| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946: Vol. I
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946: Vol. I" ***
http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by The
Internet Archives-US
TRIAL
OF
THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
BEFORE
THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
N U R E M B E R G
14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946
[Illustration]
P U B L I S H E D A T N U R E M B E R G , G E R M A N Y
1 9 4 7
This volume is published in accordance with the
direction of the International Military Tribunal by
the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction
of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.
VOLUME I
O F F I C I A L T E X T
I N T H E
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP,
ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED
ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER
FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL
DÖNITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR VON SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED
JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ VON PAPEN, ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART,
ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH, and HANS FRITZSCHE,
Individually and as Members of Any of the Following Groups or
Organizations to which They Respectively Belonged, Namely: DIE
REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER POLITISCHEN
LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI
(LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY); DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER
NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known
as the “SS”) and including DER SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known
as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE,
commonly known as the “GESTAPO”); DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER NSDAP
(commonly known as the “SA”); and the GENERAL STAFF and HIGH
COMMAND of the GERMAN ARMED FORCES, all as defined in Appendix B
of the Indictment,
Defendants.
P R E F A C E
Recognizing the importance of establishing for history an authentic text
of the Trial of major German war criminals, the International Military
Tribunal directed the publication of the Record of the Trial. The
proceedings are published in English, French, Russian, and German, the
four languages used throughout the hearings. The documents admitted in
evidence are printed only in their original language.
The first volume contains basic, official, pre-trial documents together
with the Tribunal’s judgment and sentence of the defendants. In
subsequent volumes the Trial proceedings are published in full from the
preliminary session of 14 November 1945 to the closing session of 1
October 1946. They are followed by an index volume. Documents admitted
in evidence conclude the publication.
The proceedings of the International Military Tribunal were recorded in
full by stenographic notes, and an electric sound recording of all oral
proceedings was maintained.
Reviewing sections have verified in the four languages citations,
statistics, and other data, and have eliminated obvious grammatical
errors and verbal irrelevancies. Finally, corrected texts have been
certified for publication by Colonel Ray for the United States, Mr.
Mercer for the United Kingdom, Mr. Fuster for France, and Major Poltorak
for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
CONTENTS
=Members and alternate members of the Tribunal= 1
=Officials of the General Secretariat= 2
=Prosecution Counsel= 3
=Individual defendants and Defense Counsel= 6
=Establishment of the Tribunal=
London Agreement of 8 August 1945 8
Charter of the International Military Tribunal 10
Protocol rectifying discrepancy in text of the
Charter 17
=Rules of Procedure= 19
=Minutes of the opening session of the Tribunal,=
=at Berlin, 18 October 1945= 24
=Indictment=
Text of Indictment 27
Motion of the Prosecution for correcting
discrepancies in the Indictment 93
Pleas of individual defendants 94
Letter of reservation by the United States Prosecutor
in regard to wording of the Indictment 95
=Notice=
Order of the Tribunal regarding notice to individual
defendants 96
Order of the Tribunal regarding notice to members of
groups and organizations 97
Order of the Tribunal regarding notice to Defendant
Bormann 102
=Service=
Certificates of compliance with orders of the
Tribunal regarding notice to members of groups and
organizations and to Defendant Bormann 104
Certificates of service on individual defendants 117
Certificate of service on Defendant Gustav Krupp von
Bohlen and medical certificates attached thereto 118
Acknowledgment of service by Defendant Fritzsche and
Defendant Raeder 123
=Motion on behalf of Defendant Gustav Krupp von=
=Bohlen for postponement of the Trial as to him,=
=and action taken thereon=
Motion, and medical certificates attached thereto 124
Report of medical commission appointed to examine
Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen 127
Answer of the United States Prosecution to the motion 134
Memorandum of the British Prosecution on the motion 139
Memorandum of the French Prosecution on the motion 141
Supplemental memorandum of the French Prosecution 142
Order of the Tribunal granting postponement of
proceedings against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen 143
Supplementary statement of the United States
Prosecution 144
Motion of the Committee of Chief Prosecutors to amend
the Indictment by adding the name of Alfried Krupp
von Bohlen as a defendant 145
Order of the Tribunal rejecting the motion to amend
the Indictment 146
Memorandum of the French Prosecution on the order of
the Tribunal rejecting the motion to amend the
Indictment 147
=Motion on behalf of Defendant Streicher for=
=postponement of the Trial as to him,=
=and action taken thereon=
Motion on behalf of Defendant Streicher 148
Memorandum of the United States Prosecution on the
motion 149
Memorandum of the British Prosecution on the motion 150
Motion of the Soviet Prosecution for a psychiatric
examination of Defendant Streicher 152
Order of the Tribunal regarding a psychiatric
examination of Defendant Streicher 153
Report of examination of Defendant Streicher 154
=Medical examination of Defendant Hess=
Motion on behalf of Defendant Hess for an examination
by a neutral expert 155
Order of the Tribunal rejecting the motion, and
designating a commission to examine Defendant Hess 157
Report of commission to examine Defendant Hess 159
Report of prison psychologist 166
=Motion adopted by all Defense Counsel,=
=19 November 1945= 168
=Judgment= 171
=Dissenting opinion of the Soviet Judge= 342
=Sentences= 365
MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS
OF THE TRIBUNAL
LORD JUSTICE LAWRENCE, Member for the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, President
MR. JUSTICE BIRKETT, Alternate Member
MR. FRANCIS BIDDLE, Member for the United States of America
JUDGE JOHN J. PARKER, Alternate Member
M. LE PROFESSEUR DONNEDIEU DE VABRES, Member for the French
Republic
M. LE CONSEILLER R. FALCO, Alternate Member
MAJOR GENERAL I. T. NIKITCHENKO, Member for the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics
LIEUTENANT COLONEL A. F. VOLCHKOV, Alternate Member
OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT
BRIGADIER GENERAL
WM. L. MITCHELL General Secretary (from 6 November
1945 to 24 June 1946)
COLONEL JOHN E. RAY General Secretary (from 24 June
1946)
MR. HAROLD B. WILLEY General Secretary (to 6 November
1945)
American Secretary (to 11 July
1946)
MR. WALTER GILKYSON American Secretary (from 16 July
1946)
MR. IAN D. McILWRAITH British Secretary
MAJOR A. POLTORAK Soviet Secretary
MR. A. MARTIN-HAVARD French Secretary
COLONEL CHARLES W. MAYS Marshal (to 26 June 1946)
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JAMES
R. GIFFORD Marshal (from 26 June 1946)
COLONEL LEON DOSTERT Chief of Interpreters
(From the Office of (to 17 April 1946)
U.S. Chief of Counsel)
COMMANDER ALFRED STEER,
U.S.N.R. Chief of Interpreters
(From the Office of (from 18 April 1946)
U.S. Chief of Counsel)
* * * * *
MAJOR JACK L. BAILEY Administrative Section
CAPTAIN D. P. SULLIVAN Witness Notification and
Procurement
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
A. M. S. NEAVE, B.A.O.R. Applications and Motions Section
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER
ALBERT E. SCHRADER, U.S.N.R. Defendants’ Information Center
MR. BERNARD REYMON Custodian of Documents and Records
* * * * *
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
LAWRENCE D. EGBERT Editor of the Record
CAPTAIN SIGMUND ROTH Director of Printing
PROSECUTION COUNSEL[1]
United States of America
CHIEF OF COUNSEL:
Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson
EXECUTIVE TRIAL COUNSEL:
Colonel Robert G. Storey
Mr. Thomas J. Dodd
ASSOCIATE TRIAL COUNSEL:
Mr. Sidney S. Alderman
Brigadier General Telford Taylor
Colonel John Harlan Amen
Mr. Ralph G. Albrecht
ASSISTANT TRIAL COUNSEL:
Colonel Leonard Wheeler, Jr.
Lieutenant Colonel William H. Baldwin
Lieutenant Colonel Smith W. Brockhart, Jr.
Commander James Britt Donovan, U.S.N.R.
Major Frank B. Wallis
Major William F. Walsh
Major Warren F. Farr
Captain Samuel Harris
Captain Drexel A. Sprecher
Lieutenant Commander Whitney R. Harris, U.S.N.R.
Lieutenant Thomas F. Lambert, Jr., U.S.N.R.
Lieutenant Henry K. Atherton
Lieutenant Brady O. Bryson, U.S.N.R.
Lieutenant (j. g.) Bernard D. Meltzer, U.S.N.R.
Dr. Robert M. Kempner
Mr. Walter W. Brudno
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
CHIEF PROSECUTOR:
H. M. Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
K.C., M.P.
DEPUTY CHIEF PROSECUTOR:
The Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, P.C., K.C.,
M.P.
LEADING COUNSEL:
Mr. G. D. Roberts, K.C., O.B.E.
JUNIOR COUNSEL:
Lieutenant Colonel J. M. G. Griffith-Jones, M.C.,
Barrister-at-Law
Colonel H. J. Phillimore, O.B.E., Barrister-at-Law
Major F. Elwyn Jones, M.P., Barrister-at-Law
Major J. Harcourt Barrington, Barrister-at-Law
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
CHIEF PROSECUTOR:
General R. A. Rudenko
DEPUTY CHIEF PROSECUTOR:
Colonel Y. V. Pokrovsky
ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS:
State Counsellor of Justice of the 2nd Class, L.
R. Shenin
State Counsellor of Justice of the 2nd Class, M.
Y. Raginsky
State Counsellor of Justice of the 3rd Class, N.
D. Zorya
Chief Counsellor of Justice, L. N. Smirnov
Colonel D. S. Karev
Lieutenant Colonel J. A. Ozol
Captain V. V. Kuchin
French Republic
CHIEF PROSECUTOR:
M. François de Menthon
M. Auguste Champetier de Ribes
DEPUTY CHIEF PROSECUTORS:
M. Charles Dubost
M. Edgar Faure
ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS (Chiefs of Sections):
M. Pierre Mounier
M. Charles Gerthoffer
M. Delphin Debenest
ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS:
M. Jacques B. Herzog
M. Henry Delpech
M. Serge Fuster
M. Constant Quatre
M. Henri Monneray
-----
[1] Only those members of the Prosecution Counsel who spoke before the
Tribunal are listed.
DEFENDANTS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL
=INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS:= =COUNSEL:=
GÖRING, HERMANN Dr. Otto Stahmer
WILHELM
HESS, RUDOLF Dr. Günther von Rohrscheidt
(to 5 February 1946)
Dr. Alfred Seidl (from 5
February 1946)
VON RIBBENTROP, JOACHIM Dr. Fritz Sauter (to 5 January
1946)
Dr. Martin Horn (from 5
January 1946)
LEY, ROBERT[2]
KEITEL, WILHELM Dr. Otto Nelte
KALTENBRUNNER, ERNST Dr. Kurt Kauffmann
ROSENBERG, ALFRED Dr. Alfred Thoma
FRANK, HANS Dr. Alfred Seidl
FRICK, WILHELM Dr. Otto Pannenbecker
STREICHER, JULIUS Dr. Hanns Marx
FUNK, WALTER Dr. Fritz Sauter
SCHACHT, HJALMAR Dr. Rudolf Dix
Professor Dr. Herbert Kraus,
Associate[5]
DÖNITZ, KARL Flottenrichter Otto
Kranzbuehler
RAEDER, ERICH Dr. Walter Siemers
VON SCHIRACH, BALDUR Dr. Fritz Sauter
SAUCKEL, FRITZ Dr. Robert Servatius
JODL, ALFRED Professor Dr. Franz Exner
Professor Dr. Hermann
Jahreiss, Associate[6]
BORMANN, MARTIN[3] Dr. Friedrich Bergold
VON PAPEN, FRANZ Dr. Egon Kubuschok
SEYSS-INQUART, ARTHUR Dr. Gustav Steinbauer
SPEER, ALBERT Dr. Hans Flächsner
VON NEURATH, CONSTANTIN Dr. Otto Freiherr von
Lüdinghausen
FRITZSCHE, HANS Dr. Heinz Fritz
Dr. Alfred Schilf,
Associate[7]
KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND Dr. Theodor Klefisch
HALBACH, GUSTAV[4] (to 15 November 1945)
Dr. Walter Ballas,
Associate[8] (to 15 November
1945)
-----
[2] All individual defendants named in the Indictment appeared before
the Tribunal except: Robert Ley, who committed suicide 25 October 1945;
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, owing to serious illness; and
Martin Bormann, who was not in custody and whom the Tribunal decided to
try in absentia.
[3] See footnote 2.
[4] See footnote 2.
[5] Only Associates who spoke before the Tribunal are listed.
[6] See footnote 5.
[7] See footnote 5.
[8] See footnote 5.
=GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS:= =COUNSEL:=
REICH CABINET Dr. Egon Kubuschok
LEADERSHIP CORPS OF
NAZI PARTY Dr. Robert Servatius
SS and SD Ludwig Babel, Counsel for SS
and SD (to 18 March 1946),
Counsel for SS (to 1 June
1946),
Co-counsel for SS (to 27
August 1946)
Horst Pelckmann, Co-counsel
for SS (from 2 March 1946),
Counsel for SS (from 1
June 1946)
Dr. Carl Haensel, Associate[9]
to Dr. H. Pelckmann (from 1
April 1946)
Dr. Hans Gawlik, Counsel for
SD (from 18 March 1946)
SA Georg Boehm
Dr. Martin Loeffler
GESTAPO Dr. Rudolf Merkel
GENERAL STAFF and Professor Dr. Franz Exner
HIGH COMMAND of the (to 27 January 1946)
GERMAN ARMED FORCES Dr. Hans Laternser (from 27
January 1946)
-----
[9] Only Associates who spoke before the Tribunal are listed.
LONDON AGREEMENT OF 8 AUGUST 1945
_Agreement by the Government of the United States of America,
the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War
Criminals of the European Axis._
WHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of
their intention that war criminals shall be brought to justice;
AND WHEREAS the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 on German
atrocities in Occupied Europe stated that those German officers and men
and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have
taken a consenting part in atrocities and crimes will be sent back to
the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that
they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated
countries and of the free Governments that will be created therein;
AND WHEREAS this Declaration was stated to be without prejudice to the
case of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographic
location and who will be punished by the joint decision of the
Governments of the Allies;
NOW THEREFORE the Government of the United States of America, the
Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereinafter called “the
Signatories”) acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by
their representatives duly authorized thereto have concluded this
Agreement.
_Article 1._ There shall be established after consultation with the
Control Council for Germany an International Military Tribunal for the
trial of war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical
location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as
members of organizations or groups or in both capacities.
_Article 2._ The constitution, jurisdiction, and functions of the
International Military Tribunal shall be those set out in the Charter
annexed to this Agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part of
this Agreement.
_Article 3._ Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to
make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major
war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International
Military Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors
to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial
before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war
criminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories.
_Article 4._ Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the provisions
established by the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war
criminals to the countries where they committed their crimes.
_Article 5._ Any Government of the United Nations may adhere to this
Agreement by notice given through the diplomatic channel to the
Government of the United Kingdom, who shall inform the other signatory
and adhering Governments of each such adherence.[10]
_Article 6._ Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the jurisdiction
or the powers of any national or occupation court established or to be
established in any Allied territory or in Germany for the trial of war
criminals.
_Article 7._ This Agreement shall come into force on the day of
signature and shall remain in force for the period of one year and shall
continue thereafter, subject to the right of any Signatory to give,
through the diplomatic channel, one month’s notice of intention to
terminate it. Such termination shall not prejudice any proceedings
already taken or any findings already made in pursuance of this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Agreement.
DONE in quadruplicate in London this 8th day of August 1945 each in
English, French, and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity.
For the Government of the United States of America
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
For the Provisional Government of the French Republic
/s/ ROBERT FALCO
For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland
/s/ JOWITT
For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
/s/ I. NIKITCHENKO
/s/ A. TRAININ
-----
[10] In accordance with Article 5, the following Governments of the
United Nations have expressed their adherence to the Agreement: Greece,
Denmark, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium,
Ethiopia, Australia, Honduras, Norway, Panama, Luxembourg, Haiti, New
Zealand, India, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Paraguay.
CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
I. CONSTITUTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
_Article 1._ In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of
August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the
Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established
an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”)
for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals
of the European Axis.
_Article 2._ The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an
alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of
the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be
present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any
member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to
fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place.
_Article 3._ Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can
be challenged by the Prosecution, or by the defendants or their counsel.
Each Signatory may replace its member of the Tribunal or his alternate
for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no
replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate.
_Article 4._
(a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for
any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum.
(b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree
among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President,
and the President shall hold office during that trial, or as may
otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The
principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed.
If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of
one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on
the Tribunal shall preside.
(c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote
and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President
shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences
shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members
of the Tribunal.
_Article 5._ In case of need and depending on the number of the matters
to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment,
functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall
be governed by this Charter.
II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
_Article 6._ The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in
Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals
of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish
persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries,
whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of
the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual
responsibility:
(a) _CRIMES AGAINST PEACE_: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or
waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan
or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) _WAR CRIMES_: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such
violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment
or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian
population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder
of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) _CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY_: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian
population, before or during the war,[11] or persecutions on
political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in
connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where
perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the
formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of
the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any
persons in execution of such plan.
_Article 7._ The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of
State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be
considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.
_Article 8._ The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but
may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determine
that justice so requires.
_Article 9._ At the trial of any individual member of any group or
organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of
which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of
which the individual was a member was a criminal organization.
After receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as
it thinks fit that the Prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make
such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to
apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the
question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal
shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application
is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall
be represented and heard.
_Article 10._ In cases where a group or organization is declared
criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any
Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein before national, military, or occupation courts. In
any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is
considered proved and shall not be questioned.
_Article 11._ Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before
a national, military, or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of
this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group
or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon
him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed
by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such
group or organization.
_Article 12._ The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings
against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this
Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for
any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct
the hearing in his absence.
_Article 13._ The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These
rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.
III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION
AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
_Article 14._ Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the
investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war
criminals.
The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following
purposes:
(a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief
Prosecutors and his staff,
(b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by
the Tribunal,
(c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith,
(d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the
Tribunal,
(e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules
of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal
shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject,
the rules so recommended.
The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and
shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the
principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of
vote concerning the designation of a defendant to be tried by the
Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal
will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the
particular defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred
against him.
_Article 15._ The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in
collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties:
(a) investigation, collection, and production before or at the Trial of
all necessary evidence,
(b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in
accordance with paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof,
(c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of the
defendants,
(d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial,
(e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned
to them,
(f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for
the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial.
It is understood that no witness or defendant detained by any Signatory
shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its
assent.
IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS
_Article 16._ In order to ensure fair trial for the defendants, the
following procedure shall be followed:
(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the
charges against the defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all
the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language
which he understands, shall be furnished to the defendant at a
reasonable time before the Trial.
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a defendant he shall
have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made
against him.
(c) A preliminary examination of a defendant and his trial shall be
conducted in, or translated into, a language which the defendant
understands.
(d) A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the
Tribunal or to have the assistance of counsel.
(e) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his
counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense,
and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.
V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL
_Article 17._ The Tribunal shall have the power:
(a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and
testimony and to put questions to them,
(b) to interrogate any defendant,
(c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material,
(d) to administer oaths to witnesses,
(e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the
Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission.
_Article 18_. The Tribunal shall:
(a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues
raised by the charges,
(b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause
unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of
any kind whatsoever,
(c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment,
including exclusion of any defendant or his counsel from some or all
further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the
charges.
_Article 19._ The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of
evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent
expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence
which it deems to have probative value.
_Article 20._ The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of
any evidence before it is offered so that it may rule upon the relevance
thereof.
_Article 21._ The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common
knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take
judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the
United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set
up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes,
and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of
the United Nations.
_Article 22._ The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The
first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief
Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the
Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg,
and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal
may decide.
_Article 23._ One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the
prosecution at each trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be
discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by
him.
The function of counsel for a defendant may be discharged at the
defendant’s request by any counsel professionally qualified to conduct
cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who
may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal.
_Article 24._ The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following
course:
(a) The Indictment shall be read in court.
(b) The Tribunal shall ask each defendant whether he pleads “guilty” or
“not guilty”.
(c) The Prosecution shall make an opening statement.
(d) The Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and the Defense what evidence
(if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall
rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence.
(e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the
witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may
be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the
Prosecution or the Defense.
(f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any defendant,
at any time.
(g) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may
cross-examine any witnesses and any defendant who gives testimony.
(h) The Defense shall address the Court.
(i) The Prosecution shall address the Court.
(j) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal.
(k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence.
_Article 25._ All official documents shall be produced, and all court
proceedings conducted, in English, French, and Russian, and in the
language of the defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings
may also be translated into the language of any country in which the
Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the
interests of justice and public opinion.
VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
_Article 26._ The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the
innocence of any defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based,
and shall be final and not subject to review.
_Article 27._ The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a
defendant on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be
determined by it to be just.
_Article 28._ In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal
shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen
property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany.
_Article 29._ In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in
accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may
at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not
increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after
any defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence
which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the
Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under
Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having
regard to the interests of justice.
VII. EXPENSES
_Article 30._ The expenses of the Tribunal and of the trials, shall be
charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of
the Control Council for Germany.
-----
[11] Comma substituted in place of semicolon by Protocol of 6 October
1945.
PROTOCOL RECTIFYING DISCREPANCY
IN TEXT OF CHARTER
Whereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of War
Criminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in the English,
French, and Russian languages;
And whereas a discrepancy has been found to exist between the originals
of Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter in the Russian language, on
the one hand, and the originals in the English and French languages, on
the other, to wit, the semicolon in Article 6, paragraph (c), of the
Charter between the words “war” and “or”, as carried in the English and
French texts, is a comma in the Russian text;
And whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy:
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said Agreement on
behalf of their respective Governments, duly authorized thereto, have
agreed that Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter in the Russian text
is correct, and that the meaning and intention of the Agreement and
Charter require that the said semicolon in the English text should be
changed to a comma, and that the French text should be amended to read
as follows:
(c) _LES CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE_: c’est-à-dire l’assassinat,
l’extermination, la réduction en esclavage, la déportation, et tout
autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations civiles, avant ou
pendant la guerre, ou bien les persécutions pour des motifs
politiques, raciaux, ou religieux, lorsque ces actes ou persécutions,
qu’ils aient constitué ou non une violation du droit interne du pays
où ils ont été perpétrés, ont été commis à la suite de tout crime
rentrant dans la compétence du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Protocol.
DONE in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October, 1945, each in
English, French, and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity.
For the Government of the United States of America
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
For the Provisional Government of the French Republic
/s/ FRANÇOIS de MENTHON
For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland
/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS
For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
/s/ R. RUDENKO
RULES OF PROCEDURE
(Adopted 29 October 1945)
Rule 1. _Authority to Promulgate Rules._
The present Rules of Procedure of the International Military Tribunal
for the trial of the major war criminals (hereinafter called “the
Tribunal”) as established by the Charter of the Tribunal dated 8 August
1945 (hereinafter called “the Charter”) are hereby promulgated by the
Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the Charter.
Rule 2. _Notice to Defendants and Right to Assistance of Counsel._
(a) Each individual defendant in custody shall receive not less than 30
days before trial a copy, translated into a language which he
understands, (1) of the Indictment, (2) of the Charter, (3) of any other
documents lodged with the Indictment, and (4) of a statement of his
right to the assistance of counsel as set forth in sub-paragraph (d) of
this Rule, together with a list of counsel. He shall also receive copies
of such rules of procedure as may be adopted by the Tribunal from time
to time.
(b) Any individual defendant not in custody shall be informed of the
indictment against him and of his right to receive the documents
specified in sub-paragraph (a) above, by notice in such form and manner
as the Tribunal may prescribe.
(c) With respect to any group or organization as to which the
Prosecution indicates its intention to request a finding of criminality
by the Tribunal, notice shall be given by publication in such form and
manner as the Tribunal may prescribe and such publication shall include
a declaration by the Tribunal that all members of the named groups or
organizations are entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be
heard in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Charter.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer immunity of any
kind upon such members of said groups or organizations as may appear in
answer to the said declaration.
(d) Each defendant has the right to conduct his own defense or to have
the assistance of counsel. Application for particular counsel shall be
filed at once with the General Secretary of the Tribunal at the Palace
of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany. The Tribunal will designate counsel for
any defendant who fails to apply for particular counsel or, where
particular counsel requested is not within ten (10) days to be found or
available, unless the defendant elects in writing to conduct his own
defense. If a defendant has requested particular counsel who is not
immediately to be found or available, such counsel or a counsel of
substitute choice may, if found and available before trial, be
associated with or substituted for counsel designated by the Tribunal,
provided that (1) only one counsel shall be permitted to appear at the
trial for any defendant, unless by special permission of the Tribunal,
and (2) no delay of trial will be allowed for making such substitution
or association.
Rule 3. _Service of Additional Documents._
If, before the trial, the Chief Prosecutors offer amendments or
additions to the Indictment, such amendments or additions, including any
accompanying documents shall be lodged with the Tribunal and copies of
the same, translated into a language which they each understand, shall
be furnished to the defendants in custody as soon as practicable and
notice given in accordance with Rule 2 (b) to those not in custody.
Rule 4. _Production of Evidence for the Defense._
(a) The Defense may apply to the Tribunal for the production of
witnesses or of documents by written application to the General
Secretary of the Tribunal. The application shall state where the witness
or document is thought to be located, together with a statement of their
last known location. It shall also state the facts proposed to be proved
by the witness or the document and the reasons why such facts are
relevant to the Defense.
(b) If the witness or the document is not within the area controlled by
the occupation authorities, the Tribunal may request the Signatory and
adhering Governments to arrange for the production, if possible, of any
such witnesses and any such documents as the Tribunal may deem necessary
to proper presentation of the Defense.
(c) If the witness or the document is within the area controlled by the
occupation authorities, the General Secretary shall, if the Tribunal is
not in session, communicate the application to the Chief Prosecutors
and, if they make no objection, the General Secretary shall issue a
summons for the attendance of such witness or the production of such
documents, informing the Tribunal of the action taken. If any Chief
Prosecutor objects to the issuance of a summons, or if the Tribunal is
in session, the General Secretary shall submit the application to the
Tribunal, which shall decide whether or not the summons shall issue.
(d) A summons shall be served in such manner as may be provided by the
appropriate occupation authority to ensure its enforcement and the
General Secretary shall inform the Tribunal of the steps taken.
(e) Upon application to the General Secretary of the Tribunal, a
defendant shall be furnished with a copy, translated into a language
which he understands, of all documents referred to in the Indictment so
far as they may be made available by the Chief Prosecutors and shall be
allowed to inspect copies of any such documents as are not so available.
Rule 5. _Order at the Trial._
In conformity with the provisions of Article 18 of the Charter, and the
disciplinary powers therein set out, the Tribunal, acting through its
President, shall provide for the maintenance of order at the Trial. Any
defendant or any other person may be excluded from open sessions of the
Tribunal for failure to observe and respect the directives and dignity
of the Tribunal.
Rule 6. _Oaths; Witnesses._
(a) Before testifying before the Tribunal, each witness shall make such
oath or declaration as is customary in his own country.
(b) Witnesses while not giving evidence shall not be present in court.
The President of the Tribunal shall direct, as circumstances demand,
that witnesses shall not confer among themselves before giving evidence.
Rule 7. _Applications and Motions before Trial and Rulings during the
Trial._
(a) All motions, applications or other requests addressed to the
Tribunal prior to the commencement of trial shall be made in writing and
filed with the General Secretary of the Tribunal at the Palace of
Justice, Nuremberg, Germany.
(b) Any such motion, application or other request shall be communicated
by the General Secretary of the Tribunal to the Chief Prosecutors and,
if they make no objection, the President of the Tribunal may make the
appropriate order on behalf of the Tribunal. If any Chief Prosecutor
objects, the President may call a special session of the Tribunal for
the determination of the question raised.
(c) The Tribunal, acting through its President, will rule in court upon
all questions arising during the trial, such as questions as to
admissibility of evidence offered during the trial, recesses, and
motions; and before so ruling the Tribunal may, when necessary, order
the closing or clearing of the Tribunal or take any other steps which to
the Tribunal seem just.
Rule 8. _Secretariat of the Tribunal._
(a) The Secretariat of the Tribunal shall be composed of a General
Secretary, four Secretaries and their Assistants. The Tribunal shall
appoint the General Secretary and each Member shall appoint one
Secretary. The General Secretary shall appoint such clerks,
interpreters, stenographers, ushers, and all such other persons as may
be authorized by the Tribunal and each Secretary may appoint such
assistants as may be authorized by the Member of the Tribunal by whom he
was appointed.
(b) The General Secretary, in consultation with the Secretaries, shall
organize and direct the work of the Secretariat, subject to the approval
of the Tribunal in the event of a disagreement by any Secretary.
(c) The Secretariat shall receive all documents addressed to the
Tribunal, maintain the records of the Tribunal, provide necessary
clerical services to the Tribunal and its Members, and perform such
other duties as may be designated by the Tribunal.
(d) Communications addressed to the Tribunal shall be delivered to the
General Secretary.
Rule 9. _Record, Exhibits, and Documents._
(a) A stenographic record shall be maintained of all oral proceedings.
Exhibits will be suitably identified and marked with consecutive
numbers. All exhibits and transcripts of the proceedings and all
documents lodged with and produced to the Tribunal will be filed with
the General Secretary of the Tribunal and will constitute part of the
Record.
(b) The term “official documents” as used in Article 25 of the Charter
includes the Indictment, rules, written motions, orders that are reduced
to writing, findings, and judgments of the Tribunal. These shall be in
the English, French, Russian, and German languages. Documentary evidence
or exhibits may be received in the language of the document, but a
translation thereof into German shall be made available to the
defendants.
(c) All exhibits and transcripts of proceedings, all documents lodged
with and produced to the Tribunal and all official acts and documents of
the Tribunal may be certified by the General Secretary of the Tribunal
to any Government or to any other tribunal or wherever it is appropriate
that copies of such documents or representations as to such acts should
be supplied upon a proper request.
Rule 10. _Withdrawal of Exhibits and Documents._
In cases where original documents are submitted by the Prosecution or
the Defense as evidence, and upon a showing (a) that because of
historical interest or for any other reason one of the Governments
signatory to the Four Power Agreement of 8 August 1945, or any other
Government having received the consent of said four signatory Powers,
desires to withdraw from the records of the Tribunal and preserve any
particular original documents and (b) that no substantial injustice will
result, the Tribunal shall permit photostatic copies of said original
documents, certified by the General Secretary of the Tribunal, to be
substituted for the originals in the records of the Court and shall
deliver said original documents to the applicants.
Rule 11. _Effective Date and Powers of Amendment and Addition._
These Rules shall take effect upon their approval by the Tribunal.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Tribunal
from, at any time, in the interest of fair and expeditious trials,
departing from, amending, or adding to these Rules, either by general
rules or special orders for particular cases, in such form and upon such
notice as may appear just to the Tribunal.
MINUTES OF THE OPENING SESSION
OF THE TRIBUNAL, AT BERLIN, 18 OCTOBER 1945
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO, President[12]
Present: All of the Members of the Tribunal and their Alternates.
The International Military Tribunal held its first public session in
Berlin, as required by Article 22 of the Charter, in the Grand
Conference Room of the Allied Control Authority Building at 10:30 a.m.
The President, General Nikitchenko, said:
“In pursuance of the Agreement by the Government of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the Provisional Government of the French Republic,
the Government of the United States of America, and the Government of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the
prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European
Axis dated at London, 8 August 1945, and of Article 22 of the Charter
annexed thereto constituting this International Military Tribunal, this
meeting is held at Berlin for the reception of the Indictment under the
Agreement and Charter.”
This statement was translated orally in French, English, and German.
The Members of the Tribunal and their Alternates then made the following
declaration, each in his own language:
“I solemnly declare that I will exercise all my powers and
duties as a Member of the International Military Tribunal
honorably, impartially, and conscientiously.”
The President then declared the session opened.
The Chief British Prosecutor, Mr. Shawcross, introduced in succession
the Soviet Chief Prosecutor, General Rudenko; the French Deputy Chief
Prosecutor, M. Dubost; and a representative of the American Prosecutor,
Mr. Shea. Each on being introduced made a brief statement, which was
translated orally into the other languages, and lodged a copy of the
Indictment, in his own language, with the President of the Tribunal.
The President said:
“An Indictment has now been lodged with the Tribunal by the Committee of
the Chief Prosecutors setting out the charges made against the following
defendants:
Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Robert Ley, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred
Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter
Funk, Hjalmar Schacht, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Karl
Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred
Jodl, Martin Bormann, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart,
Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath, and Hans Fritzsche.
“Copies of the Charter and of the Indictment and of its accompanying
documents will be served upon the defendants in the German language
immediately.
“Notices will also be served upon them in writing drawing their
attention to Articles 16 and 23 of the Charter which provide that they
may either conduct their own defense or be defended by any counsel
professionally qualified to conduct cases before the courts of his own
country or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto
by the Tribunal; and a special clerk of the Tribunal has been appointed
to advise the defendants of their right and to take instructions from
them personally as to their choice of counsel, and generally to see that
their rights of defense are made known to them.
“If any defendant who desires to be represented by counsel is unable to
secure the services of counsel the Tribunal will appoint counsel to
defend him.
“The Tribunal has formulated Rules of Procedure, shortly to be
published, relating to the production of witnesses and documents in
order to see that the defendants have a fair trial with full opportunity
to present their defense.
“The individual defendants in custody will be notified that they must be
ready for Trial within 30 days after the service of the Indictment upon
them. Promptly thereafter the Tribunal shall fix and announce the date
of the Trial in Nuremberg to take place not less than 30 days after the
service of the Indictment and the defendants shall be advised of such
date as soon as it is fixed.
“It must be understood that the Tribunal which is directed by the
Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the
charges will not permit any delay either in the preparation of the
defense or of the Trial.
“Lord Justice Lawrence will preside at the Trial at Nuremberg.
“Notice will also be given under Article 9 of the Charter that the
Prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to declare that the following
organizations or groups of which the defendants or some of them were
members are criminal organizations, and any member of any such group or
organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be
heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of
such group or organization. These organizations referred to are the
following:
Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet); Das Korps der Politischen
Leiter der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
(Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party); Die Schutzstaffeln der
Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known
as the “SS”) and including Der Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known
as the “SD”); Die Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police,
commonly known as the “Gestapo”); Die Sturmabteilungen der NSDAP
(commonly known as the “SA”); and the General Staff and High
Command of the German Armed Forces.
“The Indictment having been duly lodged by the Prosecutors in conformity
with the provisions of the Charter, it becomes the duty of the Tribunal
to give the necessary directions for the publication of the text.
“The Tribunal would like to order its immediate publication but this is
not possible inasmuch as the Indictment must be published simultaneously
in Moscow, London, Washington, and Paris.
“This result may be achieved, as the Tribunal is informed, by permitting
publication in the press of the Indictment not earlier than 8 p.m.,
G.M.T., i. e. 2000 hours today, Thursday, October 18th.”
This statement was translated orally in French, English, and German.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
-----
[12] General Nikitchenko was selected as President for the session at
Berlin, and Lord Justice Lawrence was elected President of the Tribunal
for the Trial in Nuremberg, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of the
Charter.
INDICTMENT[13]
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, AND THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP,
ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED
ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER
FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL
DÖNITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR VON SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED
JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ VON PAPEN, ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART,
ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH, and HANS FRITZSCHE,
Individually and as Members of Any of the Following Groups or
Organizations to which They Respectively Belonged, Namely: DIE
REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER POLITISCHEN
LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI
(LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY); DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER
NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known
as the “SS”) and including DER SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known
as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE,
commonly known as the “GESTAPO”); DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER NSDAP
(commonly known as the “SA”); and the GENERAL STAFF and HIGH
COMMAND of the GERMAN ARMED FORCES, all as defined in Appendix
B,
Defendants.
-----
[13] This text of the Indictment has been corrected in accordance with
the Prosecution’s motion of 4 June 1946 which was accepted by the Court
7 June 1946 to rectify certain discrepancies between the German text and
the text in other languages.
=I.= The United States of America, the French Republic, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics by the undersigned, Robert H. Jackson, François de
Menthon, Hartley Shawcross, and R. A. Rudenko, duly appointed to
represent their respective Governments in the investigation of the
charges against and the prosecution of the major war criminals, pursuant
to the Agreement of London dated 8 August 1945, and the Charter of this
Tribunal annexed thereto, hereby accuse as guilty, in the respects
hereinafter set forth, of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes
against Humanity, and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those
Crimes, all as defined in the Charter of the Tribunal, and accordingly
name as defendants in this cause and as indicted on the counts
hereinafter set out: HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON
RIBBENTROP, ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED
ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER FUNK,
HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL DÖNITZ, ERICH
RAEDER, BALDUR VON SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN,
FRANZ VON PAPEN, ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON
NEURATH and HANS FRITZSCHE, individually and as members of any of the
groups or organizations next hereinafter named.
=II.= The following are named as groups or organizations (since
dissolved) which should be declared criminal by reason of their aims and
the means used for the accomplishment thereof and in connection with the
conviction of such of the named defendants as were members thereof: DIE
REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER POLITISCHEN LEITER DER
NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (LEADERSHIP CORPS OF
THE NAZI PARTY); DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN
DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”) and including DER
SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the “GESTAPO”);
DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER NSDAP (commonly known as the “SA”); and the
GENERAL STAFF and HIGH COMMAND of the GERMAN ARMED FORCES.
The identity and membership of the groups or organizations referred to
in the foregoing titles are hereinafter in Appendix B more particularly
defined.
COUNT ONE—THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY
(Charter, Article 6, especially 6 (a))
III. Statement of the Offense
All the defendants, with divers other persons, during a period of years
preceding 8 May 1945, participated as leaders, organizers, instigators,
or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or
conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes
against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, as defined in
the Charter of this Tribunal, and, in accordance with the provisions of
the Charter, are individually responsible for their own acts and for all
acts committed by any persons in the execution of such plan or
conspiracy. The common plan or conspiracy embraced the commission of
Crimes against Peace, in that the defendants planned, prepared,
initiated, and waged wars of aggression, which were also wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. In the
development and course of the common plan or conspiracy it came to
embrace the commission of War Crimes, in that it contemplated, and the
defendants determined upon and carried out, ruthless wars against
countries and populations, in violation of the rules and customs of war,
including as typical and systematic means by which the wars were
prosecuted, murder, ill-treatment, deportation for slave labor and for
other purposes of civilian populations of occupied territories, murder
and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of persons on the high seas,
the taking and killing of hostages, the plunder of public and private
property, the indiscriminate destruction of cities, towns, and villages,
and devastation not justified by military necessity. The common plan or
conspiracy contemplated and came to embrace as typical and systematic
means, and the defendants determined upon and committed, Crimes against
Humanity, both within Germany and within occupied territories, including
murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts
committed against civilian populations before and during the war, and
persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, in execution of
the plan for preparing and prosecuting aggressive or illegal wars, many
of such acts and persecutions being violations of the domestic laws of
the countries where perpetrated.
IV. Particulars of the Nature and Development
of the Common Plan or Conspiracy
(A) NAZI PARTY AS THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE
COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY
In 1921 Adolf Hitler became the supreme leader or Führer of the
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist
German Workers Party), also known as the Nazi Party, which had been
founded in Germany in 1920. He continued as such throughout the period
covered by this Indictment. The Nazi Party, together with certain of its
subsidiary organizations, became the instrument of cohesion among the
defendants and their co-conspirators and an instrument for the carrying
out of the aims and purposes of their conspiracy. Each defendant became
a member of the Nazi Party and of the conspiracy, with knowledge of
their aims and purposes, or, with such knowledge, became an accessory to
their aims and purposes at some stage of the development of the
conspiracy.
(B) COMMON OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF
CONSPIRACY
The aims and purposes of the Nazi Party and of the defendants and divers
other persons from time to time associated as leaders, members,
supporters, or adherents of the Nazi Party (hereinafter called
collectively the “Nazi conspirators”) were, or came to be, to accomplish
the following by any means deemed opportune, including unlawful means,
and contemplating ultimate resort to threat of force, force, and
aggressive war: (i) to abrogate and overthrow the Treaty of Versailles
and its restrictions upon the military armament and activity of Germany;
(ii) to acquire the territories lost by Germany as the result of the
World War of 1914-18 and other territories in Europe asserted by the
Nazi conspirators to be occupied principally by so-called “racial
Germans”; (iii) to acquire still further territories in continental
Europe and elsewhere claimed by the Nazi conspirators to be required by
the “racial Germans” as “Lebensraum,” or living space, all at the
expense of neighboring and other countries. The aims and purposes of the
Nazi conspirators were not fixed or static but evolved and expanded as
they acquired progressively greater power and became able to make more
effective application of threats of force and threats of aggressive war.
When their expanding aims and purposes became finally so great as to
provoke such strength of resistance as could be overthrown only by armed
force and aggressive war, and not simply by the opportunistic methods
theretofore used, such as fraud, deceit, threats, intimidation, fifth
column activities, and propaganda, the Nazi conspirators deliberately
planned, determined upon, and launched their aggressive wars and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances by the
phases and steps hereinafter more particularly described.
