defendants are cross-examined. May I

continue, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: You may.

M. QUATRE: I had reached, Gentlemen, Page 36 of my brief, concerning the

treatment of Allied airmen who were prisoners. This point had already

been discussed at some length before you.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to say that the Tribunal will be willing

to sit this evening until half past five, in order that the case against

the Defendant Hess may be concluded; but it is very important that the

case should be concluded tonight, against the Defendant Hess, because

the Soviet Prosecution will require the whole day for their presentation

tomorrow.

M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I shall pass straight

on to my conclusion. I shall say nothing about the treatment of Allied

airmen. You know the circumstances, as well as the treatment of commando

troops, and I once more beg the Tribunal’s pardon for having

unintentionally spoken at such length. I shall now conclude.

It is definitely the conception of criminal intention which was present

in the drafting of the orders and directives which we have just

examined. The reality of the acts perpetrated as a result of these

decisions cannot be denied, nor should we overlook or underestimate this

moral element, qualified by French penal law, to use the formula of an

eminent jurist as “knowledge on the part of the agent of the illicit

character of the acts performed by him.” The two defendants were fully

cognizant of the illicit nature of orders which they knew would be

scrupulously carried out.

With Keitel and Jodl the systematic rejection of the laws and customs

that mitigate the horrors of war and the setting up, as a matter of

principle, of the most barbarous practices, are the reflection of the

norms and precepts of National Socialism and its leader, for whom all

international rules, all conventions, any ethical code represented an

intolerable restraint, an obstacle to the goal to be attained, inasmuch

as they interfered with the higher interests of the German community.

It is not a matter of indifference to know whether Keitel and Jodl were

urged by personal ambition or whether, true to the pan-German tradition

of the German General Staff, they yielded to the National Socialist

frenzy in the hope of one day seeing the arrogant pretensions of Germany

fully realized.

The most important point in our opinion is the personal contribution

which they consciously and voluntarily made to the enterprise of

destruction carried out by the Third Reich.

For 10 years Keitel was the “king pin” of the German Army and from 1936

onward Jodl did not cease to be his collaborator. Before the war they

worked to promote the war, and during the war they deliberately flouted

the rules of law and justice, the sole safeguards of fighting men, held

the dignity of mankind in utter contempt, and thus failed to do their

duty as soldiers.

Nacht und Nebel, the Kugel Aktion, the Sonderbehandlung, the destruction

of our cities—all this will be forever associated with the names of

these men, and particularly with the name of Keitel who dared to

proclaim that human life was less than nothing.

And at this moment we cannot prevent our thoughts from turning towards

the innumerable absent ones who for that reason sacrificed their lives.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the

United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present

the evidence upon Counts One and Two of the Indictment against the

Defendant Hess.

My Lord, the trial brief, which I believe the Tribunal have before them,

has been made out in the form of a fairly full note of the evidence to

which I intend to refer, and it may be of convenience to the Tribunal to

have it before them during the court sitting.

May I first prove the positions which he held and which are set out in

Appendix A of the Indictment, and say a word about his early life.

The defendant was born in 1894. He is now 52 years old. He served in the

German Army during the last war and in 1919 he went to Munich

University. There he became the leader of the Nazi organization in that

university and in 1920 he became a member of the Nazi Party itself. He

was among the first of the SA, and he became the leader of the students’

corps of police. In 1923 he took part in the Munich Putsch, and as a

result of that he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Half of that

period he served in jail with Hitler himself. I stress that, because it

was during those seven and one-half months in prison with Hitler that

Hitler dictated _Mein Kampf_.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got. . . .

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I think I know what the difficulty is. This

case was originally scheduled to be presented by the American Delegation

and they did have a brief of their own. It may be that that is the brief

which Mr. Biddle has before him. I will hand you up a spare copy.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Sir.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It was during that time that Hitler dictated

_Mein Kampf_ to this defendant.

Now, dealing with his actual appointments: From 1925 until 1932 he was

private secretary and aide-de-camp to Hitler. In 1932 he became the

Chairman of the Central Political Committee of the Party, in succession

to Gregor Strasser. In March 1933, after the Nazi Party became a power,

he became a member of the Reichstag, and in April of that year he was

appointed Deputy to the Führer, a position which he held until he flew

to England in May of 1941.

That evidence so far is all contained in two documents, one a book

called _Dates of the History of the Nazi Party_, by Volz, which is

already in evidence as Document Number 3132-PS and was put in evidence

as Exhibit Number USA-592, and the other the _Deutsches Führerlexikon_,

Document Number 3191-PS, Exhibit Number USA-593.

On the first of December 1933, he became Reich Minister without

Portfolio, another position which he held throughout the remainder of

his time in Germany. That appears in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. It is

Document Number 3178-PS and it goes in now as GB-248. On the 4th of

February 1938 he became a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. My Lord,

that is Document Number 3189-PS, and becomes GB-249.

On the 30th of August 1939 he became a member of the Council of

Ministers for Defense of the Reich, Document Number 2018-PS, which

becomes GB-250. On the 1st of September 1939 he was appointed successor

designate to the Führer, after Göring. Göring, it will be remembered,

was successor Number 1, and during that time Hess held the positions of

Obergruppenführer in the SS and in the SA.

That completes the formal proof of the positions charged against him in

the Indictment. I would say a word upon the authority he exercised under

and holding these positions. The Tribunal will remember that in

appointing Hess as his Deputy, the Führer decreed, in the decree by

which he made the appointment, as follows: “I hereby appoint Hess as my

Deputy and give him full power to make decisions in my name on all

questions of Party leadership.” The extent of his office as Deputy

Führer can be seen from the Party year book of 1941, to which I would

briefly refer the Tribunal, as it appears on Page 104 of the Tribunal’s

document book. It is Document Number 3163-PS and has already been put in

as USA-255. I quote from that year book:

“By decree of the Führer of 21 April 1933 the Deputy of the

Führer received full power, to decide in the name of the Führer

on all matters concerning Party leadership. Thus, the Deputy of

the Führer is the representative of the Führer, with full power

over the entire leadership of the National Socialist German

Workers Party. The office of the Deputy of the Führer is

therefore an office of the Führer.

“In essence, it is the duty of the Deputy of the Führer to

direct the basic policies of Party work, to give directives, and

take care that all Party work be done in agreement with National

Socialist principles.

