“The development of civilization has seen a progressive
moderation of the conception according to which everything is
permissible in war until the enemy is destroyed; nevertheless
the rules of warfare constitute even today a compromise between
the demands of unrestrained military necessity and progressive
humanitarian and civilized views.
“One thing, at any rate, is certain, namely, that the existence
of a genuine emergency may be pleaded, even under the
stipulations of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare. During the
negotiations preceding the formulation of Article 46 of the
Hague Rules, the following was stated literally and without
opposition in the plenary session of the Conference:
“‘The restrictions might affect the liberty of action of the
belligerents in certain extreme emergencies,’ indicating that
for extreme contingencies, therefore, a state of emergency may
be pleaded. It is recognized international law that even an
aggressor must not be denied the right of pleading a state of
emergency in case his existence is directly threatened.”
In connection with the chapter concerning the eastern administration, I
should like, without pointing out specifically all that the defendant
has said during his testimony concerning accusations of the Soviet
Prosecution, in particular the reports of the state commissions and the
Molotov reports (Documents USSR-39, 41, 51, 89, and record of 16 April
1946), to express a hope that the factual corrections made by the
defendant will be duly evaluated by the Tribunal.
Now I come to a new subject: Contrary to the assumption of the
Prosecution, Rosenberg was in no instance the instigator of a
persecution of Jews, any more than he was one of the leaders and
originators of the policy adopted by the Party and the Reich, as the
Prosecution claims (Walsh, on 13 December 1945, Volume III, Page 539).
Rosenberg was certainly a convinced anti-Semite and expressed his
conviction and the reasons for it both verbally and in writing. However,
in his case anti-Semitism was not the most outstanding of his
activities. In his book _Blood and Honor_, speeches and essays between
1919 and 1933, out of 64 speeches, for example, only one had a title
referring to Jewry. The same applies to the other two volumes of his
speeches. He felt his spiritual ancestors to be the mystic Meister
Ekkehart, Goethe, Lagarde, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain;
anti-Semitism was for him a negative element, and his chief and most
positive efforts were directed toward the proclamation of a new German
intellectual attitude, and a new German culture. Because he found this
endangered after 1918, he became an opponent of Jewry. Even such
different personalities as Von Papen, Von Neurath, and Raeder now
confess to their belief that the penetration of the Jewish element into
the whole of public life was so great that a change had to be brought
about. It strikes me as very important, however, that the nature of
Rosenberg’s anti-Semitism was intellectual above all. For example, at
the Party Rally of 1933 he explicitly mentioned a “chivalrous solution”
of the Jewish question. We never heard Rosenberg use expressions like
“We must annihilate the Jews wherever we find them; we shall take
measures that will insure success. We must abandon all feelings of
sympathy.” The Prosecution itself quotes the following as an expression
of the program Rosenberg set up for himself (Volume III, Page 529):
“After the Jews have been ousted as a matter of course from all
official positions, the Jewish question will find a decisive
solution through the setting up of ghettos.”
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr.
President, rather reluctantly I interrupt counsel for the defense, and I
do not like to take the time of the Tribunal, but what I just heard is
going beyond any permissible limits. When the defendants sitting in the
dock tried to express their Fascist views, this was deemed inappropriate
and cut short by the Tribunal.
I think that it is absolutely inadmissible that defense counsel should
use this place to promote antihuman propaganda; I cannot understand the
contention of the lawyer who alleges the existence of a noble, spiritual
anti-Semitism which Rosenberg advocates and that Rosenberg’s belief in
gathering all Jews in ghettos was chivalrous. Please note that the
lawyer is not quoting any Nazi leader but expresses his own opinion, and
I protest against the use of the International Military Tribunal for the
spreading of Fascist propaganda. I ask the Tribunal to consider this
objection of mine and to take appropriate action.
DR. THOMA: May it please the Tribunal—may I make an answer to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, we don’t think it is necessary to trouble you.
The Tribunal thinks—there may be, of course, differences of opinion as
to the use of words in the course of your argument, but they see no
reason for stopping you in the argument that you are presenting to the
Tribunal.
DR. THOMA: Thank you, My Lord.
May it please the Tribunal, after what General Rudenko has said, I
should like to make one statement. In my speech I have tried to argue
upon the statements of the Prosecution and nothing else. I would like to
say something else. The words “chivalrous solution of the Jewish
question” were not my expression; I just quoted that as a statement made
by Rosenberg a long time before he came into this Court. The Prosecution
quotes the following as Rosenberg’s statement of a program: “The Jewish
question...” and so on; I have already read that.
It was not a mere question of chance that Rosenberg did not take part
in, the boycotting of Jews in 1933, that he was not called upon to work
out the laws against the Jews in 1933, 1934, 1935, and so on
(expatriation, prohibition of marriages, withdrawal of the right to
vote, expulsion from all important positions and offices). Above all, he
never took part in the action of 1938 against the Jews, nor in the
destruction of synagogues, nor in anti-Semitic demonstrations. Neither
was he the instigator in the background who sent out, or ordered, lesser
people to commit certain actions. To be sure, Rosenberg was a true
follower of Hitler, who took up Hitler’s slogans and passed them on. For
example, the motto, “The Jewish question will be solved only when the
last Jew has left Germany and the European continent,” and once the
slogan of “Extermination of Jewry.”
Exaggerated expressions were always part of the National Socialist
weapons of propaganda. A Hitler speech was hardly imaginable without
insults to his internal or external political opponents, or without
threats of extermination. Every one of Hitler’s speeches was echoed a
million times by Goebbels down to the last speaker of the Party in a
small country inn. The same sentences and words which Hitler had used
were repeated, and not only in all the political speeches, but in the
German press as well, in all the editorials and essays, until, weeks or
months later, a new speech was given which brought about a new echo of a
similar kind.
Rosenberg was no exception. He repeated, as everyone did, all of
Hitler’s slogans, including that of the “solution of the Jewish
question,” and once also that of the “extermination of Jewry.”
Apparently, like Hitler’s other supporters, he gave as much or as little
thought to the fact that in reality none of those phrases were clear but
that they had a sinister double meaning and, while they might have meant
real expulsion, they might also have implied the physical annihilation
and murder of the Jews.
May I remind the Tribunal at this point that Rosenberg, during his
testimony, made a reference to a speech of the British Prime Minister in
the House of Commons in September 1943, in which speech it was stated
that Prussian militarism and National Socialism had to be exterminated
root and branch. No German interpreted that literally, and I believe no
one interpreted it to mean that German soldiers and the National
Socialism had to be exterminated physically.