(C) DOCTRINAL TECHNIQUES OF THE COMMON PLAN OR
CONSPIRACY
To incite others to join in the common plan or conspiracy, and as a
means of securing for the Nazi conspirators the highest degree of
control over the German community, they put forth, disseminated, and
exploited certain doctrines, among others, as follows:
1. That persons of so-called “German blood” (as specified by the Nazi
conspirators) were a “master race” and were accordingly entitled to
subjugate, dominate, or exterminate other “races” and peoples;
2. That the German people should be ruled under the Führerprinzip
(Leadership Principle) according to which power was to reside in a
Führer from whom sub-leaders were to derive authority in a
hierarchical order, each sub-leader to owe unconditional obedience to
his immediate superior but to be absolute in his own sphere of
jurisdiction; and the power of the leadership was to be unlimited,
extending to all phases of public and private life;
3. That war was a noble and necessary activity of Germans;
4. That the leadership of the Nazi Party, as the sole bearer of the
foregoing and other doctrines of the Nazi Party, was entitled to shape
the structure, policies, and practices of the German State and all
related institutions, to direct and supervise the activities of all
individuals within the State, and to destroy all opponents.
(D) THE ACQUIRING OF TOTALITARIAN CONTROL OF
GERMANY: POLITICAL
1. _First steps in acquisition of control of State machinery._
In order to accomplish their aims and purposes, the Nazi conspirators
prepared to seize totalitarian control over Germany to assure that no
effective resistance against them could arise within Germany itself.
After the failure of the Munich Putsch of 1923 aimed at the overthrow of
the Weimar Republic by direct action, the Nazi conspirators set out
through the Nazi Party to undermine and overthrow the German Government
by “legal” forms supported by terrorism. They created and utilized, as a
Party formation, Die Sturmabteilungen (SA), a semi-military, voluntary
organization of young men trained for and committed to the use of
violence, whose mission was to make the Party the master of the streets.
2. _Control acquired._
On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic.
After the Reichstag fire of 28 February 1933, clauses of the Weimar
constitution guaranteeing personal liberty, freedom of speech, of the
press, of association and assembly were suspended. The Nazi conspirators
secured the passage by the Reichstag of a “Law for the Protection of the
People and the Reich” giving Hitler and the members of his then cabinet
plenary powers of legislation. The Nazi conspirators retained such
powers after having changed the members of the cabinet. The conspirators
caused all political parties except the Nazi Party to be prohibited.
They caused the Nazi Party to be established as a paragovernmental
organization with extensive and extraordinary privileges.
3. _Consolidation of control._
Thus possessed of the machinery of the German State, the Nazi
conspirators set about the consolidation of their position of power
within Germany, the extermination of potential internal resistance, and
the placing of the German Nation on a military footing.
(a) The Nazi conspirators reduced the Reichstag to a body of their own
nominees and curtailed the freedom of popular elections throughout
the country. They transformed the several states, provinces, and
municipalities, which had formerly exercised semi-autonomous powers,
into hardly more than administrative organs of the central
Government. They united the offices of the President and the
Chancellor in the person of Hitler; instituted a widespread purge of
civil servants; and severely restricted the independence of the
judiciary and rendered it subservient to Nazi ends. The conspirators
greatly enlarged existing State and Party organizations; established
a network of new State and Party organizations; and “coordinated”
State agencies with the Nazi Party and its branches and affiliates,
with the result that German life was dominated by Nazi doctrine and
practice and progressively mobilized for the accomplishment of their
aims.
(b) In order to make their rule secure from attack and to instil fear in
the hearts of the German people, the Nazi conspirators established
and extended a system of terror against opponents and supposed or
suspected opponents of the regime. They imprisoned such persons
without judicial process, holding them in “protective custody” and
concentration camps, and subjected them to persecution, degradation,
despoilment, enslavement, torture, and murder. These concentration
camps were established early in 1933 under the direction of the
Defendant GÖRING and expanded as a fixed part of the terroristic
policy and method of the conspirators and used by them for the
commission of the Crimes against Humanity hereinafter alleged. Among
the principal agencies utilized in the perpetration of these crimes
were the SS and the GESTAPO, which, together with other favored
branches or agencies of the State and Party, were permitted to
operate without restraint of law.
(c) The Nazi conspirators conceived that, in addition to the suppression
of distinctively political opposition, it was necessary to suppress
or exterminate certain other movements or groups which they regarded
as obstacles to their retention of total control in Germany and to
the aggressive aims of the conspiracy abroad. Accordingly:
(1) The Nazi conspirators destroyed the free trade unions in Germany
by confiscating their funds and properties, persecuting their
leaders, prohibiting their activities, and supplanting them by an
affiliated Party organization. The Leadership Principle was
introduced into industrial relations, the entrepreneur becoming
the leader and the workers becoming his followers. Thus any
potential resistance of the workers was frustrated and the
productive labor capacity of the German Nation was brought under
the effective control of the conspirators.
(2) The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices
incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert the
influence of the churches over the people and in particular over
the youth of Germany. They avowed their aim to eliminate the
Christian churches in Germany and sought to substitute therefor
Nazi institutions and Nazi beliefs, and pursued a program of
persecution of priests, clergy, and members of monastic orders
whom they deemed opposed to their purposes, and confiscated
church property.
(3) The persecution by the Nazi conspirators of pacifist groups,
including religious movements dedicated to pacifism, was
particularly relentless and cruel.
(d) Implementing their “master race” policy, the conspirators joined in a
program of relentless persecution of the Jews, designed to
exterminate them. Annihilation of the Jews became an official State
policy, carried out both by official action and by incitements to mob
and individual violence. The conspirators openly avowed their
purpose. For example, the Defendant ROSENBERG stated: “Anti-Semitism
is the unifying element of the reconstruction of Germany.” On another
occasion he also stated: “Germany will regard the Jewish question as
solved only after the very last Jew has left the greater German
living space . . . Europe will have its Jewish question solved only
after the very last Jew has left the Continent.” The Defendant LEY
declared: “We swear we are not going to abandon the struggle until
the last Jew in Europe has been exterminated and is actually dead. It
is not enough to isolate the Jewish enemy of mankind—the Jew has got
to be exterminated.” On another occasion he also declared: “The
second German secret weapon is anti-Semitism because if it is
consistently pursued by Germany, it will become a universal problem
which all nations will be forced to consider.” The Defendant
STREICHER declared: “The sun will not shine on the nations of the
earth until the last Jew is dead.” These avowals and incitements were
typical of the declarations of the Nazi conspirators throughout the
course of their conspiracy. The program of action against the Jews
included disfranchisement, stigmatization, denial of civil rights,
subjecting their persons and property to violence, deportation,
enslavement, enforced labor, starvation, murder, and mass
extermination. The extent to which the conspirators succeeded in
their purpose can only be estimated, but the annihilation was
substantially complete in many localities of Europe. Of the 9,600,000
Jews who lived in the parts of Europe under Nazi domination, it is
conservatively estimated that 5,700,000 have disappeared, most of
them deliberately put to death by the Nazi conspirators. Only
remnants of the Jewish population of Europe remain.
(e) In order to make the German people amenable to their will, and to
prepare them psychologically for war, the Nazi conspirators reshaped
the educational system and particularly the education and training of
the German youth. The Leadership Principle was introduced into the
schools and the Party and affiliated organizations were given wide
supervisory powers over education. The Nazi conspirators imposed a
supervision of all cultural activities, controlled the dissemination
of information and the expression of opinion within Germany as well
as the movement of intelligence of all kinds from and into Germany,
and created vast propaganda machines.
(f) The Nazi conspirators placed a considerable number of their dominated
organizations on a progressively militarized footing with a view to
the rapid transformation and use of such organizations whenever
necessary as instruments of war.
(E) THE ACQUIRING OF TOTALITARIAN CONTROL IN
GERMANY: ECONOMIC; AND THE ECONOMIC PLANNING
AND MOBILIZATION FOR AGGRESSIVE WAR
Having gained political power the conspirators organized Germany’s
economy to give effect to their political aims.
1. In order to eliminate the possibility of resistance in the economic
sphere, they deprived labor of its rights of free industrial and
political association as particularized in paragraph (D) 3 (c) (1)
herein.
2. They used organizations of German business as instruments of economic
mobilization for war.
3. They directed Germany’s economy towards preparation and equipment of
the military machine. To this end they directed finance, capital
investment, and foreign trade.
4. The Nazi conspirators, and in particular the industrialists among
them, embarked upon a huge re-armament program and set out to produce
and develop huge quantities of materials of war and to create a powerful
military potential.
5. With the object of carrying through the preparation for war the Nazi
conspirators set up a series of administrative agencies and authorities.
For example, in 1936 they established for this purpose the office of the
Four Year Plan with the Defendant GÖRING as Plenipotentiary, vesting it
with overriding control over Germany’s economy. Furthermore, on 28
August 1939, immediately before launching their aggression against
Poland, they appointed the Defendant FUNK Plenipotentiary for Economics;
and on 30 August 1939, they set up the Ministerial Council for the
Defense of the Reich to act as a War Cabinet.
(F) UTILIZATION OF NAZI CONTROL FOR FOREIGN
AGGRESSION
1. _Status of the conspiracy by the middle of 1933 and projected plans._
By the middle of the year 1933 the Nazi conspirators, having acquired
governmental control over Germany, were in a position to enter upon
further and more detailed planning with particular relationship to
foreign policy. Their plan was to re-arm and to re-occupy and fortify
the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and other
treaties, in order to acquire military strength and political bargaining
power to be used against other nations.
2. The Nazi conspirators decided that for their purpose the Treaty of
Versailles must definitely be abrogated and specific plans were made by
them and put into operation by 7 March 1936, all of which opened the way
for the major aggressive steps to follow, as hereinafter set forth. In
the execution of this phase of the conspiracy the Nazi conspirators did
the following acts:
(_a_) They led Germany to enter upon a course of secret rearmament from
1933 to March 1935, including the training of military personnel
and the production of munitions of war, and the building of an air
force.
(_b_) On 14 October 1933, they led Germany to leave the International
Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.
(_c_) On 10 March 1935, the Defendant GÖRING announced that Germany was
building a military air force.
(_d_) On 16 March 1935, the Nazi conspirators promulgated a law for
universal military service, in which they stated the peace-time
strength of the German Army would be fixed at 500,000 men.
(_e_) On 21 May 1935, they falsely announced to the world, with intent
to deceive and allay fears of aggressive intentions, that they
would respect the territorial limitations of the Versailles Treaty
and comply with the Locarno Pacts.
(_f_) On 7 March 1936, they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of
Locarno of 16 October 1925, and falsely announced to the world
that “we have no territorial demands to make in Europe.”
3. _Aggressive action against Austria and Czechoslovakia._
(_a_) _The 1936-1938 phase of the plan: planning for the assault on
Austria and Czechoslovakia._
The Nazi conspirators next entered upon the specific planning for the
acquisition of Austria and Czechoslovakia, realizing it would be
necessary, for military reasons, first to seize Austria before
assaulting Czechoslovakia. On 21 May 1935, in a speech to the Reichstag,
Hitler stated that: “Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in
the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an
Anschluss.” On 1 May 1936, within two months after the reoccupation of
the Rhineland, Hitler stated: “The lie goes forth again that Germany
tomorrow or the day after will fall upon Austria or Czechoslovakia.”
Thereafter, the Nazi conspirators caused a treaty to be entered into
between Austria and Germany on 11 July 1936, Article 1 of which stated
that “The German Government recognizes the full sovereignty of the
Federated State of Austria in the spirit of the pronouncements of the
German Führer and Chancellor of 21 May 1935.” Meanwhile, plans for
aggression in violation of that treaty were being made. By the autumn of
1937, all noteworthy opposition within the Reich had been crushed.
Military preparation for the Austrian action was virtually concluded. An
influential group of the Nazi conspirators met with Hitler on 5 November
1937, to review the situation. It was reaffirmed that Nazi Germany must
have “Lebensraum” in central Europe. It was recognized that such
conquest would probably meet resistance which would have to be crushed
by force and that their decision might lead to a general war, but this
prospect was discounted as a risk worth taking. There emerged from this
meeting three possible plans for the conquest of Austria and
Czechoslovakia. Which of the three was to be used was to depend upon the
developments in the political and military situation in Europe. It was
contemplated that the conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia would,
through compulsory emigration of 2,000,000 persons from Czechoslovakia
and 1,000,000 persons from Austria, provide additional food to the Reich
for 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people, strengthen it militarily by providing
shorter and better frontiers, and make possible the constituting of new
armies up to about twelve divisions. Thus, the aim of the plan against
Austria and Czechoslovakia was conceived of not as an end in itself but
as a preparatory measure toward the next aggressive steps in the Nazi
conspiracy.
(_b_) _The execution of the plan to invade Austria: November 1937 to
March 1938._
Hitler, on 8 February 1938, called Chancellor Schuschnigg to a
conference at Berchtesgaden. At the meeting of 12 February 1938, under
threat of invasion, Schuschnigg yielded a promise of amnesty to
imprisoned Nazis and appointment of Nazis to ministerial posts. He
agreed to remain silent until Hitler’s 20 February speech in which
Austria’s independence was to be reaffirmed, but Hitler in his speech,
instead of affirming Austrian independence, declared himself protector
of all Germans. Meanwhile, underground activities of Nazis in Austria
increased. Schuschnigg, on 9 March 1938, announced a plebiscite on the
question of Austrian independence. On 11 March Hitler sent an ultimatum,
demanding that the plebiscite be called off or that Germany would invade
Austria. Later the same day a second ultimatum threatened invasion
unless Schuschnigg should resign in three hours. Schuschnigg resigned.
The Defendant SEYSS-INQUART, who was appointed Chancellor, immediately
invited Hitler to send German troops into Austria to “preserve order”.
The invasion began on 12 March 1938. On 13 March, Hitler by proclamation
assumed office as Chief of State of Austria and took command of its
armed forces. By a law of the same date Austria was annexed to Germany.
(_c_) _The execution of the plan to invade Czechoslovakia: April 1938 to
March 1939._
1. Simultaneously with their annexation of Austria the Nazi conspirators
gave false assurances to the Czechoslovak Government that they would not
attack that country. But within a month they met to plan specific ways
and means of attacking Czechoslovakia, and to revise, in the light of
the acquisition of Austria, the previous plans for aggression against
Czechoslovakia.
2. On 21 April 1938, the Nazi conspirators met and prepared to launch an
attack on Czechoslovakia not later than 1 October 1938. They planned
specifically to create an “incident” to “justify” the attack. They
decided to launch a military attack only after a period of diplomatic
squabbling which, growing more serious, would lead to the excuse for
war, or, in the alternative, to unleash a lightning attack as a result
of an “incident” of their own creation. Consideration was given to
assassinating the German Ambassador at Prague to create the requisite
incident. From and after 21 April 1938, the Nazi conspirators caused to
be prepared detailed and precise military plans designed to carry out
such an attack at any opportune moment and calculated to overcome all
Czechoslovak resistance within four days, thus presenting the world with
a _fait accompli_, and so forestalling outside resistance. Throughout
the months of May, June, July, August, and September, these plans were
made more specific and detailed, and by 3 September 1938, it was decided
that all troops were to be ready for action on 28 September 1938.
3. Throughout this same period, the Nazi conspirators were agitating the
minorities question in Czechoslovakia, and particularly in the
Sudetenland, leading to a diplomatic crisis in August and September
1938. After the Nazi conspirators threatened war, the United Kingdom and
France concluded a pact with Germany and Italy at Munich on 29 September
1938, involving the cession of the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia to
Germany. Czechoslovakia was required to acquiesce. On 1 October 1938,
German troops occupied the Sudetenland.
4. On 15 March 1939, contrary to the provisions of the Munich Pact
itself, the Nazi conspirators caused the completion of their plan by
seizing and occupying the major part of Czechoslovakia not ceded to
Germany by the Munich Pact.
4. _Formulation of the plan to attack Poland: preparation and initiation
of aggressive war: March 1939 to September 1939._
(_a_) With these aggressions successfully consummated, the conspirators
had obtained much desired resources and bases and were ready to
undertake further aggressions by means of war. Following assurances to
the world of peaceful intentions, an influential group of the
conspirators met on 23 May 1939, to consider the further implementation
of their plan. The situation was reviewed and it was observed that “the
past six years have been put to good use and all measures have been
taken in correct sequence and in accordance with our aims”; that the
national-political unity of the Germans had been substantially achieved;
and that further successes could not be achieved without war and
bloodshed. It was decided nevertheless next to attack Poland at the
first suitable opportunity. It was admitted that the questions
concerning Danzig which they had agitated with Poland were not true
questions, but rather that the question was one of aggressive expansion
for food and “Lebensraum”. It was recognized that Poland would fight if
attacked and that a repetition of the Nazi success against
Czechoslovakia without war could not be expected. Accordingly, it was
determined that the problem was to isolate Poland and, if possible,
prevent a simultaneous conflict with the Western Powers. Nevertheless,
it was agreed that England was an enemy to their aspirations, and that
war with England and her ally France must eventually result, and
therefore that in that war every attempt must be made to overwhelm
England with a “Blitzkrieg”. It was thereupon determined immediately to
prepare detailed plans for an attack on Poland at the first suitable
opportunity and thereafter for an attack on England and France, together
with plans for the simultaneous occupation by armed force of air bases
in the Netherlands and Belgium.
(_b_) Accordingly, after having denounced the German-Polish Pact of 1934
on false grounds, the Nazi conspirators proceeded to stir up the Danzig
issue, to prepare frontier “incidents” to “justify” the attack, and to
make demands for the cession of Polish territory. Upon refusal by Poland
to yield, they caused German armed forces to invade Poland on 1
September 1939, thus precipitating war also with the United Kingdom and
France.
5. _Expansion of the war into a general war of aggression: planning and
execution of attacks on Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece: 1939 to April 1941._
Thus the aggressive war prepared for by the Nazi conspirators through
their attacks on Austria and Czechoslovakia was actively launched by
their attack on Poland. After the total defeat of Poland, in order to
facilitate the carrying out of their military operations against France
and the United Kingdom, the Nazi conspirators made active preparations
for an extension of the war in Europe. In accordance with those plans,
they caused the German armed forces to invade Denmark and Norway on 9
April 1940; Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940;
Yugoslavia and Greece on 6 April 1941. All these invasions had been
specifically planned in advance, in violation of the terms of the
Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.
6. _German invasion on 22 June 1941, of the U.S.S.R. territory in
violation of Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939._
On 22 June 1941 the Nazi conspirators deceitfully denounced the
Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R. and without any
declaration of war invaded Soviet territory thereby beginning a War of
Aggression against the U.S.S.R.
From the first day of launching their attack on Soviet territory the
Nazi conspirators, in accordance with their detailed plans, began to
carry out the destruction of cities, towns, and villages, the demolition
of factories, collective farms, electric stations, and railroads, the
robbery and barbaric devastation of the natural cultural institutions of
the peoples of the U.S.S.R., the devastation of museums, schools,
hospitals, churches, and historic monuments, the mass deportation of the
Soviet citizens for slave labor to Germany, as well as the annihilation
of adults, old people, women and children, especially Bielorussians and
Ukrainians, and the extermination of Jews committed throughout the
occupied territory of the Soviet Union.
The above mentioned criminal offenses were perpetrated by the German
troops in accordance with the orders of the Nazi Government and the
General Staff and High Command of the German armed forces.
7. _Collaboration with Italy and Japan and aggressive war against the
United States: November 1936 to December 1941._
After the initiation of the Nazi wars of aggression the Nazi
conspirators brought about a German-Italian-Japanese 10-year
military-economic alliance signed at Berlin on 27 September 1940. This
agreement, representing a strengthening of the bonds among those three
nations established by the earlier but more limited pact of 25 November
1936, stated: “The Governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan, considering
it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the
world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and
co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in Greater East
Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime
purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to
promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned.” The
Nazi conspirators conceived that Japanese aggression would weaken and
handicap those nations with whom they were at war, and those with whom
they contemplated war. Accordingly, the Nazi conspirators exhorted Japan
to seek “a new order of things.” Taking advantage of the wars of
aggression then being waged by the Nazi conspirators, Japan commenced an
attack on 7 December 1941, against the United States of America at Pearl
Harbor and the Philippines, and against the British Commonwealth of
Nations, French Indo-China, and the Netherlands in the southwest
Pacific. Germany declared war against the United States on 11 December
1941.
(G) WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED
IN THE COURSE OF EXECUTING THE CONSPIRACY
FOR WHICH THE CONSPIRATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
1. Beginning with the initiation of the aggressive war on 1 September
1939, and throughout its extension into wars involving almost the entire
world, the Nazi conspirators carried out their common plan or conspiracy
to wage war in ruthless and complete disregard and violation of the laws
and customs of war. In the course of executing the common plan or
conspiracy there were committed the War Crimes detailed hereinafter in
Count Three of this Indictment.
2. Beginning with the initiation of their plan to seize and retain total
control of the German State, and thereafter throughout their utilization
of that control for foreign aggression, the Nazi conspirators carried
out their common plan or conspiracy in ruthless and complete disregard
and violation of the laws of humanity. In the course of executing the
common plan or conspiracy there were committed the Crimes against
Humanity detailed hereinafter in Count Four of this Indictment.
3. By reason of all the foregoing, the defendants with divers other
persons are guilty of a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of Crimes against Peace; of a conspiracy to commit Crimes against
Humanity in the course of preparation for war and in the course of
prosecution of war; and of a conspiracy to commit War Crimes not only
against the armed forces of their enemies but also against
non-belligerent civilian populations.
(H) INDIVIDUAL, GROUP AND ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE OFFENSE STATED IN COUNT ONE
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the
offense set forth in this Count One of the indictment. Reference is
hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the
responsibility of the groups and organizations named herein as criminal
groups and organizations for the offense set forth in this Count One of
the Indictment.
COUNT TWO—CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
(_Charter, Article 6_ (_a_))
V. Statement of the Offense
All the defendants with divers other persons, during a period of years
preceding 8 May 1945, participated in the planning, preparation,
initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.
VI. Particulars of the wars planned, prepared, initiated, and waged
(_A_) The wars referred to in the Statement of Offense in this Count Two
of the Indictment and the dates of their initiation were the following:
against Poland, 1 September 1939; against the United Kingdom and France,
3 September 1939; against Denmark and Norway, 9 April 1940; against
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, 10 May 1940; against
Yugoslavia and Greece, 6 April 1941; against the U.S.S.R., 22 June 1941;
and against the United States of America, 11 December 1941.
(_B_) Reference is hereby made to Count One of the Indictment for the
allegations charging that these wars were wars of aggression on the part
of the defendants.
(_C_) Reference is hereby made to Appendix C annexed to this Indictment
for a statement of particulars of the charges of violations of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances caused by the
defendants in the course of planning, preparing, and initiating these
wars.
VII. Individual, Group and Organization Responsibility for the Offense
Stated
in Count Two
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the
offense set forth in this Count Two of the Indictment. Reference is
hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the
responsibility of the groups and organizations named herein as criminal
groups and organizations for the offense set forth in this Count Two of
the Indictment.
COUNT THREE—WAR CRIMES
(_Charter, Article 6, especially 6_ (_b_))
VIII. Statement of the Offense
All the defendants committed War Crimes between 1 September 1939 and 8
May 1945, in Germany and in all those countries and territories occupied
by the German Armed Forces since 1 September 1939, and in Austria,
Czechoslovakia, and Italy, and on the High Seas.
All the defendants, acting in concert with others, formulated and
executed a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit War Crimes as defined in
Article 6 (b) of the Charter. This plan involved, among other things,
the practice of “total war” including methods of combat and of military
occupation in direct conflict with the laws and customs of war, and the
commission of crimes perpetrated on the field of battle during
encounters with enemy armies, and against prisoners of war, and in
occupied territories against the civilian population of such
territories.
The said War Crimes were committed by the defendants and by other
persons for whose acts the defendants are responsible (under Article 6
of the Charter) as such other persons when committing the said War
Crimes performed their acts in execution of a common plan and conspiracy
to commit the said War Crimes, in the formulation and execution of which
plan and conspiracy all the defendants participated as leaders,
organizers, instigators, and accomplices.
These methods and crimes constituted violations of international
conventions, of internal penal laws and of the general principles of
criminal law as derived from the criminal law of all civilized nations,
and were involved in and part of a systematic course of conduct.
(A) MURDER AND ILL-TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS
OF OR IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY AND ON THE HIGH
SEAS
Throughout the period of their occupation of territories overrun by
their armed forces the defendants, for the purpose of systematically
terrorizing the inhabitants, murdered and tortured civilians, and
ill-treated them, and imprisoned them without legal process.
The murders and ill-treatment were carried out by divers means,
including shooting, hanging, gassing, starvation, gross overcrowding,
systematic under-nutrition, systematic imposition of labor tasks beyond
the strength of those ordered to carry them out, inadequate provision of
surgical and medical services, kickings, beatings, brutality and torture
of all kinds, including the use of hot irons and pulling out of
fingernails and the performance of experiments by means of operations
and otherwise on living human subjects. In some occupied territories the
defendants interfered in religious matters, persecuted members of the
clergy and monastic orders, and expropriated church property. They
conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of
racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain
occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of
people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews,
Poles, and Gypsies and others.
Civilians were systematically subjected to tortures of all kinds, with
the object of obtaining information.
Civilians of occupied countries were subjected systematically to
“protective arrests” whereby they were arrested and imprisoned without
any trial and any of the ordinary protections of the law, and they were
imprisoned under the most unhealthy and inhumane conditions.
In the concentration camps were many prisoners who were classified
“Nacht und Nebel”. These were entirely cut off from the world and were
allowed neither to receive nor to send letters. They disappeared without
trace and no announcement of their fate was ever made by the German
authorities.
Such murders and ill-treatment were contrary to international
conventions, in particular to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907,
the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as
derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal
penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and to
Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
The following particulars and all the particulars appearing later in
this count are set out herein by way of example only, are not exclusive
of other particular cases, and are stated without prejudice to the right
of the Prosecution to adduce evidence of other cases of murder and
ill-treatment of civilians.
1. _In France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Luxembourg, Italy, and
the Channel Islands (hereinafter called the “Western Countries”) and in
that part of Germany which lies west of a line drawn due north and south
through the center of Berlin (hereinafter called “Western Germany”)._
Such murder and ill-treatment took place in concentration camps and
similar establishments set up by the defendants, and particularly in the
concentration camps set up at Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Breendonck,
Grini, Natzweiler, Ravensbrück, Vught, and Amersfoort, and in numerous
cities, towns, and villages, including Oradour-sur-Glane, Trondheim, and
Oslo.
Crimes committed in France or Against French citizens took the following
forms:
Arbitrary arrests were carried out under political or racial
pretexts: they were both individual and collective; notably in
Paris (round-up of the 18th Arrondissement by the Field
Gendarmerie, round-up of the Jewish population of the 11th
Arrondissement in August 1941, round-up of Jewish intellectuals
in December 1941, round-up in July 1942); at Clermont-Ferrand
(round-up of professors and students of the University of
Strasbourg, who were taken to Clermont-Ferrand on 25 November
1943); at Lyons; at Marseilles (round-up of 40,000 persons in
January 1943); at Grenoble (round-up on 24 December 1943); at
Cluny (round-up on 24 December 1944); at Figeac (round-up in May
1944); at Saint Pol de Léon (round-up in July 1944); at Locminé
(round-up on 3 July 1944); at Eysieux (round-up in May 1944) and
at Moussey (round-up in September 1944). These arrests were
followed by brutal treatment and tortures carried out by the
most diverse methods, such as immersion in icy water,
asphyxiation, torture of the limbs, and the use of instruments
of torture, such as the iron helmet and electric current, and
practiced in all the prisons of France, notably in Paris, Lyons,
Marseilles, Rennes, Metz, Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse, Nice,
Grenoble, Annecy, Arras, Béthune, Lille, Loos, Valenciennes,
Nancy, Troyes, and Caen, and in the torture chambers fitted up
at the Gestapo centers.
In the concentration camps, the health regime and the labor regime were
such that the rate of mortality (alleged to be from natural causes)
attained enormous proportions, for instance:
1. Out of a convoy of 230 French women deported from Compiègne to
Auschwitz in January 1943, 180 died of exhaustion by the end of four
months.
2. 143 Frenchmen died of exhaustion between 23 March and 6 May 1943,
in Block 8 at Dachau.
3. 1,797 Frenchmen died of exhaustion between 21 November 1943, and 15
March 1945, in the Block at Dora.
4. 465 Frenchmen died of general debility in November 1944, at Dora.
5. 22,761 deportees died of exhaustion at Buchenwald between 1 January
1943, and 15 April 1945.
6. 11,560 detainees died of exhaustion at Dachau Camp (most of them in
Block 30 reserved for the sick and the infirm) between 1 January and
15 April 1945.
7. 780 priests died of exhaustion at Mauthausen.
8. Out of 2,200 Frenchmen registered at Flossenburg Camp, 1,600 died
from supposedly natural causes.
Methods used for the work of extermination in concentration camps were:
Bad treatment, pseudo-scientific experiments (sterilization of women at
Auschwitz and at Ravensbrück, study of the evolution of cancer of the
womb at Auschwitz, of typhus at Buchenwald, anatomical research at
Natzweiler, heart injections at Buchenwald, bone grafting and muscular
excisions at Ravensbrück, etc.), gas chambers, gas wagons, and crematory
ovens. Of 228,000 French political and racial deportees in concentration
camps, only 28,000 survived.
In France systematic extermination was practiced also, notably at Asq on
1 April 1944, at Colpo on 22 July 1944, at Buzet-sur-Tarn on 6 July 1944
and on 17 August 1944, at Pluvignier on 8 July 1944, at Rennes on 8 June
1944, at Grenoble on 8 July 1944, at Saint Flour on 10 June 1944, at
Ruisnes on 10 July 1944, at Nimes, at Tulle, and at Nice, where, in July
1944, the victims of torture were exposed to the population, and at
Oradour-sur-Glane where the entire village population was shot or burned
alive in the church.
The many charnel pits give proof of anonymous massacres. Most notable of
these are the charnel pits of Paris (Cascade du Bois de Boulogne),
Lyons, Saint-Genis-Laval, Besançon, Petit-Saint-Bernard, Aulnat, Caen,
Port-Louis, Charleval, Fontainebleau, Bouconne, Gabaudet, L’hermitage
Lorges, Morlaas, Bordelongue, Signe.
In the course of a premeditated campaign of terrorism, initiated in
Denmark by the Germans in the latter part of 1943, 600 Danish subjects
were murdered and, in addition, throughout the German occupation of
Denmark, large numbers of Danish subjects were subjected to torture and
ill-treatment of all sorts. In addition, approximately 500 Danish
subjects were murdered, by torture and otherwise, in German prisons and
concentration camps.
In Belgium between 1940 and 1944 tortures by various means, but
identical in each place, were carried out at Brussels, Liége, Mons,
Ghent, Namur, Antwerp, Tournai, Arlon, Charleroi, and Dinant.
At Vught, in Holland, when the camp was evacuated about 400 persons were
murdered by shooting.
In Luxembourg, during the German occupation, 500 persons were murdered
and, in addition, another 521 were illegally executed, by order of such
special tribunals as the so-called “Sondergericht”. Many more persons in
Luxembourg were subjected to torture and mistreatment by the Gestapo.
Not less than 4,000 Luxembourg nationals were imprisoned during the
period of German occupation, and of these at least 400 were murdered.
Between March 1944 and April 1945, in Italy, at least 7,500 men, women,
and children, ranging in years from infancy to extreme old age were
murdered by the German soldiery at Civitella, in the Ardeatine Caves in
Rome, and at other places.
2. _In the U.S.S.R., i. e., in the Bielorussian, Ukrainian, Estonian,
Latvian, Lithuanian, Karelo-Finnish, and Moldavian Soviet Socialist
Republics, in 19 regions of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist
Republic, and in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the
Balkans (hereinafter called “the Eastern Countries”) and in that part of
Germany which lies east of a line drawn north and south through the
center of Berlin (hereinafter called “Eastern Germany”)._
From 1 September 1939, when the German Armed Forces invaded Poland, and
from 22 June 1941, when they invaded the U.S.S.R., the German Government
and the German High Command adopted a systematic policy of murder and
ill-treatment of the civilian populations of and in the Eastern
Countries as they were successively occupied by the German Armed Forces.
These murders and ill-treatments were carried on continuously until the
German Armed Forces were driven out of the said countries.
Such murders and ill-treatments included:
(_a_) Murders and ill-treatments at concentration camps and similar
establishments set up by the Germans in the Eastern Countries and in
Eastern Germany including those set up at Maidanek and Auschwitz.
The said murders and ill-treatments were carried out by divers means
including all those set out above, as follows:
About 1,500,000 persons were exterminated in Maidanek and about
4,000,000 persons were exterminated in Auschwitz, among whom were
citizens of Poland, the U.S.S.R., the United States of America, Great
Britain, Czechoslovakia, France, and other countries.
In the Lwow region and in the city of Lwow the Germans exterminated
about 700,000 Soviet people, including 70 persons in the field of the
arts, science, and technology, and also citizens of the United States of
America, Great Britain, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Holland, brought
to this region from other concentration camps.
In the Jewish ghetto from 7 September 1941 to 6 July 1943, over 133,000
persons were tortured and shot.
Mass shooting of the population occurred in the suburbs of the city and
in the Livenitz forest.
In the Ganov camp 200,000 peaceful citizens were exterminated. The most
refined methods of cruelty were employed in this extermination, such as
disembowelling and the freezing of human beings in tubs of water. Mass
shootings took place to the accompaniment of the music of an orchestra
recruited from the persons interned.
Beginning with June 1943, the Germans carried out measures to hide the
evidence of their crimes. They exhumed and burned corpses, and they
crushed the bones with machines and used them for fertilizer.
At the beginning of 1944 in the Ozarichi region of the Bielorussian
S.S.R., before liberation by the Red Army, the Germans established three
concentration camps without shelters, to which they committed tens of
thousands of persons from the neighboring territories. They brought many
people to these camps from typhus hospitals intentionally, for the
purpose of infecting the other persons interned and for spreading the
disease in territories from which the Germans were being driven by the
Red Army. In these camps there were many murders and crimes.
In the Estonian S.S.R. they shot tens of thousands of persons and in one
day alone, 19 September 1944, in Camp Kloga, the Germans shot 2,000
peaceful citizens. They burned the bodies on bonfires.
In the Lithuanian S.S.R. there were mass killings of Soviet citizens,
namely: in Panerai at least 100,000; in Kaunas more than 70,000; in
Alitus about 60,000; at Prenai more than 3,000; in Villiampol about
8,000; in Mariampol about 7,000; in Trakai and neighboring towns 37,640.
In the Latvian S.S.R. 577,000 persons were murdered.
As a result of the whole system of internal order maintained in all
camps, the interned persons were doomed to die.
In a secret instruction entitled “the internal regime in concentration
camps”, signed personally by Himmler in 1941 severe measures of
punishment were set forth for the internees. Masses of prisoners of war
were shot, or died from the cold and torture.
(_b_) Murders and ill-treatments at places in the Eastern Countries and
in the Soviet Union, other than in the camps referred to in (_a_) above,
included, on various dates during the occupation by the German Armed
Forces:
The destruction in the Smolensk region of over 135,000 Soviet citizens.
Among these, near the village of Kholmetz of the Sychev region, when the
military authorities were required to remove the mines from an area, on
the order of the Commander of the 101st German Infantry Division,
Major-General Fisler, the German soldiers gathered the inhabitants of
the village of Kholmetz and forced them to remove mines from the road.
All of these people lost their lives as a result of exploding mines.
In the Leningrad region there were shot and tortured over 172,000
persons, including over 20,000 persons who were killed in the city of
Leningrad by the barbarous artillery barrage and the bombings.
In the Stavropol region in an anti-tank trench close to the station of
Mineralny Vody, and in other cities, tens of thousands of persons were
exterminated.
In Pyatigorsk many were subjected to torture and criminal treatment,
including suspension from the ceiling and other methods. Many of the
victims of these tortures were then shot.
In Krasnodar some 6,700 civilians were murdered by poison gas in gas
vans, or were tortured and shot.
In the Stalingrad region more than 40,000 persons were tortured and
killed. After the Germans were expelled from Stalingrad, more than a
thousand mutilated bodies of local inhabitants were found with marks of
torture. One hundred and thirty-nine women had their arms painfully bent
backward and held by wires. From some their breasts had been cut off and
their ears, fingers, and toes had been amputated. The bodies bore the
marks of burns. On the bodies of the men the five pointed star was
burned with an iron or cut with a knife. Some were disembowelled.
In Orel over 5,000 persons were murdered.
In Novgorod and in the Novgorod region many thousands of Soviet citizens
were killed by shooting, starvation, and torture. In Minsk tens of
thousands of citizens were similarly killed.
In the Crimea peaceful citizens were gathered on barges, taken out to
sea and drowned, over 144,000 persons being exterminated in this manner.
In the Soviet Ukraine there were monstrous criminal acts of the Nazi
conspirators. In Babi Yar, near Kiev, they shot over 100,000 men, women,
children, and old people. In this city in January 1942, after the
explosion in German Headquarters on Dzerzhinsky Street the Germans
arrested as hostages 1,250 persons—old men, minors, women with nursing
infants. In Kiev they killed over 195,000 persons.
In Rovno and the Rovno region they killed and tortured over 100,000
peaceful citizens.
In Dnepropetrovsk, near the Transport Institute, they shot or threw
alive into a great ravine 11,000 women, old men, and children.
In Kamenetz-Podolsk Region 31,000 Jews were shot and exterminated,
including 13,000 persons brought there from Hungary.
In the Odessa Region at least 200,000 Soviet citizens were killed.
In Kharkov about 195,000 persons were either tortured to death, shot, or
gassed in gas vans.
In Gomel the Germans rounded up the population in prison, and tortured
and tormented them, and then took them to the center of the city and
shot them in public.
In the city of Lyda in the Grodnen region on 8 May 1942, 5,670 persons
were completely undressed, driven into pens in groups of 100, and then
shot by machine guns. Many were thrown in the graves while they were
still alive.
Along with adults the Nazi conspirators mercilessly destroyed even
children. They killed them with their parents, in groups, and alone.
They killed them in children’s homes and hospitals, burying the living
in the graves, throwing them into flames, stabbing them with bayonets,
poisoning them, conducting experiments upon them, extracting their blood
for the use of the German Army, throwing them into prison and Gestapo
torture chambers and concentration camps, where the children died from
hunger, torture, and epidemic diseases.
From 6 September to 24 November 1942, in the region of Brest, Pinsk,
Kobren, Dyvina, Malority, and Berezy-Kartuzsky about 400 children were
shot by German punitive units.
In the Yanov camp in the city of Lwow the Germans killed 8,000 children
in two months.
In the resort of Tiberda the Germans annihilated 500 children suffering
from tuberculosis of the bone, who were in the sanatorium for the cure.
On the territory of the Latvian S.S.R. the German usurpers killed
thousands of children, whom they had brought there with their parents
from the Bielorussian S.S.R., and from the Kalinin, Kaluga, and other
regions of the R.S.F.S.R.
In Czechoslovakia as a result of torture, beating, hanging, and
shootings, there were annihilated in Gestapo prisons in Brno, Seim, and
other places over 20,000 persons. Moreover, many thousands of internees
were subjected to criminal treatment, beatings, and torture.
Both before the war, as well as during the war, thousands of Czech
patriots, in particular Catholics and Protestants, lawyers, doctors,
teachers, etc., were arrested as hostages and imprisoned. A large number
of these hostages were killed by the Germans.
In Greece in October 1941, the male populations between 16 and 60 years
of age of the Greek villages Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia Mesovunos,
Selli, Ano-Kerzilion and Kato-Kerzilion were shot—in all 416 persons.
In Yugoslavia many thousands of civilians were murdered. Other examples
are given under paragraph (D), “Killing of Hostages”, below.
(B) DEPORTATION FOR SLAVE LABOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS OF AND IN
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
During the whole period of the occupation by Germany of both the Western
and the Eastern Countries it was the policy of the German Government and
of the German High Command to deport able-bodied citizens from such
occupied countries to Germany and to other occupied countries for the
purpose of slave labor upon defense works, in factories, and in other
tasks connected with the German war effort.
In pursuance of such policy there were mass deportations from all the
Western and Eastern Countries for such purposes during the whole period
of the occupation.
Such deportations were contrary to international conventions, in
particular to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from
the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of
the countries in which such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b)
of the Charter.
Particulars of deportations, by way of example only and without
prejudice to the production of evidence of other cases are as follows:
1. From the Western Countries:
From France the following deportations of persons for political and
racial reasons took place—each of which consisted of from 1,500 to
2,500 deportees:
1940 ... 3 Transports
1941 ... 14 Transports
1942 ... 104 Transports
1943 ... 257 Transports
1944 ... 326 Transports
Such deportees were subjected to the most barbarous conditions of
overcrowding; they were provided with wholly insufficient clothing and
were given little or no food for several days.
The conditions of transport were such that many deportees died in the
course of the journey, for example:
In one of the wagons of the train which left Compiègne for Buchenwald,
on 17 September 1943, 80 men died out of 130;
On 4 June 1944, 484 bodies were taken out of the train at Sarrebourg;
In a train which left Compiègne on 2 July 1944 for Dachau, more than 600
dead were found on arrival, i. e. one-third of the total number;
In a train which left Compiègne on 16 January 1944 for Buchenwald, more
than 100 men were confined in each wagon, the dead and the wounded being
heaped in the last wagon during the journey;
In April 1945, of 12,000 internees evacuated from Buchenwald, 4,000 only
were still alive when the marching column arrived near Regensburg.
During the German occupation of Denmark, 5,200 Danish subjects were
deported to Germany and there imprisoned in concentration camps and
other places.