“All the threads of the Party work are gathered together by the

Deputy of the Führer. He gives the final Party word on all

intra-Party plans and all questions vital for the existence of

the German people. The Deputy of the Führer gives the directives

required for all the Party work, in order to maintain the unity,

determination, and striking power of the National Socialist

German Workers Party as the bearer of the National Socialist

philosophy.

“In addition to the duties of Party leadership, the Deputy of

the Führer has far reaching powers in the field of the State.

These are:

“1. Participation in national and state legislation, including

the preparation of Führer decrees. The Deputy of the Führer in

this way validates the conception of the Party as the guardian

of National Socialist philosophy.

“2. Approval of the Deputy of the Führer of proposed

appointments for officials and labor service leaders.

“3. Securing the influence of the Party over the self-government

of the regional administrations.”

I would refer the Tribunal to Page 119 of the document book, which is a

chart which shows the organization of the Deputy of the Führer’s office.

It is Document Number 3201-PS which becomes GB-251. I would particularly

refer the Tribunal to the square in the center, showing the liaison

officer of the Wehrmacht, and showing his close association with the

Army; and in the right-hand column at the top: “Chief of the Foreign

Organization,” of which I shall tell the Tribunal in a moment;

“Commissioner for Foreign Policy,” showing his concern with the foreign

policy of the German State; “Commissioner for All Technological Matters

and Organization”; “Commissioner for All University Matters”;

“Commissioner of University Policy,” showing his concern with the

education of Germany; and further down “Office for Racial Policy,”

showing his concern with the anti-Jew policy of the Nazi Government that

followed; and at the bottom again, “Specialist on Education.”

But a glance at that chart will show that he was really involved in

every aspect and every branch of Nazi life and the organization and

administration of the State. As Reich Minister without Portfolio, in the

Law to Secure the Unity of Party and State of 1 December 1933, it was

stated that his task was to guarantee the close working co-operation of

the Party and the SA with public authority. Put in as Document Number

1395-PS, it becomes GB-252.

He acquired wide legislative powers, as it has already been seen from

the extract which I have read from the Nazi year book of 1941. I would

particularly draw the attention of the Tribunal to a decree of Hitler’s

dated 27 July. The extract which I wish to quote is set out in the trial

brief. It has already been read and therefore I will do nothing now

other than to draw the attention of the Tribunal to it. The document is

Document Number D-138 and has been put in as USA-403. By the law for the

protection of people in November 1933, it will be remembered that Hitler

and his cabinet obtained for themselves full powers of legislation,

independently of the Reichstag, and this defendant, being a member of

the cabinet, of course, shared in these powers.

His approval of that procedure can be seen from a speech he made on the

16th of January 1937, and a short extract is again set out in the trial

brief that the Tribunal has before them:

“National Socialism has seen to it that vital necessities of our

nation can today no longer be taken away by a Reichstag and made

the object of the haggling of parties. You have seen that in the

new Germany decisions of historic importance are made by the

Führer and his cabinet within a few hours, decisions which in

other countries must be preceded by parliamentary debates

lasting days and weeks.”

That last extract is taken from Document Number 2426-PS, which becomes

Exhibit Number GB-253.

That these powers and offices were no sinecure is clear from Hess’ own

order which he issued in October 1934. I will not read it now because it

has already been read. It is Document Number D-139 and was put in as

USA-404; and the Tribunal will remember that he is there issuing a

decree saying he has been given the right to participate in legislation

by the Führer and any office that is promoting legislation, in which he

therefore ought to take part, must let him have the draft in time to

take effective action on it if he disapproves of it.

I think again the extract I have read from the year book sufficiently

describes the powers that he had without my referring to more than two

other documents upon this matter. On Page 5 of the trial brief it will

be seen that he acquired powers and took part in the organization and

production under the Four Year Plan. I quote from a lecture given by the

Defendant Frick on the 7th of March 1940, which is Document Number

2608-PS and has already been put in as USA-714. But the short passage

that I quote now was not actually read. In that lecture Frick said:

“In order to guarantee the co-ordination of the various economic

agencies of the Four Year Plan, those agencies were formed into

a general council, under the chairmanship of Göring. Its members

are the state secretaries of the agencies working in the field

of war economy, the Chief of the Military Office of Economy, and

a representative of the Deputy of the Führer.”

And lastly, a quotation from the _National Zeitung_ of the 27th of April

1941, which is Document Number M-102 and becomes GB-254. My Lord, it

appears on Page 4 of the trial brief. I quote from these passages, set

out simply to save the Tribunal’s time in referring to the document

book. It does appear on Page 12 of the document book if the Tribunal

desires to refer to the full extract:

“A long while ago—it was still before the outbreak of the

war—Rudolf Hess was once called the ‘Conscience of the Party.’

If we ask why the Führer’s Deputy was given this undoubtedly

honorable title, the reason for this is plain to see. There is

no aspect of our public life which is not the concern of the

Führer’s Deputy. So enormously many-sided and diverse is his

work and sphere of duty that it cannot be outlined in a few

words; and it lies in the nature of the duties laid on the

Führer’s Deputy that the public at large hears little of the

work of Rudolf Hess. Few know that many government measures

taken, especially in the sphere of war economy and the Party,

which meet with such hearty approbation when they are proclaimed

because they voice true public feeling, can be traced back to

the direct initiation of the Führer’s Deputy.”

Perhaps I ought to remind the Tribunal that in the decree appointing a

Secret Cabinet Council, that council was appointed by Hitler to advise

him in the conduct of foreign policy. The Tribunal will find attached to

that document book a few photos. They are of little importance. They

were really to emphasize or remind the Tribunal of the film that was

shown earlier in the course of these proceedings, when, it will be

remembered, the Defendant Hess appeared in practically every scene of

that film “The Rise to Power of the Nazi Party.” These photographs are

not actually photographs from that film; they are somewhat similar and I

produce an affidavit with them to state they were taken by Hitler’s own

private photographer. That affidavit becomes Document Number GB-255.

That, then, is the evidence of his position and of his authority; and

perhaps I might be allowed to make one short submission upon that. I

make it in respect of this Defendant Hess, although it is perhaps a

submission which can be made in respect of every one of these

defendants.