Aside from the knowledge and will of the German people, and aside from
the knowledge and will of the majority of the leadership of the
Party—that is to say, known only to Bormann, Himmler, and
Eichmann—there was hatched and carried out, from 1941 onward, a mass
crime which surpassed all human concepts of reason and morality. The
“Jewish question” was developed even further and brought to a so-called
“final solution.”
The Tribunal will have to decide the question whether Rosenberg, the
specially characteristic exponent of the Party, the Reich Minister for
the Occupied Eastern Territories, is also responsible for the murder of
the Jews, and particularly for the murder of Jews in the East; that is,
is he a murderer of Jews? Or must it be recognized and admitted that,
although he stands but a hair’s breadth from the abyss, it was, after
all, external circumstances which led up to it all, and that these
circumstances were outside his sphere of responsibility and guilt?
I believe I can say that Rosenberg never aimed, either openly or in
secret, at the physical extermination of the Jews. His reserve and
moderation were certainly no mere tactics. The slipping of anti-Semitism
into crime took place without his knowledge or will. The fact in itself
that he preached anti-Semitism justifies his punishment as the murderer
of Jews as little as one could hold Rousseau and Mirabeau responsible
for the subsequent horrors of the French Revolution.
Furthermore, no matter how much the first impression might lead to it,
criminal guilt on his part cannot be deduced from his position as Reich
Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. As already stated, the
“responsible minister” cannot simply be held responsible for criminal
acts committed in his sphere or his territory. Criminal responsibility,
according to the German Penal Code, Paragraph 357, exists only if an
official knowingly assents to the criminal actions of his subordinates,
and if—the commentaries furnish this supplement—the superior is in a
position to prevent the action.
I should like to take up the question of his responsibility on the
grounds of the documents submitted for this purpose.
(1) The action taken against the Jews at Sluzk (Document Number
1104-PS).
On 27 October 1941, a horrible slaughter of Jews took place in Sluzk,
committed by the four companies of a police battalion, because the
commander received an order from his superior to clear the city of all
Jews without exception. The district commissioner immediately made
vigorous protests, demanded that the action be stopped at once, and gun
in hand kept the police officers in check as far as he was able. He
reported to the General Commissioner of White Ruthenia, Kube, at Minsk,
and the latter suggested to the Reich Commissioner Ostland, Lohse, that
the officers implicated be punished for this “unheard-of bestiality.” He
in turn reported to the Reich Minister for the East, with the request
that immediate measures be taken at higher levels. The Reich Minister
for the Occupied Eastern Territories sent the entire report to Heydrich,
the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, requesting further
action. Due to an ingenious system according to which the Police were
not responsible to the competent administrative chief and were not even
obliged to report, Rosenberg could not take any further steps either in
this or in similar cases. He was not head of the Police, and could only
hope that the transmission of the report to Heydrich would be sufficient
to stop what he considered to be regional excesses of the Police.
It can be seen from the indignation of all the administrative offices
over the reported incidents that none of them knew that it was no
question of excesses, but of an action ordered by Heydrich and Himmler.
Even though Rosenberg violently disliked Heydrich and Himmler, not even
he could suspect anything of this kind.
(2) Also from October 1941 dates Document 3663-PS in which the Reich
Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, for whom Dr. Leibbrandt
signed, calls for a report by the Reich Commissioner Ostland, because a
complaint has been made by the Reich Security Main Office that the Reich
Commissioner Ostland had prohibited executions of Jews in Libau. To this
the addressee replied:
“I prohibited the execution of Jews in Libau because there was
no justification for the way in which it was carried out.”
This is followed by a request for further instructions. Regarding this
document—which is signed by the departmental chief Leibbrandt, and
which in no way points to any knowledge on the part of the Defendant
Rosenberg—I wish to make the following provisional brief statement:
It is not conceived as a reproach by the Reich Minister for the East
because the executions of Jews were discontinued, but it simply
represents the transmittal of a complaint by the Reich Security Main
Office, adding a request to report. It is to be presumed that the reason
for the complaint was that the Reich Commissioner Ostland encroached on
the competency of the Reich Security Main Office and the demand for a
report was presumably issued in that sense. In a letter of 18 December
1941, the Reich Minister, in a letter also signed “By order: Bräutigam,”
asked the Reich Commissioner Ostland to settle directly any questions
which might arise with the Higher SS and Police Leader.
To identify the letter “R” as Rosenberg’s initial, because the
Prosecution obviously was more than doubtful about Rosenberg’s knowledge
of matters, turned out to be equally unfortunate. This “R” is not
Rosenberg’s.
(3) Document Number 3428-PS concerns a letter of the General
Commissioner for White Ruthenia to the Reich Commissioner for the East.
It is a shocking document about the mass extermination of Jews in White
Ruthenia; however, there is nothing of interest in it for the case
against Rosenberg, because those horrible events could be attributed to
him only if he knew of them, and in neglect of his duty failed to
intervene. There is no actual proof to found a supposition of such
knowledge. The claim that these documents were found in Rosenberg’s
possession cannot be in accordance with the actual facts, for they show
the Reich Commissioner in Riga as the addressee.
(4) In the “Memorandum for the Führer of 18 December 1941” (Document
Number 001-PS) the defendant suggested the following, which I must quote
literally:
“The assaults against members of the German Armed Forces have
not stopped, but have gone on. It seems to be an obvious plan to
disturb German-French co-operation, to force Germany to take
measures of retaliation, thereby bringing about a new defensive
attitude on the part of the French against Germany. My
suggestion to the Führer is that instead of killing 100
Frenchmen, he should have 100 or more Jewish bankers, lawyers,
_et cetera_, shot.”
It is not my task here to discuss how far it is admissible to shoot
hostages, but one thing is certain, that Rosenberg was convinced such a
measure was admissible. In that case, however, his suggestion must be
considered in that light, and can by no means be judged as an
independent incitement to murder. Besides, the suggestion had no
results. In his reply of 31 December 1941, Lammers, acting on behalf of
the Führer, merely referred to the suggestion of utilizing the furniture
and fittings from Jewish houses, and not to the shooting of hostages.
Therefore, Rosenberg made no more reference to it.
At this point I should like to interpolate the following: The French
prosecutor charged Rosenberg, when the latter was in the witness box,
with the fact that this was murder. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, it was
not murder, because no execution took place. But neither was it
incitement to murder. One can only incite someone who still has to be
persuaded. However, if the man who commits the act is already prepared
for anything, is an _omni modo facturus_, then he can be incited no
more, and there only remains the offense of a suggestion of a criminal
act, which, according to German law, must be judged as an offense to
receive only slight punishment, because it has had no consequence.