In 1942 and thereafter 6,000 nationals of Luxembourg were deported from
their country under deplorable conditions as a result of which many of
them perished.
From Belgium between 1940 and 1944 at least 190,000 civilians were
deported to Germany and used as slave labor. Such deportees were
subjected to ill-treatment and many of them were compelled to work in
armament factories.
From Holland, between 1940 and 1944, nearly half a million civilians
were deported to Germany and to other occupied countries.
2. From the Eastern Countries:
The German occupying authorities deported from the Soviet Union to
slavery about 4,978,000 Soviet citizens.
Seven hundred and fifty thousand Czechoslovakian citizens were taken
away from Czechoslovakia and forced to work in the German war machine in
the interior of Germany.
On 4 June 1941, in the city of Zagreb (Yugoslavia) a meeting of German
representatives was called with the Councillor Von Troll presiding. The
purpose was to set up the means of deporting the Yugoslav population
from Slovenia. Tens of thousands of persons were deported in carrying
out this plan.
(C) MURDER AND ILL-TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR,
AND OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
COUNTRIES WITH WHOM GERMANY WAS AT WAR, AND OF
PERSONS ON THE HIGH SEAS
The defendants murdered and ill-treated prisoners of war by denying them
adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care and attention; by
forcing them to labor in inhumane conditions; by torturing them and
subjecting them to inhuman indignities and by killing them. The German
Government and the German High Command imprisoned prisoners of war in
various concentration camps, where they were killed and subjected to
inhuman treatment by the various methods set forth in paragraph VIII
(A). Members of the armed forces of the countries with whom Germany was
at war were frequently murdered while in the act of surrendering. These
murders and ill-treatment were contrary to International Conventions,
particularly Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, and
to Articles 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Prisoners of War Convention (Geneva
1929), the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal
law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the
internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were
committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the production of
evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. In the Western Countries:
French officers who escaped from Oflag X C were handed over to the
Gestapo and disappeared; others were murdered by their guards; others
sent to concentration camps and exterminated. Among others, the men of
Stalag VI C were sent to Buchenwald.
Frequently prisoners captured on the Western Front were obliged to march
to the camps until they completely collapsed. Some of them walked more
than 600 kilometers with hardly any food; they marched on for 48 hours
running, without being fed; among them a certain number died of
exhaustion or of hunger; stragglers were systematically murdered.
The same crimes have been committed in 1943, 1944, and 1945 when the
occupants of the camps were withdrawn before the Allied advance;
particularly during the withdrawal of the prisoners of Sagan on 8
February 1945.
Bodily punishments were inflicted upon non-commissioned officers and
cadets who refused to work. On 24 December 1943, three French
non-commissioned officers were murdered for that motive in Stalag IV A.
Many ill-treatments were inflicted without motive on other ranks:
stabbing with bayonets, striking with riflebutts, and whipping; in
Stalag XX B the sick themselves were beaten many times by sentries; in
Stalag III B and Stalag III C, worn-out prisoners were murdered or
grievously wounded. In military jails in Graudenz for instance, in
reprisal camps as in Rava-Ruska, the food was so insufficient that the
men lost more than 15 kilograms in a few weeks. In May 1942, one loaf of
bread only was distributed in Rava-Ruska to each group of 35 men.
Orders were given to transfer French officers in chains to the camp of
Mauthausen after they had tried to escape. At their arrival in camp they
were murdered, either by shooting or by gas, and their bodies destroyed
in the crematorium.
American prisoners, officers and men, were murdered in Normandy during
the summer of 1944 and in the Ardennes in December 1944. American
prisoners were starved, beaten, and otherwise mistreated in numerous
Stalags in Germany and in the occupied countries, particularly in 1943,
1944, and 1945.
2. In the Eastern Countries:
At Orel prisoners of war were exterminated by starvation, shooting,
exposure, and poisoning.
Soviet prisoners of war were murdered en masse on orders from the High
Command and the Headquarters of the SIPO and SD. Tens of thousands of
Soviet prisoners of war were tortured and murdered at the “Gross
Lazaret” at Slavuta.
In addition, many thousands of the persons referred to in paragraph VIII
(A) 2, above, were Soviet prisoners of war.
Prisoners of war who escaped and were recaptured were handed over to
SIPO and SD for shooting.
Frenchmen fighting with the Soviet Army who were captured were handed
over to the Vichy Government for “proceedings”.
In March 1944, 50 R.A.F. officers who escaped from Stalag Luft III at
Sagan, when recaptured, were murdered.
In September 1941, 11,000 Polish officers who were prisoners of war were
killed in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk.
In Yugoslavia the German Command and the occupying authorities in the
person of the chief officials of the Police, the SS troops (Police
Lieutenant General Rosener) and the Divisional Group Command (General
Kübler and others) in the period 1941-43 ordered the shooting of
prisoners of war.
(D) KILLING OF HOSTAGES
Throughout the territories occupied by the German Armed Forces in the
course of waging aggressive wars, the defendants adopted and put into
effect on a wide scale the practice of taking, and of killing, hostages
from the civilian population. These acts were contrary to international
conventions, particularly Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the
laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as
derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal
penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and to
Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the production of
evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. In the Western Countries:
In France hostages were executed either individually or collectively;
these executions took place in all the big cities of France, among
others in Paris, Bordeaux, and Nantes, as well as at Châteaubriant.
In Holland many hundreds of hostages were shot at the following among
other places—Rotterdam, Apeldoorn, Amsterdam, Benschop, and Haarlem.
In Belgium many hundreds of hostages were shot during the period 1940 to
1944.
2. In the Eastern Countries:
At Kragnevatz in Yugoslavia 2,300 hostages were shot in October 1941.
At Kralevo in Yugoslavia 5,000 hostages were shot.
(E) PLUNDER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY
The defendants ruthlessly exploited the people and the material
resources of the countries they occupied, in order to strengthen the
Nazi war machine, to depopulate and impoverish the rest of Europe, to
enrich themselves and their adherents, and to promote German economic
supremacy over Europe.
The defendants engaged in the following acts and practices, among
others:
1. They degraded the standard of life of the people of occupied countries
and caused starvation, by stripping occupied countries of foodstuffs
for removal to Germany.
2. They seized raw materials and industrial machinery in all of the
occupied countries, removed them to Germany and used them in the
interest of the German war effort and the German economy.
3. In all the occupied countries, in varying degrees, they confiscated
businesses, plants, and other property.
4. In an attempt to give color of legality to illegal acquisitions of
property, they forced owners of property to go through the forms of
“voluntary” and “legal” transfers.
5. They established comprehensive controls over the economies of all of
the occupied countries and directed their resources, their production
and their labor in the interests of the German war economy, depriving
the local populations of the products of essential industries.
6. By a variety of financial mechanisms, they despoiled all of the
occupied countries of essential commodities and accumulated wealth,
debased the local currency systems and disrupted the local economies.
They financed extensive purchases in occupied countries through
clearing arrangements by which they exacted loans from the occupied
countries. They imposed occupation levies, exacted financial
contributions, and issued occupation currency, far in excess of
occupation costs. They used these excess funds to finance the purchase
of business properties and supplies in the occupied countries.
7. They abrogated the rights of the local populations in the occupied
portions of the U.S.S.R. and in Poland and in other countries to
develop or manage agricultural and industrial properties, and reserved
this area for exclusive settlement, development, and ownership by
Germans and their so-called racial brethren.
8. In further development of their plan of criminal exploitation, they
destroyed industrial cities, cultural monuments, scientific
institutions, and property of all types in the occupied territories to
eliminate the possibility of competition with Germany.
9. From their program of terror, slavery, spoliation, and organized
outrage, the Nazi conspirators created an instrument for the personal
profit and aggrandizement of themselves and their adherents. They
secured for themselves and their adherents:
(_a_) Positions in administration of business involving power, influence,
and lucrative perquisites.
(_b_) The use of cheap forced labor.
(_c_) The acquisition on advantageous terms of foreign properties,
business interests, and raw materials.
(_d_) The basis for the industrial supremacy of Germany.
These acts were contrary to international conventions, particularly
Articles 46 to 56 inclusive of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from
the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of
the countries in which such crimes were committed and to Article 6 (_b_)
of the Charter.
Particulars (by way of example and without prejudice to the production
of evidence of other cases) are as follows:
1. Western Countries:
There was plundered from the Western Countries, from 1940 to 1944, works
of art, artistic objects, pictures, plastics, furniture, textiles,
antique pieces, and similar articles of enormous value to the number of
21,903.
In France statistics show the following:
_Removal of Raw Materials._
Coal 63,000,000 tons
Electric energy 20,976 Mkwh
Petrol and fuel 1,943,750 tons
Iron ore 74,848,000 ”
Siderurgical 3,822,000 ”
products
Bauxite 1,211,800 ”
Cement 5,984,000 ”
Lime 1,888,000 ”
Quarry products 25,872,000 ”
and various other products to a total value of 79,961,423,000 francs.
_Removal of Industrial Equipment._
Total: 9,759,861,000 francs, of which 2,626,479,000 francs of machine
tools.
_Removal of Agricultural Produce._
Total: 126,655,852,000 francs, i. e., for the principal products.
Wheat 2,947,337 tons
Oats 2,354,080 ”
Milk 790,000 hectolitres
” (concentrated and in
powder) 460,000 ”
Butter 76,000 tons
Cheese 49,000 ”
Potatoes 725,975 ”
Various vegetables 575,000 ”
Wine 7,647,000 hectolitres
Champagne 87,000,000 bottles
Beer 3,821,520 hectolitres
Various kinds of alcohol 1,830,000 ”
_Removal of Manufactured Products._
To a total of 184,640,000,000 francs.
_Plundering._
Francs: 257,020,024,000 from private enterprise.
Francs: 55,000,100,000 from the State.
_Financial Exploitation._
From June 1940 to September 1944 the French Treasury was compelled to
pay to Germany 631,866,000,000 francs.
_Looting and Destruction of Works of Art._
The museums of Nantes, Nancy, Old-Marseilles were looted.
Private collections of great value were stolen. In this way Raphaels,
Vermeers, Van Dycks, and works of Rubens, Holbein, Rembrandt, Watteau,
Boucher disappeared. Germany compelled France to deliver up “The Mystic
Lamb” by Van Eyck, which Belgium had entrusted to her.
In Norway and other occupied countries decrees were made by which the
property of many civilians, societies, etc., was confiscated. An immense
amount of property of every kind was plundered from France, Belgium,
Norway, Holland, and Luxembourg.
As a result of the economic plundering of Belgium between 1940 and 1944
the damage suffered amounted to 175 billions of Belgian francs.
2. Eastern Countries:
During the occupation of the Eastern Countries the German Government and
the German High Command carried out, as a systematic policy, a
continuous course of plunder and destruction including:
On the territory of the Soviet Union the Nazi conspirators destroyed or
severely damaged 1,710 cities and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets,
more than 6,000,000 buildings and made homeless about 25,000,000
persons.
Among the cities which suffered most destruction are Stalingrad,
Sevastopol, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, Orel,
Kharkov, Voronezh, Rostov-on-Don, Stalino, and Leningrad.
As is evident from an official memorandum of the German command, the
Nazi conspirators planned the complete annihilation of entire Soviet
cities. In a completely secret order of the Chief of the Naval Staff
(Staff Ia No. 1601/41, dated 29. IX. 1941) addressed only to Staff
officers, it was said:
“The Führer has decided to erase from the face of the earth St.
Petersburg. The existence of this large city will have no further
interest after Soviet Russia is destroyed. Finland has also said that
the existence of this city on her new border is not desirable from her
point of view. The original request of the Navy that docks, harbor, etc.
necessary for the fleet be preserved—is known to the Supreme Commander
of the Military Forces, but the basic principles of carrying out
operations against St. Petersburg do not make it possible to satisfy
this request.
“It is proposed to approach near to the city and to destroy it with the
aid of an artillery barrage from weapons of different calibers and with
long air attacks . . . .
“The problem of the life of the population and the provisioning of them
is a problem which cannot and must not be decided by us.
“In this war . . . we are not interested in preserving even a part of
the population of this large city.”
The Germans destroyed 427 museums, among them the wealthy museums of
Leningrad, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Novgorod, Poltava, and others.
In Pyatigorsk the art objects brought there from the Rostov museum were
seized.
The losses suffered by the coal mining industry alone in the Stalin
region amount to 2,000,000,000 rubles. There was colossal destruction of
industrial establishments in Makerevka, Carlovka, Yenakievo,
Konstantinovka, Mariupol, from which most of the machinery and factories
were removed.
Stealing of huge dimensions and the destruction of industrial, cultural,
and other property was typified in Kiev. More than 4,000,000 books,
magazines, and manuscripts (many of which were very valuable and even
unique) and a large number of artistic productions and valuables of
different kinds were stolen and carried away.
Many valuable art productions were taken away from Riga.
The extent of the plunder of cultural valuables is evidenced by the fact
that 100,000 valuable volumes and 70 cases of ancient periodicals and
precious monographs were carried away by ROSENBERG’S staff alone.
Among further examples of these crimes are:
Wanton devastation of the city of Novgorod and of many historical and
artistic monuments there. Wanton devastation and plunder of the city of
Rovno and of its province. The destruction of the industrial, cultural,
and other property in Odessa. The destruction of cities and villages in
Soviet Karelia. The destruction in Estonia of cultural, industrial, and
other buildings.
The destruction of medical and prophylactic institutes, the destruction
of agriculture and industry in Lithuania, the destruction of cities in
Latvia.
The Germans approached monuments of culture, dear to the Soviet people,
with special hatred. They broke up the estate of the poet Pushkin in
Mikhailovskoye, desecrating his grave, and destroying the neighboring
villages and the Svyatogor monastery.
They destroyed the estate and museum of Leo Tolstoy, “Yasnaya Polyana,”
and desecrated the grave of the great writer. They destroyed in Klin the
museum of Tchaikovsky and in Penaty, the museum of the painter Repin and
many others.
The Nazi conspirators destroyed 1,670 Greek Orthodox churches, 237 Roman
Catholic churches, 67 chapels, 532 synagogues, etc. They broke up,
desecrated, and senselessly destroyed also the most valuable monuments
of the Christian Church, such as Kievo-Pecherskaya Lavra, Novy Jerusalem
in the Istrin region, and the most ancient monasteries and churches.
Destruction in Estonia of cultural, industrial, and other premises:
burning down of many thousands of residential buildings; removal of
10,000 works of art; destruction of medical and prophylactic
institutions; plunder and removal to Germany of immense quantities of
agricultural stock including horses, cows, pigs, poultry, beehives, and
agricultural machines of all kinds.
Destruction of agriculture, enslavement of peasants, and looting of
stock and produce in Lithuania.
In the Latvian Republic destruction of the agriculture by the looting of
all stock, machinery, and produce.
The result of this policy of plunder and destruction was to lay waste
the land and cause utter desolation.
The overall value of the material loss which the U.S.S.R. has borne, is
computed to be 679,000,000,000 rubles, in state prices of 1941.
Following the occupation of Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 the
defendants seized and stole large stocks of raw materials, copper, tin,
iron, cotton, and food; caused to be taken to Germany large amounts of
railway rolling stock, and many engines, carriages, steam vessels, and
trolley buses; plundered libraries, laboratories, and art museums of
books, pictures, objects of art, scientific apparatus, and furniture;
stole all gold reserves and foreign exchange of Czechoslovakia,
including 23,000 kilograms of gold of a nominal value of £5,265,000;
fraudulently acquired control and thereafter looted the Czech banks and
many Czech industrial enterprises; and otherwise stole, looted, and
misappropriated Czechoslovak public and private property. The total sum
of defendants’ economic spoliation of Czechoslovakia from 1938 to 1945
is estimated at 200,000,000,000 Czechoslovak crowns.
(F) THE EXACTION OF COLLECTIVE PENALTIES
The Germans pursued a systematic policy of inflicting, in all the
occupied countries, collective penalties, pecuniary and otherwise, upon
the population for acts of individuals for which it could not be
regarded as collectively responsible; this was done at many places,
including Oslo, Stavanger, Trondheim, and Rogaland.
Similar instances occurred in France, among others in Dijon, Nantes, and
as regards the Jewish population in the occupied territories. The total
amount of fines imposed on French communities add up to 1,157,179,484
francs made up as follows:
A fine on the Jewish population 1,000,000,000
Various fines 157,179,484
These acts violated Article 50, Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from
the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of
the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (_b_)
of the Charter.
(G) WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CITIES, TOWNS, AND
VILLAGES AND DEVASTATION NOT JUSTIFIED BY
MILITARY NECESSITY
The defendants wantonly destroyed cities, towns, and villages and
committed other acts of devastation without military justification or
necessity. These acts violated Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles
of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized
nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes
were committed, and Article 6 (_b_) of the Charter.
Particulars by way of example only and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases are as follows:
1. Western Countries:
In March 1941, part of Lofoten in Norway was destroyed.
In April 1942, the town of Telerag in Norway was destroyed.
Entire villages were destroyed in France, among others
Oradour-sur-Glane, Saint-Nizier and, in the Vercors, La Mure, Vassieux,
La Chapelle en Vercors. The town of Saint Dié was burnt down and
destroyed. The Old Port District of Marseilles was dynamited in the
beginning of 1943 and resorts along the Atlantic and the Mediterranean
coasts, particularly the town of Sanary, were demolished.
In Holland there was most widespread and extensive destruction, not
justified by military necessity, including the destruction of harbors,
locks, dikes, and bridges: immense devastation was also caused by
inundations which equally were not justified by military necessity.
2. Eastern Countries:
In the Eastern Countries the defendants pursued a policy of wanton
destruction and devastation: some particulars of this (without prejudice
to the production of evidence of other cases) are set out above under
the heading “Plunder of Public and Private Property”.
In Greece the villages of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Messovunos,
Selli, Ano-Kerzilion, and Kato-Kerzilion were utterly destroyed.
In Yugoslavia on 15 August 1941, the German military command officially
announced that the village of Skela was burned to the ground and the
inhabitants killed on the order of the command.
On the order of the Field Commander Hoersterberg a punitive expedition
from the SS troops and the field police destroyed the villages of
Machkovats, and Kriva Reka in Serbia and all the inhabitants were
killed.
General Fritz Neidhold (369 Infantry Division) on 11 September 1944,
gave an order to destroy the villages of Zagniezde and Udora, hanging
all the men and driving away all the women and children.
In Czechoslovakia the Nazi conspirators also practiced the senseless
destruction of populated places. Lezaky and Lidice were burned to the
ground and the inhabitants killed.
(H) CONSCRIPTION OF CIVILIAN LABOR
Throughout the occupied territories the defendants conscripted and
forced the inhabitants to labor and requisitioned their services for
purposes other than meeting the needs of the armies of occupation and to
an extent far out of proportion to the resources of the countries
involved. All the civilians so conscripted were forced to work for the
German war effort. Civilians were required to register and many of those
who registered were forced to join the Todt Organization and the Speer
Legion, both of which were semi-military organizations involving some
military training. These acts violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles
of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized
nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes
were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Particulars, by way of example only and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. Western Countries:
In France, from 1942 to 1944, 963,813 persons were compelled to work in
Germany and 737,000 to work in France for the German Army.
In Luxembourg in 1944 alone, 2,500 men and 500 girls were conscripted
for forced labor.
2. Eastern Countries:
Of the large number of citizens of the Soviet Union and of
Czechoslovakia referred to under Count Three VIII (B) 2 above many were
so conscripted for forced labor.
(I) FORCING CIVILIANS OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES TO
SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO A HOSTILE POWER
Civilians who joined the Speer Legion, as set forth in paragraph (H)
above, were required, under threat of depriving them of food, money, and
identity papers, to swear a solemn oath acknowledging unconditional
obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of Germany, which was to them a
hostile power.
In Lorraine, civil servants were obliged, in order to retain their
positions, to sign a declaration by which they acknowledged the “return
of their country to the Reich”, pledged themselves to obey without
reservation the orders of their chiefs and put themselves “at the active
service of the Führer and the Great National Socialist Germany”.
A similar pledge was imposed on Alsatian civil servants by threat of
deportation or internment.
These acts violated Article 45 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws
and customs of war, the general principles of international law, and
Article 6 (_b_) of the Charter.
(J) GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the
defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate
those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically
into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the
former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these
plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who
were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German
colonists.
This plan included economic domination, physical conquest, installation
of puppet governments, purported de jure annexation and enforced
conscription into the German Armed Forces.
This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including:
Norway, France (particularly in the Departments of Upper Rhine, Lower
Rhine, Moselle, Ardennes, Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and Moselle), Luxembourg,
the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.
In France in the Departments of Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and Moselle, and
especially in that of Ardennes, rural properties were seized by a German
state organization which tried to have them exploited under German
direction; the landowners of these exploitations were dispossessed and
turned into agricultural laborers.
In the Department of Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, and Moselle, the methods
of Germanization were those of annexation followed by conscription.
1. From the month of August 1940, officials who refused to take the oath
of allegiance to the Reich were expelled. On 21 September expulsions and
deportation of populations began and on 22 November 1940, more than
70,000 Lorrainers or Alsatians were driven into the south zone of
France. From 31 July 1941 onwards, more than 100,000 persons were
deported into the eastern regions of the Reich or to Poland. All the
property of the deportees or expelled persons was confiscated. At the
same time, 80,000 Germans coming from the Saar or from Westphalia were
installed in Lorraine and 2,000 farms belonging to French people were
transferred to Germans.
2. From 2 January 1942, all the young people of the Departments of Upper
Rhine and Lower Rhine, aged from 10 to 18 years, were incorporated in
the Hitler Youth. The same thing was done in Moselle from 4 August 1942.
From 1940 all the French schools were closed, their staffs expelled, and
the German school system was introduced in the three Departments.
3. On the 28 September 1940, an order applicable to the Department of
Moselle ordained the Germanization of all the surnames and Christian
names which were French in form. The same thing was done from 15 January
1943, in the Departments of Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine.
4. Two orders from 23 to 24 August 1942 imposed by force German
nationality on French citizens.
5. On 8 May 1941, for Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine, 23 April 1941, for
Moselle, orders were promulgated enforcing compulsory labor service on
all French citizens of either sex aged from 17 to 25 years. From 1
January 1942 for young men and from 26 January 1942 for young girls,
national labor service was effectively organized in Moselle. It was from
27 August 1942 in Upper Rhine and in Lower Rhine for young men only. The
classes 1940, 1941, 1942 were called up.
6. These classes were retained in the Wehrmacht on the expiration of
their time and labor service. On 19 August 1942, an order instituted
compulsory military service in Moselle. On 25 August 1942, the classes
1940-44 were called up in three departments. Conscription was enforced
by the German authorities in conformity with the provisions of German
legislation. The first revision boards took place from 3 September 1942.
Later in Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine new levies were effected everywhere
on classes 1928 to 1939 inclusive. The French people who refused to obey
these laws were considered as deserters and their families were
deported, while their property was confiscated.
These acts violated Articles 43, 46, 55, and 56 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles
of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized
nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes
were committed, and Article 6 (_b_) of the Charter.
IX. Individual, group, and organization responsibility for the offense
stated In Count Three
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the
offense set forth in this Count Three of the Indictment. Reference is
hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the
responsibility of the groups and organizations named herein as criminal
groups and organizations for the offense set forth in this Count Three
of the Indictment.
COUNT FOUR—CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
(_Charter, Article 6, especially 6 (c)_)
X. Statement of the Offense
All the defendants committed Crimes against Humanity during a period of
years preceding 8 May 1945 in Germany and in all those countries and
territories occupied by the German armed forces since 1 September 1939
and in Austria and Czechoslovakia and in Italy and on the High Seas.
All the defendants, acting in concert with others, formulated and
executed a common plan or conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity
as defined in Article 6 (_c_) of the Charter. This plan involved, among
other things, the murder and persecution of all who were or who were
suspected of being hostile to the Nazi Party and all who were or who
were suspected of being opposed to the common plan alleged in Count One.
The said Crimes against Humanity were committed by the defendants and by
other persons for whose acts the defendants are responsible (under
Article 6 of the Charter) as such other persons, when committing the
said War Crimes, performed their acts in execution of a common plan and
conspiracy to commit the said War Crimes, in the formulation and
execution of which plan and conspiracy all the defendants participated
as leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices.
These methods and crimes constituted violations of international
conventions, of internal penal laws, of the general principles of
criminal law as derived from the criminal law of all civilized nations
and were involved in and part of a systematic course of conduct. The
said acts were contrary to Article 6 of the Charter.
The Prosecution will rely upon the facts pleaded under Count Three as
also constituting Crimes against Humanity.
(A) MURDER, EXTERMINATION, ENSLAVEMENT, DEPORTATION,
AND OTHER INHUMANE ACTS COMMITTED
AGAINST CIVILIAN POPULATIONS BEFORE AND DURING
THE WAR
For the purposes set out above, the defendants adopted a policy of
persecution, repression, and extermination of all civilians in Germany
who were, or who were believed to be, or who were believed likely to
become, hostile to the Nazi Government and the common plan or conspiracy
described in Count One. They imprisoned such persons without judicial
process, holding them in “protective custody” and concentration camps,
and subjected them to persecution, degradation, despoilment,
enslavement, torture, and murder.
Special courts were established to carry out the will of the
conspirators; favored branches or agencies of the State and Party were
permitted to operate outside the range even of nazified law and to crush
all tendencies and elements which were considered “undesirable”. The
various concentration camps included Buchenwald, which was established
in 1933, and Dachau, which was established in 1934. At these and other
camps the civilians were put to slave labor, and murdered and
ill-treated by divers means, including those set out in Count Three
above, and these acts and policies were continued and extended to the
occupied countries after 1 September 1939, and until 8 May 1945.
(B) PERSECUTION ON POLITICAL, RACIAL, AND RELIGIOUS
GROUNDS IN EXECUTION OF AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE
COMMON PLAN MENTIONED IN COUNT ONE
As above stated, in execution of and in connection with the common plan
mentioned in Count One, opponents of the German Government were
exterminated and persecuted. These persecutions were directed against
Jews. They were also directed against persons whose political belief or
spiritual aspirations were deemed to be in conflict with the aims of the
Nazis.
Jews were systematically persecuted since 1933; they were deprived of
their liberty, thrown into concentration camps where they were murdered
and ill-treated. Their property was confiscated. Hundreds of thousands
of Jews were so treated before 1 September 1939.
Since 1 September 1939, the persecution of the Jews was redoubled:
millions of Jews from Germany and from the occupied Western Countries
were sent to the Eastern Countries for extermination.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the production of
evidence of other cases are as follows:
The Nazis murdered amongst others Chancellor Dollfuss, the Social
Democrat Breitscheid, and the Communist Thälmann. They imprisoned in
concentration camps numerous political and religious personages, for
example Chancellor Schuschnigg and Pastor Niemöller.
In November 1938, by orders of the Chief of the Gestapo, anti-Jewish
demonstrations all over Germany took place. Jewish property was
destroyed, 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps and
their property confiscated.
Under paragraph VIII (A), above, millions of the persons there mentioned
as having been murdered and ill-treated were Jews.
Among other mass murders of Jews were the following:
At Kislovdosk all Jews were made to give up their property: 2,000 were
shot in an anti-tank ditch at Mineraliye Vodi: 4,300 other Jews were
shot in the same ditch.
60,000 Jews were shot on an island on the Dvina near Riga.
20,000 Jews were shot at Lutsk.
32,000 Jews were shot at Sarny.
60,000 Jews were shot at Kiev and Dniepropetrovsk.
Thousands of Jews were gassed weekly by means of gas-wagons which broke
down from overwork.
As the Germans retreated before the Soviet Army they exterminated Jews
rather than allow them to be liberated. Many concentration camps and
ghettos were set up in which Jews were incarcerated and tortured,
starved, subjected to merciless atrocities, and finally exterminated.
About 70,000 Jews were exterminated in Yugoslavia.
XI. Individual, Group and Organization Responsibility for the Offense
Stated in Count Four
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the
offense set forth in this Count Four of the Indictment. Reference is
hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the
responsibility of the groups and organizations named herein as criminal
groups and organizations for the offense set forth in this Count Four of
the Indictment.
Wherefore, this Indictment is lodged with the Tribunal in English,
French, and Russian, each text having equal authenticity, and the
charges herein made against the above named defendants are hereby
presented to the Tribunal.
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON.
_Acting on Behalf of the United
States of America._
/s/ FRANÇOIS DE MENTHON.
_Acting on Behalf of the French
Republic._
/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS.
_Acting on Behalf of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland._
/s/ R. RUDENKO.
_Acting on Behalf of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics._
Berlin, 6 October 1945.
APPENDIX A
_Statement of Individual Responsibility for Crimes Set Out in
Counts One, Two, Three, and Four_
The statements hereinafter set forth following the name of each
individual defendant constitute matters upon which the prosecution will
rely _inter alia_ as establishing the individual responsibility of the
defendant according to Article 6 of the Charter of the Tribunal.
GÖRING:
The Defendant GÖRING between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Supreme Leader of the SA, General in the SS, a member and
President of the Reichstag, Minister of the Interior of Prussia, Chief
of the Prussian Police and Prussian Secret State Police, Chief of the
Prussian State Council, Trustee of the Four Year Plan, Reich Minister
for Air, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, President of the Council
of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet
Council, head of the Hermann Göring Industrial Combine, and Successor
Designate to Hitler. The Defendant GÖRING used the foregoing positions,
his personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in
such a manner that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi
conspirators and the consolidation of their control over Germany set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the military and
economic preparation for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment;
he participated in the planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators
for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties,
Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, and the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a
wide variety of crimes against persons and property.
RIBBENTROP:
The Defendant RIBBENTROP between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a member of the Nazi Reichstag, Advisor to the Führer on matters
of foreign policy, representative of the Nazi Party for matters of
foreign policy, special German delegate for disarmament questions,
Ambassador Extraordinary, Ambassador in London, organizer and director
of Dienststelle Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, member
of the Secret Cabinet Council, member of the Führer’s political staff at
general headquarters, and General in the SS. The Defendant RIBBENTROP
used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate
connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators as set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in
Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances as set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; in accordance with the
Führer Principle he executed and assumed responsibility for the
execution of the foreign policy plans of the Nazi conspirators set forth
in Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment, and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including more particularly the crimes against persons
and property in occupied territories.
HESS:
The Defendant HESS between 1921 and 1941 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Deputy to the Führer, Reich Minister without Portfolio, member of
the Reichstag, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the
Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet Council, Successor Designate to the
Führer after the Defendant Göring, a General in the SS and a General in
the SA. The Defendant HESS used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner
that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and
the consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One
of the Indictment; he promoted the military, economic, and psychological
preparations for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
participated in the political planning and preparation for Wars of
Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements,
and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he
participated in the preparation and planning of foreign policy plans of
the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
authorized, directed and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth
in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes
against persons and property.
KALTENBRUNNER:
The Defendant KALTENBRUNNER between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the
Nazi Party, a General in the SS, a member of the Reichstag, a General of
the Police, State Secretary for Security in Austria in charge of the
Austrian Police, Police Leader of Vienna, Lower and Upper Austria, Head
of the Reich Main Security Office, and Chief of the Security Police and
Security Service. The Defendant KALTENBRUNNER used the foregoing
positions and his personal influence in such a manner that: He promoted
the consolidation of control over Austria seized by the Nazi
conspirators as set forth in Count One of the Indictment; and he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth
in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the Crimes
against Humanity involved in the system of concentration camps.
ROSENBERG:
The Defendant ROSENBERG between 1920 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Nazi member of the Reichstag, Reichsleiter in the Nazi Party for
Ideology and Foreign Policy, the editor of the Nazi newspaper
_Völkischer Beobachter_ and of the _NS Monatshefte_, head of the Foreign
Political Office of the Nazi Party, Special Delegate for the entire
Spiritual and Ideological Training of the Nazi Party, Reich Minister for
the Eastern Occupied Territories, organizer of the “Einsatzstab
Rosenberg”, a General in the SS and a General in the SA. The Defendant
ROSENBERG used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his
intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He developed,
disseminated, and exploited the doctrinal techniques of the Nazi
conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the psychological preparations for war set forth in Count One
of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts
One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes against persons and
property.
FRANK:
The Defendant FRANK between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a General in the SS, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister
without Portfolio, Reich Commissar for the Coordination of Justice,
President of the International Chamber of Law and Academy of German Law,
Chief of the Civil Administration of Lodz, Supreme Administrative Chief
of the military district of West Prussia, Poznan, Lodz and Krakow, and
Governor General of the occupied Polish territories. The Defendant FRANK
used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate
connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth
in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the War Crimes
and Crimes against Humanity involved in the administration of occupied
territories.
BORMANN:
The Defendant BORMANN between 1925 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, member of the Reichstag, a member of the Staff of the Supreme
Command of the SA, founder and head of “Hilfskasse der NSDAP”,
Reichsleiter, Chief of Staff Office of the Führer’s Deputy, head of the
Party Chancery, Secretary of the Führer, member of the Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, organizer and head of the
Volkssturm, a General in the SS and a General in the SA. The Defendant
BORMANN used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his
intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted
the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against
Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide
variety of crimes against persons and property.
FRICK:
The Defendant FRICK between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Reichsleiter, General in the SS, member of the Reichstag, Reich
Minister of the Interior, Prussian Minister of the Interior, Reich
Director of Elections, General Plenipotentiary for the Administration of
the Reich, head of the Central Office for the Reunification of Austria
and the German Reich, Director of the Central Office for the
Incorporation of Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig, the eastern incorporated
territories, Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet, Director of the Central
Office for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Governor General
of Lower Styria, Upper Carinthia, Norway, Alsace, Lorraine and all other
occupied territories and Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. The
Defendant FRICK used the foregoing positions, his personal influence,
and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He
promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the planning and preparation of the
Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Count
One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including more particularly the crimes against persons
and property in occupied territories.
LEY:
The Defendant LEY between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi Party,
Reichsleiter, Nazi Party Organization Manager, member of the Reichstag,
leader of the German Labor Front, a General in the SA, and Joint
Organizer of the Central Inspection for the Care of Foreign Workers. The
Defendant LEY used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and
his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He
promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany as set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he promoted the preparation for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; he authorized, directed, and participated in the
War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, and in the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including
particularly the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity relating to the
abuse of human beings for labor in the conduct of the aggressive wars.
SAUCKEL:
The Defendant SAUCKEL between 1921 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia, a member of the
Reichstag, General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labor under the
Four Year Plan, Joint Organizer with the Defendant Ley of the Central
Inspection for the Care of Foreign Workers, a General in the SS and a
General in the SA. The Defendant SAUCKEL used the foregoing positions
and his personal influence in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the economic preparations for Wars of
Aggression and Wars in Violation of Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances
set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he authorized,
directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of
the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including particularly the War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity involved in forcing the inhabitants of occupied
countries to work as slave laborers in occupied countries and in
Germany.
SPEER:
The Defendant SPEER between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Reichsleiter, member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister for
Armament and Munitions, Chief of the Organization Todt, General
Plenipotentiary for Armaments in the Office of the Four Year Plan, and
Chairman of the Armaments Council. The Defendant SPEER used the
foregoing positions and his personal influence in such a manner that: He
participated in the military and economic planning and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts
One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including more particularly the abuse and exploitation
of human beings for forced labor in the conduct of aggressive war.
FUNK:
The Defendant FUNK between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, Economic Adviser of Hitler, National Socialist Deputy to the
Reichstag, Press Chief of the Reich Government, State Secretary of the
Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Reich Minister of
Economics, Prussian Minister of Economics, President of the German
Reichsbank, Plenipotentiary for Economy, and member of the Ministerial
Council for the Defense of the Reich. The Defendant FUNK used the
foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his close connection
with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control
over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the
preparations for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
participated in the military and economic planning and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts
One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including more particularly crimes against persons and
property in connection with the economic exploitation of occupied
territories.
SCHACHT:
The Defendant SCHACHT between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister of Economics, Reich
Minister without Portfolio and President of the German Reichsbank. The
Defendant SCHACHT used the foregoing positions, his personal influence,
and his connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted
the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; and he participated in the military and economic plans and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression, and Wars in
Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment.
PAPEN:
The Defendant PAPEN between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Chancellor, Vice Chancellor
under Hitler, special Plenipotentiary for the Saar, negotiator of the
Concordat with the Vatican, Ambassador in Vienna and Ambassador in
Turkey. The Defendant PAPEN used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and
participated in the consolidation of their control over Germany set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the preparations for
war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; and he participated in the
political planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of
Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements,
and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment.
KRUPP:
The Defendant KRUPP was between 1932 and 1945: Head of Friedrich KRUPP
A.G., a member of the General Economic Council, President of the Reich
Union of German Industry, and head of the Group for Mining and
Production of Iron and Metals under the Reich Ministry of Economics. The
Defendant KRUPP used the foregoing positions, his personal influence,
and his connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted
the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the preparation for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he participated in the military and economic planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in
Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized,
directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of
the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including more particularly the exploitation and
abuse of human beings for labor in the conduct of aggressive wars.
NEURATH:
The Defendant NEURATH between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a General in the SS, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister,
Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs, President of the Secret Cabinet
Council, and Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. The Defendant
NEURATH used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his
close connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in
Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; in accordance with the
Führer Principle he executed, and assumed responsibility for the
execution of the foreign policy plans of the Nazi conspirators set forth
in Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including particularly the crimes against persons and
property in the occupied territories.
SCHIRACH:
The Defendant SCHIRACH between 1924 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Youth Leader on the Staff of the
SA Supreme Command, Reichsleiter in the Nazi Party for Youth Education,
Leader of Youth of the German Reich, head of the Hitler Jugend, Reich
Defense Commissioner and Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter of Vienna. The
Defendant SCHIRACH used the foregoing positions, his personal influence,
and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He
promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he promoted the psychological and educational
preparations for war and the militarization of Nazi dominated
organizations set forth in Count One of the Indictment; and he
authorized, directed, and participated in the Crimes against Humanity
set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including, particularly,
anti-Jewish measures.
SEYSS-INQUART:
The Defendant SEYSS-INQUART between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the
Nazi Party, a General in the SS, State Councillor of Austria, Minister
of the Interior and Security of Austria, Chancellor of Austria, a member
of the Reichstag, a member of the Reich Cabinet, Reich Minister without
Portfolio, Chief of the Civil Administration in South Poland, Deputy
Governor-General of the Polish Occupied Territory, and Reich Commissar
for the Occupied Netherlands. The Defendant SEYSS-INQUART used the
foregoing positions and his personal influence in such a manner that: He
promoted the seizure and the consolidation of control over Austria by
the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
participated in the political planning and preparation of the Nazi
conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts
One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes against persons and
property.
STREICHER:
The Defendant STREICHER between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, a member of the Reichstag, a General in the SA, Gauleiter of
Franconia, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic newspaper _Der Stürmer_.
The Defendant STREICHER used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such a manner
that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and
the consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One
of the Indictment: he authorized, directed, and participated in the
Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including particularly the incitement of the persecution of the Jews set
forth in Count One and Count Four of the Indictment.
KEITEL:
The Defendant KEITEL between 1938 and 1945 was: Chief of the High
Command of the German Armed Forces, member of the Secret Cabinet
Council, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the
Reich, and Field Marshal. The Defendant KEITEL used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with the
Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the military preparations for
war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the
political planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of
Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements,
and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he
executed and assumed responsibility for the execution of the plans of
the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts
One and Two of the Indictment; he authorized, directed, and participated
in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the
Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including particularly the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
involved in the ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian
population of occupied territories.
JODL:
The Defendant JODL between 1932 and 1945 was: Lt. Colonel, Army
Operations Department of the Wehrmacht, Colonel, Chief of OKW Operations
Department, Major-General, Chief of Staff OKW and Colonel-General. The
Defendant JODL used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and
his close connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted
the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he participated in the military planning and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts
One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes against persons and
property.
RAEDER:
The Defendant RAEDER between 1928 and 1945 was: Commander-in-Chief of
the German Navy, Generaladmiral, Grossadmiral, Admiralinspekteur of the
German Navy, and a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. The Defendant
RAEDER used the foregoing positions and his personal influence in such a
manner that: He promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One
of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in
Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he executed, and assumed
responsibility for the execution of the plans of the Nazi conspirators
for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties,
Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the war
crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, including
particularly war crimes arising out of sea warfare.
DÖNITZ:
The Defendant DÖNITZ between 1932 and 1945 was: Commanding Officer of
the Weddigen U-boat flotilla, Commander-in-Chief of the U-boat arm,
Vice-Admiral, Admiral, Grossadmiral and Commander-in-Chief of the German
Navy, Advisor to Hitler, and Successor to Hitler as head of the German
Government. The Defendant DÖNITZ used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such
a manner that: He promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; he participated in the military planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in
Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized,
directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of
the Indictment, including particularly the crimes against persons and
property on the High Seas.
FRITZSCHE:
The Defendant FRITZSCHE between 1933 and 1945 was: A member of the Nazi
Party, editor-in-chief of the official German news agency, “Deutsche
Nachrichten Büro”, head of the Wireless News Service and of the Home
Press Division of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, Ministerialdirektor
of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, head of the Radio Division of the
Propaganda Department of the Nazi Party, and Plenipotentiary for the
Political Organization of the Greater German Radio. The Defendant
FRITZSCHE used the foregoing positions and his personal influence to
disseminate and exploit the principal doctrines of the Nazi conspirators
set forth in Count One of the Indictment, and to advocate, encourage and
incite the commission of the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of
the Indictment including, particularly, anti-Jewish measures and the
ruthless exploitation of occupied territories.