The Prosecution has presented these cases against the individual

defendants in the form of a collection of the documents which directly

refer and which directly connect these defendants with specific

instances of participation in the various crimes that were committed by

the German people. My Lord, it will be my submission that it is

sufficient to justify and bring home the conviction of this man and his

colleagues to produce simply evidence of their positions in the Nazi

State and the control of that State and also the general evidence of the

crimes which were committed by the German people. It is only perhaps

now, at this late stage in the trial, as day by day the extent and scope

of those crimes is becoming clearer, that we realize that they cannot

have happened by themselves. Crimes on that scale must be organized,

co-ordinated, and directed. If the government of Nazi Germany, or the

government of any country, is not the organization which directed and

co-ordinated, what is? If the members of the German nation who are

committing those crimes are not people responsible for them, then, in my

submission, one is entitled to ask, Who is?

My Lord, there can be no question that these men had knowledge. Again,

as the picture unfolds, it will be my submission that everybody in

Germany must have had knowledge of what was going on; and if everybody

had knowledge, then, my submission is, these men must certainly have had

knowledge; and I would urge upon this Tribunal the fact that the

conviction of these men does not rely upon the mere chance of how many

documents happened to have been captured bearing their signatures. It

might well have been that no documents at all had been captured. But, in

the submission of the Prosecution, these men could equally well and

equally justifiably have been proved guilty in the part they took,

beyond any kind of doubt, upon the evidence of the positions that they

held and the evidence of the scope and extent of the crimes that were

committed by the people they controlled.

My Lord, that is my submission, and in view of that, I would perhaps

deal briefly, for the convenience of the Tribunal, with the small

matters, the many matters, which do directly connect him with, as I say,

almost every aspect of the crimes and life of Nazi Germany.

I turn to Page 6 of the trial brief. . . .

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Rudolf Hess): The

prosecuting attorney just mentioned a sworn statement. I cannot find

this sworn statement either in the document book or in his trial brief.

I can, consequently, take no position in regard to this sworn statement,

nor, especially, can I go into the question as to whether there is any

objection to the statement as regards the terms of the Charter. I

request the prosecuting attorney to present me with this sworn

statement.

THE PRESIDENT: We couldn’t hear the rest of the translation through.

Well, go on!

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I am not sure how much of the translation you

heard.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is some document that you are saying is not

in the document book?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I intend to say that the photographs are in the

book. The affidavit by the photographer was by mistake omitted from the

book; the original is here. I will produce a copy for Dr. Seidl, and I

regret it was not done before. It was not a very important document.

My Lord, it might be expected that, in the positions he held, the

Defendant Hess took a leading part in the acquisition of power by the

Nazi Party and in its consolidation of control over the State. By the

law of the 1st of August the office of Reich President. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: 1934?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I beg your pardon, 1934, yes. [_Continuing_]

. . . and of Reich Chancellor were joined together under Hitler. Hitler

held both offices. That decree was signed by others and by Hess. Hess

also signed a decree on the 20th of December 1934, a decree entitled

“Laws against Treacherous Acts against the State and Party.” By Article

1 of that decree penalties were imposed upon anybody making false

statements injuring the prestige of the government, the Party, or its

agencies; and by Article 2 penalties were imposed for statements proving

a malicious attitude against the Party or its leading personalities. The

decree was signed by Hess, and it was Hess who had to issue the

necessary regulations for carrying the decree into effect.

He took a leading part in the gaining of control over government

appointments. I quote again in all these matters only a few examples. If

one wanted to quote every decree that the defendant signed and every act

he took in participation of these matters, it would really entail

writing a history of the Nazi Party from 1920 until 1941, and a history

of Germany from 1933 until 1941. Set out in the trial brief at Page 7,

it will be seen that there are various decrees, all signed by Hess: On

the 24th of September 1935, a decree providing for his consultation in

the appointment of Reich civil servants; 3rd April 1936, providing for

his participation in the appointment of labor service officials; and I

refer again to the 10th of July 1937, another decree under which he

participated by having to be consulted upon the appointment of other

minor civil servants.

With respect to the control of the Nazi Party gained over the German

youth, again there are various decrees signed by this defendant and I

set out in the trial brief, particularly, a reference to the book which

has already been put in, Volz’ dates of the Nazi Party, where it appears

that he appointed a University Commission of the Party, which, was under

his supervision. The Tribunal will remember that we have already seen

from the chart of his staff that he had a department dealing with

universities and with teachers.

And I am quoting from the same document. On the 18th of July 1934, the

Nazi League of German Students was directly subordinated to the Deputy

of the Führer.

The defendant, as the Tribunal has heard, was an Obergruppenführer

himself in the SS and the SA. His responsibility for an association with

those organizations can be seen from three documents. Amongst the papers

found in the Krupp files was a circular sent by Hess, apparently to

various industries, asking for funds or subscriptions for the Adolf

Hitler Fund for German Industry. The document is Document Number D-151,

which I put in now as Exhibit Number GB-256, and the relevant extract

again is set out in the trial brief for convenience:

“The ‘Adolf Hitler Fund for German Economy’ is founded upon an

agreement between the Reich management of the NSDAP and leading

representatives of German industry.”

Then its purpose is set out:

“To put, firstly, at the disposal of the Reich leadership the

funds required for the unified execution of the tasks which fall

to the lot of the SA, SS, St., HJ and other political

organizations. . . .”

He signed a decree on the 9th of June 1934.

For the convenience of the Tribunal, perhaps I ought to mention that

that last document I mentioned can be found at Page 5 of the document

book.

On the 9th of June 1934 he signed a decree by which the Security Service

of the Reichsführer SS was established as the sole political news and

defense service of the Party.

On the 14th of December 1938, he issued a decree by which the SD, which

Himmler had established, was taken off the establishment of the Party;

and it was, under that decree, to be organized by the SS. Those were

both Hess decrees; and they are here both the same document, Document

Number 3385-PS, which becomes GB-257; and they appear at Page 172 of the

Tribunal’s document book.

My Lord, there has already been given much evidence of the subversion of

the churches in order to eliminate any hostile parties there may have

been to the Nazi Party. Hess again took his share in that legislation,

and there are set out in the trial brief, on Pages 8 and 9, a series of

decrees which have already been put before the Tribunal during the

presentation of the case against Bormann.

Bormann, it will be remembered, was at this time and throughout, until

Hess flew to England, Hess’ deputy; and therefore, it will be my

submission that decrees issued by Bormann as deputy for the Deputy of

the Führer are, of course, the responsibility of this defendant as well.

For the sake of time I believe the Tribunal has a reference to the

decrees and will bear in mind the evidence that was offered against the

Defendant Bormann.