Just at this point I should like to recall that Rosenberg testified as a
witness that on one occasion a court sentenced a district commissioner
in the East to death for having extorted valuables from a Jewish family,
and that that sentence was carried out. Please do not consider it an
improper argument of the defense when I say: Does that not prove that
Rosenberg abhorred criminal acts against the Jews?
(5) Document Number Rosenberg-135, Exhibit Number USSR-289, refers to
the report of the General Commissioner of White Ruthenia in Minsk, dated
1 June 1943, on the subject of what happened in the prison of Minsk as
regards gold fillings. This was addressed to the Reich Commissioner
Ostland, who forwarded the report on 18 June 1943 with the utmost
indignation. At his hearing before the Tribunal on 16 April 1946 the
defendant already made a statement on this point. I should like to
repeat this briefly now: The defendant had returned on 22 June 1943 from
an official visit to the Ukraine and found a pile of notices about
conferences, a number of letters, and above all the Führer decree from
the middle of June 1943, in which Rosenberg was instructed to limit
himself to the fundamentals of lawmaking and not to bother about
details. Herr Rosenberg did not read the letter concerned, but he has to
surmise—he cannot remember this—that the letter was explained to him
by his office, and presumably in the course of the reading he was
informed of many documents and learned that there was again serious
trouble between the Police and the civilian administration, and it is
probable that Rosenberg said: Turn that over for investigation to
Gauleiter Meyer or to the liaison officer. Otherwise the terrible
details would certainly have remained in Rosenberg’s memory.
Nobody doubts for a moment that the horrible crimes shown in these
documents and all the other frightful things not covered in the
documents, but which actually happened, call for atonement. Nobody
doubts that not only the lesser henchmen acting on higher orders shall
be punished, but also above all those who issued the orders, and those
responsible for the crimes. Rosenberg did not issue an order to murder
Jews; that much is clear. Is he, in spite of this, responsible for the
frightful murders?
There is no trace of the defendant’s handwriting on any of the murder
documents. Nor has it been determined in any case that he knew anything
about what went on. Can we condemn Rosenberg on the basis of his
presumed and probable knowledge? Rosenberg has by no means the intention
of playing a false and cowardly game of hide-and-seek behind his
advisers and officials. But let us remember how cunningly the so-called
executions of the Jews were kept secret, not only from the public, but
even from Hitler’s closest collaborators.
Is it not possible, and even credible, that they were playing a game of
hide-and-seek even with Rosenberg? The thoughts and intentions of none
of the other NSDAP leaders were revealed so openly and clearly to all
the world as particularly those of the author Rosenberg. Of none other
could one be so sure that he would turn with indignation from inhuman
and criminal acts.
But let us go one step further and assume that Rosenberg had full
knowledge of this greatest crime. It is not proved, but one could
imagine it and surmise it. Is he then responsible, too? Peculiar, even
subtle, as we well know, was the departmental authority, and the
responsibility which went with it, in the eastern countries. The entire
police system had been taken from Rosenberg’s sphere of influence, at
the highest level of which was Himmler, and under him Heydrich. Of their
orders and measures Rosenberg naturally had no knowledge and no idea.
The lower echelons of police leaders and police agencies were in effect
subordinate and responsible to their police superiors and no one else.
It was quite immaterial whether or not Rosenberg knew anything of the
measures taken by the Police; he could change them as little as any
other of his fellow citizens in the Third Reich. One might say: Yes, he
could have remonstrated with Himmler or Hitler; he could have resigned.
Of course, he could have done so. The decisive point, however, is not
whether he could have done it; the question is whether he would have
achieved anything by doing so—that is to say, whether he could have
prevented the execution; for only in such a case could his
responsibility be affirmed on the basis of his failure to act, and only
in such a case could one speak of causality without which criminal
responsibility is unthinkable.
One might further claim, still under the assumption of Rosenberg’s
knowledge of matters, that Rosenberg could at least have taken steps
against the Reich commissioners, who were obviously involved in these
matters. We know that the administrative organization and the dividing
up of final authority in the East were vague, to say the least. The
Reich commissioners were sovereign masters in their own territory, who
had the final decision in the shooting of hostages and in other
retaliatory measures of far-reaching consequence. And what was the
actual extent of their authority? In case the Reich Commissioner was
dissatisfied with Rosenberg—and mostly he was dissatisfied—he went to
Hitler. Does anyone really believe that if Rosenberg disagreed with Koch
as regards the execution of Jews, he would have been upheld by Hitler if
he had approached him? Here again, there is a lack of that causality
which is indispensable for a legal condemnation.
I come now to the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, the Operational Staff
Rosenberg.
No less than three prosecutors have taken the stand in this Trial
against Rosenberg, and have accused him of wholesale stealing of objects
of art and science in the East and West (Storey, 18 December 1945;
Gerthoffer, 6 February 1946; Smirnov, 15 February 1946). First I must
take exception to some obvious exaggerations and injustices, that is,
the assertion that the activities of the special staff in the West
extended to public and private property without distinction (Volume VII,
Page 55), and that the objects of art Germany appropriated amount to
more than the combined treasures of the Metropolitan Museum in New York,
of the British Museum in London, of the Louvre in Paris, and of the
Tretjakov Gallery. Further, I must declare the statement incorrect that
the “looting program” of Rosenberg was intended to rob the occupied
countries of their entire centuries-old possessions of art and science.
Finally, the Prosecution contrasts Rosenberg’s actions to the looting of
art treasures in former wars. It says that while egotism, conceit,
taste, and personal inclination used to be the underlying motives of
such looting, the National Socialists primarily had the criminal
intention of storing up reserves of valuables (Volume VII, Page 65). I
think it unnecessary to refer to the looting of art treasures in former
times as far back as Napoleon, because the concepts of international law
and regulations have changed in the meantime, but I should like to
mention two things:
First, how many of the most famous objects of art in the most famous
galleries of the world got there through the channels of war and how
many got there in a peaceful way?
Second, I am prepared to accept the fact that the Prosecution denies
Rosenberg’s delight in art, or joy in the possession of art treasures as
a possible motive for his actions, because Rosenberg was no robber, no
plunderer, of art. He had no intention of appropriating the objects of
art for himself or for someone else.
What were the actual facts? Rosenberg’s operational staff was active in
the East and in the West. It had two tasks: First, to search libraries,
archives, _et cetera_, for material suitable for the proposed
“university” of the Party, to confiscate this material and take it away
for the purpose of research, and secondly, to seize objects of cultural
value which were in the possession of or which belonged to Jews, or
which had no owner or were of a doubtful origin. The Prosecution says:
“The true and only motive, the true and only purpose of this ‘seizure’
was robbery and looting; there could be no question of intentions of
mere ‘safeguarding.’”