APPENDIX B
_Statement of Criminality of Groups and Organizations_
The statements hereinafter set forth, following the name of each group
or organization named in the Indictment as one which should be declared
criminal, constitute matters upon which the prosecution will rely _inter
alia_ as establishing the criminality of the group or organization:
DIE REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET)
“Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet)” referred to in the Indictment
consists of persons who were:
(i) Members of the ordinary cabinet after 30 January 1933, the date on
which Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic. The term
“ordinary cabinet” as used herein means the Reich Ministers, i. e.,
heads of departments of the central Government; Reich Ministers
without portfolio; State Ministers acting as Reich Ministers; and
other officials entitled to take part in meetings of this cabinet.
(ii) Members of der Ministerrat für die Reichsverteidigung (Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich).
(iii) Members of der Geheimer Kabinettsrat (Secret Cabinet Council).
Under the Führer, these persons functioning in the foregoing capacities
and in association as a group, possessed and exercised legislative,
executive, administrative, and political powers and functions of a very
high order in the system of German Government. Accordingly, they are
charged with responsibility for the policies adopted and put into effect
by the Government including those which comprehended and involved the
commission of the crimes referred to in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four
of the Indictment.
DAS KORPS DER POLITISCHEN LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN
DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI
(LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY)
“Das Korps der Politischen Leiter der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei (Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party)” referred to in the
Indictment consists of persons who were at any time, according to common
Nazi terminology, “Politischen Leiter” (Political Leaders) of any grade
or rank.
The Politischen Leiter comprised the leaders of the various functional
offices of the Party (for example, the Reichsleitung, or Party Reich
Directorate, and the Gauleitung, or Party Gau Directorate), as well as
the territorial leaders of the Party (for example, the Gauleiter).
The Politischen Leiter were a distinctive and elite group within the
Nazi Party proper and as such were vested with special prerogatives.
They were organized according to the Leadership Principle and were
charged with planning, developing and imposing upon their followers the
policies of the Nazi Party. Thus the territorial leaders among them were
called Hoheitsträger, or bearers of sovereignty, and were entitled to
call upon and utilize the various Party formations when necessary for
the execution of Party policies.
Reference is hereby made to the allegations in Count One of the
Indictment showing that the Nazi Party was the central core of the
common plan or conspiracy therein set forth. The Politischen Leiter, as
a major power within the Nazi Party proper, and functioning in the
capacities above described and in association as a group, joined in the
common plan or conspiracy, and accordingly share responsibility for the
crimes set forth in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
The prosecution expressly reserves the right to request, at any time
before sentence is pronounced, that Politische Leiter of subordinate
grades or ranks or of other types or classes, to be specified by the
Prosecution, be excepted from further proceedings in this Case No. 1,
but without prejudice to other proceedings or actions against them.
DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN
DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE SS) INCLUDING DER SICHERHEITSDIENST (COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE SD)
“Die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
(commonly known as the SS) including Der Sicherheitsdienst (commonly
known as the SD)” referred to in the Indictment consists of the entire
corps of the SS and all offices, departments, services, agencies,
branches, formations, organizations, and groups of which it was at any
time comprised or which were at any time integrated in it, including but
not limited to, the Allgemeine SS, the Waffen SS, the SS Totenkopf
Verbände, SS Polizei Regimente, and the Sicherheitsdienst des
Reichsführers-SS (commonly known as the SD).
The SS, originally established by Hitler in 1925 as an elite section of
the SA to furnish a protective guard for the Führer and Nazi Party
leaders, became an independent formation of the Nazi Party in 1934 under
the leadership of the Reichsführer-SS, Heinrich Himmler. It was composed
of voluntary members, selected in accordance with Nazi biological,
racial, and political theories, completely indoctrinated in Nazi
ideology and pledged to uncompromising obedience to the Führer. After
the accession of the Nazi conspirators to power, it developed many
departments, agencies, formations, and branches and extended its
influence and control over numerous fields of Governmental and Party
activity. Through Heinrich Himmler, as Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the
German Police, agencies and units of the SS and of the Reich were joined
in operation to form a unified repressive police force. The
Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS (commonly known as the SD), a
department of the SS, was developed into a vast espionage and
counter-intelligence system which operated in conjunction with the
Gestapo and criminal police in detecting, suppressing and eliminating
tendencies, groups and individuals deemed hostile or potentially hostile
to the Nazi Party, its leaders, principles and objectives, and
eventually was combined with the Gestapo and criminal police in a single
security police department, the Reich Main Security Office.
Other branches of the SS developed into an armed force and served in the
wars of aggression referred to in Counts One and Two of the Indictment.
Through other departments and branches the SS controlled the
administration of concentration camps and the execution of Nazi racial,
biological, and resettlement policies. Through its numerous functions
and activities it served as the instrument for insuring the domination
of Nazi ideology and protecting and extending the Nazi regime over
Germany and occupied territories. It thus participated in and is
responsible for the crimes referred to in Counts One, Two, Three, and
Four of the Indictment.
DIE GEHEIME STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE GESTAPO)
“Die Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, commonly known as the
Gestapo)” referred to in the Indictment consists of the headquarters,
departments, offices, branches, and all the forces and personnel of the
Geheime Staatspolizei organized or existing at any time after 30 January
1933, including the Geheime Staatspolizei of Prussia and equivalent
secret or political police forces of the Reich and the components
thereof.
The Gestapo was created by the Nazi conspirators immediately after their
accession to power, first in Prussia by the Defendant GÖRING and shortly
thereafter in all other states in the Reich. These separate secret and
political police forces were developed into a centralized, uniform
organization operating through a central headquarters and through a
network of regional offices in Germany and in occupied territories. Its
officials and operatives were selected on the basis of unconditional
acceptance of Nazi ideology, were largely drawn from members of the SS,
and were trained in SS and SD schools. It acted to suppress and
eliminate tendencies, groups, and individuals deemed hostile or
potentially hostile to the Nazi Party, its leaders, principles, and
objectives, and to repress resistance and potential resistance to German
control in occupied territories. In performing these functions it
operated free from legal control, taking any measures it deemed
necessary for the accomplishment of its missions.
Through its purposes, activities, and the means it used, it participated
in and is responsible for the commission of the crimes set forth in
Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN
DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI
(COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SA)
“Die Sturmabteilungen der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SA)” referred to in the Indictment
was a formation of the Nazi Party under the immediate jurisdiction of
the Führer, organized on military lines, whose membership was composed
of volunteers serving as political soldiers of the Party. It was one of
the earliest formations of the Nazi Party and the original guardian of
the National Socialist movement. Founded in 1921 as a voluntary militant
formation, it was developed by the Nazi conspirators before their
accession to power into a vast private army and utilized for the purpose
of creating disorder, and terrorizing and eliminating political
opponents. It continued to serve as an instrument for the physical,
ideological, and military training of Party members and as a reserve for
the German Armed Forces. After the launching of the wars of aggression,
referred to in Counts One and Two of the Indictment, the SA not only
operated as an organization for military training but provided auxiliary
police and security forces in occupied territories, guarded
prisoner-of-war camps and concentration camps and supervised and
controlled persons forced to labor in Germany and occupied territories.
Through its purposes and activities and the means it used, it
participated in and is responsible for the commission of the crimes set
forth in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
GENERAL STAFF AND HIGH COMMAND OF THE GERMAN
ARMED FORCES
The “General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces” referred
to in the Indictment consist of those individuals who between February
1938 and May 1945 were the highest commanders of the Wehrmacht, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Forces. The individuals comprising this
group are the persons who held the following appointments:
Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine (Commander in Chief of the Navy);
Chef (and, formerly, Chef des Stabes) der Seekriegsleitung (Chief of
Naval War Staff);
Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (Commander in Chief of the Army);
Chef des Generalstabes des Heeres (Chief of the General Staff of the
Army);
Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe (Commander in Chief of the Air Force);
Chef des Generalstabes der Luftwaffe (Chief of the General Staff of
the Air Force);
Chef des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief of the High Command of the
Armed Forces);
Chef des Führungsstabes des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief of the
Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces);
Stellvertretender Chef des Führungsstabes des Oberkommandos der
Wehrmacht (Deputy Chief of the Operations Staff of the High Command
of the Armed Forces);
Commanders-in-Chief in the field, with the status of Oberbefehlshaber,
of the Wehrmacht, Navy, Army, Air Force.
Functioning in such capacities and in association as a group at a
highest level in the German Armed Forces Organization, these persons had
a major responsibility for the planning, preparation, initiation, and
waging of illegal wars as set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment and for the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity involved
in the execution of the common plan or conspiracy set forth in Counts
Three and Four of the Indictment.
APPENDIX C
_Charges and Particulars of Violations of International Treaties,
Agreements, and Assurances Caused by the Defendants in the Course of
Planning, Preparing, and Initiating the Wars_
I
CHARGE: _Violation of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes, signed at The Hague, 29 July 1899._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, by force and arms, on the dates
specified in Column 1, invade the territory of the Sovereigns specified
in Column 2, respectively, without first having attempted to settle its
disputes with said Sovereigns by pacific means.
_Column 1_ _Column 2_
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Greece
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Yugoslavia
II
CHARGE: _Violation of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes, signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in
Column 1, by force of arms invade the territory of the Sovereigns
specified in Column 2, respectively, without having first attempted to
settle its dispute with said Sovereigns by pacific means.
_Column 1_ _Column 2_
1 September 1939 Republic of Poland
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics
III
CHARGE: _Violation of Hague Convention III Relative to the Opening of
Hostilities, Signed 18 October 1907._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in
Column 1, commence hostilities against the Countries specified in Column
2, respectively, without previous warning in the form of a reasoned
declaration of war or an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
_Column 1_ _Column 2_
1 September 1939 Republic of Poland
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
10 May 1940 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics
IV
CHARGE: _Violation of Hague Convention V Respecting the Rights and
Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, signed 18
October 1907._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in
Column 1, by force and arms of its military forces, cross into, invade,
and occupy the territories of the Sovereigns specified in Column 2,
respectively, then and thereby violating the neutrality of said
Sovereigns.
_Column 1_ _Column 2_
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics
V
CHARGE: _Violation of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and
Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, 28 June 1919, known
as the Versailles Treaty._
PARTICULARS: (1) In that Germany did, on and after 7 March 1936,
maintain and assemble armed forces and maintain and construct military
fortifications in the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland in violation
of the provisions of Articles 42 to 44 of the Treaty of Versailles.
(2) In that Germany did, on or about 13 March 1938, annex Austria into
the German Reich in violation of the provisions of Article 80 of the
Treaty of Versailles.
(3) In that Germany did, on or about 22 March 1939, incorporate the
district of Memel into the German Reich in violation of the provisions
of Article 99 of the Treaty of Versailles.
(4) In that Germany did, on or about 1 September 1939, incorporate the
Free City of Danzig into the German Reich in violation of the provisions
of Article 100 of the Treaty of Versailles.
(5) In that Germany did, on or about 16 March 1939, incorporate the
Provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, formerly part of Czechoslovakia, into
the German Reich in violation of the provisions of Article 81 of the
Treaty of Versailles.
(6) In that Germany did, at various times in March 1935 and thereafter,
repudiate various parts of Part V, Military, Naval, and Air Clauses of
the Treaty of Versailles, by creating an air force, by use of compulsory
military service, by increasing the size of the army beyond treaty
limits, and by increasing the size of the navy beyond treaty limits.
VI
CHARGE: _Violation of the Treaty between the United States and Germany
Restoring Friendly Relations, signed at Berlin, 25 August 1921._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, at various times in March 1935 and
thereafter, repudiate various parts of Part V, Military, Naval, and Air
Clauses of the Treaty between the United States and Germany Restoring
Friendly Relations by creating an air force, by use of compulsory
military service, by increasing the size of the army beyond treaty
limits, and by increasing the size of the navy beyond treaty limits.
VII
CHARGE: _Violation of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany,
Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy, done at Locarno, 16 October
1925._
PARTICULARS: (1) In that Germany did, on or about 7 March 1936,
unlawfully send armed forces into the Rhineland demilitarized zone of
Germany, in violation of Article 1 of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.
(2) In that Germany did, in or about March 1936, and thereafter,
unlawfully maintain armed forces in the Rhineland demilitarized zone of
Germany, in violation of Article 1 of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.
(3) In that Germany did, on or about 7 March 1936, and thereafter,
unlawfully construct and maintain fortifications in the Rhineland
demilitarized zone of Germany, in violation of Article 1 of the Treaty
of Mutual Guarantee.
(4) In that Germany did, on or about 10 May 1940, unlawfully attack and
invade Belgium, in violation of Article 2 of the Treaty of Mutual
Guarantee.
(5) In that Germany did, on or about 10 May 1940, unlawfully attack and
invade Belgium, without first having attempted to settle its dispute
with Belgium by peaceful means, in violation of Article 3 of the Treaty
of Mutual Guarantee.
VIII
CHARGE: _Violation of the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and
Czechoslovakia, done at Locarno, 16 October 1925._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about 15 March 1939, unlawfully
by duress and threats of military might force Czechoslovakia to deliver
the destiny of Czechoslovakia and its inhabitants into the hands of the
Führer and Reichschancellor of Germany without having attempted to
settle its dispute with Czechoslovakia by peaceful means.
IX
CHARGE: _Violation of the Arbitration Convention between Germany and
Belgium, done at Locarno, 16 October 1925._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about 10 May 1940, unlawfully
attack and invade Belgium without first having attempted to settle its
dispute with Belgium by peaceful means.
X
CHARGE: _Violation of the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland,
done at Locarno, 16 October 1925._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about 1 September 1939,
unlawfully attack and invade Poland without first having attempted to
settle its dispute with Poland by peaceful means.
XI
CHARGE: _Violation of Convention of Arbitration and Conciliation entered
into between Germany and the Netherlands on 20 May 1926._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning, and notwithstanding its
solemn covenant to settle by peaceful means all disputes of any nature
whatever which might arise between it and the Netherlands which were not
capable of settlement by diplomacy and which had not been referred by
mutual agreement to the Permanent Court of International Justice, did,
on or about 10 May 1940, with a military force, attack, invade, and
occupy the Netherlands, thereby violating its neutrality and territorial
integrity and destroying its sovereign independence.
XII
CHARGE: _Violation of Convention of Arbitration and Conciliation entered
into between Germany and Denmark on 2 June 1926._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning, and notwithstanding its
solemn covenant to settle by peaceful means all disputes of any nature
whatever which might arise between it and Denmark which were not capable
of settlement by diplomacy and which had not been referred by mutual
agreement to the Permanent Court of International Justice, did, on or
about 9 April 1940, with a military force, attack, invade, and occupy
Denmark, thereby violating its neutrality and territorial integrity and
destroying its sovereign independence.
XIII
CHARGE: _Violation of Treaty between Germany and other Powers providing
for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, signed at
Paris 27 August 1928, known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in
Column 1, with a military force, attack the Sovereigns specified in
Column 2, respectively, and resort to war against such Sovereigns, in
violation of its solemn declaration condemning recourse to war for the
solution of international controversies, its solemn renunciation of war
as an instrument of national policy in its relations with such
Sovereigns, and its solemn covenant that settlement or solution of all
disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or origin arising between it
and such Sovereigns should never be sought except by pacific means.
_Column 1_ _Column 2_
1 September 1939 Republic of Poland
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Greece
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Yugoslavia
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics
11 December 1941 United States of America
XIV
CHARGE: _Violation of Treaty of Arbitration and Conciliation entered
into between Germany and Luxembourg on 11 September 1929._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning, and notwithstanding its
solemn covenant to settle by peaceful means all disputes which might
arise between it and Luxembourg which were not capable of settlement by
diplomacy, did, on or about 10 May 1940, with a military force, attack,
invade, and occupy Luxembourg, thereby violating its neutrality and
territorial integrity and destroying its sovereign independence.
XV
CHARGE: _Violation of the Declaration of Non-Aggression entered into
between Germany and Poland on 26 January 1934._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany proceeding to the application of force for
the purpose of reaching a decision did, on or about 1 September 1939, at
various places along the German-Polish frontier employ military forces
to attack, invade, and commit other acts of aggression against Poland.
XVI
CHARGE: _Violation of German Assurance given on 21 May 1935 that the
Inviolability and Integrity of the Federal State of Austria Would Be
Recognized._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany did, on or about 11 March 1938, at various
points and places along the German-Austria frontier, with a military
force and in violation of its solemn declaration and assurance, invade
and annex to Germany the territory of the Federal State of Austria.
XVII
CHARGE: _Violation of Austro-German Agreement of 11 July 1936._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany during the period from 12 February 1938 to
13 March 1938 did by duress and various aggressive acts, including the
use of military force, cause the Federal State of Austria to yield up
its sovereignty to the German State in violation of Germany’s agreement
to recognize the full sovereignty of the Federal State of Austria.
XVIII
CHARGE: _Violation of German Assurances given on 30 January 1937, 28
April 1939, 26 August 1939, and 6 October 1939 To Respect the Neutrality
and Territorial Inviolability of the Netherlands._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning, and without recourse to
peaceful means of settling any considered differences did, on or about
10 May 1940, with a military force and in violation of its solemn
assurances, invade, occupy, and attempt to subjugate the sovereign
territory of the Netherlands.
XIX
CHARGE: _Violation of German Assurances given on 30 January 1937, 13
October 1937, 28 April 1939, 26 August 1939, and 6 October 1939 To
Respect the Neutrality and Territorial Integrity and Inviolability of
Belgium._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning, did on or about 10 May
1940, with a military force and in violation of its solemn assurances
and declarations, attack, invade, and occupy the sovereign territory of
Belgium.
XX
CHARGE: _Violation of Assurances given on 11 March 1938 and 26 September
1938 to Czechoslovakia._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, on or about 15 March 1939 did, by
establishing a Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia under duress and by
the threat of force, violate the assurance given on 11 March 1938 to
respect the territorial integrity of the Czechoslovak Republic and the
assurance given on 26 September 1938 that, if the so-called Sudeten
territories were ceded to Germany, no further German territorial claims
on Czechoslovakia would be made.
XXI
CHARGE: _Violation of the Munich Agreement and Annexes of 29 September
1938._
PARTICULARS: (1) In that Germany on or about 15 March 1939, did by
duress and the threat of military intervention force the Republic of
Czechoslovakia to deliver the destiny of the Czech people and country
into the hands of the Führer of the German Reich.
(2) In that Germany refused and failed to join in an international
guarantee of the new boundaries of the Czechoslovakia state as provided
for in Annex No. 1 to the Munich Agreement.
XXII
CHARGE: _Violation of the Solemn Assurances of Germany given on 3
September 1939, 28 April 1939, and 6 October 1939 Not To Violate the
Independence or Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Norway._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning did, on or about 9 April
1940, with its military and naval forces attack, invade, and commit
other acts of aggression against the Kingdom of Norway.
XXIII
CHARGE: _Violation of German Assurances given on 28 April 1939 and 26
August 1939 To Respect the Neutrality and Territorial Inviolability of
Luxembourg._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany, without warning, and without recourse to
peaceful means of settling any considered differences, did, on or about
10 May 1940, with a military force and in violation of the solemn
assurances, invade, occupy, and absorb into Germany the sovereign
territory of Luxembourg.
XXIV
CHARGE: _Violation of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and
Denmark, signed at Berlin, 31 May 1939._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany without prior warning, did, on or about 9
April 1940, with its military forces, attack, invade, and commit other
acts of aggression against the Kingdom of Denmark.
XXV
CHARGE: _Violation of Treaty of Non-Aggression entered into between
Germany and U.S.S.R. on 23 August 1939._
PARTICULARS: (1) In that Germany did, on or about 22 June 1941, employ
military forces to attack and commit acts of aggression against the
U.S.S.R.
(2) In that Germany without warning or recourse to a friendly exchange
of views or arbitration did, on or about 22 June 1941, employ military
forces to attack and commit acts of aggression against the U.S.S.R.
XXVI
CHARGE: _Violation of German Assurance given on 6 October 1939 To
Respect the Neutrality and Territorial Integrity of Yugoslavia._
PARTICULARS: In that Germany without prior warning did, on or about 6
April 1941, with its military forces attack, invade, and commit other
acts of aggression against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
MOTION OF THE PROSECUTION
FOR CORRECTING DISCREPANCIES
IN THE INDICTMENT[14]
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
_Motion as to Amendment of the Indictment_
To The Honorable Tribunal:
WHEREAS
(1) Certain discrepancies (as set out in the attached schedule) have
been discovered in the Indictment, as between the English, French,
Russian, and German texts thereof;
(2) The Indictment was lodged with the Tribunal in English, French, and
Russian, each text having equal authenticity,
(3) The Indictment was served on the defendants in the German language
only;
The Prosecution respectfully submits the following MOTION:
That the Tribunal direct that the discrepancies in the Indictment
specified in the attached schedule be rectified as between the
respective texts of the Indictment by making the English, French, and
Russian texts conform to the German text in each of the specified cases
so far as the sense of the context permits.
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
For the Government of the United States of
America.
/s/ CHAMPETIER DE RIBES
Per CH. DUBOST
For the Provisional Government of France.
/s/ DAVID MAXWELL FYFE
For the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
/s/ R. RUDENKO
For the Government of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
4th June, 1946.
-----
[14] This motion, was accepted by the Court at a meeting of the
International Military Tribunal, 7 June 1946.
PLEAS OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
All individual defendants, with the exception of MARTIN BORMANN who
could not be located, in effect pleaded not guilty to the Indictment.
The plea of ERNST KALTENBRUNNER was entered 10 December 1945; the pleas
of the other defendants, 21 November 1945.
LETTER OF RESERVATION
BY THE UNITED STATES PROSECUTOR
IN REGARD TO WORDING OF THE INDICTMENT
6 October 1945
M. François de Menthon,
Sir Hartley Shawcross,
General R. A. Rudenko.
Dear Sirs:
In the Indictment of German War Criminals signed today, reference is
made to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and certain other territories as
being within the area of the U.S.S.R. This language is proposed by
Russia and is accepted to avoid the delay which would be occasioned by
insistence on an alteration in the text. The Indictment is signed
subject to this reservation and understanding:
I have no authority either to admit or to challenge on behalf of the
United States of America, Soviet claims to sovereignty over such
territories. Nothing, therefore, in this Indictment is to be construed
as a recognition by the United States of such sovereignty or as
indicating any attitude, either on the part of the United States or on
the part of the undersigned, toward any claim to recognition of such
sovereignty.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON,
Chief of Counsel for the United
States.
To the Clerk or Recording Officer,
International Military Tribunal:
The representative of the United States has found it necessary to make
certain reservations as to the possible bearing of certain language in
the Indictment upon political questions which are considered to be
irrelevant to the proceedings before this Tribunal. However, it is
considered appropriate to disclose such reservations that they may not
be unknown to the Tribunal in the event they should at any time be
considered relevant. For that purpose, the foregoing copy is filed.
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
REGARDING NOTICE
TO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The International Military Tribunal for the trial of the major war
criminals having been duly constituted and an indictment having been
lodged with the Tribunal by the Chief Prosecutors, in order to make fair
provision for notice to defendants:
IT IS ORDERED that each individual defendant in custody shall receive,
not less than 30 days before trial, a copy, translated into a language
which he understands, of the documents set out in paragraph (a) of Rule
2 of the Rules of the Tribunal, in accordance with the terms of that
paragraph.
Form of Notice to Individual Defendants
To the Defendants above named:
You and each of you is hereby notified that an indictment has been filed
against you in the International Military Tribunal. A copy of this
indictment and of the Charter constituting the International Military
Tribunal are attached hereto. Your trial will take place at the Palace
of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany, not less than 30 days from the service
of the indictment upon you. The exact date will be made known to you
later. Your attention is specifically directed to your right to counsel
under Article 23 and Article 16 of the Charter and Rule 2 (d) of the
Tribunal, a copy of which and a list of counsel are attached hereto for
your information.
An officer has been designated by the Tribunal to deliver this Notice
and accompanying documents to you and to confer with you with respect to
the employment and designation of counsel.
For the International Military Tribunal
(no signature)
General Secretary
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
REGARDING NOTICE TO MEMBERS
OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
WHEREAS an indictment has been lodged with this Tribunal against the
above named defendants:
AND WHEREAS such indictment shows that the Chief Prosecutors intend to
ask this Tribunal:
(1) to find that certain of the defendants were members of DIE
REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER POLITISCHEN LEITER DER
NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (LEADERSHIP CORPS OF
THE NAZI PARTY); DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN
DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”), and including DER
SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the “GESTAPO”);
DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER NSDAP (commonly known as the “SA”); and the
GENERAL STAFF and the HIGH COMMAND of the GERMAN ARMED FORCES, and
(2) to declare that said groups and organizations were criminal
organizations
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that notice shall be given to the members of such
groups and organizations in the following form and manner:
(a) _Form of Notice_
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP, ROBERT LEY,
WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK,
WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV
KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL DÖNITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR VON
SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ VON PAPEN,
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH, and HANS
FRITZSCHE, Individually and as Members of Any of the Following Groups or
Organizations to Which They Respectively Belong, Namely: DIE
REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER POLITISCHEN LEITER DER
NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (LEADERSHIP CORPS OF
THE NAZI PARTY); DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN
DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”) and including DER
SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the “GESTAPO”);
DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER NSDAP (commonly known as the “SA”); and the
GENERAL STAFF and HIGH COMMAND of the GERMAN ARMED FORCES,
Defendants.
Notice is hereby given to all members of the following groups and
organizations:
1. Die Reichsregierung, consisting of persons who were:
a) Members of the ordinary cabinet after 30 January 1933. The term
“ordinary cabinet” as used herein means the Reich Ministers; i.
e., heads of departments of the central government; Reich
Ministers without portfolio; State ministers acting as Reich
Ministers; and other officials entitled to take part in meetings
of this cabinet.
b) Members of Der Ministerrat für die Reichsverteidigung.
c) Members of Der Geheime Kabinettsrat.
2. Das Korps der Politischen Leiter der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei, consisting of persons who were at any time, according
to common Nazi terminology, Politische Leiter of any grade or rank.
3. Die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SS) and consisting of the entire
corps of the SS and all offices, departments, services, agencies,
branches, formations, organizations and groups of which it was at any
time comprised or which at any time integrated in it, including but
not limited to, the Allgemeine SS, the Waffen SS, the SS Totenkopf
Verbände, SS Polizei Regimenter and the Sicherheitsdienst des
Reichsführers-SS (commonly known as the SD).
4. Die Geheime Staatspolizei (commonly known as the Gestapo) consisting
of the headquarters, departments, offices, branches, and all the
forces and personnel of the Geheime Staatspolizei of Prussia and
equivalent secret or political police forces of the Reich and the
components thereof.
5. Die Sturmabteilungen der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SA).
6. The General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces,
consisting of those individuals who between February 1938 and May 1945
were the highest commanders of the Wehrmacht, the Army, the Navy, and
the Air Forces. The individuals comprising this group are the persons
who held the following appointments:
Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine (Commander-in-Chief of the Navy)
Chef (and, formerly, Chef des Stabes) der Seekriegsleitung (Chief of
Naval War Staff)
Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (Commander-in-Chief of the Army)
Chef des Generalstabes der Luftwaffe (Chief of the General Staff of the
Air Force)
Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe (Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force)
Chef des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief of the High Command of the
Armed Forces)
Chef des Führungsstabes des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief of the
Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces)
Commanders-in-Chief in the field, with the status of Oberbefehlshaber of
the Wehrmacht; Navy, Army, Air Force.
THAT such groups and organizations are accused by the Chief Prosecutors
for the prosecution of major war criminals of being criminal
organizations and this Tribunal has been asked by the Chief Prosecutors
to declare said groups and organizations criminal.
THAT if any of such groups and organizations are found by this Tribunal
to have been criminal in character members will be subject to trial and
punishment on account of their membership in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter of this Tribunal and upon any such trial the
criminal character of the group or organization shall be considered
proved and shall not be questioned.
THAT the issue of the criminal character of these groups and
organizations will be tried commencing the 20th day of November 1945 at
the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany.
THAT any person who acknowledges membership in any of the said groups or
organizations may be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be
heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the
group or organization. Such application shall be made without delay, in
writing, and addressed to the General Secretary, International Military
Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany.
THAT in the case of members of any of the said groups or organizations
who
(i) may be in the custody of the prosecuting powers, such applications
shall be handed to the Commanding Officer of the place where the
said members are detained;
(ii) may not be in custody, such applications shall be handed to the
nearest military unit.
THAT the Tribunal has power to allow or reject any such application. If
the application is allowed, the Tribunal will direct in what manner the
applicant shall be represented and heard.
THAT nothing contained in this notice shall be construed to confer
immunity of any kind upon such applicants.
For the International Military Tribunal
(no signature)
General Secretary
(b) _Manner of Notice_
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
THAT publication in the German language be made throughout the zones of
occupation in Germany over the radio, in newspapers and, if practicable,
by the form of postings ordinarily employed by the military authorities
in conveying information to the civilian population. Such radio and
newspaper publications shall be made once a week for four weeks and over
a sufficient number of radio stations, in a sufficient number of
newspapers or by posting in a sufficient number of places to give the
widest possible dissemination throughout the occupied territory of the
notice set forth in paragraph (a) above.
THAT publication in the German language be made wherever practicable in
the prisoner of war camps in which Germans are imprisoned, in such
manner as the officers commanding such camps may decide.
The appropriate occupation authorities are requested to cooperate with
the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal in making
this publication and the General Secretary shall make written report to
the Tribunal of the action taken.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
REGARDING NOTICE TO DEFENDANT BORMANN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The International Military Tribunal having been duly constituted and an
indictment having been lodged with the Tribunal by the Chief Prosecutors
AND one of the defendants, Martin Bormann, not having been found
IT IS ORDERED that notice be given said Martin Bormann in the following
form and manner:
(a) _Form of Notice_
Take Notice:
Martin Bormann is charged with having committed Crimes against Peace,
War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity all as particularly set forth in
an indictment which has been lodged with this Tribunal.
The indictment is available at the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg,
Germany.
If Martin Bormann appears, he is entitled to be heard in person or by
counsel.
If he fails to appear, he may be tried in his absence, commencing
November 20, 1945 at the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany, and if
found guilty the sentence pronounced upon him will, without further
hearing, and subject to the orders of the Control Council for Germany,
be executed whenever he is found.
By order of
The International Military Tribunal
(no signature)
General Secretary
(b) _Manner of Notice_
This notice shall be read in full once a week for four weeks over the
radio, the first reading to be during the week of October 22, 1945. It
shall also be published in four separate issues of a newspaper
circulated in the home city of Martin Bormann.
The Orders and Forms of Notice above set forth have been adopted by the
International Military Tribunal.
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President
October 18, 1945
Attest: /s/ HAROLD B. WILLEY
General Secretary
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE
WITH ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL
REGARDING NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF GROUPS
AND ORGANIZATIONS AND TO DEFENDANT
BORMANN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
_Declaration_
I, Richard William Hurlstone Hortin, a Major in H. M. Army serving with
the Control Commission for Germany (British Element) at Berlin, solemnly
and sincerely declare as follows—
1. I make this Declaration in my capacity of Berlin Secretary of the
International Military Tribunal.
2. Pursuant to the order of the International Military Tribunal as to
publication of Notice No. 1 as to Nazi Organisations, I served a copy of
the said notice on each of the four Allied Secretariats; at the same
time I served on the four Allied Secretariats a copy of the said order
and a copy of the order of the International Military Tribunal as to
Martin Bormann. Service was effected by delivery by me personally of the
said notice and orders to duly authorised persons of the said Allied
Secretariats.
The order as to Martin Bormann states that publication must be made in
four separate issues of a newspaper circulated in the home city of
Martin Bormann. After full enquiries I ascertained that the last known
place of residence of Martin Bormann was Berlin. A former place of
residence was Mecklenburg. It was also believed that the birthplace was
Halberstadt. I gave these details to the Soviet Secretariat. I also
arranged for publication in Berlin newspapers and on the radio.
Newspaper circulation in the Russian Zone normally extends to both
Halberstadt and Mecklenburg.
3. As a result of careful enquiries I ascertained that a reasonable
number of notices for the whole of the four Zones would be 200,000 and,
in consultation with the Legal Division of the Office of the Military
Government for Germany (United States) and with the French and Soviet
Allied Secretariats, I arranged for the printing of this number of
notices. At the same time I arranged for the printing of a similar
number of notices to Martin Bormann. These two notices were both printed
on the same sheet of paper and a copy is annexed hereto and marked
“Exhibit I”.
9,000 of these notices were distributed by me to the appropriate
officers in the French, Soviet, British and American Sectors, namely
2,500 each for the American and Soviet Sectors and 2,000 each for the
French and British Sectors. I am informed, and verily believe, that
these notices were posted and exhibited in public places before midnight
of the 27th October, 1945. 1,000 copies were retained by me as a reserve
to be handed to Military authorities in the four Zones for reading and
posting in P.O.W. Camps.
4. As to the remaining 190,000 of the said notices, 50,000 were handed
personally by me to the Bureau of Information of the Soviet Military
Administration in Germany. I arranged for the delivery of 50,000 to the
Public Relations Branch of Control Commission for Germany (British
Element) at Lübeck, Germany. I have made full and continuous enquiries
and I am informed and verily believe that these notices were immediately
distributed throughout the British Zone and through the channels which
ensure the widest possible distribution.
I am informed by the Legal Division of the Office of Military Government
for Germany (United States) that as previously arranged with me, they
delivered 40,000 copies to the French Authorities at Baden-Baden. I am
also informed by them and verily believe that the remaining 50,000
notices were handed by them to the appropriate United States Authorities
for distribution through their Zone.
5. During the period October 20th to November 17th 1945 there have been
four weekly publications in each of the four Zones of Germany of the
said two notices in newspapers and over radio stations. The American,
Soviet and British newspapers in Berlin have also carried the notices.
Furthermore, in pursuance of the order of the International Military
Tribunal, the said notices were handed to the appropriate Military
Authorities of each of the four Zones for reading in Prisoner-of-War
Camps and for such other form of publication as local Commanders might
think proper within their own discretion.
6. Exhibits II, III and IV which are attached hereto, and marked by me,
are certificates by the appropriate American, French and Soviet
Authorities that the requirements of the said two orders of the
International Military Tribunal have been fulfilled.
As to the British Zone, I have ascertained by enquiries from the said
Public Relations Branch of the Control Commission for Germany (British
Element) that the two notices have been widely distributed and
publicised through the channels most appropriate for the purpose as
stated in paragraph 4 of this my declaration. Furthermore I have
similarly ascertained that appropriate action has been taken by British
Military Authorities for reading and posting in Prisoner-of-War Camps
wherever practicable.
“Exhibit V” attached hereto and marked by me is a certificate as to
publication of the two notices in newspapers and on the radio in Berlin
and in the British Zone of occupation.
7. I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to
be true, and I declare that the information which I give therein has
been obtained by me through official sources and from those persons
whose duty it is to give such official information.
/s/ R. W. H. HORTIN
Major
Declared by the above-named Richard William Hurlstone Hortin This 17th
day of November 1945 In my presence:
/s/ R. O. WILBERFORCE
Brigadier,
Deputy Chief,
Legal Division,
C. C. G. (B. E.).
Exhibit II. Dissemination in the American Zone
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
_Certificate_
I hereby certify that at the request of the above entitled tribunal,
through Harold B. Willey, General Secretary, I have performed the
following services in connection with publication, broadcast and posting
of notices in the above entitled cause under order of the above entitled
tribunal issued at Nuremberg, Germany, on or about 18 October 1945:
1. In cooperation with Major R. W. H. Hortin, Legal Division, Advance
Headquarters, Control Commission for Germany (British Element), Berlin,
on or about 23 October 1945, I arranged for the initial printing of
10,000 copies of the attached notice by the Ullstein Press, Berlin
(Exhibit “I”). On 26 October 1945 I personally took delivery of 2,500 of
the said notices and delivered them to Major E. K. Neumann, Chief Public
Safety Officer, U. S. Headquarters, Berlin District, for posting in the
U.S. Zone of Berlin. Major Neumann’s indorsement to basic letter dated
27 October 1945 is attached as Exhibit “II A”. From my personal
knowledge the posters were posted throughout the U.S. Zone, Berlin, as
stated by Major Neumann. The remaining 7,500 posters of the original
10,000 were delivered to Major Hortin for posting in the British,
Soviet, and French sectors of Berlin. To my personal knowledge they were
so posted.
2. On or about 26 October 1945 I arranged for the publication of 190,000
additional posters. Ninety thousand of these were personally delivered
to me on 31 October 1945, and by me shipped to the Office of Military
Government, U.S. Zone, Frankfurt, Germany, for posting in the U.S. Zone
and the delivery of 40,000 to Headquarters, French Military Government
at Baden-Baden, Germany, for posting in the French Zone. A copy of the
cable of instruction sent to Headquarters, Office of Military
Government, U.S. Zone, is attached and marked Exhibit “II B”.
3. To my personal knowledge the Office of Information Control Service,
Office of Military Government for Germany (U.S.), (Lt. Col. R. K. Fried,
Executive Officer), relayed the attached notice to all German language
newspapers and radio stations operating in the U.S. Zone with
instructions to print and broadcast same as directed in the Tribunal’s
order. A further certificate of compliance with this provision of the
Tribunal’s order will be made by the Office of Information Control upon
expiration of the fourth week on 17 November 1945.
Dated at Berlin, Germany, this 15th day of November 1945.
/s/ ALEXANDER G. BROWN, 0-912504,
Lt. Colonel, AUS-AC,
Legal Division, Office of Military
Government for Germany (U.S.)
/s/ R. W. H. HORTIN
Major
Exhibit II A. Dissemination in the American Zone
OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (U.S.)
Legal Division
APO 742
27 October 1945
SUBJECT : Posting of International Military Tribunal Posters.
TO : Public Safety Division, U.S. Headquarters, Berlin District
(Major Neumann).
1. It is requested that necessary action be taken to post 2,500 copies
of the two orders of the International Military Tribunal in the case of
Hermann Wilhelm Göring et al. in the U.S. Sector of Berlin on or before
1800 hours, 27 October 1945.
2. The Legal Division, Office of Military Government for Germany (U.S.)
requests that a report be made at your earliest convenience advising as
to the posting as requested in par. 1.
3. This request is in confirmation of arrangements previously made by
Major Neumann and Lt. Col. Alexander G. Brown (76 X6110), this
headquarters.
/s/ Charles Fahy
Director
1st Ind.
U.S.Hq.B.D. & Hq. F.A.A., OMG, P.S., APO 755, U.S. Army, 31 Oct 45.
TO: Legal Division, OMGGUS, APO 742.
1. Pursuant to request 2,500 copies of the two orders of the
International Military Tribunal in the case of Hermann Wilhelm Göring et
al. were posted in the U.S. Sector of Berlin before 1800 hrs, 27 October
1945.
2. Said orders were on said date and before said hour posted upon
bulletin boards and in other conspicuous places, to the approximate
number of 435, in each of the six VBKs, namely Steglitz, Zehlendorf,
Kreuzberg, Tempelhof, Schöneberg, Neukölln, which constitute the U.S.
Sector of Berlin.
/s/ E. K. NEUMANN
Major, A. C.
Chief Public Safety Officer
Exhibit II B. Dissemination in the American Zone
HQ. U.S. GROUP C.C.
A.G. CABLES
OUTGOING MESSAGE
_UNCLASSIFIED_
_PRIORITY_
TO : LEGAL BRANCH, OMGGUS ZONE
FROM : OMGGUS FROM FAHY SIGNED CLAY
INFO : INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NUREMBERG
REF NO : CC-18221 TOO: 291200 B Oct 45 em
Legal Division, OMGGUS, at request of the International Military
Tribunal, Nuremberg, has arranged for the printing of 100,000 copies of
official notice to defendants. Shipment of approximately this number by
air priority will be made to OMGGUS Zone as soon as they are printed,
probably Thursday. It is desired that one-half of the shipment be
relayed by OMGGUS Zone, to Headquarters, French Military Government,
Baden-Baden. Court has directed that the notices be posted on official
bulletin boards throughout US Zone and read and posted in all prisoner
of war camps. Similar distribution has been ordered in other zones in
Germany. Request Legal Branch, OMGGUS Zone, take necessary action to
insure immediate relay of posters to the French and immediate
distribution to military detachments throughout US Zone with instruction
that they shall be posted within 24 hours of receipt. Distribution by
OMGGUS Zone, to include Bremen Enclave, but not Berlin District.
Distribution in Berlin District made direct by Legal Division, OMGGUS.
Request that regional military government detachments report through
Legal Branch, OMGGUS Zone, to Harold B. Willey, General Secretary,
International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, upon compliance with posting
of notices as directed, and that a copy of such report be forwarded to
Legal Division, OMGGUS.
ORIGINATOR: Legal AUTH: F. H. GORDON
Major
INFORMATION: O/SS, Pub. Relations, AG Records.
CC 18221 30 Oct 45 JAK/tb 0444B
_UNCLASSIFIED_
Exhibit II C. Dissemination in the American Zone
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
_Certificate_
I hereby certify that acting on instruction from Lieut. Colonel Raymond
K. Fried I have performed the following services or have been informed
of the following facts in connection with the publication and broadcast
of notices in the above entitled cause under order of the above titled
tribunal issued at Nuremberg, Germany, on or about 18 October, 1945:
1. I caused to be transmitted to the DANA news service in Bad Nauheim
copies of the attached notices to Martin Bormann and to members of
certain organizations (Exhibit I) with instructions that these notices
were to be published in German language newspapers in the United States
Zone of Germany and the United States Sector of Berlin, and broadcast
over radio stations in the United States Zone.