I come now, then, to his activity in the general persecution of the

Jews. Again it will be remembered that the chart of his organization

showed an office of his which described itself as the Office for Racial

Policy. His own views about this matter are found in a speech which he

made on the 16th of January 1937 and which is reported in a volume of

his speeches which is Document Number 3124-PS. It is already in as

Exhibit Number GB-253. The extract I desire to quote is set out in the

trial brief. The document can be found on Page 98 of the document book.

“The organizations of the NSDAP will be used for the

enlightenment of the people on questions concerning race and

health with the aim of improving the latter and increasing the

population. . . .”

“As at home, so in foreign countries, the Germans will be

influenced in the National Socialist sense by the Landesgruppen

or local groups of the Party. They will be educated to become

again proudly conscious of their German origin, to stand

together in mutual esteem and will be taught to place the German

higher than any foreigner, irrespective of state or descent.”

It was Hess who signed the Law for Protection of Blood and Honor, one of

the Nuremberg decrees of the 15th of September 1935. It is Document

Number 3179-PS. It is already in evidence as Exhibit USA-200. It will be

remembered that under that decree and under the other Reich Citizenship

Law of the same date, it was the Deputy of the Führer who was to issue

the necessary decrees and regulations for the carrying out and

supplementing of those laws, the Nuremberg Decrees.

On the 14th of November 1935, it was Hess who issued an ordinance under

the Reich Citizenship Law which deprived the Jews of the right to vote

or to hold public office. That is Document Number 1417-PS and becomes

Exhibit Number GB-258.

By a further decree of the 20th of May 1938, those Nuremberg laws were

extended to Austria, that law of extension again being signed by this

defendant—Document Number 2124-PS, Exhibit Number GB-259.

As I said, those are only a few examples of the decrees and activities

of this man in the acquisition of power and consolidation of power in

the Nazi Party. There is a document which I will hand up to the Tribunal

that perhaps it might add to its document books, and there is a copy in

French for the learned French Judge. There are examples in this and

other exhibits which I have not mentioned now but which are already

before the Tribunal, put in when the case of Bormann was put before the

Tribunal, for which, as I have already said, this defendant must take

responsibility.

You will see that under various headings—there are one or two German

copies and the rest are in English—there are various documents set out

under the headings, “Association with the SD and Gestapo”; “Subversion

of the Churches”; and again, “The Persecution of the Jews.”

I turn then to the part which he played in the actual planning and

preparation for aggressive war. We find that as early as in 1932 he was

concerned with the rearmament and reorganization of the Air Force. The

Tribunal will remember a Document Number 1143-PS, Exhibit USA-40, dated

the 20th of October 1932, which showed that a report on the preparation

of material and the training of air personnel to provide for the

armament of the Air Force was sent to Hess by Rosenberg’s chief of

staff. That document, for reference, appears on Page 43 of the

Tribunal’s document book.

That was in 1932. Throughout the years we find him connected with the

rearmament of the German Armed Forces. On the 16th of March 1935 it was

Hess who signed the decree for the introduction of compulsory military

service. On the 11th of October 1936 in a speech that he made, he took

up Göring’s cry of “Guns before Butter,” when he said:

“We are prepared in the future, too, if need be, at times to eat

a little less fat, a little less pork, a few eggs less, since we

know that this little sacrifice is a sacrifice on the altar of

the freedom of our people. We know that the foreign exchange

which we thereby save will benefit our armaments. The phrase

still holds good today: ‘guns instead of butter.’”

That document is Document Number M-104. It becomes Exhibit Number

GB-260, and will be found on Page 14 of the Tribunal’s document book.

In May of 1941 he was making a speech at the Messerschmidt Works, of

which occasion the Tribunal has already got a photograph before it. It

was one of those four photographs we were looking at a moment ago. Then

he said:

“The German soldier must understand that for the uniqueness and

abundance of his weapons and his material, he has to thank Adolf

Hitler’s untiring efforts of many years.”

A report of that speech appears in the _Völkischer Beobachter_ on the 2d

of May 1941. It is Document Number M-105 and becomes Exhibit Number

GB-261. It is on Page 15 of the Tribunal’s document book.

One of the most important parts that this defendant took in the

preparation for aggressive war was his organization of the famous German

Fifth Column. He was the responsible person, as Deputy of the Führer, of

the Auslands-Organisation of the Party, that is to say, the foreign

organization of the Party. A history of that organization, a very brief

history, will be found in an American state publication, Document Number

3258-PS. It becomes Exhibit Number GB-262. It is on Page 147 of the

document book.

I would only mention now two matters. In October 1933 that organization

was placed directly under Hess’s control, and a year later it was Hess

himself who gave it its present name of the Foreign Organization,

(Auslands-Organisation).

For the convenience again of the Tribunal, a chart is set out in the

organization book for 1938, which is Document Number 2354-PS, Exhibit

Number USA-430, and is on Page 69 of the Tribunal’s document book, and I

think it is unnecessary to refer to it now in detail. It had the various

offices—civil services offices, cultural offices, press and propaganda

offices, labor front offices, and the foreign trade offices, the various

offices dealing with the German merchant marine—which afforded, of

course, an excellent medium for spreading Nazi propaganda to every port

through the world.

The Tribunal has heard a good deal about a somewhat similar organization

of Rosenberg, the APA. Very briefly and in a word, I think the

distinction between the two can be said to be that the APA was concerned

with the enrollment and propaganda for non-Germans, for foreigners,

whereas the Auslands-Organisation was concerned with Germans living

abroad, who, of course, were to form the basis of Fifth Column

activities in future years.

I think the Tribunal will see that there are set out under the heading,

“Scope of the Organization’s Work,” two documents. I think that perhaps

it is sufficient to refer to the first of them now, Document Number

3401-PS, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-263 and which the Tribunal will

find on Page 173 of that document book.

That is an article from the _Völkischer Beobachter_, which starts off by

saying, “National Socialism is a philosophy which takes hold of our

fellow Germans and strengthens them in holding fast to the German race

and customs,” and then goes on to say that the authority for the

practical application of that policy and principle is the foreign

organization of the NSDAP, which is directly subordinated to the Deputy

of the Führer, Hess. I quote the last three lines of that paragraph.