On 20 August 1941 Rosenberg wrote to the Reich Commissioner Ostland that
he wished distinctly to prohibit the transfer of any kind of art
treasure from any place whatsoever without the approval of the Reich
Commissioner (Document Number 1015(c)-PS). On 30 September 1942 the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army issued an order (Document Number
1015(n)-PS) in agreement with Rosenberg to the following effect:
“Apart from exceptional cases when it is urgent to safeguard
endangered objects of cultural value, it is desired that for the
time being such objects be left where they are.”
Later on, it says:
“The troops and all military commands within the operational
area are now as before directed to spare valuable cultural
monuments as far as possible and to prevent their destruction or
damage.”
In the report of the Special Staff for Creative Arts (report on work
carried out between October 1940 and 1944, Document Number 1015(b)-PS)
it is stated that in the Occupied Eastern Territories the activities of
the Special Staff for Creative Arts were restricted to the scientific
and photographic registration of official collections, and that the
safeguarding and protection of these was carried out in co-operation
with the military and civilian agencies. It says further that in the
course of vacating the territories, several hundred valuable icons and
paintings, _et cetera_, were saved and, with the co-operation of the
individual army groups, were brought to a place of safekeeping in the
Reich. Finally, on 12 June 1942 Rosenberg sent out the following decree
in a circular letter to the highest Reich authorities, which reads:
“In the Occupied Eastern Territories a number of offices and
individuals are engaged in the safeguarding of objects of
cultural value. They work from various approaches to the subject
and independently of each other. It is absolutely essential for
the administration of these territories that a survey be made of
the existing objects of cultural value. Furthermore it must be
endeavored, as a general rule, to leave them where they are for
the time being. To this end I have set up a central office for
the registration and safeguarding of objects of cultural value
in the East as a special division within my ministry.”
Thus Rosenberg, as can be proved, proceeded from the point of view that
objects of cultural value had to remain in the country and only through
the retreat of the German troops were a few hundred valuable icons and
paintings brought into Germany.
In time of war, objects of cultural value, both mobile and immobile, are
as exposed to the danger of destruction as are any other objects of
value. Rosenberg stopped all unnecessary destruction, theft, and
removal; he centralized the safeguarding of objects of cultural value
and had all necessary actions taken through his operational staff in the
East and the West (for example, see Abel’s report on the library at
Minsk, Document Number 076-PS). It is quite in accordance with the
conception of international law (I quote Scholz, _Privateigentum im
besetzten und unbesetzten Feindesland_, Berlin 1919, Page 36) that care
should be taken on the part of the occupying powers not only to protect,
but to safeguard and salvage protected objects of art as far as the war
situation permits. It is even considered a cultural duty for the
occupying power to remove particularly valuable objects of art from the
combat zone and place them in safety as far as possible. Under certain
circumstances the concept of international law may render it the
cultural duty of the occupying power to bring into his own country for
reasons of salvage objects of special scientific and artistic value.
This is not an inadmissible “seizure” (Article 56, Paragraph 2, Rules of
Land Warfare), because this term could only apply to acts which are
anti-cultural, not to acts which are procultural. (See Scholz, as above,
Page 37).
Finally, I want to refer to Document Number 1109-PS, a report according
to which scientific institutes that had been saved were ready to be
taken back to the Ukraine immediately after the hoped-for re-entry of
the troops. I consider it completely impossible to read anything about
looting into this clear text.
Certainly, in the East great quantities of cultural objects of
considerable value were destroyed by direct military actions, or by
wanton destruction, or looting. It would be a fundamental
misconstruction of the true facts of the case, and a great injustice, if
these losses should be charged to the account of the Einsatzstab and its
chief, for his efforts went exactly in the opposite direction.
In the West (I refer to the testimony of the witness Robert Scholz of 19
June 1946, Document Number Rosenberg-41), the case was different but, in
my opinion, here also the defendant cannot be charged with looting and
robbing objects of art. When in the summer of 1940 the inhabitants of
Paris, with the exception of the Jews, had once more returned, somebody
conceived the idea of searching the now ownerless apartments, houses,
and palaces for books and libraries and of taking to Germany whatever of
this scientific material was of interest. From various branches of the
Armed Forces came the report that especially in Jewish-owned palaces
there were collections of objects of art which one could not guarantee
to remain intact in case of a long occupation. Thereupon, Rosenberg made
the proposal that his Einsatzstab be allowed to direct its attention to
objects of art and to take them into its custody, which was then ordered
by Hitler. What did the Einsatzstab do with these objects of art? It set
up an accurate card index containing the names of the particular owner
of each picture, photographed the art objects, scientifically appraised
them, repaired them expertly insofar as was necessary, packed them
carefully and shipped them to the Bavarian castles of Neuschwanstein and
Chiemsee. Because of the danger of air raids, they were then stored in
an old Austrian mine. Rosenberg attached great importance to keeping
separate the objects cared for by the Einsatzstab, and not to have them
mixed with the large-scale purchases which Hitler made for the proposed
gallery in Linz.
Was that looting, robbery, theft? Looting is the indiscriminate and
wanton carrying-off of objects in situations involving general distress
and danger. Robbery is carrying off by force. Theft is carrying off
without force. In all cases intent must exist to appropriate the object
illegally for oneself or somebody else. What intent did Rosenberg have?
He never denied that he and his co-workers had hopes of the pictures
remaining in Germany. Perhaps as compensation or as a security for the
peace negotiations, but in any case his intent was only directed at
confiscating and safeguarding the objects and it has been proved that
the question of what should be done with the confiscated items was left
open until the end and that no decision was made on it. It is absolutely
certain that Rosenberg did not have the intention of appropriating the
things for himself or anybody else. If Rosenberg had been a plunderer of
objects of art, he certainly would not have had exact notations made
concerning dates and place of confiscation and names of the owners. As a
precaution, however, I should also like to point out that because of the
flight of their owners the objects were virtually ownerless, and that
the question of the lack of a possessor and of the legality of their
acquisition by Rosenberg cannot be judged by normal circumstances, but
must be judged according to the extraordinary circumstances of the war.
If the Prosecution claims that public and private objects of art were
stolen at random, I should like to reply to the statement that only
Jewish possessions, and indeed the specified ownerless objects were
confiscated. Above all it is not true that state-owned property was also
touched. Finally he did not act on his own responsibility but in
carrying out a governmental order, and I want to ask that the fact be
not overlooked that Rosenberg acted without any egotistical motive. Not
a single picture passed into his private possession; he did not gain a
single Reichsmark from this transaction involving millions, and after
all, all the artistic and cultural property has been found again. I
would like to thank the French Prosecution for having acknowledged this
fact here publicly.