2. Through the Radio Section of Information Control Division, U.S.
Forces, European Theater, I have been informed that the above mentioned
notices were broadcast three times each between October 26 and November
8, 1945 (Exhibit II D).
3. Through the DANA news service and through personal observation I have
learned that copies of the above mentioned notices were printed in
German language newspapers in the United States Zone and the United
States sector of Berlin between 18 October and 17 November 1945.
Dated at Berlin, Germany, this 23rd day of November 1945.
/s/ HOWARD DENBY
Press Control News Unit (Berlin)
Information Control Division
United States Forces, European
Theater
Exhibit II D. Dissemination in the American Zone
SUBJECT : War Crimes Indictments.
TO : Colonel Murphy.
1. The general indictment of the 24 defendants and the Nazi
organizations was broadcast at 2015 on October 26, November 3 and
November 8.
2. The notification to Bormann to the effect that he would be tried _in
absentia_ if he did not appear personally for trial was broadcast at
2000 hours October 26, November 2 and November 8.
3. All of these broadcasts originated at Luxembourg and were relayed by
Frankfurt, Munich, and Stuttgart.
/s/ GERALD F. MAULSBY
Chief, Radio Section
Exhibit III A. Dissemination in the French Zone
COMMANDEMENT EN CHEF FRANÇAIS EN ALLEMAGNE
GOUVERNEMENT MILITAIRE Baden-Baden, 23 November 1945
DE LA Counsellor Furby
ZONE FRANÇAISE Director General of Justice
D’OCCUPATION Representative in Germany for
DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE the Search of War Criminals
de la
JUSTICE to
Le Directeur Général
The Delegate of the
Provisional Government of the
French Republic of the
Prosecution of the
International Military Tribunal
of the Major War Criminals
I certify that at the date of the 21st November 1945 the notice
concerning the trial by the International Military Tribunal of the issue
of the criminal character of certain organizations had been published in
the German language in the French Zone of Occupation over the radio and
newspapers at least once a week for two weeks, and that this publication
will be continued for another two weeks over the one radio station of
the French Zone (Koblenz) and in twelve German papers to give the widest
possible dissemination throughout the French Zone.
I further certify that this notice was also published by the form of
postings ordinarily employed by the military authorities in conveying
information to the civilian population.
I further certify that this notice has been delivered to the appropriate
French authorities in charge of prisoners of war for publication in the
German language wherever practicable in prisoner of war camps in which
Germans are imprisoned, in such manner as the officers commanding such
camps may decide.
The Director General of Justice
Representative in Germany for the
Search of War Criminals,
(Seal) /s/ FURBY
Exhibit III B. Dissemination in the French Zone
COMMANDEMENT EN CHEF FRANÇAIS EN ALLEMAGNE
GOUVERNEMENT MILITAIRE Baden-Baden, 23 November 1945
DE LA
ZONE FRANÇAISE Counsellor Furby
D’OCCUPATION Director General of Justice
DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE Representative in Germany for
de la the Search of War Criminals
JUSTICE
Le Directeur Général to
The Delegate of the
Provisional Government of the
French Republic of the
Prosecution of the
International Military Tribunal
of the Major War Criminals
_Certificate to General Secretary_
I certify that at the date of the 21st November 1945 the notice to
Martin Bormann that he is charged with having committed Crimes against
Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity as set forth in an
indictment which has been lodged with this Tribunal, had been published
in the German language in the French Zone of Occupation over the radio
and newspapers at least once a week for two weeks, the first publication
having been made during the week beginning October the 12th, and that
this publication will be continued for another two weeks over the one
radio station of the French Zone (Koblenz) and in twelve German papers
to give the widest possible dissemination throughout the French Zone.
The Director General of Justice
Representative in Germany for the
Search of War Criminals,
(Seal) /s/ FURBY
Exhibit IV A. Dissemination in the Russian Zone
General Secretary,
The International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg.
_Certificate_
I hereby certify that announcement of the trial, by the International
Military Tribunal of the criminal case of certain organizations was duly
published in German in the Soviet Zone of occupation in Germany in all
the newspapers under our control namely: “Tägliche Rundschau”, “Berliner
Zeitung”, “Deutsche Volkszeitung”, “Neue Zeit”, “Der Morgen”, “Das
Volk”, (all published in Berlin), “Volksstimme”, “Volkszeitung”,
“Thüringer Volkszeitung”, “Volksblatt” and “Sächsische Volksstimme” (all
published in the provinces).
The publication was repeated weekly beginning 22nd October 1945. In
addition it was broadcast weekly over the Berlin radio.
Furthermore I certify that this announcement was posted in bill form.
Chief of Information Bureau,
Soviet Military Administration in Germany
/s/ I. TUGARINOV
14 November 1945
17/11/45 A. KUDROV /s/
Exhibit IV B. Dissemination in the Russian Zone
General Secretary,
The International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg.
_Certificate_
I hereby certify that the complete text of the statement of Martin
Bormann to the effect that he is guilty in full measure of crimes
against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as set forth in
the Indictment presented to this Tribunal, has been read in German over
the radio in the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany once a week
starting with Oct. 22, that is, Oct. 24, Nov. 3, Nov. 10, and Nov. 17,
1945.
Concurrently on these same dates it was published in Berlin in the
following papers: “Tägliche Rundschau”, “Berliner Zeitung”, “Deutsche
Volkszeitung”, “Neue Zeit”, “Der Morgen”, “Das Volk”.
Moreover, each week it was published in the following provincial
newspapers: “Volksblatt”, “Sächsische Volkszeitung”, “Volkszeitung”,
“Thüringer Volkszeitung”.
Chief of Information Bureau,
Soviet Military Administration in Germany
/s/ I. TUGARINOV
17 November 1945
Exhibit V A. Dissemination in the British Zone
PR/ISC Group,
Advance Headquarters,
Control Commission for Germany
(British Element),
BERLIN, B.A.O.R.
The General Secretary,
International Military Tribunal.
I certify that the notice concerning the trial by the International
Military Tribunal of the issue of the criminal character of certain
organizations has been published in the German language in the British
Zone of occupation in the following newspapers, at least once a week for
four weeks:
Circulation for week
ending 27 Oct 45.
Neue Westfälische Zeitung 1,000,000
Neue Rheinische Zeitung 520,000
Kölnischer Kurier 370,000
Ruhr Zeitung 500,000
Aachener Nachrichten 110,000
Neue Hamburger Presse 402,500
Lübecker Post 156,000
Kieler Kurier 210,000
Hamburger Nachrichtenblatt 108,100
Lübecker Nachrichtenblatt 47,600
Kieler Nachrichtenblatt 17,500
Flensburger Nachrichtenblatt 12,500
Neuer Hannoverscher Kurier 433,000
Nordwest Nachrichten 301,000
Hannoversches Nachrichtenblatt 22,500
Neues Oldenburger Tageblatt 40,100
Lüneburger Post 178,900
Braunschweiger Neue Presse 150,500
Der Berliner 300,000
It has also been broadcast over the transmitters at Hamburg and Cologne
(Langenberg).
I certify that it has thereby received the widest possible dissemination
throughout the British Zone.
/s/ W. H. A. BISHOP
Major-General,
Chief, PR/ISC Group,
Control Commission for Germany (BE).
BERLIN, 15 Nov 45.
Exhibit V B. Dissemination in the British Zone
PR/ISC Group,
Advance Headquarters,
Control Commission for Germany
(British Element),
BERLIN, B.A.O.R.
The General Secretary,
International Military Tribunal,
I certify that the notice to Martin Bormann that he is charged with
having committed Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity as set forth in an indictment which has been lodged with this
Tribunal has been read in full in the German language once a week for
four weeks over the radio in the British Zone, the first reading having
been during the week of October 22, 1945, and that it has also been
published in four separate issues of “Der Berliner”, the newspaper
published in the British sector of Berlin.
/s/ W. H. A. BISHOP
Major General,
Chief, PR/ISC Group.
Control Commission for Germany (B. E.)
BERLIN, 15 Nov 45
/s/ R. W. H. HORTIN
CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE ON INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
24 October 1945
_Certificate to General Secretary_
I certify that I have served the following documents: (1) Indictment,
(2) Notice, (3) Charter of International Military Tribunal, (4) Rule 2
(d) of the Rules of the International Military Tribunal, and (5) list of
German lawyers, on the following named defendants at the time and place
stated, by personally delivering to each of them a copy in the German
language of each of the above-named documents:
HESS, Rudolf 19 October 45 Nuremberg
GÖRING, Hermann 19 October 45 Nuremberg
JODL, Alfred 19 October 45 Nuremberg
VON RIBBENTROP, Joachim 19 October 45 Nuremberg
KEITEL, Wilhelm 19 October 45 Nuremberg
LEY, Robert 19 October 45 Nuremberg
VON NEURATH, Constantin 19 October 45 Nuremberg
SAUCKEL, Fritz 19 October 45 Nuremberg
VON PAPEN, Franz 19 October 45 Nuremberg
DÖNITZ, Karl 19 October 45 Nuremberg
SEYSS-INQUART, Arthur 19 October 45 Nuremberg
FRANK, Hans 19 October 45 Nuremberg
ROSENBERG, Alfred 19 October 45 Nuremberg
FUNK, Walter 19 October 45 Nuremberg
FRICK, Wilhelm 19 October 45 Nuremberg
SPEER, Albert 19 October 45 Nuremberg
VON SCHIRACH, Baldur 19 October 45 Nuremberg
SCHACHT, Hjalmar 19 October 45 Nuremberg
STREICHER, Julius 19 October 45 Nuremberg
KALTENBRUNNER, Ernst 19 October 45 Nuremberg
I further certify that I have apprised each of the above-named
defendants of his right to the employment and designation of counsel.
/s/ A. M. S. NEAVE,
Major.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
23 October 1945
_Certificate to General Secretary_
I certify that I have served the following documents: (1) Indictment,
(2) Notice, (3) Charter of International Military Tribunal, (4) Rule
2(d) of the Rules of the International Military Tribunal, and (5) List
of German Lawyers, on the following named defendant at the time and
place stated, by personally delivering to him a copy in the German
language of each of the above-named documents:
HERR GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN, 19 October 1945, Blühbach near Werfen,
Austria.
I further certify that I have apprised the above-named defendant of his
right to the employment and designation of counsel to the extent that
this was possible in view of his mental condition.
At the direction of the Tribunal I have made an investigation into the
state of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen’s health and have obtained medical
reports on this subject which are attached hereto. (Attachments I, II,
and III).
As a result of the conclusions in these reports and my own observation,
I suggest that the General Secretary recommend to the Tribunal that a
committee of medical officers, representing each nation, be appointed by
the Tribunal to proceed to Blühbach for the purpose of giving Krupp von
Bohlen a thorough examination and reporting their findings to the
Tribunal.
/s/ JAMES H. ROWE, JR.
Medical Certificates Attached to
Certificate of Service on Defendant
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen
(Attachment I)
3d Battalion, Medical Section
232d Infantry Regiment
Schloss Blühbach
Bezirk Bischofshofen, Austria
6 October 1945
MEMORANDUM FOR: Capt. Norman A. Stoll, JAGD, Office U.S.
Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis
Criminality
SUBJECT: Condition of Health of Mr. Gustav Krupp von
Bohlen
1. Mr. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen was examined by me today, and the
following findings are noticed.
2. Subject has suffered from progressive arteriosclerosis and senility
since 1939. He suffered an attack of cerebral thrombosis in 1942, which
resulted in a temporary facial paralysis. About a year ago he lost
bladder and sphincter control.
3. At the present time he is bedridden, has to be fed and to be cared
for by nurses. He has no insight into his condition or situation
whatsoever and is unable to follow or keep up any conversation.
4. I do not believe that subject can be moved without serious detriment
to his health or that interrogation would be of any value due to his
loss of speech and complete lack of any understanding. His course will
be progressively down-hill.
5. In my judgment subject is not mentally competent to stand trial in a
court of justice.
/s/ WALTER PICK
Capt., MC, 232d Infantry
(Attachment II)
Blühbach, 13 September 1945
Otto Gerke, M.D.
Professor
Bad Gastein
_Medical Certificate_
Dr. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, born 7 August 1870, has been
treated by me for many years; he was examined by me today. Since 1930
there has existed an arthrosis of the spine, as well as a hypotony which
as far back as 1932 caused fainting fits. Since 1937 a rapidly
increasing sclerosis of the vessels was to be noted which occurred in
particular in the vessels of the brain.
In 1939 a fleeting paralysis of the eye muscles made its appearance and
passing disturbances of speech occured. In the spring of 1942, the
patient suffered an apoplectic stroke on the left side, with
facialisparosis and a distinct increase of reflexes on the entire right
side. The cerebral disturbances of circulation have gradually grown
worse despite treatments with medicaments. They manifested themselves
first in the form of impaired memory and will power, indecision and
general deterioration of intellectual faculties and increased to the
point of definite depressions accompanied by apoplectic numbness and
involuntary crying. There developed an acute arteriosclerotic dementia.
In an automobile accident in December, 1944, the patient suffered a
fracture of the nose bone and the skull basis and had to be treated for
eight days in the Schwarzach Hospital at St. Veith. Since that time, his
physical condition has also deteriorated, and several apoplectic fits
have occurred as a consequence of multiple softenings of the brain with
heart symptoms and striary syndroms.
The patient is by now completely apathetic and disorientated. There
exists a motoric aphasy. Owing to rigor of the muscles, he can neither
walk nor stand up. For approximately the last six months he has not been
able to hold urine and stool. He is completely helpless even in the
simplest matters. There can be traced an advanced emphysen in the lungs
and a distinct myocardic impairment on the basis of a coronary sclerosis
of the heart. An enlargement of the prostate gland has existed for
years.
The prognosis of the condition is definitely unfavorable, an improvement
is not to be expected. Herr Von Bohlen is in no way competent or capable
of being interrogated.
/s/ DR. GERKE
(Attachment III)
HEADQUARTERS
42d DIVISION ARTILLERY
APO 411 US ARMY
20 October 1945
SUBJECT : Physical Examination of GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH
TO : General Secretary, International Military Tribunal, APO 403
1. The following history and physical examination of Herr Gustav Krupp
von Bohlen und Halbach is submitted in compliance with a request from
Mr. James Rowe. The history was obtained from Frau Von Bohlen and from
the valet. The information was obtained on the 19th and 20th of October
1945 when the patient was examined at his home at Blühbach, Austria.
2. HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: Herr Von Bohlen has been developing
arteriosclerosis since 1932 according to his physician’s reports. It is
believed that he first had a very light apoplectic stroke in 1937. This
was very transitory in nature and cleared without noticeable
aftereffects except for some loss of the acuteness of his thought
processes and memory which his family noticed. In the latter part of
November 1944 he had a spell of unconsciousness, fell and fractured a
finger and was unable to walk alone for about 24 hours. On 15 December
1944, he was in an automobile accident and received a severe blow and
laceration of the forehead. He was hospitalized as a result of this
accident until the first week of February 1945, at which time he
returned home. Following this he was able to walk only with assistance
and he was unable to make coherent statements. He continued to have
light strokes and since March has been unable to walk even with help,
and his ability to speak has gradually decreased until at the present
time he is able only to speak an occasional single word. Also since
leaving the hospital he has had no control of the bowels or bladder and
during the past three months has given no evidence of recognizing
various members of his family or close acquaintances.
3. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
GENERAL: The patient is an emaciated white male of 76 years of age who
is unable to speak or to cooperate in his own examination, and appears
to have no realization of what is going on about him.
SKIN: Scar 2 inches long extending across the forehead and downward
between the eyes and across the bridge of the nose.
The skin of the groin is macerated bilaterally as a result of being
constantly moistened with urine.
EYES, EARS, NOSE AND THROAT: No marked abnormalities.
LUNGS: Hyper-resonant throughout with moderate enlargement of the chest
cage suggesting the presence of mild emphysema.
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM: Apex of heart palpable at a point 1 cm medial to
the left mid-clavicular line. No evidence of right heart enlargement
could be detected. Pulse 80. Blood pressure 130/75. Pulse full and
regular except for an occasional skipped beat. The distal palpable
arteries in the wrist and ankles were markedly sclerotic.
MUSCULO-SKELETAL SYSTEM: Both legs and arms were slowly moved by the
patient although all movements of the extremities were associated with
moderate spasticity. The patient was unable to stand alone or walk when
he was held upright.
NEUROLOGICAL SYSTEM: Pupillary reaction to light normal. Deep tendon
reflexes in arms and legs were normal. Normal reaction to plantar
stimulation.
GENITO-URINARY SYSTEM: Incontinence of urine was noted at the time of
examination. Genitalia appeared normal. A prostatic examination was not
made.
GASTRO-INTESTINAL SYSTEM: Abdominal examination was normal. Incontinence
of the bowels was noted at the time of the examination.
4. IMPRESSION AND PROGNOSIS:
It is the impression of the undersigned that this man is suffering from
far advanced generalized arteriosclerosis which is progressive and that
he has already suffered from repeated small apoplectic strokes. It is
believed that this condition has already developed to the point where
this man has lost all capacity for memory, reasoning or understanding of
statements made to him and that transporting or doing anything which
might excite him might endanger his life.
/s/ PAUL F. CHESNUT
Capt., MC
Surgeon.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
The following declarations were received in writing from Hans Fritzsche
and from Erich Raeder on 18 October 1945:
I, Hans Fritzsche, have received today, on 18 October 1945, at 1950
Berlin time, the Indictment of the Chief of Counsel of the International
Military Tribunal, a statement regarding my right to defense, a list of
German lawyers, the Rules of the International Military Tribunal in the
German language. Above documents have been handed to me by the Red Army
Officer Grishajeff, acting on orders of the International Military
Tribunal and who advised me in the German language on the contents of
the documents and on my right to defense.
Berlin, 18 October 1945.
/s/ HANS FRITZSCHE
I, Erich Raeder, have received today, on 18 October 1945, at 1850 Berlin
time, the Indictment of the Chief of Counsel of the International
Military Tribunal, a statement regarding my right to defense, a list of
German lawyers, the Rules of the International Military Tribunal in the
German language. Above documents have been handed to me by the Red Army
Officer Grishajeff, acting on orders of the International Military
Tribunal and who advised me in the German language on the contents of
the documents and on my right to defense.
Berlin, 18 October 1945.
/s/ ERICH RAEDER
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRIAL AS TO HIM
Nuremberg, 4 November 1945
Theodor Klefisch
Lawyer
Cologne, 43, Blumenthalstrasse
To : The International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg.
As defending counsel to the accused Dr. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und
Halbach I request that the proceedings against this accused be deferred
until he is again fit for trial.
At any rate I request that the accused be not tried in his absence.
_Reasons_
By Article 12 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal this
Court has the right to try an accused in his absence if he cannot be
found, or if the Court deem this necessary for other reasons in the
interest of justice.
The 75-year-old accused Krupp von Bohlen has for a long time been
incapable of trial or examination owing to his severe physical and
mental infirmities. He is not in a position to be in contact with the
outside world nor to make or receive statements. The Indictment was
served on him on 19 October 1945 by a representative of the
International Military Tribunal by placing the document on his bed. The
accused had no knowledge of this event. Consequently he is not aware of
the existence of an Indictment. Naturally therefore he is not capable of
communicating either with his defense counsel nor with other persons on
the subject of his defense.
To prove the above two medical certificates are enclosed—that of the
court medical expert Doctor Karl Gersdorf of Werfen, Salzburg of 9
September 1945, and that of the Professor Doctor Otto Gerke of
Badgastein of 13 September.
Lately Herr Krupp von Bohlen has been examined several times by American
military doctors. As far as it is possible I should like to request
another complete medical examination. If the accused is unable to appear
before the Court, then according to Article 12 of the Charter he could
be tried only if the Court deemed it necessary in the interests of
justice.
Whatever may be understood by the phrase “in the interests of justice”
it would hardly be objective justice to try a defendant accused of such
serious crimes, if he were not informed of the contents of the
accusations or if he were not given the chance to conduct his own
defense or instruct a defense counsel. Particularly is he in no
condition to comprehend the following rights of an accused set out in
the Charter:
1. By Article 16, Section (a) of the Charter a copy of the Indictment in
a language which he understands will be served on the accused at a
suitably appointed time. The assurance given hereby for a sufficient
preparation of the proceedings can not be guaranteed to Defendant Krupp
von Bohlen on account of his state of disease. According to Section (c)
of the same Article 16 a preliminary interrogation of the defendant
shall take place in a language intelligible to him. That is likewise
impossible here. According to Section (d) of Article 16 the defendant
moreover can not exercise his right of decision as to whether he will
conduct his own defense or whether he would like to be defended by
counsel. Also the right of the defendant as provided in Section (c) of
producing evidence and of cross examining witnesses himself or by his
counsel in his behalf can not be exercised by the defendant in view of
his condition.
2. In the same manner as the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und
Halbach is not able to exercise the confirmed rights stated above in the
preliminary proceedings he will also not be able to exercise in the
Trial those rights guaranteed to him by Article 24 of the Charter. In
the first place this concerns the statement which the accused has to
render on inquiry as to whether he admits his guilt or not, a statement
which is of particular importance for the course of the Trial and for
the decision of the Tribunal. This is all the more important as this
statement regarding guilt or innocence can be made exclusively by the
accused himself according to his own judgment and after examining his
conscience. So far as the procedure is admissible at all, the defense
counsel could not at the request of the Court express himself on the
question of guilt, as such a declaration presupposes the possibility of
communication and understanding with the accused.
Also the defendant could not exercise the right to the last word to
which he is entitled according to Article 24, Section (j).
The legislators who set up these guarantees for the defense cannot wish
to deny them undeservedly to an accused who can not make use of them
owing to illness. If by Article 12 of the Charter the Trial of an absent
defendant is allowed, then this exception to the rule can be applied
only to a defendant who is unwilling to appear though able to do so. As
is the case with the criminal procedure rules of nearly all countries,
it is on this principle that the rules and regulations concerning the
trial of absent defendants are based.
/s/ KLEFISCH
Lawyer
Medical Certificates Attached to Motion
on Behalf of Defendant
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen
(Attachment I)
_Doctor’s Certificate_
Dr. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, born 7 August 1870, presently
residing at Posthaus Blühbach, Werfen, Salzburg, suffers from
progressive arteriosclerotic softening of the brain (Paralysis celebri)
and as a consequence of this illness he requires constant care and
treatment. He is incapable of standing trial or of being subjected to
interrogation. An improvement of his condition is not to be expected.
Owing to his bad general physical condition (Myodegeneratio cordis and
Ataxis) he is not capable of traveling either.
/s/ KARL GERSDORF, M. D.
District Doctor
Werfen, Salzburg
Certified Court Expert
Werfen, 8 September 1945
(Attachment II)
Attachment II is a medical certificate by Dr. Otto Gerke, printed on
page 120 ante.
REPORT OF MEDICAL COMMISSION
APPOINTED TO EXAMINE DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN[15]
7 November 1945
We, the undersigned, during the morning of 6 November 1945, examined the
patient, identified as Gustav Krupp von Bohlen by the military
authorities in charge, in the presence of his wife and nurse.
We unanimously agree that the patient was suffering from: Senile
softening of the brain, selectively affecting the frontal lobes of the
cerebral cortex and the corpus striatum, due to vascular degeneration.
It is our unanimous, considered, professional opinion that the mental
condition of the patient, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, is such that he is
incapable of understanding court procedure, and of understanding or
cooperating in interrogation.
The physical state of the patient is such that he cannot be moved
without endangering his life.
We are of the considered opinion that his condition is unlikely to
improve, but rather to deteriorate even further.
Therefore, we unanimously believe that he will never be fit, mentally or
physically, to appear before the International Military Tribunal.
/s/ R. E. TUNBRIDGE
Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.
Consulting Physician, British Army of the Rhine
/s/ RENE PIEDELIEVRE
M.D., Professor of the Paris Faculty of Medicine;
Expert of the Tribunal
/s/ NICOLAS KURSHAKOV
Professor of Medicine, Medical Institute of Moscow
Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, U.S.S.R.
/s/ EUGENE SEPP
Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Medical Institute of Moscow
Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R.
/s/ EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN
M. D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical Institute of Moscow
/s/ BERTRAM SCHAFFNER
Major, Medical Corps
Neuropsychiatrist, Army of the United States
-----
[15] At a meeting of the International Military Tribunal on 30 October
1945, “it was agreed that a committee of four medical officers, one
appointed by each Member of the Tribunal, be sent, if the Committee of
Prosecutors made no objection, to examine Krupp and that they be
empowered to employ specialists if necessary.” The report of this
Medical Commission was presented 7 November 1945.
Report of the Medical Examination of
Herr Gustav Krupp von Bohlen
1. History: The following information was obtained by questioning Frau
Krupp von Bohlen, wife of the patient, Herr Krupp’s valet, and Frl.
Krone, private secretary of the patient.
The patient had been physically a very active man. He hunted,
rode and played tennis. With the aid of guides, he was hunting
deer as recently as 1943. He was abstemious in his personal
habits, did not smoke or partake of alcohol. He retired to bed
early, rarely remaining up after 2200 hours. He had eight
children, six sons and two daughters. There is no family history
of mental disorder or of drug addiction.
Previous Illness: There is no history of any major illness.
Since 1930, he has taken spa treatment each year for arthritis
of the spine and for hypotension. No radiographs were available
to indicate the true pathology of the spinal condition. The
valet stated that the patient, on the recommendation of his
physicians, had been very careful with his diet during the past
ten years.
Present Illness: For several years, the patient had been subject
to giddy attacks. In consequence, his wife was always anxious
when he went hunting, lest he should have an attack whilst on
the edge of a cliff, and fall and kill himself. Two reliable
guides always accompanied him on his hunting excursions, and in
1942 Frau Krupp also joined in expeditions in order to watch
him.
Four years ago, the patient had a disturbance of vision
primarily due to dysfunction of the eye muscles. For a period he
had double vision. From this illness, he made an apparent
complete recovery.
Two years ago he had a stroke, with weakness of the left side of
the face, and impaired function of the right side of the body.
Following the latter incident, impairment of gait, general
weakness, and impairment of mental functions became increasingly
apparent. From the middle of 1944 onwards, the patient became
more and more dependent upon his wife; she was the only person
who seemed to understand fully his speech and his needs.
On November 25th, 1944, he was proceeding from the garden
towards the house, and suddenly seemed to run (propulsion gait).
Just before reaching the house, he fell and injured his arm. As
a result of this accident, he attended the local hospital for
treatment, traveling by motor-car. On December 4th, whilst
traveling to the hospital at Schwarzach-St. Veith, and asleep in
the back of the car, the driver was compelled to swerve to avoid
another vehicle, and to brake suddenly. Herr Krupp von Bohlen
was thrown forward, and hit his forehead and the bridge of the
nose against a metal rail behind the driver’s seat. He did not
lose consciousness, but his condition was such that he was
detained in the hospital for approximately eight weeks. During
his stay in the hospital, he recognized his wife, his relatives
and the members of his staff, and spoke to them, albeit
haltingly.
Since the accident mentioned above, the general condition of the
patient has deteriorated rapidly. The members of his staff had
increasing difficulty in understanding him. At first, with the
aid of two people, he was able to walk a few steps; until two
months ago he sat for short periods in a chair. The assistance
of men-servants was necessary for this task. He has been
incontinent of feces and urine since returning from the hospital
in February 1945. Since this date he has only spoken an
occasional single word, the words being simple ones and without
any rational association, apart from sporadic expletives, such
as “Ach, Gott” and “Donner Wetter”, when disturbed. At times he
has been exceedingly irritable and on occasions has had
inexplicable bouts of weeping. During the past two months, he
has become increasingly apathetic, and no longer recognized
relatives or friends. Frau Von Bohlen thinks he may still
recognize her as a familiar face, but he exhibits no emotional
reaction to her presence. She thinks he realizes occasionally
that strangers are in the room; e. g., members of the Allied
services, and responds by being very tense.
Frl. Krone, secretary to the patient, stated that on returning
to Blühbach in September 1944, after an absence since May 1944,
she could no longer take down letters as dictated by Krupp von
Bohlen. Normally he was a very punctilious man, and his diction
and writing were correct and very precise. She stated that after
September 1944 there were frequent interruptions in his flow of
ideas, his syntax was faulty, and he occasionally did not appear
to appreciate the meaning of certain words. She would get an
idea of what he wanted to say, and then wrote the letter herself
in accordance with what she understood to be his wishes. His
handwriting also became increasingly illegible, and he had
difficulty in signing his name when giving power of attorney to
his relatives in January 1945.
The valet had been personal valet to Krupp for 20 years, and
traveled all over the world with him. He described his master as
a very active man, physically and mentally, extremely
punctilious in all personal details. He took a great interest in
his clothes, and was very observant of any slight defect. In his
personal habits he was abstemious, never taking alcohol, and was
also a non-smoker. Although a very excellent sportsman and
physically capable of considerable feats of endurance when
hunting, playing tennis or climbing, he never overdid things and
took care of himself without in any way being overanxious about
his health. The valet first began to notice serious changes in
the patient’s personal habits two years ago, although in the
valet’s opinion, he had been failing slightly for about four to
five years. The degree of change, however, prior to two years
ago, was so slight and his master was in his opinion such a
“superman”, that the changes would not have been apparent to the
casual observer. Two years ago he began to lose interest in the
details of his personal clothing and to become careless with his
table manners. For instance, when soup was served to him one
day, he took his soup-spoon and used it to take water from his
wine-glass. Latterly, he would sit at table and ask who was
present, although the only people in the room were intimate
members of his family. He would complain that the telephone bell
was ringing, and of people speaking to him; these hallucinations
became more frequent during the latter part of 1944. The valet
was employed as caretaker of the main house by the American
Military Government after the cessation of hostilities in
Europe, and did not see his employer regularly after June 1945.
On August 7, 1945, the occasion of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen’s
birthday, he called to pay his respects, and for the first time
he was not recognized, and his master showed no appreciation of
his presence or his conversation.
2. General Appearance: The patient was lying rigidly in bed in a
Parkinsonian position with fine tremors of the jaw and hands. The skin
was atrophic and dry, and there was pigmentation of the dorsum of the
hands. The temporal arteries were prominent and tortuous. The face was
masklike, with dilated venules over the cheeks. There was evidence of
considerable wasting of the body tissues, especially in the extremities,
which also showed evidence of trophic and acrocyanotic changes.
3. Neuropsychiatric Examination: The patient lay in bed with a masklike
face and in a fixed position on his back. The legs were partially
flexed, and similarly the elbows, the latter being pressed firmly
against the trunk. There was generalized muscular rigidity, due to
hypertenus of an extra-pyramidal tract lesion.
On the physicians’ entering the room, the patient fixed his gaze
on them, and replied to their greeting with “Guten Tag,” and
gave his hand when they offered theirs to him. He shook hands
normally, but he could not relax his hold or remove his hand,
and continued to squeeze the physician’s hand; this was due to
the presence of a forced grasp-reflex, which was more marked in
the left than in the right hand. When asked how he felt, he
replied “Gut,” but to all further questions he gave no reply at
all. He was silent and showed no reaction to, or comprehension
of, other questions, and simple commands, such as “Open your
mouth,” “Put out your tongue,” “Look this way.” Only painful and
disagreeable stimuli produced any reaction, and then it was
merely a facial expression of discontent, sometimes accompanied
by grunts of disapproval.
The disturbance of verbal response was not due to dysarthria,
because the patient was able to pronounce such words as he did
use, quite distinctly. Neither was it due to motor aphasia,
because the few words he used were used correctly, and he never
exhibited the jargon responses of the true aphasic when
attempting to answer questions.
The patient was indifferent, apathetic, and was not in good
rapport with the external world, lacked initiative, exhibited
paucity of emotion. He uttered no spontaneous speech, and his
reaction to painful stimuli was primitive.
Neurological examination showed the following additional
abnormal findings: There was a right facial weakness of a
supranuclear origin. The pupils reacted promptly to light, and
appeared normal, save that the left was slightly larger than the
right. Ophthalmoscopic examination of the fundi, limited by lack
of cooperation from the patient, showed clear media and normal
retina and retinal vessels. The right disc, the only one
visualized, appeared normal. Extra-ocular movements could not be
tested; there was no obvious strabismus. All deep reflexes in
the arms and legs were present and very brisk. Clonus was not
elicited. The plantar reflexes were flexor. Abdominal reflexes
were absent, except for the right upper. There was incontinence
of urine and feces, of the type associated with senile dementia.
There was an associated minimal degree of intertrigo. Owing to
lack of cooperation of the patient a full sensory examination
could not be made, but the patient responded to pin-prick, deep
pressure and muscular movement throughout the body.
4. Cardio-vascular Examination:
Pulse: Rate 100, rhythm irregular. The irregularity was due to
extra-systoles. The radial arteries were just palpable, without
evidence of pathological thickening or tortuosity. Blood
pressure: systolic 130 mm. of mercury, diastolic 80 mm. of
mercury.
Heart: The heart was clinically not enlarged. The cardiac sounds
were feeble, there was no accentuation of the second sound in
the aortic area, nor were any cardiac murmurs audible. There
were no vascular changes observable in the vessels of the fundi.
There was no evidence of cedema or of congestive heart failure.
5. Respiratory Examination: Chest movement satisfactory. There was no
impairment of percussion noted. Auscultation revealed no impairment of
air entry, no alteration in the breath sounds, and the absence of any
adventitious sounds.
6. Alimentary-renal Examination: There was slight distention of the
abdomen, due to increase in the gaseous content of the intestines. There
was no evidence of ascites. The spleen was not palpable, nor was there
any evidence of glandular enlargement. The liver was just palpable, one
finger’s breadth below the right costal margin, but there was no
evidence of enlargement upwards. Urinalysis: no sugar or albumen
present.
7. Skeletal Examination: The patient’s rigidity limited the examination
of joints. There was limitation of movement of the neck due to muscular
hypertonus. The hypertonus was so marked in the lower dorsal and lumbar
region as to produce rigidity of the spine. Attempts to move the joints
passively stimulated involuntary contractures of the muscles. There was
evidence of crepitus in both knee-joints.
DISCUSSION:
The clinical record presented by this patient is that of an
organic cerebral disorder, with predominant involvement of the
frontal lobes and basal ganglia. The mental disintegration of
the patient renders him incapable of comprehending his
environment, and of reacting normally to it. He remains
uniformly apathetic and disinterested, intellectually retarded
to a very marked degree, and shows no evidence of spontaneous
activity.
The above findings are such as are found in the degenerative
changes associated with senility. The findings in the visceral
organs are likewise compatible with the diagnosis of senile
degeneration.
The clinical course, from the evidence obtained, has been that
of a gradual decline over a period of years, with more rapid
deterioration during the past year. Such deterioration will
continue, and would be rapidly accelerated, with immediate
danger to the patient’s life, were he to be moved from his
present location.
DIAGNOSIS:
Senile degeneration of the brain tissues, selectively affecting
the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex and the basal ganglia,
with associated senile degeneration of the visceral organs.
/s/ R. E. TUNBRIDGE
Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.,
Consulting Physician, British Army of the
Rhine
/s/ RENE PIEDELIEVRE
M.D., Professor of the Paris Faculty of
Medicine, Expert of the Tribunal
/s/ NICOLAS KURSHAKOV
M.D., Professor of Medicine, Medical
Institute of Moscow, Chief Internist,
Commissariat of Public Health U.S.S.R.
/s/ EUGENE SEPP
M.D., Emeritus Professor of Neurology,
Medical Inst, of Moscow; Member, Academy of
Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R.
/s/ EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN
M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical
Institute of Moscow.
/s/ BERTRAM SCHAFFNER
Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army
of the United States
ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES PROSECUTION
TO THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ANSWER FOR THE UNITED STATES TO THE MOTION FILED IN BEHALF OF KRUPP VON
BOHLEN
The United States respectfully opposes the application on behalf of
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach that his trial be “deferred until he
is again fit for trial.”
If the Tribunal should grant this application, the practical effect
would be to quash all proceedings, for all time, against Krupp von
Bohlen.
It appears that Krupp should not be arrested and brought to the court
room for trial. But the plea is that the Tribunal also excuse him from
being tried in absentia. This form of trial admittedly is authorized by
Article 12 of the Charter of the Tribunal. Of course, trial in absentia
in circumstance of the case is an unsatisfactory proceeding either for
prosecution or for defense. But the request that Krupp von Bohlen be
neither brought to court nor tried in his absence is based on the
contention that “the interests of justice” require that he be thus
excused from any form of trial. Public interests, which transcend all
private considerations, require that Krupp von Bohlen shall not be
dismissed unless some other representative of the Krupp armament and
munitions interests be substituted. These public interests are as
follows:
Four generations of the Krupp family have owned and operated the great
armament and munitions plants which have been the chief source of
Germany’s war supplies. For over 130 years this family has been the
focus, the symbol, and the beneficiary of the most sinister forces
engaged in menacing the peace of Europe. During the period between the
two World Wars, the management of these enterprises was chiefly in
Defendant Krupp von Bohlen. It was at all times however a Krupp family
enterprise. Only a nominal owner himself, Von Bohlen’s wife, Bertha
Krupp, owned the bulk of the stock. About 1937 their son, Alfried Krupp,
became plant manager and was actively associated in the policy making
and executive management thereafter. In 1940 Krupp von Bohlen, getting
on in years, became chairman of the board of the concern, thus making
way for Alfried who became president. In 1943 Alfried became sole owner
of the Krupp enterprises by agreement between the family and the Nazi
Government, for the purpose of perpetuating this business in Krupp
family control. It is evident that the future menace of this concern
lies in continuance of the tradition under Alfried, now reported to be
an internee of the British Army of the Rhine.
To drop Krupp von Bohlen from this case without substitution of Alfried,
drops from the case the entire Krupp family, and defeats any effective
judgment against the German armament makers. Whether this would be “in
the interests of justice” will appear from the following recital of only
the most significant items of evidence now in possession of the United
States as to the activities of Krupp von Bohlen in which his son,
Alfried, at all times aided as did other associates in the vast armament
enterprises, all plotting to bring about the second World War, and to
aid in its ruthless and illegal conduct.
After the first World War, the Krupp family and their associates failed
to comply with Germany’s disarmament agreements but all secretly and
knowingly conspired to evade them.
In the 1 March 1940 issue of the Krupp Magazine, the Defendant Krupp
stated:
“I wanted and had to maintain Krupp in spite of all opposition,
as an armament plant for the later future, even if in
camouflaged form. I could only speak in the smallest, most
intimate circles, about the real reasons which made me undertake
the changeover of the plants for certain lines of production
. . . . Even the Allied snoop commissioners were duped . . . .
After the accession to power of Adolf Hitler, I had the
satisfaction of reporting to the Führer that Krupp stood ready,
after a short warming-up period, to begin rearmament of the
German people without any gaps of experience . . . .”
Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfried Krupp as well) lent his name, prestige and
financial support to bring the Nazi Party, with an avowed program of
renewing the war, into power over the German State. On 25 April 1931 Von
Bohlen acted as chairman of the Association of German Industry to bring
it into line with Nazi policies. On 30 May 1933 he wrote to Schacht
that:
“It is proposed to initiate a collection in the most
far-reaching circles of German industry, including agriculture
and the banking world, which is to be put at the disposal of the
Führer of the NSDAP in the name of ‘The Hitler Fund’ . . . . I
have accepted the chairmanship of the management council.”
Krupp contributed from the treasury of the main Krupp company 4,738,446
marks to the Nazi Party fund. In June 1935 he contributed 100,000 marks
to the Nazi Party out of his personal account.
The Nazi Party did not succeed in obtaining control of Germany until it
obtained support of the industrial interests, largely through the
influence of Krupp. Alfried first became a Nazi Party member and later
Von Bohlen did also. The Krupp influence was powerful in promoting the
Nazi plan to incite aggressive warfare in Europe.
Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany’s withdrawal
from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of Nations. He
personally made repeated public speeches approving and inciting Hitler’s
program of aggression: On 6 and 7 April 1938 two speeches approved
annexation of Austria; on 13 October 1938 approving Nazi occupation of
the Sudetenland; on 4 September 1939 approving the invasion of Poland;
on 6 May 1941 commemorating success of Nazi arms in the West.
Alfried Krupp also made speeches to the same general effect. Krupps were
thus one of the most persistent and influential forces that made this
war.
Krupps also were the chief factor in getting ready for the war. In
January 1944, in a speech at the University of Berlin, Von Bohlen
boasted, “Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork
was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German Armed Forces
at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience.” In 1937,
before Germany went to war, Krupps booked orders to equip satellite
governments on approval of the German High Command. Krupp contributed
20,000 marks to the Defendant Rosenberg for the purpose of spreading
Nazi propaganda abroad. In a memorandum of 12 October 1939 a Krupp
official wrote offering to mail propaganda pamphlets abroad at Krupp
expense.
Once the war was on, Krupps, both Von Bohlen and Alfried being directly
responsible therefor, led German industry in violating treaties and
international law by employing enslaved laborers, impressed and imported
from nearly every country occupied by Germany, and by compelling
prisoners of war to make arms and munitions for use against their own
countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp’s custody and service
they were underfed and overworked, misused, and inhumanly treated.
Captured records show that in September 1944 Krupp concerns were working
54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war.