“The activities of the Auslands-Organisation extend literally

round the globe. With full justice there might be displayed over

its offices at the Harvestehuderweg in Hamburg the device ‘My

field is the world.’ The Auslands-Organisation under the

leadership of Gauleiter Bohle, who is aided by a large staff of

experts and qualified coworkers, today includes over 350

Landesgruppen and bases of the NSDAP in all parts of the world.

In addition to this it looks after a large number of individual

Party members in the most varied places.”

My Lord, in view of the time, I will not refer to any further documents

about the activity and the scope of that organization. They will be

found as set out in the following document, Document Number 3258-PS,

which is at Page 150 of the document book. I beg your pardon, that is

Exhibit Number GB-262, already in evidence. There is another extract

from the British Basic Handbook on Germany, which is in the addendum to

the document book. It is not, I think, actually put into the Tribunal’s

brief. It appears under the Document Number M-122, and becomes Exhibit

Number GB-264.

Two of the various other organizations which were run by the Foreign

Organization were known as the League for Germans Abroad, the VDA, and

the German Eastern League, the BDO.

I would refer the Tribunal to a document which they will find on Page 38

of the document book. It is Document Number 837-PS, which becomes

Exhibit Number GF-265. That is a letter, which it will be seen on the

next page is signed by Hess, dated 3 February 1939. It is a circular

order, “Not for publication.” The subject is the League of Germans

Abroad and the German Eastern League. I quote from the first paragraph:

“The director of the agency for racial Germans, SS Gruppenführer

Lorenz. . . .”

The agency for racial Germans, which was the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle,

was another similar organization, but one run by Himmler and the SS. All

these gentlemen appear to have had their own foreign organizations. No

doubt they were all engaged for the same purpose. Himmler’s was called

the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. I quote again:

“The director for that agency has instigated on my behalf the

following new ruling for questions affecting racial work and

work in the border country. The League for Germans Abroad, the

VDA, is the association responsible for national work beyond the

frontiers.”

I go down to the last two lines of that paragraph:

“The VDA is organized into state associations which correspond

in area to the Gaue of the NSDAP.”

And the first two lines of the next paragraph:

“The German Eastern League, the BDO, is the association

responsible for work in the border country.”

I turn to the next page, Paragraph 4 of that letter:

“The VDA is solely responsible for racial work beyond the

frontiers. I hereby forbid the Party, its organizations, and

affiliated associations from all racial work abroad. The only

competent body for this task is the agency for racial Germans

and the VDA as its camouflaged tool. Within the Reich, the VDA,

generally speaking, is responsible only for providing the means

for racial work beyond the frontiers. In this task VDA must be

supported in every way by the Party offices. Any outward

appearance of connection with the Party is, however, to be

avoided.”

Then it goes on to set up the activity of the BDO and in the last

paragraph:

“The activity of the VDA and the BDO is to be supported in every

way by the Party offices. The National Socialist leaders of both

associations will assure energetic co-operation, on their part,

in all tasks assigned to them by the NSDAP. Their nature is

determined by considerations of foreign policy and the

associations must bear this in mind when representing

Now I come to the activity, therefore, of the Foreign Organization,

which as I say, was the basis of the Fifth Column movement when war

eventually broke out. I pass, then, to consideration of Hess’ part in

the preliminary occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, which led up

to the aggressive wars themselves.

Hess is seen to be participating in the preparations to occupy Austria

from the very beginning. In the autumn of 1934 it was he that appointed

Reinthaller as leader of the Austrian peasants in the Nazi Party in

Austria, after the failure of the July 1934 rising. That has already

been given in evidence as Document Number 812-PS, (Exhibit Number

USA-61) and the relevant passage was read into the transcript at Page

504 (Volume II, Page 372).

Another document that has already been put in evidence, Document Number

3254-PS (Exhibit Number USA-704), is Seyss-Inquart’s statement of the

10th of December 1945, when he mentions that he held meetings with

Göring and Hess in 1936.

On the morning that the German troops eventually marched into Austria,

the 12th of March 1938, Hess and Himmler, together, were the first of

the leaders of the German Government to appear in Vienna; and they were

there by midday on that day.

It was Hess who signed the law of the 13th of March, the next day, for

the reunion of Austria with the German Reich; and the Tribunal will no

doubt remember the occasion, which was described fully by Mr. Alderman,

of the shocking celebrations which were held in anniversary of the

murder of Dollfuss, the celebrations being held the 24th of July 1938,

when the high-light of the occasion was a speech by Hess.

I would refer the Tribunal to a document which appears on Page 165 of

the document book, which throws some light on his own words, both on his

activity as far as Austria was concerned and also with Czechoslovakia.

This was a speech he made on 28 August 1938 at the annual meeting of the

Foreign Organization. It is Document Number 3258-PS. It is already in as

Exhibit Number GB-262. I quote from the third to last paragraph on Page

165 of the document book:

“At the close of his talk Rudolf Hess recalls the days, last

year, in Stuttgart, when German men and women, German boys and

girls in their native costumes appeared here in Stuttgart aglow

with enthusiasm for the ideal of greater Germany, passionately

moved by National Socialism, but nevertheless outwardly

‘Volksdeutsche’ Germans of foreign citizenship.

“‘Today,’ Rudolf Hess continued, ‘they also stand openly in our

ranks. Proudly and happily they will march in the formation of

the National Socialist movement past their Führer in Nuremberg,

this time with German citizens. With all our hearts we rejoice

as we see them. They have fought a long and tough battle, a

battle against a treacherous and mendacious enemy.’”—and so on.

And then on the next page, Number 166, where he turns to discuss the

struggle of the Sudeten German:

“The German people look at the German racial comrades in

Czechoslovakia with the profoundest sympathy for their

suffering. No one in the world who loves his own people and is

proud of his own people will find fault with us if from this

place here we also turn our thoughts to the Sudeten German. If

we say to them that, filled with admiration, we see how they are

maintaining an iron discipline, despite the worst chicanery,

despite terror and murder. If it had, in general, required a

proof. . . .”

I don’t think, perhaps, it is necessary for me to read any more of that

document; but it shows, as I say, his interest in Czechoslovakia; and by

Document Number 3061-PS, which has already been put in as Exhibit Number

USA-126, it has been shown that during the summer of 1938—that speech

was made in August 1938—during the whole of that summer continuous

conversations were being held between Henlein and Hitler, Hess, and

Ribbentrop, informing the Reich Government of the general situation in

Czechoslovakia. That document has been read into the Record; but, if

anything condemns Hess as participating in this action, it is a letter

dated the 27th of September 1938, which was a letter, it will be

remembered, that the Tribunal has had before it. It was written by

Keitel to Hess, asking for the Party’s participation in the secret

mobilization, which was intended to take place without even issuing the

code word for mobilization. It was on the 27th of September 1938 that

that letter was written. It is Document Number 388-PS and has been put

in as Exhibit Number USA-26, and it appears on Page 30 of the Tribunal’s

document book.