Göring supported the work of the Einsatzstab and, as he admits,
“diverted” some objects for his own use, with the Führer’s approval.
This disturbed Rosenberg because the Einsatzstab was in his name, and he
declared that as a matter of principle he did not want to give anything
even to the museums, that his task was purely one of registration and
safeguarding. The Führer should have the final decision on these works
of art. Rosenberg could not undertake anything against Göring, but he
ordered his deputy Robert Scholz at least to make an accurate inventory
of what was given to Göring, and to have the latter sign a receipt,
which he did. Thus, most certainly it cannot be proved that Rosenberg
had the intention of illegally appropriating the objects of art for
himself or for somebody else. Furthermore, Robert Scholz confirmed that
Rosenberg also forbade all his assistants to acquire any objects of art
or culture even by virtue of an official appraisal (Document Number
Rosenberg-41).
The Prosecution says that with the Rosenberg Einsatzstab a gang of
vandals broke into the European House of Art in order to plunder in a
barbarous way. If one contemplates the tremendous work of drawing up an
inventory, of cataloging, of restoration, and of scientific appraisal,
and if one finally bears in mind that all these treasures were most
carefully stored away, and certainly came through the war better than
would have been the case if the German authorities had not taken care of
them, then I believe that, objectively speaking, one can use any term
but that of “vandalism.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be a good time to break off.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg is also especially charged with looting furniture.
He allegedly ransacked the contents of 79,000 Jewish-owned homes, among
them 38,000 in Paris, and took the loot to Germany. Unquestionably,
these measures were taken for the benefit of air-raid victims; in the
cities which had been destroyed by air warfare new homes were set up for
the homeless. It was in line with National Socialist mentality and it
must certainly be morally condemned that the confiscation was limited to
Jewish property. The essential question, however, is whether the
confiscation was at all legal. In all my statements I have avoided
trying to excuse a weak legal position with a state of military
emergency, and I do not wish to do it at this point either, for, as an
expert on international law states, “The state of emergency is the lever
by means of which the entire body of martial law can be torn from its
hinges.” In this case, does not the justification of national and
military necessity exist, did not air warfare bring intense and general
distress to Germany?
One might object that such distress could have been ended by
unconditional surrender. In my opinion, however, the above-mentioned
justification cannot be denied to the defendant by this reference to
unconditional surrender, entailing the Reich’s abandonment of its own
existence, its independence, and its own vital interests. The
appropriation of enemy private property took place in application of a
right of requisitioning, which was extended beyond the legal terms of
martial law and justified by the state of emergency. I venture to assert
that his procedure of confiscating furniture, in view of the devastating
effects of air warfare against Germany, was not contradictory to “the
customs among civilized peoples,” “the laws of humanity,” and “the
demands of the public conscience” (Marten’s clause in the preamble to
the agreement concerning the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare; see
Scholz, in the afore-mentioned book, Page 173).
May it please the High Tribunal, I shall now pass on to the Norway
operation. The Prosecution characterizes Rosenberg and Raeder as the
most energetic conspirators in the Norway operation, and later in the
same matter calls Rosenberg a “dealer in high treason.” The opinion of
the Prosecution and also the assumption of the present Norwegian
Government (Norwegian Report of 13 October 1945, Document Number TC-56)
are obviously to the effect that the Party’s Foreign Political Office,
of which Rosenberg was the head, and Quisling had plotted the war
against Norway in mutual conspiracy. I believe that of all the charges
against Rosenberg hitherto dealt with, none has less foundation than
this one. On the basis of the few documents which have been submitted to
the Court, in my opinion the case could doubtlessly be cleared up in
favor of the defendant.
There existed a Foreign Political Office of the Party, which had the
task of informing foreign visitors about the National Socialist
movement, of referring any suggestions to the official offices, and
otherwise of functioning as a central office of the Party for questions
of foreign policy. The special interest, and I may say the special
sympathy, of the leading men of the Party and the State was directed
toward the Scandinavian countries. It was specifically in this direction
that the Foreign Political Office placed the main emphasis on the field
of cultural policy. The already existing “Nordic Society” was expanded,
the birthdays of great Scandinavian scientists and artists were observed
in Germany, a great Nordic music festival was held, and so forth. The
relations took on a really political note only with the appearance of
Quisling, whom Rosenberg had seen for the first time in 1933 and who
then, in 1939, 6 years later, looked up Rosenberg again after the
convention of the Nordic Society in Lübeck; the former spoke of the
danger of European entanglements and expressed the fear that Norway was
in danger of being drawn into them. He then feared above all a
partitioning of his country in such a manner that the Soviet Union would
occupy the northern and England the southern part of Norway.
Quisling again came to see Rosenberg in Berlin in December 1939. The
latter arranged for a conference with the Führer. Hitler declared that
he would by far prefer to have Norway remain completely neutral and that
he did not intend to extend the theater of war and involve more nations
in the conflict, but he would know how to defend himself against a
further isolation of Germany and further threats against her. In order
to counteract the increasing activity of enemy propaganda, Quisling was
promised financial support of his movement, which was based on the
pan-Germanic idea. The military treatment of the questions now taken up
was assigned to a special military staff; Rosenberg was to deal with the
political aspect, and he appointed his assistant Scheidt to maintain
liaison. Hagelin, a Norwegian confidential agent of Quisling’s, in
January 1940 gave Rosenberg some more disturbing reports on the feared
violation of neutrality by the Norwegian Government, and Rosenberg
passed them on to Hitler. After the _Altmark_ incident, Hagelin, who
moved in Norwegian Government circles, intensified his warnings to the
effect that the Allies had already begun to examine the Norwegian
seaports for disembarkation and transportation possibilities; in any
case, the Norwegian Government would be satisfied with protests on
paper, and Quisling was indicating that any delay in undertaking a
counteraction would mean an exceptional risk. Rosenberg again handed the
reports immediately to Hitler. If he had not done so that would have
been downright treason to his country. The German counterblow followed
on 9 April 1940, and Rosenberg learned about it from the radio and the
newspapers like any ordinary citizen. After his above-mentioned report,
which he made in the line of duty, Rosenberg, did not participate in
either diplomatic or military preparations.