Moreover, the Krupp companies profited greatly from destroying the peace
of the world through support of the Nazi program. The rearmament of
Germany gave Krupp huge orders and corresponding profits. Before this
Nazi menace to the peace began, the Krupps were operating at a
substantial loss. But the net profits after taxes, gifts, and reserves
steadily rose with rise of Nazi rearmament, being as follows:
For year ending 30 September 1935— 57,216,392 marks
For year ending 30 September 1938— 97,071,632 marks
For year ending 30 September 1941— 111,555,216 marks
The book value of the Krupp concerns mounted from 75,962,000 marks on 1
October 1933, to 237,316,093 marks on 1 October 1943. Even this included
many going concerns in occupied countries at a book value of only 1 mark
each. These figures are subject to the adjustments and controversies
usual with financial statements of each vast enterprise but
approximately reflect the facts about property and operations.
The services of Alfried Krupp and of Von Bohlen and their family to the
war aims of the Nazi Party were so outstanding that the Krupp
enterprises were made a special exception to the policy of
nationalization of industries. Hitler said that he would be “prepared to
arrange for any possible safeguarding for the continued existence of the
works as a family enterprise; it would be simplest to issue ‘lex Krupp’
to start with”. After short negotiations, this was done. A decree of 12
November 1943 preserves the Krupp works as a family enterprise in
Alfried Krupp’s control and recites that it is done in recognition of
the fact that “for 132 years the firm of Fried. Krupp, as a family
enterprise has achieved outstanding and unique merits for the armed
strength of the German people.”
It has at all times been the position of the United States that the
great industrialists of Germany were guilty of the crimes charged in
this Indictment quite as much as its politicians, diplomats, and
soldiers. Its chief of counsel, on 7 June 1945, in a report to President
Truman, released by him and with his approval, stated that the
accusations of crimes include individuals in authority in the financial,
industrial, and economic life of Germany as well as others.
Pursuant thereto, the United States, with approval of the Secretary Of
State, proposed to indict Alfried Krupp, son of Krupp von Bohlen, and
president and owner of the Krupp concern. The Prosecutors representing
the Soviet Union, the French Republic, and the United Kingdom
unanimously opposed inclusion of Alfried Krupp. This is not said in
criticism of them or their judgment. The necessity of limiting the
number of defendants was considered by representatives of the other
three nations to preclude the addition of Alfried Krupp. Immediately
upon service of the Indictment, learning the serious condition of Krupp
von Bohlen, the United States again called a meeting of Prosecutors and
proposed an amendment to include Alfried Krupp. Again the proposal of
the United States was defeated by a vote of 3 to 1. If now the Tribunal
shall exercise its discretion to excuse from trial the one indicted
member of the Krupp family, one of the chief purposes of the United
States will be defeated and it is submitted that such a result is not
“in the interests of justice.”
The United States respectfully submits that no greater disservice to the
future peace of the world could be done than to excuse the entire Krupp
family and the armament enterprise from this Trial in which aggressive
war making is sought to be condemned. The “interests of justice” cannot
be determined without taking into account justice to the men of four
generations whose lives have been taken or menaced by Krupp munitions
and Krupp armament, and those of the future who can feel no safety if
such persons as this escape all condemnation in proceedings such as
this.
While of course the United States cannot, without the concurrence of one
other Power indict a new defendant, it can under the Charter alone
oppose this motion. The United States respectfully urges that if the
favor now sought by Krupp von Bohlen is to be granted, it be upon the
condition that Alfried Krupp be substituted or added as a defendant so
that there may be a representative of the Krupp interests before the
Tribunal.
It may be suggested that bringing in a new defendant would result in
delay. Admitting, however, that a delay which cannot exceed a few days
may be occasioned, it is respectfully suggested that the precise day
that this Trial will start is a less important consideration than
whether it is to fail of one of its principal purposes. The American
Prosecution staff has been by long odds the longest and farthest away
from home in this endeavor. On personal as well as public interest
consideration it deplores delay. But we think the future as well as the
contemporary world cannot fail to be shocked if, in a trial in which it
is sought to condemn aggressive war making, the Krupp industrial empire
is completely saved from condemnation.
The complete trial brief of the United States on Krupp von Bohlen with
copies of the documents on which his culpability is asserted will be
made available to the Tribunal if it is desired as evidence concerning
him and Alfried Krupp and the Krupp concerns.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
Chief of Counsel for the United States of
America
12 November 1945
MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
British War Crimes Executive (E.S.)
12 November 1945
To: The International Military Tribunal.
The British Chief Prosecutor has had the opportunity of considering the
application of the Defending Counsel to the accused GUSTAV KRUPP VON
BOHLEN UND HALBACH:
1) that the proceedings against this accused be deferred until he is
again fit for trial;
2) at any rate, that the accused be not tried in his absence.
The British Chief Prosecutor opposes this application for the following
reasons:
i) The medical position is that as far as can be foreseen the said
defendant will never again be fit for trial, and therefore if he is
not tried in his absence, he will not be tried at all.
ii) Although in an ordinary case it is undesirable that a defendant
should be tried when he is unable to comprehend the charges made
against him, or to give instruction for his defence, there are
special considerations which apply to this case and make it essential
for the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach to be tried in
his absence.
iii) As this is a case of conspiracy, the British Prosecutor submits that
all the evidence directly concerned with the actions and speeches of
the said defendant and the operations of Fried. Krupp A.G. would be
evidence against the remaining defendants, if the Prosecution
establishes a _prima facie_ case:
a) that the conspiracy existed;
b) that the said defendant was a party to the conspiracy.
Such _prima facie_ case is clearly indicated in the Indictment lodged
with the Tribunal and the evidence against the present defendant set
out in the American Answer to this Application.
iv) If this submission of the British Chief Prosecutor is correct and
this evidence can and will be given in Court, then it is at least
arguable that it is preferable for the said defendant to be
represented so that his lawyer can deal with such evidence to the
best of his ability.
v) It is a matter of common knowledge of which the Court may take
cognisance that the business of Fried. Krupp A.G. is a vast
organisation. There are, therefore, many sources within the Krupp
firm from which the defending Advocate can obtain information which
will enable him to deal with the allegations contained in the
American Answer. If the Defendant Gustav Krupp is not retained in the
list of defendants, there will be no advocate so well qualified to
deal with those allegations on behalf of the other defendants,
against whom they will still be preferred.
vi) In the circumstances of this trial the kernel of the case for the
prosecution is that a number of conspirators have agreed and worked
together for the purpose of waging aggressive war and causing untold
misery to the World. The public interest, that the defendant who is
responsible for the preparation of armaments on the one hand, and the
utilisation on arms production, of prisoners of war and forced
labour, including detainees from Concentration Camps on the other, is
one of “the interests of justice” within Article 12 of the Charter.
vii) Finally, it is earnestly desired that the wishes of the Tribunal as
publicly announced at Berlin on the 18th October that the trial
should open on the appointed day, namely, 20th November be realised
and carried into execution. The British Delegation is strongly
opposed to any postponement.
/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS
British Chief Prosecutor
MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
Nuremberg, 13 November 1945
MEMORANDUM
by the French Delegation concerning the matter of Krupp which
was discussed at the meeting of 12 November 1945
France is formally opposed to dropping the firm of Krupp from the Trial
since the other prosecutors do not contemplate the possibility of
preparing at this time a second trial directed against the big German
industrialists.
France objects therefore to a simple severance.
The remaining possibilities are either the trial of Krupp Sr. _in
absentia_ or the substitution of Krupp Jr. in his father’s place and
stead.
The trial of an old man who is about to die and who is not before the
Court is difficult in itself.
France would prefer to substitute his son against whom there are serious
charges.
For simple reasons of expediency, France requests that there be no delay
in excess of the delay that will result in all probability from the
motions of the Defense.
If the Tribunal denies these motions of the Defense, the Trial of Krupp
Sr. should take place in his absence.
However, this is in our opinion the lesser of two evils.
/s/ DUBOST
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH
PROSECUTION
Nuremberg, 14 November 1945
ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM
We consider the trial of KRUPP, the father, as impossible under the
circumstances. The trial of an old, dying man, absent from the dock,
cannot take place.
We wish that the son be prosecuted. There are serious charges against
him.
We had requested, so far, that he be prosecuted without any delay
arising in the Trial therefrom.
The reasons of opportunity which had induced us to adopt this attitude
are no longer so imperative since the Soviet Delegation has concurred in
Mr. Jackson’s thesis.
Consequently we no longer raise any objection and we concur ourselves in
this thesis.
The Deputy-Delegate of
The French Government
in the Prosecution of
The International Military Tribunal
/s/ CH. DUBOST
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GRANTING
POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the defendant, Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen, for a postponement of the proceedings against him;
IT IS ORDERED that the application for postponement be, and the same
hereby is, granted;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the charges in the indictment against Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for
trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant
should permit.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President.
Dated this 15th day
of November, 1945.
ATTEST:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
General Secretary.
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES PROSECUTION
MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE UNITED STATES CHIEF OF COUNSEL TO THE
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
The United States, by its Chief of Counsel, respectfully shows:
The order of the Tribunal, that “The charges in the Indictment against
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the
Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of
the defendant should permit,” requires the United States to make clear
its attitude toward subsequent trials, which may have been
misapprehended by the Tribunal, in order that no inference be drawn from
its silence.
The United States never has committed itself to participate in any Four
Power trial except the one now pending. The purpose of accusing
organizations and groups as criminal was to reach, through subsequent
and more expeditious trials before Military Government or military
courts, a large number of persons. According to estimates of the United
States Army, a finding that the organizations presently accused are
criminal organizations would result in the trial of approximately
130,000 persons now held in the custody of the United States Army; and I
am uninformed as to those held by others. It has been the great purpose
of the United States from the beginning to bring into this one trial all
that is necessary by way of defendants and evidence to reach the large
number of persons responsible for the crimes charged without going over
the entire evidence again. We, therefore, desire that it be a matter of
record that the United States has not been, and is not by this order,
committed to participate in any subsequent Four Power trial. It reserves
freedom to determine that question after the capacity to handle one
trial under difficult conditions has been tested.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
Chief of Counsel for the United
States
Certified a true copy:
/s/ R. L. MORGAN
Major, GSC
MOTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF CHIEF
PROSECUTORS TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT
BY ADDING THE NAME OF
ALFRIED KRUPP VON BOHLEN AS A DEFENDANT
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
Upon the Indictment and motion of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach,
the answers thereto and all proceedings had therein, the Committee of
Prosecutors created under the Charter hereby designates Alfried Krupp
von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and respectfully moves that the
Indictment be amended by adding the name of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und
Halbach as a defendant and by the addition of appropriate allegations in
reference to him in the Appendix A thereof. It also moves that the time
of Alfried Krupp be shortened from thirty days to 2 December 1945. For
this purpose, the Committee of Prosecutors adopts and ratifies the
Answer filed on behalf of the United States on 12 November 1945 in
response to the Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach motion, and the
motion made by Robert H. Jackson in open Court on behalf of the United
States of America, the Soviet Union and the Provisional Government of
France. This motion is authorized by a resolution adopted at a meeting
of the Committee of Prosecutors held 16 November 1945.
/s/ POKROVSKY
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
/s/ F. DE MENTHON
For the Provisional Government of France
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
For the United States of America
16 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE
MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT BY
ADDING THE NAME OF ALFRIED KRUPP
VON BOHLEN AS A DEFENDANT
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION of the motion to amend the indictment by adding the
name of Alfried Krupp;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and the same hereby is, rejected.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President.
Dated this 17th day
of November, 1945.
ATTEST:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
General Secretary.
MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION
ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
REJECTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE
INDICTMENT
Prosecution
International Military Tribunal
FRENCH DELEGATION
Annex 13
The Delegate of the Provisional
Government of the French Republic
of the Prosecution to the
International Military Tribunal
to
The Members of the International
Military Tribunal
Nuremberg, 20 November 1945
I have the honor to inform you that the decision rendered by you on 17
November at 1500 hours, to reject the motion signed the 16th by Mr.
Justice JACKSON, Colonel POKROVSKY and M. de MENTHON cannot reject the
declaration contained, according to which “The Committee of the
Prosecutors created according to the Charter, designates Alfried KRUPP
VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH as a defendant” because this declaration has been
made as the last resort, under Article 14 b of the Charter.
Accordingly, Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH is specifically
designated as a major war criminal.
Consequently, I have the honor to inform you that the following
declaration has been published by the Chief Prosecutors representing
Great Britain and the Government of the French Republic:
“The Prosecutors representing the United States of America, the
Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Union of
Socialist Soviet Republics having agreed in the designation of Alfried
KRUPP as a major war criminal under Article 14 b of the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal, the French and British Delegations are
now engaged in the examination of the cases of other leading German
industrialists, as well as certain other major war criminals, with a
view to their attachment with Alfried KRUPP, in an indictment to be
presented at a subsequent trial.”
We will let you know of this new indictment as soon as it is
established.
For the Delegate
/s/ CHARLES DUBOST
to: 4-The Members of the I.M.T.
1-General Secretary of the I.M.T.
3-The Members of the Prosecution (for information)
2-Files
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRIAL AS TO HIM[16]
Schwaig, 5 November 1945
TO: The International Military Tribunal.
I
As defense counsel for the accused Julius Streicher I should like to
request that it be considered whether the time of commencement of the
Trial of the major war criminals fixed for 20 November could not be
postponed to a later date. My reasons for this request are as follows:
It is not possible for me properly to prepare the defense of the accused
Streicher by 20 November 1945, nor especially to work through all the
relevant papers and documents which are in the possession of the Court
nor to produce the evidence which the accused proposes to submit nor to
discover or cause to be discovered the witnesses named by him. Therefore
I propose a postponement of the commencement of the Trial for three or
four weeks.
II
Furthermore I request that these documents, books, and other records in
which reference is made by the Prosecution in support of the Indictment
and which have been lodged with the Court, be put at my disposal for the
purpose of inspection and thorough examination.
III
Lastly I take the liberty of suggesting that the films which have been
taken of the atrocities in concentration camps and other criminal acts
be shown to all the defense counsel of the persons accused as this seems
necessary for the instruction of counsel for the defense.
/s/ Dr. MARX
-----
[16] Part I of this motion was withdrawn by Dr. Marx, 15 November 1945,
with permission of the Tribunal.
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
PROSECUTION ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The United States of America, acting through its Chief Prosecutor,
opposes the Motion of Counsel for Defendant STREICHER for the following
reasons:
(1)
Since Counsel accepted the assignment to represent said defendant on 27
October 1945, he has been provided with a list of documents relied upon
by the Prosecutor, and has been permitted to examine the documents and
decrees referred to in such list; that such documents and exhibits will
remain available to said Counsel throughout the Trial in the Defendant’s
Information Center in Room No. 54 of the Court House in Nuremberg where
German-speaking custodians are available for assistance in expediting
such examination.
(2)
Said defendant will have additional time to examine documentary evidence
and further prepare his defense until the Prosecution presents its Case
in Chief.
(3)
Defendant STREICHER is the only defendant who has requested
postponement, and his application does not show any facts of hardship
that would follow which would be limited to his particular defense.
Further he does not show any specific injury to his defense if the
Motion should be denied.
(4)
No objection is made to request in Section II of the Motion.
(5)
It is agreed that the film on Concentration Camps may be shown to
Defense Counsel prior to the Trial.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Motion be overruled.
ROBERT H. JACKSON
U. S. Chief of Counsel
by
/s/ ROBERT G. STOREY
Asst. U. S. Chief of Counsel
14 November 1945
MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
STREICHER
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The Chief Prosecutor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland respectfully opposes the application for an adjournment of
Counsel for the Defendant STREICHER for the following reasons:
I.
1) Counsel for the Defendant Streicher accepted that position on 27
October 1945.
2) The Indictment against the said defendant and others was published on
18 October 1945 and served on the Defendant Streicher shortly
thereafter.
3) The said Counsel has therefore had a considerable time to familiarise
himself with the contents of the Indictment and especially these
which, as appears in the part of the Appendix A, page 33 relating to
the said defendant, are particularly relevant to him. In this
connection the Chief Prosecutor respectfully refers to Page 5,
Section IV(D)(3)(d) and page 26 Section X(A) and (B) of the
Indictment.
4) This Chief Prosecutor further respectfully reminds the Court that the
said Counsel has got a week from the filing of this answer until the
commencement of the Trial, and in addition any time which may be
occupied by the opening of the case and any matters preliminary to
evidence being produced requiring cross-examination by Counsel for
the Defendant Streicher.
5) If oral evidence is called relating to the part alleged to have been
played by the said defendant and the said Counsel is not ready to
cross-examine, he will be able to ask for a postponement of his
cross-examination.
6) It is therefore respectfully submitted that this Application is
premature, and that the time for applying for an adjournment to
assist Counsel for the said defendant is when a difficulty actually
arises at the Trial.
7) This Chief Prosecutor respectfully reminds the Tribunal of the words
of General Nikitchenko, then its President, uttered at Berlin on 18
October 1945: “It must be understood that the Tribunal which is
directed by the Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the
issues raised by the charges will not permit any delay either in the
preparation of the defense or of the Trial.”
II.
This Chief Prosecutor has no objection to the request made in Section II
of the said application.
III.
This Chief Prosecutor has also no objection to the suggestion, contained
in Section III thereof.
/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS
14 November 1945
MOTION OF THE SOVIET PROSECUTION
FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE U.S.S.R.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
As shown by the Indictment of the major war criminals, Julius Streicher
is to be tried in common with the other major war criminals and also for
acts committed by himself, including, in particular, the incitement of
the persecution of the Jews set forth in Count One and Count Four of the
Indictment.
Thus, Streicher must bear the personal responsibility in the first
place, for deriding the Jews, for their being tortured and murdered as a
direct result of his propaganda and of that of his followers.
Pursuant to this Indictment the interrogations of Streicher were carried
on.
At the interrogation of 10 November 1945 by representatives of the
Delegation of the Soviet Union, Streicher declared quite unexpectedly
that he “had been holding the viewpoint of Zionism.”
If, in addition to this, we remember the motion of Streicher’s Defense
Counsel at the session of the Military Tribunal of 15 November 1945 of
the irresponsibility (psychical) of his client, it seems to me evident
that there is every reason for appointing psychiatric experts.
This measure should not encounter any difficulties, as right at this
moment there are in Nuremberg a sufficient number of highly qualified
specialists, who have just solved a similar problem in connection with
the Defendant Hess.
An immediate examination would give the Tribunal, before even the
beginning of the session, exact information as to whether the Defendant
Streicher is responsible or irresponsible. There is still amply
sufficient time to do so.
To resort to experts when the Trial had already begun, would undoubtedly
delay the normal procedure of the Tribunal.
Given consideration to the above, I request that the Defendant Streicher
be submitted to a psychiatric examination before the beginning of the
Trial.
/s/ POKROVSKY
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the
U.S.S.R.
16 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING
A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
17 November 1945
MEMORANDUM TO: DR. JEAN DELAY, Professor of Psychiatry at
the Faculty of Medicine in Paris.
PROFESSOR EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN,
Professor of the Scientific Research Institute in
Moscow.
COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, U.S. Army.
The Tribunal desires that you examine the Defendant JULIUS STREICHER to
determine:
1. Is he sane or insane?
2. Is he fit to appear before the Tribunal and present his defense?
3. If he is insane, was he for that reason incapable of understanding
the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered
by the Indictment?
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
Brig. General, GSC
General Secretary
REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT
STREICHER
18 November 1945
MEMORANDUM FOR: Brig. Gen. William L. Mitchell,
General Secretary.
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
In response to the Tribunal’s request that the Defendant Julius
Streicher be examined, the undersigned psychiatrists did examine the
Defendant Julius Streicher, on 17 November 1945. The following
examinations were made: Physical, neurological and psychiatric
examinations.
In addition, the following documents were studied: All available
interrogations, biographical data, inspection of examples of his written
works, all psychological investigations and observations of the prison
psychiatrist.
The following results of the examination and unanimous conclusions are
submitted:
1) Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.
2) Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear before the Tribunal and
to present his defense.
3) It being the unanimous conclusion of the examiners that Julius
Streicher is sane, he is for that reason capable of understanding the
nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by
the Indictment.
/s/ DR. JEAN DELAY,
Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of
Medicine in Paris.
/s/ EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN,
Professor of the Scientific Research
Institute in Moscow.
/s/ COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, AUS,
Neuropsychiatric Consultant.
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS FOR
AN EXAMINATION BY A NEUTRAL EXPERT WITH
REFERENCE TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND
CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL
TO: The General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg.
On behalf of the Defendant Hess I hereby make the following application
in my capacity of counsel:
I
A. That a medical expert be asked by the Court to make a thorough
examination of the Defendant Hess and to report in an exhaustive manner
as to whether the said defendant is
a) mentally competent,
b) capable of being tried, and to summon the medical expert as a witness
at the Trial.
The expert should be named to the Tribunal by the medical faculty of the
University of Zürich or, if a competent expert should not be available
there, by the medical faculty of Lausanne.
B. If the Court has already appointed an expert, that the expert applied
for and appointed as in I A. be appointed and summoned to act together
with the Court’s own expert at the examination, and to testify in Court.
C. In the event of the Court’s having already in the meantime ordered a
report by a board of experts, that this panel be completed by the
appointment, as well as the expert mentioned in I A., of another expert
also to be named by the medical faculty of Zürich or Lausanne.
II
. . . .
_Reasons:_
Re I. The undersigned Counsel has grave doubts as to the mental
responsibility and the fitness for Trial of the Defendant Hess owing to
defendant’s behavior during his numerous talks with him, and owing to
the numerous publications, past and present, in the German and foreign
press about the “Hess Case”. The defendant is not in a position to give
his Counsel any information whatsoever regarding the crimes imputed to
him in the Indictment. The expression of his face is lifeless and his
attitude towards his Counsel and in view of the impending Trial is the
reverse of every natural reaction of any other defendant.
The defendant declares that he has completely lost his memory since a
long period of time, the period of which he can no longer determine.
The official Party declaration issued by the German Propaganda Ministry
of 12 May 1941 even mentions “a disease which had been increasing over a
period of years” and of “signs of mental derangement”. English press
reports also state that defendant’s conduct after his landing in
Scotland showed an _absence_ of “mental clarity”.
Those facts are important for the allegation of Defendant’s
irresponsibility as a result of morbid disorder of his mental capacity,
and sufficient grounds for application numbered I.
Those facts at the same time justify the examination of defendant’s
ability to plead. In the event of the Court’s having already, on its own
authority, entrusted a panel of experts with the preparation of a
report, it would be fair to the defendant to concede the addition of
_several_ experts to be appointed by the Defense.
. . . .
/s/ VON ROHRSCHEIDT
Attorney
Nuremberg, 7 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING
THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS,
AND DESIGNATING A COMMISSION TO
EXAMINE DEFENDANT HESS WITH REFERENCE
TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND CAPACITY
TO STAND TRIAL
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
1. Counsel for the Defendant Hess has made application to the Tribunal
to appoint an expert designated by the medical faculty of the University
of Zürich or of Lausanne to examine the Defendant Hess with reference to
his mental competence and capacity to stand trial. This application is
denied.
2. The Tribunal has designated a commission composed of the following
members:
Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry,
Medical Institute of Moscow, assisted by
Eugene Sepp, M.D., Professor of Neurology,
Medical Institute of Moscow
Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R., and
Nicolas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine
Medical Institute of Moscow
Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, U.S.S.R.
Lord Moran, M.D. F.R.C.P.
President of the Royal College of Physicians, assisted by
Dr. T. Rees, M.D. F.R.C.P.
Chief Consultant Psychiatrist to the War Office, and
Dr. George Riddoch, M.D. F.R.C.P.
Director of Neurology at the London Hospital and
Chief Consultant Neurologist to the War Office
Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, assisted by
Dr. D. Ewen Cameron and
Colonel Paul Schroeder, M.D.
Professor Jean Delay.
The Tribunal has requested the commission to examine the Defendant Hess
and furnish a report on the mental state of the defendant with
particular reference to the question whether he is able to take his part
in the Trial, specifically:
1. Is the defendant able to plead to the Indictment?
2. Is the defendant sane or not, and on this last issue the Tribunal
wishes to be advised whether the defendant is of sufficient intellect to
comprehend the course of the proceedings of the Trial so as to make a
proper defense, to challenge a witness to whom he might wish to object
and to understand the details of the evidence.
3. The examiners have presented their reports to the Tribunal in the
form which commends itself to them. It is directed that copies of the
reports be furnished to each of the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense
Counsel. The Tribunal will hear argument by the Prosecution and by
Defense Counsel on the issues presented by the reports on Friday, 30
November at 4 P.M.
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President
Dated at Nuremberg, Germany, this
24th day of November 1945.
REPORT OF COMMISSION TO EXAMINE
DEFENDANT HESS[17]
A
To the International Military Tribunal:
In pursuance of the assignment by the Tribunal, we, the medical experts
of the Soviet Delegation, together with the physicians of the English
Delegation and in the presence of one representative of the American
Medical Delegation, have examined Rudolf Hess and made a report on our
examination of Mr. Hess together with our conclusions and interpretation
of the behavior of Mr. Hess.
The statement of the general conclusions has been signed only by the
physicians of the Soviet Delegation and by Professor Delay, the medical
expert of the French Delegation.
Attachments: I. Conclusions, and
II. Report on the examination of Mr. Hess.
/s/ KRASNUSHKIN
Doctor of Medicine
/s/ E. SEPP
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member
of the Academy of Medicine
/s/ KURSHAKOV
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist
of
the Commissariat of Health of the
U.S.S.R.
17 November 1945
-----
[17] On the basis of this report and in view of the oral statement by
the defendant during the Proceedings of 30 November 1945, the Court
ruled 1 December 1945 that “Defendant Hess is capable of standing his
trial at the present time, and the motion of Counsel for the Defense
(requesting postponement) is, therefore, denied, and the Trial will
proceed.”
Attachment I. Conclusions
After observation and an examination of Rudolf Hess the undersigned have
reached the following conclusions:
1. No essential physical deviations from normality were observed.
2. His mental conditions are of a mixed type. He is an unstable person,
which in technical terms is called a psychopathic personality. The data
concerning his illness during the period of the last four years
submitted by one of us who had him under observation in England, show
that he had a delusion of being poisoned and other similar paranoic
notions.
Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission there, the abnormal
manifestations increased and led to attempts at suicide.
In addition to the above mentioned manifestations he has noticeable
hysterical tendencies which caused a development of various symptoms,
primarily, of amnesia that lasted from November 1943 to June of 1944 and
resisted all attempts to be cured.
The amnesia symptom may disappear with changing circumstances.
The second period of amnesia started in February of 1945 and has lasted
up through the present.
3. At present, he is not insane in the strict sense of the word. His
amnesia does not prevent him completely from understanding what is going
on around him but it will interfere with his ability to conduct his
defense and to understand details of the past which would appear as
factual data.
4. To clarify the situation we recommend that a narco-analysis be
performed on him and, if the Court decides to submit him to trial, the
problem should be subsequently re-examined from a psychiatric point of
view.
The conclusion reached on November 14 by the physicians of the British
Delegation, Lord Moran, Dr. T. Rees and Dr. G. Riddoch, and the
physicians of the Soviet Delegation, Professors Krasnushkin, Sepp, and
Kurshakov, was also arrived at on 15 November by the representative of
the French Delegation, Professor Jean Delay.
After an examination of Mr. Hess which took place on 15 November 1945,
the undersigned Professors and experts of the Soviet Delegation,
Krasnushkin, Sepp and Kurshakov, and Professor Jean Delay, the expert
from the French Delegation, have agreed on the following statement:
Mr. Hess categorically refused to be submitted to narco-analysis and
resisted all other procedures intended to effect a cure of his amnesia,
and stated that he would agree to undergo treatment only after the
trial. The behavior of Mr. Hess makes it impossible to apply the methods
suggested in Paragraph 4 of the report of 14 November and to follow the
suggestion of that Paragraph in present form.
/s/ KRASNUSHKIN
Doctor of Medicine
/s/ E. SEPP
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member
of the Academy of Medicine
/s/ KURSHAKOV
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist
of
the Commissariat of Health of the
U.S.S.R.
/s/ JEAN DELAY
Professor, School of Medicine in Paris.
16 November 1945
Attachment II. Report
According to the information obtained on 16 November 1945, during the
interrogation of Rosenberg who had seen Hess immediately before the
latter’s flight to England, Hess gave no evidence of any abnormality
either in appearance or conversation. He was, as usual, quiet and
composed. Nor was it apparent that he might have been nervous. Prior to
this, he was a calm person, habitually suffering pains in the region of
the stomach.
As can be judged on the basis of the report of the English psychiatrist,
Doctor Rees, who had Hess under observation from the first days of his
flight to England, Hess, after the airplane crash, disclosed no evidence
of a brain injury, but, upon arrest and incarceration, he began to give
expression to ideas of persecution, he feared that he would be poisoned,
or killed, and his death represented as a suicide, and that all this
would be done by the English under the hypnotic influence of the Jews.
Furthermore, these delusions of persecution were maintained up to the
news of the catastrophe suffered by the German Army at Stalingrad when
the manifestations were replaced by amnesia. According to Doctor Rees,
the delusions of persecution and the amnesia were observed not to take
place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were two attempts at suicide. A
knife wound, inflicted during the second attempt, in the skin near the
heart gave evidence of a clearly hysterico-demonstrative character.
After this there was again observed a change from amnesia to delusions
of persecution, and during this period he wrote that he was simulating
his amnesia, and, finally, again entered into a state of amnesia which
has been prolonged up to the present.
According to the examination of Rudolf Hess on 14 November 1945, the
following was disclosed:
Hess complains of frequent cramping pains in the region of the stomach
which appear independent of the taking of food, and headaches in the
frontal lobes during mental strain, and, finally, of loss of memory.
In general his condition is marked by a pallor of the skin and a
noticeable reduction in food intake.
Regarding the internal organs of Hess, the pulse is 92, and a weakening
of the heart tone is noticeable. There has been no change in the
condition of the other internal organs.
Concerning the neurological aspect, there are no symptoms of organic
impairment of the nervous system.
Psychologically, Hess is in a state of clear consciousness; knows that
he is in prison at Nuremberg under indictment as a war criminal; has
read, and, according to his own words, is acquainted with the charges
against him. He answers questions rapidly and to the point. His speech
is coherent, his thoughts formed with precision and correctness and they
are accompanied by sufficient emotionally expressive movements. Also,
there is no kind of evidence of paralogism. It should also be noted
here, that the present psychological examination, which was conducted by
Lieutenant Gilbert, Ph. D., bears out the testimony that the
intelligence of Hess is normal and in some instances above the average.
His movements are natural and not forced.
He has expressed no delirious fancies nor does he give any delirious
explanation for the painful sensation in his stomach or the loss of
memory, as was previously attested to by Doctor Rees, namely, when Hess
ascribed them to poisoning. At the present time, to the question about
the reason for his painful sensations and the loss of memory, Hess
answers that this is for the doctors to know. According to his own
assertions, he can remember almost nothing of his former life. The gaps
in Hess’ memory are ascertained only on the basis of the subjective
changing of his testimony about his inability to remember this or that
person or event given at different times. What he knows at the present
time is, in his own words, what he allegedly learned only recently from
the information of those around him and the films which have been shown
him.
On 14 November Hess refused the injection of narcotics which were
offered for the purpose of making an analysis of his psychological
condition. On 15 November, in answer to Professor Delay’s offer, he
definitely and firmly refused narcosis and explained to him that, in
general, he would take all measures to cure his amnesia only upon
completion of the Trial.
All that has been exposed above, we are convinced, permits of the
interpretation that the deviation from the norm in the behavior of Hess
takes the following forms:
1. In the psychological personality of Hess there are no changes typical
of the progressive schizophrenic disease, and therefore the delusions,
from which he suffered periodically while in England, cannot be
considered as manifestations of a schizophrenic paranoia, and must be
recognized as the expression of a psychogenic paranoia reaction, that
is, the psychologically comprehensible reaction of an unstable
(psychologically) personality to the situation (the failure of his
mission, arrest, and incarceration). Such an interpretation of the
delirious statements of Hess in England is bespoken by their
disappearance, appearance, and repeated disappearance depending on
external circumstances which affected the mental state of Hess.
2. The loss of memory by Hess is not the result of some kind of mental
disease but represents hysterical amnesia, the basis of which is a
subconscious inclination toward self-defense as well as a deliberate and
conscious tendency toward it. Such behavior often terminates when the
hysterical person is faced with an unavoidable necessity of conducting
himself correctly. Therefore, the amnesia of Hess may end upon his being
brought to Trial.
3. Rudolf Hess, prior to his flight to England, did not suffer from any
kind of insanity, nor is he now suffering from it. At the present time
he exhibits hysterical behavior with signs of a conscious-intentional
(simulated) character, which does not exonerate him from his
responsibility under the Indictment.
/s/ KRASNUSHKIN
Doctor of Medicine
/s/ E. SEPP
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member
of the Academy of Medicine
/s/ KURSHAKOV
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist
of
the Commissariat of Health of the
U.S.S.R.
17 November 1945
B
To: The International Military Tribunal.
The undersigned, having seen and examined Rudolf Hess, have come to the
following conclusions:
1. There are no relevant physical abnormalities.
2. His mental state is of a mixed type. He is an unstable man and what
is technically called a psychopathic personality. The evidence of his
illness in the past four years, as presented by one of us who has had
him under his care in England, indicates that he has had delusions of
poisoning and other similar paranoid ideas.
Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission these abnormal ideas
got worse and led to a suicidal attempt.
In addition, he has a marked hysterical tendency, as shown by various
symptoms, notably a loss of memory which lasted from November 1943 to
June 1944, and which resisted all efforts at treatment. A second loss of
memory began in February 1945 and has lasted till the present. This
amnesic symptom will eventually clear when circumstances change.
3. At the moment he is not insane in the strict sense. His loss of
memory will not entirely interfere with his comprehension of the
proceedings, but it will interfere with his ability to make his defense
and to understand details of the past which arise in evidence.
4. We recommend that further evidence should be obtained by
narco-analysis, and that if the Court decide to proceed with the Trial,
the question should afterwards be reviewed on psychiatric grounds.
/s/ J. R. REES /s/ GEORGE RIDDOCH
M.D., F.R.C.P. M.D., F.R.C.P.
/s/ MORAN
M.D., F.R.C.P.
19 November 1945.
C
20 November 1945
MEMORANDUM TO: Brigadier General Wm. L. Mitchell,
General Secretary for the International
Military Tribunal.
In response to request of the Tribunal that the Defendant Rudolf Hess be
examined, the undersigned psychiatrists examined Rudolf Hess on 15 and
19 November 1945 in his cell in the Military Prison in Nuremberg.
The following examinations were made: physical, neurological, and
psychological.
In addition, documents were studied bearing information concerning his
personal development and career. Reports concerning the period of his
stay in England were scrutinized. The results of all psychological,
special psychometric examinations, and observations carried out by the
prison psychiatrist and his staff were studied. Information was also
derived from the official interrogation of the defendant on 14 and 16
November 1945.
(1) We find, as a result of our examinations and investigations, that
Rudolf Hess is suffering from hysteria characterized in part by loss of
memory. The nature of this loss of memory is such that it will not
interfere with his comprehension of the proceedings, but it will
interfere with his response to questions relating to his past and will
interfere with his undertaking his defense.
In addition there is a conscious exaggeration of his loss of memory and
a tendency to exploit it to protect himself against examination.
(2) We consider that the existing hysterical behavior which the
defendant reveals, was initiated as a defense against the circumstances
in which he found himself, while in England; that it has now become in
part habitual and that it will continue as long as he remains under the
threat of imminent punishment, even though it may interfere with his
undertaking a more normal form of defense.
(3) It is the unanimous conclusion of the undersigned that Rudolf Hess
is not insane at the present time in the strict sense of the word.
/s/ DR. JEAN DELAY
Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty
of Medicine in Paris
/s/ DR. NOLAN D. C. LEWIS
Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University
/s/ DR. D. EWEN CAMERON
Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University
/s/ COL. PAUL L. SCHROEDER
A.U.S. Neuropsychiatric Consultant
REPORT OF PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST ON
MENTAL COMPETENCE OF DEFENDANT HESS[18]
17 August 1946
SUBJECT : Competence of Defendant Rudolf Hess
TO : General Secretary, International Military Tribunal.
1. In compliance with the Tribunal’s request, the following facts and
studied opinions are submitted with respect to the competence of Rudolf
Hess, based on my continual tests and observations from October 1945 to
the present time, in the capacity of prison psychologist:
2. _Amnesia at beginning of trial._ There can be no doubt that Hess was
in a state of virtually complete amnesia at the beginning of the trial.
The opinions of the psychiatric commissions in this regard and with
respect to his sanity have only been substantiated by prolonged
subsequent observation.
3. _Recovery._ On the day of the special hearing in his case, 30
November 1945, Rudolf Hess did, in fact, recover his memory. The cause
of his sudden recovery is an academic question, but the following event
probably played a part: Just before the hearing I told Hess (as a
challenge) that he might be considered incompetent at that time and
excluded from the proceedings, but I would sometimes see him in his
cell. Hess seemed startled and said he thought he was competent. Then he
gave his declaration of malingering in court, apparently as a
face-saving device. In later conversations he admitted to me that he had
not been malingering, and that he knew he had lost his memory twice in
England. During the months of December 1945, and January 1946, his
memory was quite in order.
4. _Relapse._ At the end of January I began to notice the beginnings of
memory failure. This increased progressively during February, until he
returned to a state of virtually complete amnesia again about the
beginning of March, and he has remained in that state ever since. (At
the beginning of relapse, Hess expressed anxiety over it, saying that no
one would believe him this time after he had said he had faked his
amnesia the first time.) The amnesia is progressive, each day’s events
being quickly forgotten. At present his memory span is about one-half
day, and his apprehension span has dropped from 7 to 4 digits repeated
correctly immediately after hearing.
5. _Competence and sanity._ I have read the application of Dr. Seidl
both in German and in English, and wish to make the following comment:
_a._ Lay discussion of psychiatric concepts does not help throw any
light on this case, because psychiatrists themselves are not in
agreement on the definition of terms like “psychopathic constitution”,
“hysterical reaction”, etc., and these terms have entirely different
meanings in English and German usage.
_b._ The psychiatric commissions have agreed, and my further
observations have confirmed, that Hess is _not_ insane (in the legal
sense of being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or realizing
the consequences of his acts).
_c._ Hess did recover his memory for a sufficient period of time (2-3
months) to give his counsel ample cooperation in the preparation of his
defense. If he failed to do so, it was the result of a negativistic
personality peculiarity, which I have also observed, and not
incompetence.
_d._ There has been no indication in his case history or present
behavior that he was insane at the time of the activities for which he
has been indicted. His behavior throughout the trial has also shown
sufficient insight and reason to dispel any doubts about his sanity. (He
may have gone through a psychotic episode in England, but that in no way
destroys the validity of the previous two statements. He has exhibited
signs of a “persecution complex” here too, but these have not been of
psychotic proportions.)
_e._ In my opinion, another examination by a psychiatric commission at
this time would not throw any further light on the case, because the
clinical picture is the same and the conclusions would necessarily be
the same as those of the original psychiatric commissions, to wit: Hess
is not insane but suffering from hysterical amnesia. I have discussed
this case with the present prison psychiatrist, Lt. Col. Dunn, who has
recently examined Hess, and he is also of the opinion that Hess’s
present mental state is apparently the same as that indicated in the
original psychiatric reports, which he has read.
/s/ G. M. GILBERT, Ph.D.
Prison Psychologist
-----
[18] This report was referred to Counsel for Defendant Hess by order of
the Tribunal, 20 August 1946, in reference to the motion of 2 August
1946 on behalf of the defendant. This motion, which reviewed at length
the previous examinations and psychiatric history of Defendant Hess, was
a request “to subject the Defendant Hess once more . . . to an
examination by psychiatric experts with regard to his ability to stand
trial and his soundness of mind.”
MOTION ADOPTED BY ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL[19]
19 November 1945
Two frightful world wars and the violent collisions by which peace among
the States was violated during the period between these enormous and
world embracing conflicts caused the tortured peoples to realize that a
true order among the States is not possible as long as such State, by
virtue of its sovereignty, has the right to wage war at any time and for
any purpose. During the last decades public opinion in the world
challenged with ever increasing emphasis the thesis that the decision of
waging war is beyond good and evil. A distinction is being made between
just and unjust wars and it is asked that the Community of States call
to account the State which wages an unjust war and deny it, should it be
victorious, the fruits of its outrage. More than that, it is demanded
that not only should the guilty State be condemned and its liability be
established, but that furthermore those men who are responsible for
unleashing the unjust war be tried and sentenced by an International
Tribunal. In that respect one goes now-a-days further than even the
strictest jurists since the early middle ages. This thought is at the
basis of the first three counts of the Indictment which have been put
forward in this Trial, to wit, the Indictment for Crimes against Peace.
Humanity insists that this idea should in the future be more than a
demand,that it should be valid international law.
However, today it is not as yet valid international law. Neither in the
statute of the League of Nations, world organization against war, nor in
the Kellogg-Briand Pact, nor in any other of the treaties which were
concluded after 1918 in that first upsurge of attempts to ban aggressive
warfare, has this idea been realized. But above all the practice of the
League of Nations has, up to the very recent past, been quite
unambiguous in that regard. On several occasions the League had to
decide upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of action by force of one
member against another member, but it always condemned such action by
force merely as a violation of international law by the State, and never
thought of bringing up for trial the statesmen, generals, and
industrialists of the state which recurred to force. And when the new
organization for world peace was set up last summer in San Francisco, no
new legal maxim was created under which an international tribunal would
inflict punishment upon those who unleashed an unjust war. The present
Trial can, therefore, as far as Crimes against Peace shall be avenged,
not invoke existing international law, it is rather a proceeding
pursuant to a new penal law, a penal law enacted only after the crime.