I would refer the Tribunal to one short document on Page 120 of the

document book, on which begins another speech by the defendant, a speech

he made on the 7th of November 1938 on the occasion of the initiation of

the Sudeten German Party into the NSDAP.

“If we have had to defend our rights, then they would have

really got to know us, we, the National Socialist Germans. The

Führer”—Rudolf Hess declared amidst the ringing cheers of the

masses—“learned his lessons. He armed at a speed that no one

would have believed possible. When the Führer has gained the

power and, especially since the Führer has awakened the

resolution of the German people to put their strength behind

their rights, then Germany’s right will be conceded!”

One might wonder what all those rights were at that time, November 1938,

when already Hitler had said on the 26th of September that he had no

more territorial demands, at any rate, to make in Europe.

I turn then to some fragment of evidence of the part he played in the

waging of aggressive war against Poland. On Page 16 of the document book

there is a report of a speech that he made on the 27th of August 1939,

which shows at least that he was taking part in the official propaganda

that was being thrown at the world in those days, two days before the

war was declared. I quote from the second paragraph:

“Rudolf Hess, constantly interrupted with strong applause from

the German citizens living abroad as well as fellow countrymen

from the District of Styria, stressed the unexampled forbearance

shown by Germany towards Poland in the magnanimous offer of the

Führer that had assured peace between Germany and Poland—an

offer that Mr. Chamberlain seems to have forgotten, for he says

he has heard nothing of Germany’s having tried to solve certain

acute present-day questions by peaceful discussion. What else

was the German offer then, if it was not such an attempt?”

Then he goes on to accuse Poland of agitating for war, Poland’s lack of

responsibility and so on. In view of the time, I shall quote no more of

that. The Document Number M-107 is in evidence and it becomes Exhibit

Number GB-266.

After the conquest of Poland, it was Hess that signed the decree

incorporating Danzig into the Reich, the decree of the 1st of September

1939, a decree incorporating Polish territories into the Reich on the

8th of October 1939 and on the 12th of October 1939, a decree of Polish

territory, in which it was stated that regulations were to be made for

the planning of German Lebensraum and economic scope. Those are all

decrees in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. I regret that the last two that I

mentioned are not actually included in the Tribunal’s document book, but

the effect of them is set out in the trial brief. That, in view of the

evidence that has been given as to his Fifth Column organization, is all

that I propose to offer in respect to Poland. It must be clear that my

submission will be that he was deeply involved both in the planning and

in the preparation for aggressive war.

I turn to an example of his participation in War Crimes and Crimes

against Humanity and would refer only to two documents; one appears as

set out on Page 18 of the trial brief, Document Number 3245-PS, which

becomes Exhibit Number GB-267. It was an order issued by Hess through

the Party Chancellery demanding support from the Party for recruiting

members for the Waffen-SS; and one paragraph, which is set out in the

trial brief, I quote:

“The units of the Waffen-SS, consisting of National Socialists,

are more suitable than other armed units for the specific tasks

to be solved in the Occupied Eastern Territories due to their

intensive National Socialist training in regard to questions of

race and nationality.”

But, in view of what was happening and what was going to happen in the

Occupied Eastern Territories because of the Waffen-SS, we haven’t, I

know, forgotten the part they played in the destruction of the Warsaw

Ghetto. I suggest that the inference that can be drawn from that letter

is damning.

There is one further document. That document will be found on Page 121

of the Tribunal’s document book. The other document that I would refer

to in this respect is Document Number R-96, which becomes Exhibit Number

GB-268, and again that will be found on Page 175 of the document book.

It is a letter written by the Reich Minister of Justice to the Chief of

the Reich Chancellery on the 17th of April 1941, and it is discussing

proposed penal laws for Jews and Poles in the Occupied Eastern

Territories. It shows quite clearly that Hess has been involved in

discussions on this subject because it refers to certain proposals that

he, himself, has made. My Lord, I would venture to draw the attention of

the Tribunal to one or two passages. I quote from the beginning of that

letter on Page 175:

“It has been my opinion from the outset that special conditions

prevailing in the annexed eastern territories require special

measures of penal law and penal procedure against Poles and

Jews.”

And then I go on to the second paragraph, the first two lines:

“The aim to create a special law for Poles and Jews in the

eastern territories was pursued further according to plan by the

ordinance dated 6 June 1940. By this ordinance German penal law,

which had been used in the eastern territories already from the

outset was formally made applicable.”

There I skip three lines.

“The procedure for enforcing a prosecution has been abrogated

for it seems intolerable that Poles or Jews should be able to

force the German public prosecutor to launch an accusation.

Poles and Jews have also been deprived of the right to prosecute

in their own names or join the public prosecutor in an action.

In addition to this special law in the sphere of procedure, some

special conditions have been included in Article 2 of the

introductory ordinance. These provisions were established in

agreement with the Reich Minister of the Interior by reason of

requirements which had arisen. From the beginning it was

intended to augment the special conditions in case of need. This

need, which had become apparent in the meantime, should be met

by an executive and supplementary order to be added to the

original ordinance and which was referred to in the letter from

the Deputy of the Führer. . . .”

I turn to the next page, top of the page:

“After I was informed of the express wish of the Führer that, as

a matter of principle, Poles and presumably the Jews, too, are

to be treated differently from the Germans within this sphere of

penal law, after preliminary discussions,”—_et cetera_,—“I

draw up the enclosed draft concerning criminal law and procedure

against Poles and Jews. . . .”

I skip to the next paragraph:

“The draft represents altogether special law, both in the sphere

of penal law and penal procedure. The suggestions of the Deputy

of the Führer have been taken into consideration to a far

reaching extent. Number 1, Paragraph 3, contains a general crime

formula on the basis of which any Pole or Jew in the eastern

territory can in future be prosecuted and any kind of punishment

can be inflicted on him for any attitude or action which is

considered punishable and is directed against Germans.”