Should there still be any doubt that in the Norwegian case Rosenberg was
only an agent who forwarded information to Hitler, and not an
instigator, conspirator, or traitor, I should like to refer to two
documents. First, to Document Number C-65, Rosenberg’s file note
concerning Quisling’s visit. Obviously, it is the information on
Quisling which Hitler had requested from Rosenberg. If Rosenberg had
been on closer terms with Quisling, he certainly would have been only
too glad to inform Hitler about it. Rosenberg had only heard of a
fantastic and impracticable plan of Quisling’s for a _coup d’état_
(occupation of important central offices in Oslo by sudden action,
supported by specially selected Norwegians who had been trained in
Germany, afterward having the German fleet called in by a newly formed
Norwegian Government). However, an earlier report of Quisling appeared
less fantastic to Rosenberg; according to this—names being
given—officers of the Western Powers traveled through Norway as
consular officials, ascertained the depth of the water in ports of
disembarkation, and made inquiries into the cross-sections and
clearances of railway tunnels. This was the true and only reason for
everything Rosenberg did in the Norwegian matter.
The second document is the report concerning “The Political Preparation
of the Norway Operation” (Document Number 004-PS, Exhibit Number
GB-140), a report from Rosenberg to Hess of 17 June 1940. In this
interdepartmental report there is also nothing which deviates from
Rosenberg’s own trustworthy statement and which would allow him to
appear as an instigator of war and of high treason. Rosenberg was not
called into any political or military discussion concerning Norway.
Thus, what criminal act did Rosenberg commit? Was it criminal that he
tried “to gain influence in Norway” (Document Number TC-56), or that
with his knowledge the Foreign Office gave subsidies to Quisling?
Finally, I should also like to point out that later on, after the
operation had succeeded, Rosenberg was in no way entrusted with an
office or function with regard to Norway; that even the appointment of a
Reich Commissioner for Norway was carried out without consulting him.
I shall not deal with the case of Minister Goga, which I have set forth
in detail, but I ask the High Tribunal to consider it as having been
dealt with. Now I turn to the topic: Persecution of the Church.
The Prosecution maintains that Rosenberg, together with Bormann, issued
the orders for religious persecutions and induced others to participate
in these persecutions. However, not a single order of that kind is
known. There were presented only letters by Bormann, partly to
Rosenberg, partly to others, from which no charges against Rosenberg can
be drawn. On the contrary Rosenberg was repeatedly reproached, as on one
occasion when in the presence of Hitler he praised a book by Reich
Bishop Müller (Document Number 100-PS); another time when Rosenberg gave
Reich Bishop Müller instructions to work out directives for thoughts
regarding religious instruction in schools (Document Number 098-PS);
once again when Rosenberg sponsored a strictly Christian work by General
Von Rabenau.
As a witness Rosenberg himself declared (Volume XI, Page 461) that he
had opposed propaganda advocating withdrawal from the Church and had
never called for state and police measures against his opponents in the
fields of theology and research, and particularly that he had never used
the Police for suppressing those who were opponents of his book _The
Myth of the 20th Century_. In December 1941, as Reich Minister for the
Occupied Eastern Territories, he issued an edict for Church toleration
(Documents Number 1517-PS and 294-PS). Rosenberg had nothing to do with
arrests, the deportation of priests, and persecution of the Church. He
had no part either in the negotiations with the Vatican over the
Concordat or in the assignment of the Protestant Reich Bishop; neither
did he take any part in measures which were hostile to the Church, and
which were later carried out by the Police. He never participated in any
other administrative or legislative anticlerical measures.
In my opinion it is quite impossible, for lack of documentary evidence,
to construe from what Rosenberg thought and said about religious and
philosophical matters—which I will quote presently—that he conspired
toward a political suppression of religion by force. The only document
(Number 130-PS) pointing in this direction was withdrawn by the American
Prosecution itself before I was obliged to draw attention to its being a
pamphlet directed against Rosenberg.
His book _The Myth of the 20th Century_, which is allegedly written for
the reshaping of the denominations in the direction of a Germanic
Christianity, is moreover chiefly addressed to those who had already
broken with the Church. “No consciously responsible German,” says
Rosenberg at one place in it, “should suggest withdrawal from the
Churches to those who are still believing members thereof” (Document
Number Rosenberg-7, Document Book 1, Page 122), and once again: “Science
would never have the power to dethrone true religion” (see as above,
Page 125). His writings are not addressed to the faithful churchgoers of
today in order to hinder them in the course of their chosen spiritual
life, but to those who have already discarded their religious faith
(Document Number Rosenberg-7, Document Book 1, Page 125). In his
speeches he upheld the view that the Party is not entitled to establish
norms in metaphysical matters which contest immortality, et cetera.
After he had been assigned to supervise ideological education, he said
explicitly in his Berlin speech of 22 February 1934: “No National
Socialist is allowed to engage in religious discussions while wearing
the uniform of his Movement,” and he declared at the same time that “all
well-disposed persons should strive for the pacification of the entire
political and spiritual life in Germany” (Document Number
Rosenberg-7(a), Document Book 1, Page 130). That in this respect, too,
things developed along different lines is not due to the desire or
influence of Rosenberg.
Moreover, I need make only brief allusion to the fact that it is a
question of the 1000-year-old problem of relations between the clerical
and so-called temporal powers. The struggle of emperors, kings, and
popes in the Middle Ages; the French Revolution with the shooting of
priests; Bismarck’s clerical controversies; the secular legislation of
the French Republic under Combes; all those were things, which from the
standpoint of the Churches ...
Mr. President, may I make a brief statement by way of explanation? I
wanted to say that I have concluded this topic, that I do not wish to
concern myself with the problem of Church persecutions any further. I
have finished with it. I am coming to the topic of ideology and general
politics.
Ideology and education have been nothing but a means of obtaining power
and consolidating that power; uniformity of thinking has played an
important part in the program of the conspiracy; the formation of the
Armed Forces has only been possible in conjunction with the ideological
education of the nation and Party—so says the Prosecution (Brudno, on 9
January 1946). And continuing its attacks against Rosenberg, the
Prosecution proceeds by saying that Rosenberg’s ideas formed the
foundation of the National Socialist movement, and that Rosenberg’s
contribution in formulating and spreading the National Socialist
ideology gave foundation to the conspiracy by shaping its “philosophical
technique.”
I think that one will have to take care, in judging Rosenberg’s case,
not to yield to certain primitive ways of thinking and become a victim
of them: First of all an exaggeration of the conception of ideology and
the inexact use of that concept. At best it was a political philosophy
which was hand in glove with Hitler’s political measures and which
Hitler himself preached in his book _Mein Kampf_, but it was not an
ideology in an all-embracing sense. It is true that National Socialism
endeavored to create a spiritual philosophy and an ideology of its own,
but it had not reached that stage yet by far. Rosenberg’s book _The Myth
of the 20th Century_ is an attempt in that direction, being a personal
confession, without any suggestion of political measures. Therefore, his
philosophy cannot have formed the ideological basis of National
Socialism. In addition there is a total lack of proof that a straight
spiritual line, a clear spiritual causal connection, exists between the
conceptions of Rosenberg and the alleged and actual crimes.