This is repugnant to a principle of jurisprudence sacred to the
civilized world, the partial violation of which by Hitler’s Germany has
been vehemently discountenanced outside and inside the Reich. This
principle is to the effect that only he can be punished who offended
against a law in existence at the time of the commission of the act and
imposing a penalty. This maxim is one of the great fundamental
principles of the political systems of the Signatories of the Charter
for this Tribunal themselves, to wit, of England since the Middle Ages,
of the United States since their creation, of France since its great
revolution, and the Soviet Union. And recently when the Control Council
for Germany enacted a law to assure the return to a just administration
of penal law in Germany, it decreed in the first place the restoration
of the maxim, “No punishment without a penal law in force at the time of
the commission of the act”. This maxim is precisely not a rule of
expediency but it derives from the recognition of the fact that any
defendant must needs consider himself unjustly treated if he is punished
under an _ex post facto_ law.
The Defense of all defendants would be neglectful of their duty if they
acquiesced silently in a deviation from existing international law and
in disregard of a commonly recognized principle of modern penal
jurisprudence and if they suppressed doubts which are openly expressed
today outside Germany, all the more so as it is the unanimous conviction
of the Defense that this Trial could serve in a high degree the progress
of world order even if, nay in the very instance where it did not depart
from existing international law. Wherever the Indictment charges acts
which were not punishable at the time the Tribunal would have to confine
itself to a thorough examination and findings as to what acts were
committed, for which purposes the Defense would cooperate to the best of
their ability as true assistants of the Court. Under the impact of these
findings of the Tribunal the States of the international legal community
would then create a new law under which those who in the future would be
guilty of starting an unjust war would be threatened with punishment by
an International Tribunal.
The Defense are also of the opinion that other principles of a penal
character contained in the Charter are in contradiction with the maxim,
“_Nulla Poena Sine Lege_”.
Finally, the Defense consider it their duty to point out at this
juncture another peculiarity of this Trial which departs from the
commonly recognized principles of modern jurisprudence. The Judges have
been appointed exclusively by States which were the one party in this
war. This one party to the proceeding is all in one: creator of the
statute of the Tribunal and of the rules of law, prosecutor and judge.
It used to be until now the common legal conception that this should not
be so; just as the United States of America, as the champion for the
institution of international arbitration and jurisdiction, always
demanded that neutrals, or neutrals and representatives of all parties,
should be called to the Bench. This principle has been realized in an
exemplary manner in the case of the Permanent Court of International
Justice at The Hague.
In view of the variety and difficulty of these questions of law the
Defense hereby pray:
That the Tribunal direct that an opinion be submitted by internationally
recognized authorities on international law on the legal elements of
this Trial under the Charter of the Tribunal.
On behalf of the attorneys for all defendants who are present.
/s/ DR. STAHMER
-----
[19] The Tribunal rejected this motion 21 November 1945, ruling that
insofar as it was a plea to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal it was in
conflict with Article 3 of the Charter.
JUDGMENT
On 8 August 1945, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, the Government of the United States of America,
the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Government of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics entered into an Agreement
establishing this Tribunal for the Trial of War Criminals whose offenses
have no particular geographical location. In accordance with Article 5,
the following Governments of the United Nations have expressed their
adherence to the Agreement:
Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Belgium, Ethiopia, Australia, Honduras, Norway, Panama, Luxembourg,
Haiti, New Zealand, India, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Paraguay.
By the Charter annexed to the Agreement, the constitution, jurisdiction,
and functions of the Tribunal were defined.
The Tribunal was invested with power to try and punish persons who had
committed Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity
as defined in the Charter.
The Charter also provided that at the Trial of any individual member of
any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with
any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or
organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal
organization.
In Berlin, on 18 October 1945, in accordance with Article 14 of the
Charter, an Indictment was lodged against the defendants named in the
caption above, who had been designated by the Committee of the Chief
Prosecutors of the signatory Powers as major war criminals.
A copy of the Indictment in the German language was served upon each
defendant in custody, at least 30 days before the Trial opened.
This Indictment charges the defendants with Crimes against Peace by the
planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression,
which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements,
and assurances; with War Crimes; and with Crimes against Humanity. The
defendants are also charged with participating in the formulation or
execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit all these crimes. The
Tribunal was further asked by the Prosecution to declare all the named
groups or organizations to be criminal within the meaning of the
Charter.
The Defendant Robert Ley committed suicide in prison on 25 October 1945.
On 15 November 1945 the Tribunal decided that the Defendant Gustav Krupp
von Bohlen und Halbach could not then be tried because of his physical
and mental condition, but that the charges against him in the Indictment
should be retained for trial thereafter, if the physical and mental
condition of the defendant should permit. On 17 November 1945 the
Tribunal decided to try the Defendant Bormann in his absence under, the
provisions of Article 12 of the Charter. After argument, and
consideration of full medical reports, and a statement from the
defendant himself, the Tribunal decided on 1 December 1945 that no
grounds existed for a postponement of the Trial against the Defendant
Hess because of his mental condition. A similar decision was made in the
case of the Defendant Streicher.
In accordance with Articles 16 and 23 of the Charter, Counsel were
either chosen by the defendants in custody themselves, or at their
request were appointed by the Tribunal. In his absence the Tribunal
appointed Counsel for the Defendant Bormann, and also assigned Counsel
to represent the named groups or organizations.
The Trial, which was conducted in four languages—English, Russian,
French, and German—began on 20 November 1945, and pleas of “Not Guilty”
were made by all the defendants except Bormann.
The hearing of evidence and the speeches of Counsel concluded on 31
August 1946.
Four hundred and three open sessions of the Tribunal have been held.
Thirty-three witnesses gave evidence orally for the Prosecution against
the individual defendants and 61 witnesses, in addition to 19 of the
defendants, gave evidence for the Defense.
A further 143 witnesses gave evidence for the Defense by means of
written answers to interrogatories.
The Tribunal appointed Commissioners to hear evidence relating to the
organizations, and 101 witnesses were heard for the Defense before the
Commissioners, and 1,809 affidavits from other witnesses were submitted.
Six reports were also submitted, summarizing the contents of a great
number of further affidavits.
Thirty-eight thousand affidavits, signed by 155,000 people, were
submitted on behalf of the Political Leaders, 136,213 on behalf of the
SS, 10,000 on behalf of the SA, 7,000 on behalf of the SD, 3,000 on
behalf of the General Staff and OKW, and 2,000 on behalf of the Gestapo.
The Tribunal itself heard 22 witnesses for the organizations. The
documents tendered in evidence for the Prosecution of the individual
defendants and the organizations numbered several thousands. A complete
stenographic record of everything said in Court has been made, as well
as an electrical recording of all the proceedings.
Copies of all the documents put in evidence by the Prosecution have been
supplied to the Defense in the German language. The applications made by
the defendants for the production of witnesses and documents raised
serious problems in some instances, on account of the unsettled state of
the Country. It was also necessary to limit the number of witnesses to
be called, in order to have an expeditious hearing, in accordance with
Article 18 (c) of the Charter. The Tribunal, after examination, granted
all those applications which in its opinion were relevant to the defense
of any defendant or named group or organization, and were not
cumulative. Facilities were provided for obtaining those witnesses and
documents granted through the office of the General Secretary
established by the Tribunal.
Much of the evidence presented to the Tribunal on behalf of the
Prosecution was documentary evidence, captured by the Allied armies in
German army headquarters, Government buildings, and elsewhere. Some of
the documents were found in salt mines, buried in the ground, hidden
behind false walls and in other places thought to be secure from
discovery. The case, therefore, against the defendants rests in a large
measure on documents of their own making, the authenticity of which has
not been challenged except in one or two cases.
_The Charter Provisions_
The individual defendants are indicted under Article 6 of the Charter,
which is as follows:
“Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred
to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major
war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the
power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of
the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as
members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes:
“The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be
individual responsibility:
“(a) Crimes Against Peace: namely, planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances,
or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing:
“(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of
war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to,
murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any
other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied
territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or
persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public of
private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity:
“(c) Crimes Against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed
against any civilian population, before or during the war, or
persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in
execution of or in connection with any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the
domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices,
participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan
or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are
responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution
of such plan.”
These provisions are binding upon the Tribunal as the law to be applied
to the case. The Tribunal will later discuss them in more detail; but,
before doing so, it is necessary to review the facts. For the purpose of
showing the background of the aggressive war and war crimes charged in
the Indictment, the Tribunal will begin by reviewing some of the events
that followed the first World War, and in particular, by tracing the
growth of the Nazi Party under Hitler’s leadership to a position of
supreme power from which it controlled the destiny of the whole German
People, and paved the way for the alleged commission of all the crimes
charged against the defendants.
_The Nazi Regime in Germany
the Origin and Aims of the Nazi Party_
On 5 January 1919, not two months after the conclusion of the Armistice
which ended the first World War, and six months before the signing of
the peace treaties at Versailles, there came into being in Germany a
small political party called the German Labor Party. On 12 September
1919 Adolf Hitler became a member of this Party, and at the first public
meeting held in Munich, on 24 February 1920, he announced the Party’s
program. That program, which remained unaltered until the Party was
dissolved in 1945, consisted of 25 points, of which the following five
are of particular interest on account of the light they throw on the
matters with which the Tribunal is concerned:
“_Point 1._ We demand the unification of all Germans in the
Greater Germany, on the basis of the right of self-determination
of peoples.
_Point 2._ We demand equality of rights for the German People in
respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties
of Versailles and Saint Germain.
_Point 3._ We demand land and territory for the sustenance of
our people, and the colonization of our surplus population.
_Point 4._ Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member
of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without
consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of
the race . . . .
_Point 22._ We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and
formation of a national army.”
Of these aims, the one which seems to have been regarded as the most
important, and which figured in almost every public speech, was the
removal of the “disgrace” of the Armistice, and the restrictions of the
peace treaties of Versailles and Saint Germain. In a typical speech at
Munich on 13 April 1923, for example, Hitler said with regard to the
Treaty of Versailles:
“The Treaty was made in order to bring 20 million Germans to
their deaths, and to ruin the German Nation . . . . At its
foundation our movement formulated three demands:
1. Setting aside of the Peace Treaty.
2. Unification of all Germans.
3. Land and soil to feed our Nation.”
The demand for the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany was
to play a large part in the events preceding the seizure of Austria and
Czechoslovakia; the abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles was to become
a decisive motive in attempting to justify the policy of the German
Government; the demand for land was to be the justification for the
acquisition of “living space” at the expense of other nations; the
expulsion of the Jews from membership of the race of German blood was to
lead to the atrocities against the Jewish people; and the demand for a
national army was to result in measures of rearmament on the largest
possible scale, and ultimately to war.
On 29 July 1921, the Party which had changed its name to National
Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP) was reorganized, Hitler
becoming the first “Chairman”. It was in this year that the
Sturmabteilung or SA was founded, with Hitler at its head, as a private
para-military force, which allegedly was to be used for the purpose of
protecting NSDAP leaders from attack by rival political parties, and
preserving order at NSDAP meetings, but in reality was used for fighting
political opponents on the streets. In March 1923 the Defendant Göring
was appointed head of the SA.
The procedure within the Party was governed in the most absolute way by
the “Leadership Principle” (Führerprinzip).
According to the principle, each Führer has the right to govern,
administer, or decree, subject to no control of any kind and at his
complete discretion, subject only to the orders he received from above.
This principle applied in the first instance to Hitler himself as the
leader of the Party, and in a lesser degree to all other Party
officials. All members of the Party swore an oath of “eternal
allegiance” to the leader.
There were only two ways in which Germany could achieve the three main
aims above-mentioned, by negotiation, or by force. The 25 points of the
NSDAP program do not specifically mention the methods on which the
leaders of the Party proposed to rely, but the history of the Nazi
regime shows that Hitler and his followers were only prepared to
negotiate on the terms that their demands were conceded, and that force
would be used if they were not.
On the night of 8 November 1923, an abortive putsch took place in
Munich. Hitler and some of his followers burst into a meeting in the
Bürgerbräu Cellar, which was being addressed by the Bavarian Prime
Minister Kahr, with the intention of obtaining from him a decision to
march forthwith on Berlin. On the morning of 9 November, however, no
Bavarian support was forthcoming, and Hitler’s demonstration was met by
the armed forces of the Reichswehr and the police. Only a few volleys
were fired; and after a dozen of his followers had been killed, Hitler
fled for his life, and the demonstration was over. The Defendants
Streicher, Frick, and Hess all took part in the attempted rising. Hitler
was later tried for high treason, and was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment. The SA was outlawed. Hitler was released from prison in
1924 and in 1925 the Schutzstaffeln, or SS, was created, nominally to
act as his personal bodyguard, but in reality to terrorize political
opponents. This was also the year of the publication of _Mein Kampf_,
containing the political views and aims of Hitler, which came to be
regarded as the authentic source of Nazi doctrine.
_The Seizure of Power_
In the eight years that followed the publication of _Mein Kampf_, the
NSDAP greatly extended its activities throughout Germany, paying
particular attention to the training of youth in the ideas of National
Socialism. The first Nazi youth organization had come into existence in
1922, but it was in 1925 that the Hitler Jugend was officially
recognized by the NSDAP. In 1931 Baldur von Schirach, who had joined the
NSDAP in 1925, became Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP.
The Party exerted every effort to win political support from the German
People. Elections were contested both for the Reichstag and the
Landtage. The NSDAP leaders did not make any serious attempt to hide the
fact that their only purpose in entering German political life was in
order to destroy the democratic structure of the Weimar Republic, and to
substitute for it a National Socialist totalitarian regime which would
enable them to carry out their avowed policies without opposition. In
preparation for the day when he would obtain power in Germany, Hitler in
January 1929, appointed Heinrich Himmler as Reichsführer SS with the
special task of building the SS into a strong but elite group which
would be dependable in all circumstances.
On 30 January 1933 Hitler succeeded in being appointed Chancellor of the
Reich by President Von Hindenburg. The Defendants Göring, Schacht, and
Von Papen were active in enlisting support to bring this about. Von
Papen had been appointed Reich Chancellor on 1 June 1932. On 14 June he
rescinded the decree of the Brüning Cabinet of 13 April 1932, which had
dissolved the Nazi para-military organizations, including the SA and the
SS. This was done by agreement between Hitler and Von Papen, although
Von Papen denies that it was agreed as early as 28 May, as Dr. Hans Volz
asserts in “Dates from the History of the NSDAP”; but that it was the
result of an agreement was admitted in evidence by Von Papen.
The Reichstag elections of 31 July 1932 resulted in a great accession of
strength to the NSDAP, and Von Papen offered Hitler the post of Vice
Chancellor, which he refused, insisting upon the Chancellorship itself.
In November 1932 a petition signed by leading industrialists and
financiers was presented to President Hindenburg, calling upon him to
entrust the Chancellorship to Hitler; and in the collection of
signatures, to the petition Schacht took a prominent part.
The election of 6 November, which followed the defeat of the Government,
reduced the number of NSDAP members, but Von Papen made further efforts
to gain Hitler’s participation, without success. On 12 November Schacht
wrote to Hitler:
“I have no doubt that the present development of things can only
lead to your becoming Chancellor. It seems as if our attempt to
collect a number of signatures from business circles for this
purpose was not altogether in vain . . . .”
After Hitler’s refusal of 16 November, Von Papen resigned, and was
succeeded by General Von Schleicher; but Von Papen still continued his
activities. He met Hitler at the house of the Cologne banker Von
Schröder on 4 January 1933, and attended a meeting at the Defendant Von
Ribbentrop’s house on 22 January, with the Defendant Göring and others.
He also had an interview with President Hindenburg on 9 January, and
from 22 January onwards he discussed officially with Hindenburg the
formation of a Hitler Cabinet.
Hitler held his first Cabinet meeting on the day of his appointment as
Chancellor, at which the Defendants Göring, Frick, Funk, Von Neurath,
and Von Papen were present in their official capacities. On 28 February
1933 the Reichstag building in Berlin was set on fire. This fire was
used by Hitler and his Cabinet as a pretext for passing on the same day
a decree suspending the constitutional guarantees of freedom. The decree
was signed by President Hindenburg and countersigned by Hitler and the
Defendant Frick, who then occupied the post of Reich Minister of the
Interior. On 5 March elections were held, in which the NSDAP obtained
288 seats of the total of 647. The Hitler Cabinet was anxious to pass an
“Enabling Act” that would give them full legislative powers, including
the power to deviate from the Constitution. They were without the
necessary majority in the Reichstag to be able to do this
constitutionally. They therefore made use of the decree suspending the
guarantees of freedom and took into so-called “protective custody” a
large number of Communist deputies and Party officials. Having done
this, Hitler introduced the “Enabling Act” into the Reichstag, and after
he had made it clear that if it was not passed, further forceful
measures would be taken, the act was passed on 24 March 1933.
_The Consolidation of Power_
The NSDAP, having achieved power in this way, now proceeded to extend
its hold on every phase of German life. Other political parties were
persecuted, their property and assets confiscated, and many of their
members placed in concentration camps. On 26 April 1933 the Defendant
Göring founded in Prussia the Geheime Staatspolizei, or Gestapo, as a
secret police, and confided to the deputy leader of the Gestapo that its
main task was to eliminate political opponents of National Socialism and
Hitler. On 14 July 1933 a law was passed declaring the NSDAP to be the
only political party, and making it criminal to maintain or form any
other political party.
In order to place the complete control of the machinery of Government in
the hands of the Nazi leaders, a series of laws and decrees were passed
which reduced the powers of regional and local governments throughout
Germany, transforming them into subordinate divisions of the Government
of the Reich. Representative assemblies in the Laender were abolished,
and with them all local elections. The Government then proceeded to
secure control of the Civil Service. This was achieved by a process of
centralization, and by a careful sifting of the whole Civil Service
administration. By a law of 7 April it was provided that officials “who
were of non-Aryan descent” should be retired; and it was also decreed
that “officials who because of their previous political activity do not
offer security that they will exert themselves for the national state
without reservation shall be discharged.” The law of 11 April 1933
provided for the discharge of “all civil servants who belong to the
Communist Party.” Similarly, the judiciary was subjected to control.
Judges were removed from the bench for political or racial reasons. They
were spied upon and made subject to the strongest pressure to join the
Nazi Party as an alternative to being dismissed. When the Supreme Court
acquitted three of the four defendants charged with complicity in the
Reichstag fire, its jurisdiction in cases of treason was thereafter
taken away and given to a newly established “People’s Court” consisting
of two judges and five officials of the Party. Special courts were set
up to try political crimes and only party members were appointed as
judges. Persons were arrested by the SS for political reasons, and
detained in prisons and concentration camps; and the judges were without
power to intervene in any way. Pardons were granted to members of the
Party who had been sentenced by the judges for proved offenses. In 1935
several officials of the Hohenstein concentration camp were convicted of
inflicting brutal treatment upon the inmates. High Nazi officials tried
to influence the Court, and after the officials had been convicted,
Hitler pardoned them all. In 1942 “judges’ letters” were sent to all
German judges by the Government, instructing them as to the “general
lines” that they must follow.
In their determination to remove all sources of opposition, the NSDAP
leaders turned their attention to the trade unions, the churches, and
the Jews. In April 1933 Hitler ordered the late Defendant Ley, who was
then staff director of the political organization of the NSDAP, “to take
over the trade unions.” Most of the trade unions of Germany were joined
together in two large federations, the “Free Trade Unions” and the
“Christian Trade Unions.” Unions outside these two large federations
contained only 15 percent of the total union membership. On 21 April
1933 Ley issued an NSDAP directive announcing a “coordination action” to
be carried out on 2 May against the Free Trade Unions. The directive
ordered that SA and SS men were to be employed in the planned
“occupation of trade union properties and for the taking into protective
custody of personalities who come into question.” At the conclusion of
the action the official NSDAP press service reported that the National
Socialist Factory Cells Organization had “eliminated the old leadership
of Free Trade Unions” and taken over the leadership themselves.
Similarly, on 3 May 1933 the NSDAP press service announced that the
Christian trade unions “have unconditionally subordinated themselves to
the leadership of Adolf Hitler.” In place of the trade unions the Nazi
Government set up a Deutsche Arbeits Front (DAF), controlled by the
NSDAP, and which, in practice, all workers in Germany were compelled to
join. The chairmen of the unions were taken into custody and were
subjected to ill-treatment, ranging from assault and battery to murder.
In their effort to combat the influence of the Christian churches, whose
doctrines were fundamentally at variance with National Socialist
philosophy and practice, the Nazi Government proceeded more slowly. The
extreme step of banning the practice of the Christian religion was not
taken, but year by year efforts were made to limit the influence of
Christianity on the German people, since, in the words used by the
Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg in an official letter, “the
Christian religion and National Socialist doctrines are not compatible.”
In the month of June 1941 the Defendant Bormann issued a secret decree
on the relation of Christianity and National Socialism. The decree
stated that:
“For the first time in German history the Führer consciously and
completely has the leadership in his own hand. With the Party,
its components and attached units, the Führer has created for
himself and thereby the German Reich Leadership, an instrument
which makes him independent of the Treaty . . . . More and more
the people must be separated from the churches and their organs,
the pastor . . . . Never again must an influence on leadership
of the people be yielded to the churches. This influence must be
broken completely and finally. Only the Reich Government and by
its direction the Party, its components and attached units, have
a right to leadership of the people.”
From the earliest days of the NSDAP, anti-Semitism had occupied a
prominent place in National Socialist thought and propaganda. The Jews,
who were considered to have no right to German citizenship, were held to
have been largely responsible for the troubles with which the Nation was
afflicted following on the war of 1914-18. Furthermore, the antipathy to
the Jews was intensified by the insistence which was laid upon the
superiority of the Germanic race and blood. The second chapter of Book 1
of _Mein Kampf_ is dedicated to what may be called the “Master Race”
theory, the doctrine of Aryan superiority over all other races, and the
right of Germans in virtue of this superiority to dominate and use other
peoples for their own ends. With the coming of the Nazis into power in
1933, persecution of the Jews became official state policy. On 1 April
1933, a boycott of Jewish enterprises was approved by the Nazi Reich
Cabinet, and during the following years a series of anti-Semitic laws
was passed, restricting the activities of Jews in the civil service, in
the legal profession, in journalism and in the armed forces. In
September 1935, the so-called Nuremberg Laws were passed, the most
important effect of which was to deprive Jews of German citizenship. In
this way the influence of Jewish elements on the affairs of Germany was
extinguished, and one more potential source of opposition to Nazi policy
was rendered powerless.
In any consideration of the crushing of opposition, the massacre of 30
June 1934 must not be forgotten. It has become known as the “Röhm Purge”
or “the blood bath”, and revealed the methods which Hitler and his
immediate associates, including the Defendant Göring, were ready to
employ to strike down all opposition and consolidate their power. On
that day Röhm, the Chief of Staff of the SA since 1931, was murdered by
Hitler’s orders, and the “Old Guard” of the SA was massacred without
trial and without warning. The opportunity was taken to murder a large
number of people who at one time or another had opposed Hitler.
The ostensible ground for the murder of Röhm was that he was plotting to
overthrow Hitler, and the Defendant Göring gave evidence that knowledge
of such a plot had come to his ears. Whether this was so or not it is
not necessary to determine.
On 3 July the Cabinet approved Hitler’s action and described it as
“legitimate self-defense by the State.”
Shortly afterwards Hindenburg died, and Hitler became both Reich
President and Chancellor. At the Nazi-dominated plebiscite, which
followed, 38 million Germans expressed their approval, and with the
Reichswehr taking the oath of allegiance to the Führer, full power was
now in Hitler’s hands.
Germany had accepted the dictatorship with all its methods of terror,
and its cynical and open denial of the rule of law.
Apart from the policy of crushing the potential opponents of their
regime, the Nazi Government took active steps to increase its power over
the German population. In the field of education, everything was done to
ensure that the youth of Germany was brought up in the atmosphere of
National Socialism and accepted National Socialist teachings. As early
as 7 April 1933 the law reorganizing the civil service had made it
possible for the Nazi Government to remove all “subversive and
unreliable teachers”; and this was followed by numerous other measures
to make sure that the schools were staffed by teachers who could be
trusted to teach their pupils the full meaning of the National Socialist
creed. Apart from the influence of National Socialist teaching in the
schools, the Hitler Youth Organization was also relied upon by the Nazi
Leaders for obtaining fanatical support from the younger generation. The
Defendant Von Schirach, who had been Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP
since 1931, was appointed Youth Leader of the German Reich in June 1933.
Soon all the youth organizations had been either dissolved or absorbed
by the Hitler Youth, with the exception of the “Catholic Youth”. The
Hitler Youth was organized on strict military lines, and as early as
1933 the Wehrmacht was cooperating in providing pre-military training
for the Reich Youth.
The Nazi Government endeavored to unite the Nation in support of their
policies through the extensive use of propaganda. A number of agencies
was set up, whose duty was to control and influence the press, the
radio, films, publishing firms, etc., in Germany, and to supervise
entertainment and cultural and artistic activities. All these agencies
came under Goebbels’ Ministry of the People’s Enlightenment and
Propaganda, which together with a corresponding organization in the
NSDAP and the Reich Chamber of Culture, was ultimately responsible for
exercising this supervision. The Defendant Rosenberg played a leading
part in disseminating the National Socialist doctrines on behalf of the
Party, and the Defendant Fritzsche, in conjunction with Goebbels,
performed the same task for the State.
The greatest emphasis was laid on the supreme mission of the German
People to lead and dominate by virtue of their Nordic blood and racial
purity; and the ground was thus being prepared for the acceptance of the
idea of German world supremacy.
Through the effective control of the radio and the press, the German
People, during the years which followed 1933, were subjected to the most
intensive propaganda in furtherance of the regime. Hostile criticism,
indeed criticism of any kind, was forbidden, and the severest penalties
were imposed on those who indulged in it.
Independent judgment, based on freedom of thought, was rendered quite
impossible.
_Measures of Rearmament_
During the years immediately following Hitler’s appointment as
Chancellor, the Nazi Government set about reorganizing the economic life
of Germany, and in particular the armament industry. This was done on a
vast scale and with extreme thoroughness.
It was necessary to lay a secure financial foundation for the building
of armaments, and in April 1936 the Defendant Göring was appointed
coordinator for raw materials and foreign exchange, and empowered to
supervise all State and Party activities in these fields. In this
capacity he brought together the War Minister, the Minister of
Economics, the Reich Finance Minister, the President of the Reichsbank
and the Prussian Finance Minister to discuss problems connected with war
mobilization, and on 27 May 1936, in addressing these men, Göring
opposed any financial limitation of war production and added that “all
measures are to be considered from the standpoint of an assured waging
of war.” At the Party Rally in Nuremberg in 1936, Hitler announced the
establishment of the Four Year Plan and the appointment of Göring as the
Plenipotentiary in charge. Göring was already engaged in building a
strong air force and on 8 July 1938 he announced to a number of leading
German aircraft manufacturers that the German Air Force was already
superior in quality and quantity to the English. On 14 October 1938, at
another conference, Göring announced that Hitler had instructed him to
organize a gigantic armament program, which would make insignificant all
previous achievements. He said that he had been ordered to build as
rapidly as possible an air force five times as large as originally
planned, to increase the speed of the rearmament of the navy and army,
and to concentrate on offensive weapons, principally heavy artillery and
heavy tanks. He then laid down a specific program designed to accomplish
these ends. The extent to which rearmament had been accomplished was
stated by Hitler in his memorandum of 9 October 1939, after the campaign
in Poland. He said:
“The military application of our people’s strength has been
carried through to such an extent that within a short time at
any rate it cannot be markedly improved upon by any manner of
effort . . . .
“The warlike equipment of the German people is at present larger
in quantity and better in quality for a greater number of German
divisions than in the year 1914. The weapons themselves, taking
a substantial cross-section, are more modern than is the case of
any other country in the world at this time. They have just
proved their supreme war worthiness in their victorious campaign
. . . . There is no evidence available to show that any country
in the world disposes of a better total ammunition stock than
the Reich . . . . The A. A. artillery is not equalled by any
country in the world.”
In this reorganization of the economic life of Germany for military
purposes, the Nazi Government found the German armament industry quite
willing to cooperate, and to play its part in the rearmament program. In
April 1933 Gustav Krupp von Bohlen submitted to Hitler on behalf of the
Reich Association of German Industry a plan for the reorganization of
German industry, which he stated was characterized by the desire to
coordinate economic measures and political necessity. In the plan itself
Krupp stated that “the turn of political events is in line with the
wishes which I myself and the board of directors have cherished for a
long time.” What Krupp meant by this statement is fully shown by the
draft text of a speech which he planned to deliver in the University of
Berlin in January 1944, though the speech was in fact never delivered.
Referring to the years 1919 to 1933, Krupp wrote:
“It is the one great merit of the entire German war economy that
it did not remain idle during those bad years, even though its
activity could not be brought to light, for obvious reasons.
Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork
was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German armed
forces at the appointed hour, without loss of time or experience
. . . . Only through the secret activity of German enterprise
together with the experience gained meanwhile through the
production of peace time goods was it possible after 1933 to
fall into step with the new tasks arrived at, restoring
Germany’s military power.”
In October 1933 Germany withdrew from the International Disarmament
Conference and the League of Nations. In 1935 the Nazi Government
decided to take the first open steps to free itself from its obligations
under the Treaty of Versailles. On 10 March 1935 the Defendant Göring
announced that Germany was building a military air force. Six days
later, on 16 March 1935, a law was passed bearing the signatures, among
others, of the Defendants Göring, Hess, Frank, Frick, Schacht, and Von
Neurath, instituting compulsory military service and fixing the
establishment of the German Army at a peace time strength of 500,000
men. In an endeavor to reassure public opinion in other countries, the
Government announced on 21 May 1935 that Germany would, though
renouncing the disarmament clauses, still respect the territorial
limitations of the Versailles Treaty, and would comply with the Locarno
Pacts. Nevertheless, on the very day of this announcement, the secret
Reich Defense Law was passed and its publication forbidden by Hitler. In
this law, the powers and duties of the Chancellor and other Ministers
were defined, should Germany become involved in war. It is clear from
this law that by May of 1935 Hitler and his Government had arrived at
the stage in the carrying out of their policies when it was necessary
for them to have in existence the requisite machinery for the
administration and government of Germany in the event of their policy
leading to war.
At the same time that this preparation of the German economy for war was
being carried out, the German armed forces themselves were preparing for
a rebuilding of Germany’s armed strength.
The German Navy was particularly active in this regard. The official
German Naval historians, Assmann and Gladisch, admit that the Treaty of
Versailles had only been in force for a few months before it was
violated, particularly in the construction of a new submarine arm.
The publications of Captain Schuessler and Colonel Scherff, both of
which were sponsored by the Defendant Raeder, were designed to show the
German People the nature of the Navy’s effort to rearm in defiance of
the Treaty of Versailles.
The full details of these publications have been given in evidence.
On 12 May 1934 the Defendant Raeder issued the Top Secret armament plan
for what was called the “Third Armament Phase”. This contained the
sentence:
“All theoretical and practical A-preparations are to be drawn up
with a primary view to readiness for a war _without any alert
period_.”
One month later, in June 1934, the Defendant Raeder had a conversation
with Hitler in which Hitler instructed him to keep secret the
construction of U-boats and of warships over the limit of 10,000 tons
which was then being undertaken.
And on 2 November 1934, the Defendant Raeder had another conversation
with Hitler and the Defendant Göring, in which Hitler said that he
considered it vital that the German Navy “should be increased as
planned, as no war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to
safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia”.
The large orders for building given in 1933 and 1934 are sought to be
excused by the Defendant Raeder on the ground that negotiations were in
progress for an agreement between Germany and Great Britain permitting
Germany to build ships in excess of the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles. This agreement, which was signed in 1935, restricted the
German Navy to a tonnage equal to one-third of that of the British,
except in respect of U-boats where 45 percent was agreed, subject always
to the right to exceed this proportion after first informing the British
Government and giving them an opportunity of discussion.
The Anglo-German Treaty followed in 1937, under which both Powers bound
themselves to notify full details of their building program at least
four months before any action was taken.
It is admitted that these clauses were not adhered to by Germany.
In capital vessels, for example, the displacement details were falsified
by 20 percent, whilst in the case of U-boats, the German historians
Assmann and Gladisch say:
“It is probably just in the sphere of submarine construction
that Germany adhered the least to the restrictions of the
German-British Treaty.”
The importance of these breaches of the Treaty is seen when the motive
for this rearmament is considered. In the year 1940 the Defendant Raeder
himself wrote:
“The Führer hoped until the last moment to be able to put off
the threatening conflict with England until 1944-45. At that
time, the Navy would have had available a fleet with a powerful
U-boat superiority, and a much more favorable ratio as regards
strength in all other types of ships, particularly those
designed for warfare on the High Seas.”
The Nazi Government as already stated, announced on 21 May 1935 their
intention to respect the territorial limitations of the Treaty of
Versailles. On 7 March 1936, in defiance of that Treaty, the
demilitarized zone of the Rhineland was entered by German troops. In
announcing this action to the German Reichstag, Hitler endeavored to
justify the re-entry by references to the recently concluded alliances
between France and the Soviet Union, and between Czechoslovakia and the
Soviet Union. He also tried to meet the hostile reaction which he no
doubt expected to follow this violation of the Treaty by saying:
“We have no territorial claims to make in Europe.”
_The Common Plan of Conspiracy and Aggressive War_
The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against Peace
charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the
defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes
against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with
committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing,
initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other
States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence
of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to
deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual
responsibility of the defendants.
The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged
aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an
evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States
alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international
crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other
war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
whole.
The first acts of aggression referred to in the Indictment are the
seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia; and the first war of aggression
charged in the Indictment is the war against Poland begun on 1 September
1939.
Before examining that charge it is necessary to look more closely at
some of the events which preceded these acts of aggression. The war
against Poland did not come suddenly out of an otherwise clear sky; the
evidence has made it plain that this war of aggression, as well as the
seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia, was premeditated and carefully
prepared, and was not undertaken until the moment was thought opportune
for it to be carried through as a definite part of the pre-ordained
scheme and plan. For the aggressive designs of the Nazi Government were
not accidents arising out of the immediate political situation in Europe
and the world; they were a deliberate and essential part of Nazi foreign
policy.
From the beginning, the National Socialist movement claimed that its
object was to unite the German People in the consciousness of their
mission and destiny, based on inherent qualities of race, and under the
guidance of the Führer.
For its achievement, two things were deemed to be essential: the
disruption of the European order as it had existed since the Treaty of
Versailles, and the creation of a Greater Germany beyond the frontiers
of 1914. This necessarily involved the seizure of foreign territories.
War was seen to be inevitable, or at the very least, highly probable, if
these purposes were to be accomplished. The German People, therefore,
with all their resources, were to be organized as a great
political-military army, schooled to obey without question any policy
decreed by the State.
_Preparation for Aggression_
In _Mein Kampf_ Hitler had made this view quite plain. It must be
remembered that _Mein Kampf_ was no mere private diary in which the
secret thoughts of Hitler were set down. Its contents were rather
proclaimed from the house-tops. It was used in the schools and
Universities and among the Hitler Youth, in the SS and the SA, and among
the German People generally, even down to the presentation of an
official copy to all newly-married people. By the year 1945 over 6½
million copies had been circulated. The general contents are well known.
Over and over again Hitler asserted his belief in the necessity of force
as the means of solving international problems, as in the following
quotation:
“The soil on which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven
on our forefathers. They had to conquer it by risking their
lives. So also in the future, our people will not obtain
territory, and therewith the means of existence, as a favor from
any other people, but will have to win it by the power of a
triumphant sword.”
_Mein Kampf_ contains many such passages, and the extolling of force as
an instrument of foreign policy is openly proclaimed.
The precise objectives of this policy of force are also set forth in
detail. The very first page of the book asserts that “German-Austria
must be restored to the great German Motherland,” not on economic
grounds, but because “people of the same blood should be in the same
Reich.”
The restoration of the German frontiers of 1914 is declared to be wholly
insufficient, and if Germany is to exist at all, it must be as a world
power with the necessary territorial magnitude.
_Mein Kampf_ is quite explicit in stating where the increased territory
is to be found:
“Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line
through the line of conduct followed by pre-war Germany in
foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march
towards the South and West of Europe, and turn our eyes towards
the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and
trade policy of the pre-war times, and pass over to the
territorial policy of the future.
“But when we speak of new territory in Europe today, we must
think principally of Russia and the border states subject to
her.”
_Mein Kampf_ is not to be regarded as a mere literary exercise, nor as
an inflexible policy or plan incapable of modification.
Its importance lies in the unmistakable attitude of aggression revealed
throughout its pages.
_The Planning of Aggression_
Evidence from captured documents has revealed that Hitler held four
secret meetings to which the Tribunal proposes to make special reference
because of the light they shed upon the question of the common plan and
aggressive war.
These meetings took place on 5 November 1937, 23 May 1939, 22 August
1939, and 23 November 1939.
At these meetings important declarations were made by Hitler as to his
purposes, which are quite unmistakable in their terms.
The documents which record what took place at these meetings have been
subject to some criticism at the hands of defending Counsel.
Their essential authenticity is not denied, but it is said, for example,
that they do not propose to be verbatim transcripts of the speeches they
record, that the document dealing with the meeting on 5 November 1937,
was dated five days after the meeting had taken place, and that the two
documents dealing with the meeting of 22 August 1939 differ from one
another, and are unsigned.
Making the fullest allowance for criticism of this kind, the Tribunal is
of opinion that the documents are documents of the highest value, and
that their authenticity and substantial truth are established.
They are obviously careful records of the events they describe, and they
have been preserved as such in the archives of the German Government,
from whose custody they were captured. Such documents could never be
dismissed as inventions, nor even as inaccurate or distorted; they
plainly record events which actually took place.
_Conferences of 23 November 1939 and 5 November 1937_
It will perhaps be useful to deal first of all with the meeting of 23
November 1939, when Hitler called his Supreme Commanders together. A
record was made of what was said, by one of those present. At the date
of the meeting, Austria and Czechoslovakia had been incorporated into
the German Reich, Poland had been conquered by the German Armies, and
the war with Great Britain and France was still in its static phase. The
moment was opportune for a review of past events. Hitler informed the
Commanders that the purpose of the Conference was to give them an idea
of the world of his thoughts, and to tell them his decision. He
thereupon reviewed his political task since 1919, and referred to the
secession of Germany from the League of Nations, the denunciation of the
Disarmament Conference, the order for re-armament, the introduction of
compulsory armed service, the occupation of the Rhineland, the seizure
of Austria, and the action against Czechoslovakia. He stated:
“One year later, Austria came; this step also was considered
doubtful. It brought about a considerable reinforcement of the
Reich. The next step was Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland. This step
also was not possible to accomplish in one campaign. First of
all, the western fortification had to be finished. It was not
possible to reach the goal in one effort. It was clear to me
from the first moment that I could not be satisfied with the
Sudeten German territory. That was only a partial solution. The
decision to march into Bohemia was made. Then followed the
erection of the Protectorate and with that the basis for the
action against Poland was laid, but I wasn’t quite clear at that
time whether I should start first against the East and then in
the West or vice versa . . . . Basically I did not organize the
Armed Forces in order not to strike. The decision to strike was
always in me. Earlier or later I wanted to solve the problem.
Under pressure it was decided that the East was to be attacked
first.”
This address, reviewing past events and re-affirming the aggressive
intentions present from the beginning, puts beyond any question of doubt
the character of the actions against Austria and Czechoslovakia, and the
war against Poland.
For they had all been accomplished according to plan; and the nature of
that plan must now be examined in a little more detail.
At the meeting of 23 November 1939 Hitler was looking back to things
accomplished; at the earlier meetings now to be considered, he was
looking forward, and revealing his plans to his confederates. The
comparison is instructive.
The meeting held at the Reich Chancellery in Berlin on 5 November 1937
was attended by Lieutenant Colonel Hossbach, Hitler’s personal adjutant,
who compiled a long note of the proceedings, which he dated 10 November
1937 and signed.
The persons present were Hitler, and the Defendants Göring, Von Neurath,
and Raeder, in their capacities as Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe,
Reich Foreign Minister, and Commander-in-Chief of the Navy respectively,
General Von Blomberg, Minister of War, and General Von Fritsch, the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
Hitler began by saying that the subject of the conference was of such
high importance that in other States it would have taken place before
the Cabinet. He went on to say that the subject matter of his speech was
the result of his detailed deliberations, and of his experiences during
his four and a half years of Government. He requested that the
statements he was about to make should be looked upon in the case of his
death as his last will and testament. Hitler’s main theme was the
problem of living space, and he discussed various possible solutions,
only to set them aside. He then said that the seizure of living space on
the continent of Europe was therefore necessary, expressing himself in
these words:
“It is not a case of conquering people but of conquering
agriculturally useful space. It would also be more to the
purpose to seek raw material producing territory in Europe
directly adjoining the Reich and not overseas, and this solution
would have to be brought into effect for one or two generations
. . . . The history of all times—Roman Empire, British
Empire—has proved that every space expansion can only be
effected by breaking resistance and taking risks. Even setbacks
are unavoidable: neither formerly nor today has space been found
without an owner; the attacker always comes up against the
proprietor.”