Then I go on to the next paragraph:

“In accordance with the opinion of the Deputy of the Führer, I

started from the point of view that the Pole is less susceptible

to the infliction of ordinary imprisonment.”

And a few lines further down:

“Under these new kinds of punishment prisoners are to be lodged

outside prisons in camps and are to be forced to do heavy and

heaviest labor.”

I go to the next page, second paragraph:

“The introduction of corporal punishment, and that is either as

penal punishment or as disciplinary measure, which the Deputy of

the Führer has brought up for discussion, has not been included

in the draft. I cannot agree to this type of punishment because

its infliction does not, in my opinion, correspond to the

cultural level of the German people.”

My Lord, as I said, the purpose of that document is to show that the

Deputy of the Führer was well aware of what was going on in the Eastern

Occupied Territories and indeed was advocating even stronger measures

than the Reich Minister of Justice was prepared to accept.

I turn then to give such evidence as I can upon the flight of the

Defendant Hess to England on the 10th of May 1941.

On that evening he landed in Scotland, within 12 miles of the home of

the Duke of Hamilton; and on landing he at once asked to be taken to the

Duke of Hamilton, whom he wanted to see. He gave a false name and was

shut up; and on the following day, the 11th of May, he had an interview

with the Duke of Hamilton, a report of which is set out in the addendum

to the document book, if the Tribunal would now turn to the small

addendum to the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Has this been put in evidence yet or not?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I am putting it in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it properly authenticated?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is authenticated, and the original is

certified as being a government report from the files of the Foreign

Office in London. There are four reports altogether, which come from the

Foreign Office file and which have been certified as reports from the

Foreign Office.

The first one that I would refer to is Document Number M-116, which

becomes Exhibit Number GB-269 and which is a report on the interview

that he had with the Duke of Hamilton on the 11th of May 1941. I can

summarize most of the contents of that report by saying that he

introduced himself as Hess. He said that he had met the Duke of Hamilton

at the Olympic Games in 1936, and that his old friend, Haushofer, under

whom he studied at Munich University after the last war, had suggested

that he, Hess, should make contact with the Duke of Hamilton.

And he said that, in order to do so, he had already tried to fly three

times before, the first time being in December of 1940, the previous

year. The reasons he then gave for his visit will be found on the second

page of that document. I quote from the end of the fourth line.

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I ought to say really before that, he said

that he had said, earlier in the interview, that Germany was willing to

have peace with England; she was certain to win the war; and he himself

was anxious to stop the unnecessary slaughter that would otherwise

inevitably take place.

“He asked me if I could get together leading members of my party

to talk over things with a view to making peace proposals. I

replied that there was now only one party in this country. He

then said he could tell me what Hitler’s peace terms would be.

First, he would insist on an arrangement whereby our two

countries would never go to war again. I questioned him as to

how that arrangement could be brought about; and he replied that

one of the conditions, of course, is that Britain would give up

her traditional policy of always opposing the strongest power in

Europe.”

I think I need really read no more of that document, because he enlarges

upon those proposals in the subsequent interviews that he had on the

13th, 14th, and 15th of May with Mr. Kirkpatrick of the Foreign Office.

I turn to Document Number M-117, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-270,

which is another official report of the interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick

on the 13th of May. Again I can summarize practically all of it.

He started off by explaining the chain of circumstances which led up to

his present situation, which really involved a history of Europe from

the end of the last war up to that time. He dealt with Austria,

Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, saying in each case that Germany was

justified and it was all England’s and France’s fault that they had had

to get in it. He blamed England entirely for starting the war. He did

say—and I quote one line which is of interest, dealing with Munich—he

said: “The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Where are you reading?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am reading from the fifth paragraph, my Lord.

It starts off:

“The Czechoslovakian crisis was caused by the French

determination, expressed by the French Air Ministry, to make

Czechoslovakia an air base against Germany. It was Hitler’s duty

to scotch this plot. The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain and the

Munich conference had been a source of great relief to Hitler.”

If one remembers somewhere having heard in the course of this case,

Hitler saying that he had of course no intention of abiding by that

agreement at all, that that would never do. . . .

I go on with that document. He then says that Germany must win the war.

He says that the bombing of England had only just started and only just

started with the greatest reluctance. As he puts it at the top of Page

2, the German production of U-boats was enormous. They had enormous raw

material resources in occupied territory, and the confidence in Hitler

and in final victory in Germany was complete; and that there was no kind

of hope for any revolution among the German people.

He gave his reasons for his flight, his personal reasons again, that he

was horrified at the prospect of a long war. England could not win, and

therefore she had better make peace now. He said the Führer entertained

no designs against England. He had no idea of world domination, and he

would greatly regret the collapse of the British Empire.

I quote from the last three lines of the large paragraph in the center

of the page:

“At this point Hess tried to make my flesh creep by emphasizing

that the avaricious Americans had fell designs upon the Empire.

Canada would certainly be incorporated into the United States.

“Reverting to Hitler’s attitude, he said that only as recently

as May 3rd, after his Reichstag speech, Hitler had declared to

him that he had no oppressive demands to make of England.

“The solution which Herr Hess proposed was that England should

give Germany a free hand in Europe, and Germany would give

England a completely free hand in the Empire, with the sole

reservation that we should return Germany’s ex-colonies, which

she required as a source of raw materials. I asked, in order to

draw him on the subject of Hitler’s attitude to Russia, whether

he included Russia in Europe or in Asia. He replied, ‘In Asia’.

I then retorted that under the terms of his proposal, since

Germany would only have a free hand in Europe, she would not be

at liberty to attack Russia. Herr Hess reacted quickly by

remarking that Germany had certain demands to make of Russia

which would have to be satisfied either by negotiation or as the

result of a war. He added, however, that there was no foundation

for the rumors now being spread that Hitler was contemplating an

early attack on Russia.

“I then asked about Italian aims and he said that he did not

know. I replied that it was a matter of some importance. He

brushed this aside and said that he was sure that Italy’s claims

would not be excessive. I suggested that Italy scarcely deserved

anything, but he begged to differ. Italy had rendered

considerable services to Germany; and, besides, England had

compensated defeated nations like Romania after the last war.

“Finally, as we were leaving the room, Herr Hess delivered a

parting shot. He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that

the proposal could only be considered on the understanding that

it was negotiated by Germany with an English Government other

than the present British Government. Mr. Churchill, who had

planned the war since 1936, and his colleagues, who had lent

themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the

Führer could negotiate.”