If one goes to the trouble of looking through the book, _The Myth of the
20th Century_, one will immediately observe that though there is some
philosophizing in the National Socialist way, it would be, however, pure
fiction to affirm that there is any dogmatic formulation of a tangible
program in this book, or that it is a foundation for the activities of
the responsible leaders of the Reich in this World War. Another mistake
of National Socialism was perhaps the boundless unification and
simplification: people were made uniform; thinking was made uniform;
only one uniform type of German was left. There was also alleged to be
only one National Socialist way of thinking, and only National Socialist
ideology. But in spite of this, as we see today, the leaders were
frequently of different opinions on essential questions. I will recall
the question of the policy in the East. Here too, there seems to be
danger of accepting this way of thinking, of observing everything
through the spectacles of uniformity, and of saying: One idea, one
philosophy, one responsibility, one crime, one punishment. Such a
simplification, apart from its primitive nature, would certainly also
constitute a great injustice toward the Defendant Rosenberg.
Finally, when one hears how the Prosecution attacks “Germanic
Christianity,” the “heathen blood myth,” making much of Rosenberg’s
expression, “the Nordic blood is the mystery which has superseded and
overpowered the old sacraments,” one feels inclined to close one’s eyes
for a moment and to picture oneself attending a session of the
Inquisition in the Middle Ages where they are about to sentence
Rosenberg to the stake as a heretic. Yet nothing must be farther from
the Tribunal’s mind than to harbor thoughts of intolerance, since here,
in spite of all attempts by some of the prosecutors, it is not
ideologies but crimes which are involved.
In the Defendant Rosenberg’s case it is a question of whether by his
teachings he was guilty of preparing and promoting crimes. The
Prosecution has brought forth arguments to this end, but have not proved
it, while I can prove the opposite merely by pointing to Rosenberg’s
activities in the East. Had he been the bearer and apostle of a criminal
idea, he would have had an opportunity, such as no criminal has ever yet
had in world history, to indulge in criminal activities. I have stated
explicitly that in his case it was just the opposite. So when the bearer
and apostle of an idea himself has the greatest of opportunities and yet
in practice himself behaves morally, then his teachings cannot be
criminal and immoral either. Above all, he cannot then be punished as a
criminal on the basis of his teachings. What criminally degenerate
persons practiced as alleged National Socialism cannot be laid to the
charge of Rosenberg. Moreover, Rosenberg’s speeches in three volumes,
which express what he taught in the course of 8 years, bear witness to
the honorable nature of his endeavors.
Thus, if we relinquish the false conception of uniformity: One party,
one philosophy, one ideology, one crime—and we will have to, in view of
the indisputable fact that Rosenberg himself never pursued a policy of
extermination, destruction, and enslavement in the East—we shall have
to admit that the facts of the terrible central executive orders and of
Rosenberg’s philosophy are not identical, and on these grounds alone the
conclusions of the Prosecution are invalid.
Karl Marx teaches that historical events and political social reality
are conditioned by the mere casual play of materialistic forces. Whether
Marx in addition acknowledges the independent influence of man and ideas
on history is at least doubtful. On the other hand, Rosenberg stresses
emphatically the influence and the necessity of the highest ideas in the
history of peoples. But Rosenberg does not overlook the fact that every
event in history is the result of a totality of acting forces. The will,
the passions and the intelligence of the people involved work together
to form a historical process which cannot be calculated in human terms.
It has already been pointed out that, just as little as Voltaire’s and
Rousseau’s ideas can be recognized as the causes of the French
Revolution, and the slogans of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” be
taken as the cause of the Jacobinic terror, as little as one can say
that Mirabeau and Sièze had wanted or plotted such a blood bath, so
little can one ascribe to Rosenberg as his moral or even criminal guilt
that which National Socialism became during its development through the
decades. In other words, I believe it is as unjust as it is unhistorical
to ascribe today, in retrospect, the negative aspects of National
Socialism, which were connected with the terrible collapse, to a plan
desired from the outset and emanating from Rosenberg’s ideas.
Therefore, in considering Rosenberg’s work the mistake of a
standardization which does not correspond to reality is added to the
further mistake of mechanization; there is neither a mechanical man nor
mechanical history. And, finally, the construction of the Indictment is
also an absolutely negative one; it views the defendant from the
standpoint of political polemics and is impressed by the excitement of
people in these excited times. I must briefly take exception to this
distortion of the defendant’s mental traits.
The spiritual state of the period after the first World War and even of
the preceding period, which gave birth to the defendant’s ideas, are
known to all of us only too well: The turmoil in the spirit and soul of
man brought about by the technical age, his hunger and thirst for a new
spirit and a new soul; liberty was the slogan and a “new beginning” the
impulse which directed the will of youth. Its longing and enthusiasm
were aimed at nature. The thoughts and wishes of this generation were
led into political paths by the contrast between rich and poor, which
youth considered unjust and sought to bridge through socialism and the
fellowship of the people. In Germany the development along political
lines was given further impetus by the national misfortune of 1918-19
and the Treaty of Versailles, which was likewise felt to be unjust. The
idea of building German history through the union of nationalism and
socialism glowed unconsciously in the hearts of millions, as the
undisputed tremendous success of National Socialism proves. The
spiritual foundation was the desire for external and internal
self-assertion and love for one’s fellow countrymen and for the people
themselves, who had had to suffer so much torment and misery in history.
The desire for self-assertion and love for one’s own people, together
with the whole system of National Socialist ideas, then developed in an
inexplicable manner into a furious conflagration. The most primitive
considerations of common sense were eliminated just as in a delirium; in
complete delusion everything was risked and everything was lost.
The searching questions which present themselves to Rosenberg time and
time again are whether he could have done more for what he thought and
upheld as just and worthy; where he neglected essential things; where he
fell short of requirements; what negative symptoms, insofar as he had
knowledge of them, he should have paid more attention to. Can such
questions, which every person asks when he is crushed by disaster, be
considered as evidence for his objective guilt? I do not think so. On 17
January 1946 the French Chief Prosecutor, M. de Menthon, stated the
following, which I quote (Volume V, Pages 378, 379):
“We are rather facing systematic criminality which directly and
necessarily derives from a monstrous doctrine with the full will
of the leaders of Nazi Germany. The crime against peace, which
was undertaken, is immediately derived from the National
Socialist doctrine.”