My Lord, presumably when he came over he was not attempting to be funny.

One can only conclude from these reports that at that time the people in

Germany and the German Government really had no kind of idea of what the

conditions in England were like at all; but throughout it appears that

this man thought England was ruled by Churchill and a small

war-mongering gang. It only needed him to come over and make a peace

proposal for Churchill to be turned out in the course of two or three

days.

I go on, then, to the next document, My Lord. I am afraid that it is now

half past five. I have only the other reports and one further document

to refer the Tribunal to.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better go on. We will finish tonight.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am sorry it has taken so long. I go on to the

next interview of the 14th of May, which is Document Number M-118 and

becomes Exhibit Number GB-271.

He started off that interview by making certain complaints about the

treatment, asking for a number of things, including _Three Men in a

Boat_, the book which perhaps is one of the few signs that any of these

defendants have shown any kind of culture or normal feelings at all.

He described his flight to England, and then I quote from the third

paragraph:

“He then passed to political questions. He said that, on

reflection, he had omitted to explain that there were two

further conditions attached to his peace proposals. First,

Germany could not leave Iraq in the lurch. The Iraqis had fought

for Germany and Germany would, therefore, have to require us to

evacuate Iraq. I observed that this was going considerably

beyond the original proposal that German interests should be

confined to Europe, but he retorted that, taken as a whole, his

proposals were more than fair. The second condition was that the

peace agreement should contain a provision for the reciprocal

indemnification of British and German nationals, whose property

had been expropriated as the result of war.

“Herr Hess concluded by saying that he wished to impress on us

that Germany must win the war by blockade. We had no conception

of the number of submarines now building in Germany. Hitler

always did things on a grand scale and devastating submarine

war, supported by new types of aircraft, would very shortly

succeed in establishing a completely effective blockade of

England. It was fruitless for anyone here to imagine that

England could capitulate and that the war could be waged from

the Empire. It was Hitler’s intention, in such an eventuality,

to continue the blockade of England, even though the island had

capitulated, so that we would have to face the deliberate

starvation of the population of these islands.”

I think I can leave then that interview. Nothing more was added and I

turn to the next document, Document Number M-119, which becomes Exhibit

Number GB-272 and which is the report of the interview of the 15th of

May, the third and last interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick. I quote from the

third paragraph and then there was some mention of Iraq at the beginning

of the interview and then Mr. Kirkpatrick writes:

“I then threw a fly over him about Ireland. He said that in all

his talks with Hitler, the subject of Ireland had never been

mentioned except incidentally. Ireland had done nothing for

Germany in this war and it was therefore to be supposed that

Hitler would not concern himself in Anglo-Irish relations. We

had some little conversation about the difficulty of reconciling

the wishes of the South and North and from this we pass to

American interest in Ireland, and so to America.

“On the subject of America, Hess took the following line.

“1. The Germans reckoned with American intervention and were not

afraid of it. They knew all about American aircraft production

and the quality of the aircraft. Germany could outbuild England

and America combined.

“2. Germany had no designs on America. The so-called German

peril was a ludicrous figment of imagination. Hitler’s interests

were European.

“3. If we made peace now, America would be furious. America

really wanted to inhabit the British Empire.

“Hess concluded by saying that Hitler really wanted a permanent

understanding with us on a basis which preserved the Empire

intact. His own flight was intended to give us a chance of

opening conversations without loss of prestige. If we reject

this chance, it would be clear proof that we desired no

understanding with Germany and Hitler would be entitled—in fact

it would be his duty—to destroy us utterly and to keep us after

the war in a state of permanent subjection.”

My Lord, those reports show the substance and indeed the whole substance

of the visit. His humanitarian reasons for coming, which sounded so well

on the 10th or between the 10th and 15th of May, took on quite a

different light when barely a little more than a month later Germany

attacked the Soviet Union.

One cannot help remembering an exact parallel between this business and

that which took place before Germany attacked Poland, when every effort

was made to keep England out of the war and so let her fight her battle

on one front only. Here the same thing appears to be happening; and what

is more, we have it from himself in the course of those interviews that,

at that time, Germany had no intentions of attacking Russia immediately

at all. But that must be untrue, because it will be remembered and the

evidence is set out in the trial brief, that so far back as November

1940 plans were being made, initial plans, for the invasion of Russia.

On the 18th of December 1940 a directive ordered preparations to be

completed by the 15th of May 1941. On the 3rd of April 1941 orders were

given delaying the “Case Barbarossa” for 5 weeks; and on the 30th of

April 1941, 10 days before he arrived in England, D-Day was actually

fixed for the invasion of Russia for the 22d of June.

Well now, in my submission, nobody who held the position that this

defendant did at that time—in charge of the foreign organization,

Deputy to the Führer, having been made designate successor Number 2 only

a year ago—never in that position could he have been kept in ignorance

of those preparations and of those plans.

My Lord, my submission, therefore, is that the only reason he came to

England was not humanitarian at all, but purely, as I say, to allow

Germany to fight her battle against Russia on one front only.

There is—and I hesitate to refer the Tribunal to any other

document—but there is one document, which is a document of extreme

interest from many points of view and has only just come to light. I did

ask that it should be put in at the back of the Tribunal’s document

book; but if it has not been, I have some spare copies which perhaps the

clerk may now hand out.

It is Document Number 1866-PS, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-273, and

it is an account of conversations between Ribbentrop and Mussolini and

Ciano on the 13th of May 1941, signed by Schmidt.

It carries the question very little further, but of course the question

has existed, and still does exist—the question, of course, as to

whether or not the flight to England was undertaken with the knowledge

and approval of Hitler, or any other members of the Government, or on

his own initiative and in complete secrecy. He himself has always

maintained that he did it secretly. On the other hand, it is difficult

to see how he could have been planning it and practicing it for months

before and having tried three times before, without anybody knowing.

This account of the conversations with the Italians casts little further

light on it; but it does show anyway what Ribbentrop is saying to the

Italians, their allies, three days later. I would ask the Tribunal to

look at and read the first page of this document, and the paragraph of

the next page:

“To begin with, the Reich Foreign Minister conveyed the Führer’s

greetings to the Duce.

“He would shortly propose to the Duce a date for the planned

meeting, which he would like to take place as soon as possible.

As the place for the meeting he would probably prefer the

Brenner. At the present moment he was, as the Duce could well

understand, still busy with the Hess affair and with a few

military matters.