To refute this assertion I must briefly present this doctrine. I have
classified the National Socialist ideology—in accord, I believe, with
scientific opinions—under the so-called new romanticism. This trend,
which was grounded in fate and the necessities of history, had gone
through the whole civilized world since the turn of the century as a
reaction against rationalism and the technical age. It differs from the
old romanticism in that it adopts the naturalistic and biological
consideration of man and history. It is borne up by a confident faith in
the value and meaning of life and the whole of reality. It does not
glorify sentiment or intellect, but the innermost motives of man—heart,
will, and faith. This philosophy receives its National Socialist stamp
through the emphasis which is placed upon the mysterious importance of
peoples and races for all human experience and activity. It is in the
people, in the common possession of blood, history, and culture, that
the real roots of strength are thought to be found. Only by
participating in the movements of a people and its strength does the
individual serve himself and his generation.
Rosenberg’s scientific contribution to the racial ideology consists in
his description of the rise and fall of great historical figures, who
sprang from races and peoples and set up definite standards in all
spheres: language, custom, art, religion, philosophy, and politics.
According to Rosenberg the efforts of the twentieth century to establish
a form for itself are a struggle for the independence of the human
personality. In Rosenberg’s opinion, its essence is the consciousness of
honor. The myth of national honor is at the same time the myth of blood
and race, which produce and support honor in its highest form.
Therefore, the struggle for honor in its highest form is also a
spiritual struggle with other systems and their maximum values. Thus,
intuition stands against intuition, will against will.
Rosenberg expresses this thought in the following manner (_The Myth of
the 20th Century_, Introduction, Pages 1 and 2):
“History and the task of the future no longer mean a struggle
between classes, no longer a struggle between Church dogma and
dogma, but the dispute between blood and blood, race and race,
people and people. And this means: A struggle between
psychologies.”
Consequently, Rosenberg had, in any case, no ideas of genocide as
Raphael Lemkin expounds in _Axis Rule in Occupied Europe_, Page 81,
where he ends the above quotation after the words “race and race, people
and people,” but he believed in a struggle between psychologies, in
other words, spiritual controversy.
I mention this spiritual trend in order to explain the peculiar fact in
National Socialism that political considerations born of the intellect
often gave way before the pathos of will and faith. In Rosenberg’s case
this danger did not appear so much since in making everything revolve
around the “soil,” that is, the fatherland, and its history and
peasantry as the force from which springs the essence of a race, he
remains in the sphere of life’s realities. Perhaps unaware of it
himself, he was nevertheless borne upward by this current. The question
arises as to what effects this ideology had on political life.
It is clear that the emphasis on will and faith gave special weight to
political demands. After the Treaty of Versailles the political demands
of Germany were aimed at recovering freedom and equality among the
peoples as a still fettered great power. This had been the objective of
German statesmen even before Hitler. The other great powers had certain
misgivings about recognizing Germany again as such. Rosenberg fought to
remove these misgivings. His weapon was his pen. The Tribunal has
allowed me to present in evidence a group of excerpts from Rosenberg’s
speeches and writings. I submitted it in my Document Book 1, Volume II.
In view of the quantity of material and of my intention to submit only
the most important matter, I depend on the Court’s being familiar with
my document book.
In the first place I wish to call attention to the effect which these
works had on German youth. I may recall the witness Von Schirach’s
testimony. I repeat verbally:
“At conventions of youth leaders, at which he spoke once a year,
Rosenberg chiefly chose educational, character-building
subjects. I remember, for instance, that he spoke on loneliness
and comradeship, personality and honor, and so forth. At these
conventions of leaders he did not deliver any speeches against
Jews. As far as I remember, he did not touch on the religious
problem of youth either, in any case not to the best of my
memory. Mostly I heard him talk on such subjects as I have just
mentioned before.”
The attitude of youth was actually better than before the taking over of
power. Idleness, the root of all evil, had ceased and had been replaced
by work, the fulfillment of duty, the aiming at ideals, patriotism, and
the will to get ahead. It was a fatality here too, that through Hitler’s
policy these values were directed in the wrong manner.
The charges by the Prosecution that Rosenberg was the advocate of a
conspiracy against peace, of racial hatred, of the elimination of human
rights, of tyranny, of a rule of horror, violence, and illegality, of
unbridled nationalism and militarism, of a German master race, I could
already refute by pointing to the excerpts from _The Myth of the 20th
Century_, which the Prosecution itself has submitted as evidence for the
truth of its assertions. In reply to this, in order to refute this
assertion by the Prosecution, I want to point in particular to the
following facts: To prove Rosenberg’s honest struggle for the peaceful
existence of nations side by side I wish to refer to his speech in Rome
in November 1932 before the Royal Academy of Rome (reproduced in _Blood
and Honor_, Document Book 1, Page 150). In his speech in Rome Rosenberg
pointed to the fateful significance of the four great powers and
proclaimed—I quote his words:
“Therefore he who strives in earnest to create a Europe which
shall be an organic unit with a pronounced multiplicity of form
and not merely a crude summation, must acknowledge the four
great nationalisms as given to us by fate and must, therefore,
seek to give fulfillment to the force radiating from their core.
The destruction of one of these centers by any power would not
result in a ‘Europe,’ but would bring about chaos in which the
other centers of culture would also have to perish. In reverse
it is only the triumph of the radiations in those directions
where the four great forces do not come into conflict with each
other which would result in the most dynamic force of creative
being and organic peace, not an explosive forced situation such
as prevails today, whereby it would guarantee to the small
nations more security than appears possible today in the
struggle against elementary force.”
To this line of thought Rosenberg, as Chief of the Foreign Political
Office of the Party, remained true. Unfortunately, he could only work
for it through his words. No witness could confirm in this courtroom
that Rosenberg had any influence on actual foreign policy, whether it
was directed by Neurath, Ribbentrop, Göring, or Hitler himself. Neither
in the Austrian, nor in the Czech, nor in the Polish, nor in the Russian
subject matter has his name been mentioned in connection with the charge
of participation in aggressive wars. Everywhere he was placed before
accomplished facts. In the war against the Soviet Union he received his
orders only when the war against Russia had already been established as
an acute possibility. He did not stir up the Norwegian campaign, but
passed on personal information in accordance with his duty.
Now, as regards Rosenberg’s speeches and writings on the problems of
general foreign policy, he advocated the Anschluss of the Austrians, who
had been forcibly excluded from the Reich, as a demand born of the right
to self-determination which had been proclaimed by the Allies
themselves. The revision of Versailles was a postulate of justice
against a violation of the Treaty of 11 November 1918. To advocate the
German Armed Forces was, in view of the nondisarmament of the other
powers, a defense of the solemnly promised equality of rights.