He concluded with this observation:
“The question for Germany is where the greatest possible
conquest could be made at the lowest cost.”
Nothing could indicate more plainly the aggressive intentions of Hitler,
and the events which soon followed showed the reality of his purpose. It
is impossible to accept the contention that Hitler did not actually mean
war; for after pointing out that Germany might expect the opposition of
England and France, and analyzing the strength and the weakness of those
powers in particular situations, he continued:
“The German question can be solved only by way of force, and
this is never without risk . . . . If we place the decision to
apply force with risk at the head of the following expositions,
then we are left to reply to the questions ‘when’ and ‘how’. In
this regard we have to decide upon three different cases.”
The first of these three cases set forth a hypothetical international
situation, in which he would take action not later than 1943 to 1945,
saying:
“If the Führer is still living then it will be his irrevocable
decision to solve the German space problem not later than 1943
to 1945. The necessity for action before 1943 to 1945 will come
under consideration in Cases 2 and 3.”
The second and third cases to which Hitler referred show the plain
intention to seize Austria and Czechoslovakia, and in this connection
Hitler said:
“For the improvement of our military-political position, it must
be our first aim in every case of entanglement by war to conquer
Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously in order to remove any
threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance westwards.”
He further added:
“The annexation of the two States to Germany militarily and
politically would constitute a considerable relief, owing to
shorter and better frontiers, the freeing of fighting personnel
for other purposes, and the possibility of reconstituting new
armies up to a strength of about twelve divisions.”
This decision to seize Austria and Czechoslovakia was discussed in some
detail; the action was to be taken as soon as a favorable opportunity
presented itself.
The military strength which Germany had been building up since 1933 was
now to be directed at the two specific countries, Austria and
Czechoslovakia.
The Defendant Göring testified that he did not believe at that time that
Hitler actually meant to attack Austria and Czechoslovakia, and that the
purpose of the conference was only to put pressure on Von Fritsch to
speed up the re-armament of the Army.
The Defendant Raeder testified that neither he, nor Von Fritsch, nor Von
Blomberg, believed that Hitler actually meant war, a conviction which
the Defendant Raeder claims that he held up to 22 August 1939. The basis
of this conviction was his hope that Hitler would obtain a “political
solution” of Germany’s problems. But all that this means, when examined,
is the belief that Germany’s position would be so good, and Germany’s
armed might so overwhelming that the territory desired could be obtained
without fighting for it. It must be remembered too that Hitler’s
declared intention with regard to Austria was actually carried out
within a little over four months from the date of the meeting, and
within less than a year the first portion of Czechoslovakia was
absorbed, and Bohemia and Moravia a few months later. If any doubts had
existed in the minds of any of his hearers in November 1937, after March
1939 there could no longer be any question that Hitler was in deadly
earnest in his decision to resort to war. The Tribunal is satisfied that
Lieutenant Colonel Hossbach’s account of the meeting is substantially
correct, and that those present knew that Austria and Czechoslovakia
would be annexed by Germany at the first possible opportunity.
_The Seizure of Austria_
The invasion of Austria was a pre-meditated aggressive step in
furthering the plan to wage aggressive wars against other countries. As
a result Germany’s flank was protected, that of Czechoslovakia being
greatly weakened. The first step had been taken in the seizure of
“Lebensraum”; many new divisions of trained fighting men had been
acquired; and with the seizure of foreign exchange reserves, the
re-armament program had been greatly strengthened.
On 21 May 1935 Hitler announced in the Reichstag that Germany did not
intend either to attack Austria or to interfere in her internal affairs.
On 1 May 1936 he publicly coupled Czechoslovakia with Austria in his
avowal of peaceful intentions; and so late as 11 July 1936 he recognized
by treaty the full sovereignty of Austria.
Austria was in fact seized by Germany in the month of March 1938. For a
number of years before that date, the National Socialists in Germany had
been cooperating with the National Socialists of Austria with the
ultimate object of incorporating Austria into the German Reich. The
Putsch of 25 July 1934, which resulted in the assassination of
Chancellor Dollfuss, had the seizure of Austria as its object; but the
Putsch failed, with the consequence that the National Socialist Party
was outlawed in Austria. On 11 July 1936 an agreement was entered into
between the two countries, Article 1 of which stated: “The German
Government recognizes the full sovereignty of the Federated State of
Austria in the spirit of the pronouncements of the German Führer and
Chancellor of 21 May 1935.”
Article 2 declared: “Each of the two Governments regards the inner
political order (including the question of Austrian National Socialism)
obtaining in the other country as an internal affair of the other
country, upon which it will exercise neither direct nor indirect
influence.”
The National Socialist movement in Austria however continued its illegal
activities under cover of secrecy; and the National Socialists of
Germany gave the Party active support. The resulting “incidents” were
seized upon by the German National Socialists as an excuse for
interfering in Austrian affairs. After the conference of 5 November
1937, these “incidents” rapidly multiplied. The relationship between the
two countries steadily worsened, and finally the Austrian Chancellor
Schuschnigg was persuaded by the Defendant Von Papen and others to seek
a conference with Hitler, which took place at Berchtesgaden on 12
February 1938. The Defendant Keitel was present at the conference, and
Dr. Schuschnigg was threatened by Hitler with an immediate invasion of
Austria. Schuschnigg finally agreed to grant a political amnesty to
various Nazis convicted of crime, and to appoint the Nazi Seyss-Inquart
as Minister of the Interior and Security with control of the Police. On
9 March 1938, in an attempt to preserve the independence of his country,
Dr. Schuschnigg decided to hold a plebiscite on the question of Austrian
independence, which was fixed for 13 March 1938. Hitler, two days later,
sent an ultimatum to Schuschnigg that the plebiscite must be withdrawn.
In the afternoon and evening of 11 March 1938 the Defendant Göring made
a series of demands upon the Austrian Government, each backed up by the
threat of invasion. After Schuschnigg had agreed to the cancellation of
the plebiscite, another demand was put forward that Schuschnigg must
resign, and that the Defendant Seyss-Inquart should be appointed
Chancellor. In consequence, Schuschnigg resigned, and President Miklas,
after at first refusing to appoint Seyss-Inquart as Chancellor, gave way
and appointed him.
Meanwhile Hitler had given the final order for the German troops to
cross the border at dawn on 12 March and instructed Seyss-Inquart to use
formations of Austrian National Socialists to depose Miklas and to seize
control of the Austrian Government. After the order to march had been
given to the German troops, Göring telephoned the German Embassy in
Vienna and dictated a telegram which he wished Seyss-Inquart to send to
Hitler to justify the military action which had already been ordered.
It was:
“The provisional Austrian Government, which, after the dismissal
of the Schuschnigg Government, considers its task to establish
peace and order in Austria, sends to the German Government the
urgent request to support it in its task and to help it to
prevent bloodshed. For this purpose it asks the German
Government to send German troops as soon as possible.”
Keppler, an official of the German Embassy, replied: “Well, SA and SS
are marching through the streets, but everything is quiet.”
After some further discussion, Göring stated: “Please show him
(Seyss-Inquart) the text of the telegram and do tell him that we are
asking him—well, he doesn’t even have to send the telegram. All he
needs to do is to say ‘Agreed’.”
Seyss-Inquart never sent the telegram; he never even telegraphed
“Agreed”.
It appears that as soon as he was appointed Chancellor, some time after
10 p.m., he called Keppler and told him to call up Hitler and transmit
his protests against the occupation. This action outraged the Defendant
Göring, because “it would disturb the rest of the Führer, who wanted to
go to Austria the next day”. At 11:15 p.m. an official in the Ministry
of Propaganda in Berlin telephoned the German Embassy in Vienna and was
told by Keppler: “Tell the General Field Marshal that Seyss-Inquart
agrees”.
At daybreak on 12 March 1938 German troops marched into Austria, and met
with no resistance. It was announced in the German press that
Seyss-Inquart had been appointed the successor to Schuschnigg, and the
telegram which Göring had suggested, but which was never sent, was
quoted to show that Seyss-Inquart had requested the presence of German
troops to prevent disorder. On 13 March 1938 a law was passed for the
reunion of Austria in the German Reich. Seyss-Inquart demanded that
President Miklas should sign this law, but he refused to do so, and
resigned his office. He was succeeded by Seyss-Inquart, who signed the
law in the name of Austria. This law was then adopted as a law of the
Reich by a Reich Cabinet decree issued the same day, and signed by
Hitler and the Defendants Göring, Frick, Von Ribbentrop, and Hess.
It was contended before the Tribunal that the annexation of Austria was
justified by the strong desire expressed in many quarters for the union
of Austria and Germany; that there were many matters in common between
the two peoples that made this union desirable; and that in the result
the object was achieved without bloodshed.
These matters, even if true, are really immaterial, for the facts
plainly prove that the methods employed to achieve the object were those
of an aggressor. The ultimate factor was the armed might of Germany
ready to be used if any resistance was encountered. Moreover, none of
these considerations appear from the Hossbach account of the meetings of
5 November 1937 to have been the motives which actuated Hitler; on the
contrary, all the emphasis is there laid on the advantage to be gained
by Germany in her military strength by the annexation of Austria.
_The Seizure of Czechoslovakia_
The conference of 5 November 1937 made it quite plain that the seizure
of Czechoslovakia by Germany had been definitely decided upon. The only
question remaining was the selection of the suitable moment to do it. On
4 March 1938 the Defendant Von Ribbentrop wrote to the Defendant Keitel
with regard to a suggestion made to Von Ribbentrop by the Hungarian
Ambassador in Berlin, that possible war aims against Czechoslovakia
should be discussed between the German and Hungarian Armies. In the
course of this letter Von Ribbentrop said:
“I have many doubts about such negotiations. In case we should
discuss with Hungary possible war aims against Czechoslovakia,
the danger exists that other parties as well would be informed
about this.”
On 11 March 1938 Göring made two separate statements to M. Mastny, the
Czechoslovak Minister in Berlin, assuring him that the developments then
taking place in Austria would in no way have any detrimental influence
on the relations between the German Reich and Czechoslovakia, and
emphasized the continued earnest endeavor on the part of the Germans to
improve those mutual relations. On 12 March Göring asked M. Mastny to
call on him, and repeated these assurances.
This design to keep Czechoslovakia quiet whilst Austria was absorbed was
a typical maneuver on the part of the Defendant Göring, which he was to
repeat later in the case of Poland, when he made the most strenuous
efforts to isolate Poland in the impending struggle. On the same day, 12
March, the Defendant Von Neurath spoke with M. Mastny, and assured him
on behalf of Hitler that Germany still considered herself bound by the
German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention concluded at Locarno in
October 1925.
The evidence shows that after the occupation of Austria by the German
Army on 12 March and the annexation of Austria on 13 March, Conrad
Henlein, who was the leader of the Sudeten German Party in
Czechoslovakia, saw Hitler in Berlin on 28 March. On the following day,
at a conference in Berlin, when Von Ribbentrop was present with Henlein,
the general situation was discussed, and later the Defendant Jodl
recorded in his diary:
“After the annexation of Austria the Führer mentions that there
is no hurry to solve the Czech question, because Austria has to
be digested first. Nevertheless, preparations for Case Grün
(that is, the plan against Czechoslovakia) will have to be
carried out energetically; they will have to be newly prepared
on the basis of the changed strategic position because of the
annexation of Austria.”
On 21 April 1938 a discussion took place between Hitler and the
Defendant Keitel with regard to “Case Grün”, showing quite clearly that
the preparations for the attack on Czechoslovakia were being fully
considered. On 28 May 1938 Hitler ordered that preparations should be
made for military action against Czechoslovakia by the 2nd October, and
from then onwards the plan to invade Czechoslovakia was constantly under
review. On 30 May 1938 a directive signed by Hitler declared his
“unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the
near future”.
In June 1938 as appears from a captured document taken from the files of
the SD in Berlin, an elaborate plan for the employment of the SD in
Czechoslovakia had been proposed. This plan provided that “the SD
follow, if possible, immediately after the leading troops, and take upon
themselves the duties similar to their tasks in Germany . . . .”
Gestapo officials were assigned to co-operate with the SD in certain
operations. Special agents were to be trained beforehand to prevent
sabotage, and these agents were to be notified “before the attack in due
time . . . in order to give them the possibility to hide themselves,
avoid arrest and deportation . . . At the beginning, guerrilla or
partisan warfare is to be expected, therefore weapons are necessary
. . . .”
Files of information were to be compiled with notations as follows: “To
arrest.” “To liquidate.” “To confiscate.” “To deprive of passport.” etc.
The plan provided for the temporary division of the country into larger
and smaller territorial units, and considered various “suggestions”, as
they were termed, for the incorporation into the German Reich of the
inhabitants and districts of Czechoslovakia. The final “suggestion”
included the whole country, together with Slovakia and Carpathian
Russia, with a population of nearly 15 millions.
The plan was modified in some respects in September after the Munich
Conference, but the fact the plan existed in such exact detail and was
couched in such war-like language indicated a calculated design to
resort to force.
On 31 August 1938 Hitler approved a memorandum by Jodl dated 24 August
1938, concerning the timing of the order for the invasion of
Czechoslovakia and the question of defense measures. This memorandum
contained the following:
“Operation Grün will be set in motion by means of an ‘incident’
in Czechoslovakia, which will give Germany provocation for
military intervention. The fixing of the _exact time_ for this
incident is of the utmost importance.”
These facts demonstrate that the occupation of Czechoslovakia had been
planned in detail long before the Munich Conference.
In the month of September 1938 the conferences and talks with military
leaders continued. In view of the extraordinarily critical situation
which had arisen, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, flew to
Munich and then went to Berchtesgaden to see Hitler. On 22 September Mr.
Chamberlain met Hitler for further discussions at Bad Godesberg. On 26
September 1938 Hitler said in a speech in Berlin, with reference to his
conversation:
“I assured him, moreover, and I repeat it here, that when this
problem is solved there will be no more territorial problems for
Germany in Europe; and I further assured him that from the
moment when Czechoslovakia solves its other problems, that is to
say, when the Czechs have come to an arrangement with their
other minorities, peacefully and without oppression, I will be
no longer interested in the Czech State, and that as far as I am
concerned I will guarantee it. We don’t want any Czechs.”
On 29 September 1938, after a conference between Hitler and Mussolini
and the British and French Prime Ministers in Munich, the Munich Pact
was signed, by which Czechoslovakia was required to acquiesce in the
cession of the Sudetenland to Germany. The “piece of paper” which the
British Prime Minister brought back to London, signed by himself and
Hitler, expressed the hope that for the future Britain and Germany might
live without war. That Hitler never intended to adhere to the Munich
Agreement is shown by the fact that a little later he asked the
Defendant Keitel for information with regard to the military force which
in his opinion would be required to break all Czech resistance in
Bohemia and Moravia. Keitel gave his reply on 11 October 1938. On 21
October 1938 a directive was issued by Hitler, and countersigned by the
Defendant Keitel, to the Armed Forces on their future tasks, which
stated:
“Liquidation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. It must be
possible to smash at any time the remainder of Czechoslovakia if
her policy should become hostile towards Germany.”
On 14 March 1939 the Czech President Hacha and his Foreign Minister
Chvalkovsky came to Berlin at the suggestion of Hitler, and attended a
meeting at which the Defendants Von Ribbentrop, Göring, and Keitel were
present, with others. The proposal was made to Hacha that if he would
sign an agreement consenting to the incorporation of the Czech people in
the German Reich at once, Bohemia and Moravia would be saved from
destruction. He was informed that German troops had already received
orders to march and that any resistance would be broken with physical
force. The Defendant Göring added the threat that he would destroy
Prague completely from the air. Faced by this dreadful alternative,
Hacha and his Foreign Minister put their signatures to the necessary
agreement at 4:30 in the morning, and Hitler and Ribbentrop signed on
behalf of Germany.
On 15 March German troops occupied Bohemia and Moravia, and on 16 March
the German decree was issued incorporating Bohemia and Moravia into the
Reich as a protectorate, and this decree was signed by the Defendants
Von Ribbentrop and Frick.
_The Aggression against Poland_
By March 1939 the plan to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, which had
been discussed by Hitler at the meeting of 5 November 1937, had been
accomplished. The time had now come for the German leaders to consider
further acts of aggression, made more possible of attainment because of
that accomplishment.
On 23 May 1939 a meeting was held in Hitler’s study in the new Reich
Chancellery in Berlin. Hitler announced his decision to attack Poland
and gave his reasons, and discussed the effect the decision might have
on other countries. In point of time, this was the second of the
important meetings to which reference has already been made, and in
order to appreciate the full significance of what was said and done, it
is necessary to state shortly some of the main events in the history of
German-Polish relations.
As long ago as the year 1925 an Arbitration Treaty between Germany and
Poland had been made at Locarno, providing for the settlement of all
disputes between the two countries. On 26 January 1934, a German-Polish
declaration of non-aggression was made, signed on behalf of the German
Government by the Defendant Von Neurath. On 30 January 1934, and again
on 30 January 1937 Hitler made speeches in the Reichstag in which he
expressed his view that Poland and Germany could work together in
harmony and peace. On 20 February 1938 Hitler made a third speech in the
Reichstag in the course of which he said with regard to Poland:
“And so the way to a friendly understanding has been
successfully paved, an understanding which, beginning with
Danzig, has today, in spite of the attempts of certain mischief
makers, succeeded in finally taking the poison out of the
relations between Germany and Poland and transforming them into
a sincere, friendly cooperation . . . . Relying on her
friendships, Germany will not leave a stone unturned to save
that ideal which provides the foundation for the task which is
ahead of us—peace.”
On 26 September 1938, in the middle of the crisis over the Sudetenland,
Hitler made the speech in Berlin which has already been quoted, and
announced that he had informed the British Prime Minister that when the
Czechoslovakian problem was solved there would be no more territorial
problems for Germany in Europe. Nevertheless, on 24 November of the same
year, an OKW directive was issued to the German Armed Forces to make
preparations for an attack upon Danzig; it stated:
“The Führer has ordered:
(1) . . . Preparations are also to be made to enable the Free
State of Danzig to be occupied by German troops by surprise.”
In spite of having ordered military preparations for the occupation of
Danzig, Hitler on 30 January 1939 said in a speech in the Reichstag:
“During the troubled months of the past year, the friendship between
Germany and Poland has been one of the reassuring factors in the
political life of Europe.”
Five days previously, on 25 January 1939, Von Ribbentrop said in the
course of a speech in Warsaw: “Thus Poland and Germany can look forward
to the future with full confidence in the solid basis of their mutual
relations.”
Following on the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia by Germany on 15
March 1939, which was a flagrant breach of the Munich Agreement, Great
Britain gave an assurance to Poland on 31 March 1939 that in the event
of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which
the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with
their National Forces, Great Britain would feel itself bound at once to
lend Poland all the support in its power. The French Government took the
same stand. It is interesting to note in this connection, that one of
the arguments frequently presented by the Defense in the present case is
that the Defendants were induced to think that their conduct was not in
breach of international law by the acquiescence of other Powers. The
declarations of Great Britain and France showed, at least, that this
view could be held no longer.
On 3 April 1939 a revised OKW directive was issued to the Armed Forces,
which after referring to the question of Danzig made reference to Fall
Weiss (the military code name for the German invasion of Poland) and
stated:
“The Führer has added the following directions to Fall Weiss.
(1) Preparations must be made in such a way that the operation
can be carried out at any time from 1 September 1939 onwards.
(2) The High Command of the Armed Forces has been directed to
draw up a precise timetable for Fall Weiss and to arrange by
conferences the synchronized timings between the three branches
of the Armed Forces.”
On 11 April 1939 a further directive was signed by Hitler and issued to
the Armed Forces, and in one of the annexes to that document the words
occur:
“Quarrels with Poland should be avoided. Should Poland however
adopt a threatening attitude towards Germany, ‘a final
settlement’ will be necessary, notwithstanding the pact with
Poland. The aim is then to destroy Polish military strength, and
to create in the East a situation which satisfies the
requirements of defense. The Free State of Danzig will be
incorporated into Germany at the outbreak of the conflict at the
latest. Policy aims at limiting the war to Poland, and this is
considered possible in view of the internal crisis in France,
and British restraint as a result of this.”
In spite of the contents of those two directives, Hitler made a speech
in the Reichstag on 28 April 1939 in which, after describing the Polish
Government’s alleged rejection of an offer he had made with regard to
Danzig and the Polish Corridor, he stated:
“I have regretted greatly this incomprehensible attitude of the
Polish Government, but that alone is not the decisive fact; the
worst is that now Poland like Czechoslovakia a year ago
believes, under the pressure of a lying international campaign,
that it must call up its troops, although Germany on her part
has not called up a single man, and had not thought of
proceeding in any way against Poland . . . . The intention to
attack on the part of Germany which was merely invented by the
international press . . . .”
It was four weeks after making this speech that Hitler, on 23 May 1939,
held the important military conference to which reference has already
been made. Among the persons present were the Defendants Göring, Raeder,
and Keitel. The adjutant on duty that day was Lieutenant Colonel
Schmundt, and he made a record of what happened, certifying it with his
signature as a correct record.
The purpose of the meeting was to enable Hitler to inform the heads of
the Armed Forces and their staffs of his views on the political
situation and his future aims. After analyzing the political situation
and reviewing the course of events since 1933, Hitler announced his
decision to attack Poland. He admitted that the quarrel with Poland over
Danzig was not the reason for this attack, but the necessity for Germany
to enlarge her living space and secure her food supplies. He said:
“The solution of the problem demands courage. The principle by
which one evades solving the problem by adapting oneself to
circumstances is inadmissible. Circumstances must rather be
adapted to needs. This is impossible without invasion of foreign
States or attacks upon foreign property.”
Later in his address he added:
“There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and we are
left with the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable
opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair.
There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of
the isolation will be decisive . . . . The isolation of Poland
is a matter of skillful politics.”
Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt’s record of the meeting reveals that Hitler
fully realized the possibility of Great Britain and France coming to
Poland’s assistance. If, therefore, the isolation of Poland could not be
achieved, Hitler was of the opinion that Germany should attack Great
Britain and France first, or at any rate should concentrate primarily on
the war in the West, in order to defeat Great Britain and France
quickly, or at least to destroy their effectiveness. Nevertheless,
Hitler stressed, that war with England and France would be a life and
death struggle, which might last a long time, and that preparations must
be made accordingly.
During the weeks which followed this conference, other meetings were
held and directives were issued in preparation for the war. The
Defendant Von Ribbentrop was sent to Moscow to negotiate a
non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
On 22 August 1939 there took place the important meeting of that day, to
which reference has already been made. The Prosecution have put in
evidence two unsigned captured documents which appear to be records made
of this meeting by persons who were present. The first document is
headed: “The Führer’s Speech to the Commanders-in-Chief on 22 August
1939.” The purpose of the speech was to announce the decision to make
war on Poland at once, and Hitler began by saying:
“It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come
sooner or later. I had already made this decision in the spring,
but I thought that I would first turn against the West in a few
years, and only afterwards against the East . . . I wanted to
establish an acceptable relationship with Poland in order to
fight first against the West. But this plan, which was agreeable
to me, could not be executed since essential points have
changed. It became clear to me that Poland would attack us in
case of a conflict with the West.”
Hitler then went on to explain why he had decided that the most
favorable moment had arrived for starting the war:
“Now”, said Hitler, “Poland is in the position in which I wanted
her . . . . I am only afraid that at the last moment some
_Schweinehund_ will make a proposal for mediation . . . . A
beginning has been made for the destruction of England’s
hegemony.”
This document closely resembles one of the documents put in evidence on
behalf of the Defendant Raeder. This latter document consists of a
summary of the same speech, compiled on the day it was made, by one
Admiral Boehm, from notes he had taken during the meeting. In substance
it says that the moment had arrived to settle the dispute with Poland by
military invasion, that although a conflict between Germany and the West
was unavoidable in the long run, the likelihood of Great Britain and
France coming to Poland’s assistance was not great, and that even if a
war in the West should come about, the first aim should be the crushing
of the Polish military strength. It also contains a statement by Hitler
that an appropriate propaganda reason for invading Poland would be
given, the truth or falsehood of which was unimportant, since “the Right
lies in Victory”.
The second unsigned document put in evidence by the Prosecution is
headed: “Second Speech by the Führer on 22 August 1939”, and is in the
form of notes of the main points made by Hitler. Some of these are as
follows:
“Everybody shall have to make a point of it that we were
determined from the beginning to fight the Western Powers.
Struggle for life or death . . . destruction of Poland in the
foreground. The aim is elimination of living forces, not the
arrival at a certain line. Even if war should break out in the
West, the destruction of Poland shall be the primary objective.
I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war—never
mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be
asked later on whether we told the truth or not. In starting and
making a war, not the Right is what matters, but Victory . . . .
The start will be ordered probably by Saturday morning.” (That
is to say, 26 August.)
In spite of it being described as a second speech, there are sufficient
points of similarity with the two previously mentioned documents to make
it appear very probable that this is an account of the same speech, not
as detailed as the other two, but in substance the same.
These three documents establish that the final decision as to the date
of Poland’s destruction, which had been agreed upon and planned earlier
in the year, was reached by Hitler shortly before 22 August 1939. They
also show that although he hoped to be able to avoid having to fight
Great Britain and France as well, he fully realized there was a risk of
this happening, but it was a risk which he was determined to take.
The events of the last days of August confirm this determination. On 22
August 1939, the same day as the speech just referred to, the British
Prime Minister wrote a letter to Hitler, in which he said: “Having thus
made our position perfectly clear, I wish to repeat to you my conviction
that war between our two peoples would be the greatest calamity that
could occur.”
On 23 August Hitler replied:
“The question of the treatment of European problems on a
peaceful basis is not a decision which rests with Germany, but
primarily on those who since the crime committed by the
Versailles Diktat have stubbornly and consistently opposed any
peaceful revision. Only after a change of spirit on the part of
the responsible Powers can there be any real change in the
relationship between England and Germany.”
There followed a number of appeals to Hitler to refrain from forcing the
Polish issue to the point of war. These were from President Roosevelt on
24 and 25 August; from his Holiness the Pope on 24 and 31 August; and
from M. Daladier, the Prime Minister of France, on 26 August. All these
appeals fell on deaf ears.
On 25 August, Great Britain signed a pact of mutual assistance with
Poland, which reinforced the undertaking she had given to Poland earlier
in the year. This, coupled with the news of Mussolini’s unwillingness to
enter the war on Germany’s side, made Hitler hesitate for a moment. The
invasion of Poland, which was timed to start on 26 August, was postponed
until a further attempt had been made to persuade Great Britain not to
intervene. Hitler offered to enter into a comprehensive agreement with
Great Britain, once the Polish question had been settled. In reply to
this, Great Britain made a counter-suggestion for the settlement of the
Polish dispute by negotiation. On 29 August Hitler informed the British
Ambassador that the German Government, though skeptical as to the
result, would be prepared to enter into direct negotiations with a
Polish emissary, provided he arrived in Berlin with plenipotentiary
powers by midnight for the following day, 30 August. The Polish
Government were informed of this, but with the example of Schuschnigg
and Hacha before them, they decided not to send such an emissary. At
midnight on 30 August the Defendant Von Ribbentrop read to the British
Ambassador at top speed a document containing the first precise
formulation of the German demands against Poland. He refused, however,
to give the Ambassador a copy of this, and stated that in any case it
was too late now, since no Polish plenipotentiary had arrived.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the manner in which these negotiations
were conducted by Hitler and Von Ribbentrop showed that they were not
entered into in good faith or with any desire to maintain peace, but
solely in the attempt to prevent Great Britain and France from honoring
their obligations to Poland.
Parallel with these negotiations were the unsuccessful attempts made by
Göring to effect the isolation of Poland by persuading Great Britain not
to stand by her pledged word, through the services of one Birger
Dahlerus, a Swede. Dahlerus, who was called as a witness by Göring, had
a considerable knowledge of England and things English, and in July 1939
was anxious to bring about a better understanding between England and
Germany, in the hope of preventing a war between the two countries. He
got into contact with Göring as well as with official circles in London,
and during the latter part of August, Göring used him as an unofficial
intermediary to try and deter the British Government from their
opposition to Germany’s intentions towards Poland. Dahlerus, of course,
had no knowledge at the time of the decision which Hitler had secretly
announced on 22 August, nor of the German military directives for the
attack on Poland which were already in existence. As he admitted in his
evidence, it was not until 26 September, after the conquest of Poland
was virtually complete, that he first realized that Göring’s aim all
along had been to get Great Britain’s consent to Germany’s seizure of
Poland.
After all attempts to persuade Germany to agree to a settlement of her
dispute with Poland on a reasonable basis had failed, Hitler, on 31
August, issued his final directive, in which he announced that the
attack on Poland would start in the early morning of 1 September, and
gave instructions as to what action would be taken if Great Britain and
France should enter the war in defense of Poland.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the events of the days immediately
preceding 1 September 1939 demonstrate the determination of Hitler and
his associates to carry out the declared intention of invading Poland at
all costs, despite appeals from every quarter. With the ever increasing
evidence before him that this intention would lead to war with Great
Britain and France as well, Hitler was resolved not to depart from the
course he had set for himself. The Tribunal is fully satisfied by the
evidence that the war initiated by Germany against Poland on 1 September
1939 was most plainly an aggressive war, which was to develop in due
course into a war which embraced almost the whole world, and resulted in
the commission of countless crimes, both against the laws and customs of
war, and against humanity.
_The Invasion of Denmark and Norway_
The aggressive war against Poland was but the beginning. The aggression
of Nazi Germany quickly spread from country to country. In point of time
the first two countries to suffer were Denmark and Norway.
On 31 May 1939 a Treaty of Non-Aggression was made between Germany and
Denmark, and signed by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. It was there
solemnly stated that the parties to the Treaty were “firmly resolved to
maintain peace between Denmark and Germany under all circumstances.”
Nevertheless, Germany invaded Denmark on 9 April 1940.
On 2 September 1939, after the outbreak of war with Poland, Germany sent
a solemn assurance to Norway in these terms:
“The German Reich Government is determined in view of the
friendly relations which exist between Norway and Germany under
no circumstance to prejudice the inviolability and integrity of
Norway, and to respect the territory of the Norwegian State. In
making this declaration the Reich Government naturally expects,
on its side, that Norway will observe an unimpeachable
neutrality towards the Reich and will not tolerate any breaches
of Norwegian neutrality by any third party which might occur.
Should the attitude of the Royal Norwegian Government differ
from this so that any such breach of neutrality by a third party
occurs, the Reich Government would then obviously be compelled
to safeguard the interests of the Reich in such a way as the
resulting situation might dictate.”
On 9 April 1940, in pursuance of her plan of campaign, Norway was
invaded by Germany.
The idea of attacking Norway originated, it appears, with the Defendants
Raeder and Rosenberg. On 3 October 1939 Raeder prepared a memorandum on
the subject of “gaining bases in Norway”, and amongst the questions
discussed was the question: “Can bases be gained by military force
against Norway’s will, if it is impossible to carry this out without
fighting?” Despite this fact, three days later, further assurances were
given to Norway by Germany, which stated: “Germany has never had any
conflicts of interest or even points of controversy with the Northern
States and neither has she any today.”
Three days later again, the Defendant Dönitz prepared a memorandum on
the same subject of bases in Norway, and suggested the establishment of
a base in Trondheim with an alternative of supplying fuel in Narvik. At
the same time the Defendant Raeder was in correspondence with Admiral
Karls, who pointed out to him the importance of an occupation of the
Norwegian coast by Germany. On 10 October Raeder reported to Hitler the
disadvantages to Germany which an occupation by the British would have.
In the months of October and November Raeder continued to work on the
possible occupation of Norway, in conjunction with the “Rosenberg
Organization.” The “Rosenberg Organization” was the Foreign Affairs
Bureau of the NSDAP, and Rosenberg as Reichsleiter was in charge of it.
Early in December, Quisling, the notorious Norwegian traitor, visited
Berlin and was seen by the Defendants Rosenberg and Raeder. He put
forward a plan for a _coup d’état_ in Norway. On 12 December the
Defendant Raeder and the naval staff, together with the Defendants
Keitel and Jodl, had a conference with Hitler, when Raeder reported on
his interview with Quisling, and set out Quisling’s views. On 16
December Hitler himself interviewed Quisling on all these matters. In
the report of the activities of the Foreign Affairs Bureau of the NSDAP
for the years 1933-43, under the heading of “Political Preparations for
the Military Occupation of Norway”, it is stated that at the interview
with Quisling Hitler said that he would prefer a neutral attitude on the
part of Norway as well as the whole of Scandinavia, as he did not desire
to extend the theater of war, or to draw other nations into the
conflict. If the enemy attempted to extend the war he would be compelled
to guard himself against that undertaking. He promised Quisling
financial support, and assigned to a special military staff the
examination of the military questions involved.
On 27 January 1940 a memorandum was prepared by the Defendant Keitel
regarding the plans for the invasion of Norway. On 28 February 1940 the
Defendant Jodl entered in his diary: “I proposed first to the Chief of
OKW and then to the Führer that Case Yellow (that is the operation
against the Netherlands) and Weser Exercise (that is the operation
against Norway and Denmark) must be prepared in such a way that they
will be independent of one another as regards both time and forces
employed.”
On 1 March Hitler issued a directive regarding the Weser Exercise which
contained the words:
“The development of the situation in Scandinavia requires the
making of all preparations for the occupation of Denmark and
Norway by a part of the German Armed Forces. This operation
should prevent British encroachment on Scandinavia and the
Baltic; further, it should guarantee our ore base in Sweden and
give our Navy and Air Force a wider start line against Britain
. . . . The crossing of the Danish border and the landings in
Norway must take place simultaneously . . . . It is most
important that the Scandinavian States as well as the Western
opponents should be taken by surprise by our measures.”
On 24 March the naval operation orders for the Weser Exercise were
issued, and on 30 March the Defendant Dönitz as Commander-in-Chief of
U-boats issued his operational order for the occupation of Denmark and
Norway. On 9 April 1940 the German forces invaded Norway and Denmark.
From this narrative it is clear that as early as October 1939 the
question of invading Norway was under consideration. The defense that
has been made here is that Germany was compelled to attack Norway to
forestall an Allied invasion, and her action was therefore preventive.
It must be remembered that preventive action in foreign territory is
justified only in case of “an instant and overwhelming necessity for
self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation”
(The Caroline Case, Moore’s _Digest of International Law_, II, 412). How
widely the view was held in influential German circles that the Allies
intended to occupy Norway cannot be determined with exactitude. Quisling
asserted that the Allies would intervene in Norway with the tacit
consent of the Norwegian Government. The German Legation at Oslo
disagreed with this view, although the Naval Attaché at that Legation
shared it.
The War Diary of the German Naval Operations Staff for 13 January 1940
stated that the Chief of the Naval Operations Staff thought that the
most favorable solution would be the maintenance of the neutrality of
Norway, but he harbored the firm conviction that England intended to
occupy Norway in the near future relying on the tacit agreement of the
Norwegian Government.
The directive of Hitler issued on 1 March 1940 for the attack on Denmark
and Norway stated that the operation “should prevent British
encroachment on Scandinavia and the Baltic.”
It is, however, to be remembered that the Defendant Raeder’s memorandum
of 3 October 1939 makes no reference to forestalling the Allies, but is
based upon “the aim of improving our strategical and operational
position.”
The memorandum itself is headed “Gaining of Bases in Norway”. The same
observation applies _mutatis mutandis_ to the memorandum of the
Defendant Dönitz of 9 October 1939.
Furthermore, on 13 March the Defendant Jodl recorded in his diary:
“Führer does not give order yet for ‘W’ (Weser Exercise). He is
still looking for an excuse.” (Justification?)
On 14 March 1940 he again wrote: “Führer has not yet decided what reason
to give for ‘Weser Exercise’”. On 21 March 1940 he recorded the
misgivings of Task Force XXI about the long interval between taking up
readiness positions and the close of the diplomatic negotiations, and
added:
“Führer rejects any earlier negotiations, as otherwise calls for
help go out to England and America. If resistance is put up it
must be ruthlessly broken.”
On 2 April he records that all the preparations are completed; on 4
April the Naval Operational Order was issued; and on 9 April, the
invasion was begun.
From all this it is clear that when the plans for an attack on Norway
were being made, they were not made for the purpose of forestalling an
imminent Allied landing, but, at the most, that they might prevent an
Allied occupation at some future date.
When the final orders for the German invasion of Norway were given, the
diary of the Naval Operations Staff for 23 March 1940 records: “A mass
encroachment by the English into Norwegian territorial waters . . . is
not to be expected at the present time.”
And Admiral Assmann’s entry for 26 March says: “British landing in
Norway not considered serious.”
Documents which were subsequently captured by the Germans are relied on
to show that the Allied plan to occupy harbors and airports in Western
Norway was a definite plan, although in all points considerably behind
the German plans under which the invasion was actually carried out.
These documents indicate that an altered plan had been finally agreed
upon on 20 March 1940, that a convoy should leave England on 5 April,
and that mining in Norwegian waters would begin the same day; and that
on 5 April the sailing time had been postponed until 8 April. But these
plans were not the cause of the German invasion of Norway. Norway was
occupied by Germany to afford her bases from which a more effective
attack on England and France might be made, pursuant to plans prepared
long in advance of the Allied plans which are now relied on to support
the argument of self-defense.
It was further argued that Germany alone could decide, in accordance
with the reservations made by many of the Signatory Powers at the time
of the conclusion of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, whether preventive action
was a necessity, and that in making her decision her judgment was
conclusive. But whether action taken under the claim of self-defense was
in fact aggressive or defensive must ultimately be subject to
investigation and adjudication if international law is ever to be
enforced.
No suggestion is made by the defendants that there was any plan by any
belligerent, other than Germany, to occupy Denmark. No excuse for that
aggression has ever been offered.
As the German Armies entered Norway and Denmark, German memoranda were
handed to the Norwegian and Danish Governments which gave the assurance
that the German troops did not come as enemies, that they did not intend
to make use of the points occupied by German troops as bases for
operations against England, as long as they were not forced to do so by
measures taken by England and France, and that they had come to protect
the North against the proposed occupation of Norwegian strong points by
English-French forces.
The memoranda added that Germany had no intention of infringing upon the
territorial integrity and political independence of the Kingdom of
Norway then or in the future. Nevertheless, on 3 June 1940, a German
naval memorandum discussed the use to be made of Norway and Denmark, and
put forward one solution for consideration, that the territories of
Denmark and Norway acquired during the course of the war should continue
to be occupied and organized so that they could in the future be
considered as German possessions.
In the light of all the available evidence it is impossible to accept
the contention that the invasions of Denmark and Norway were defensive,
and in the opinion of the Tribunal they were acts of aggressive war.
_The Invasion of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg_
The plan to seize Belgium and the Netherlands was considered in August
1938, when the attack on Czechoslovakia was being formulated, and the
possibility of war with France and England was contemplated. The
advantage to Germany of being able to use these countries for their own
purposes, particularly as air bases in the war against England and
France, was emphasized. In May of 1939, when Hitler made his irrevocable
decision to attack Poland, and foresaw the possibility at least of a war
with England and France in consequence, he told his military commanders:
“Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied . . . .
Declarations of neutrality must be ignored.”
On 22 August in the same year, he told his military commanders that
England and France, in his opinion, would not “violate the neutrality of
these countries.” At the same time he assured Belgium and Holland and
Luxembourg that he would respect their neutrality; and on 6 October
1939, after the Polish campaign, he repeated this assurance. On 7
October General Von Brauchitsch directed Army Group B to prepare “for
the immediate invasion of Dutch and Belgian territory, if the political
situation so demands.” In a series of orders, which were signed by the
Defendants Keitel and Jodl, the attack was fixed for 10 November 1939,
but it was postponed from time to time until May of 1940 on account of
weather conditions and transport problems.
At the conference on 23 November 1939 Hitler said:
“We have an Achilles heel: The Ruhr. The progress of the war
depends on the possession of the Ruhr. If England and France
push through Belgium and Holland into the Ruhr, we shall be in
the greatest danger . . . . Certainly England and France will
assume the offensive against Germany when they are armed.
England and France have means of pressure to bring Belgium and
Holland to request English and French help. In Belgium and
Holland the sympathies are all for France and England . . . . If
the French Army marches into Belgium in order to attack us, it
will be too late for us. We must anticipate them . . . . We
shall sow the English coast with mines which cannot be cleared.
This mine warfare with the Luftwaffe demands a different
starting point. England cannot live without its imports. We can
feed ourselves. The permanent sowing of mines on the English
coasts will bring England to her knees. However, this can only
occur if we have occupied Belgium and Holland . . . . My
decision is unchangeable; I shall attack France and England at
the most favorable and quickest moment. Breach of the neutrality
of Belgium and Holland is meaningless. No one will question that
when we have won. We shall not bring about the breach of
neutrality as idiotically as it was in 1914. If we do not break
the neutrality, then England and France will. Without attack,
the war is not to be ended victoriously.”
On 10 May 1940 the German forces invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, and
Luxembourg. On the same day the German Ambassadors handed to the
Netherlands and Belgian Governments a memorandum alleging that the
British and French Armies, with the consent of Belgium and Holland, were
planning to march through those countries to attack the Ruhr, and
justifying the invasion on these grounds. Germany, however, assured the
Netherlands and Belgium that their integrity and their possessions would
be respected. A similar memorandum was delivered to Luxembourg on the
same date.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to justify the contention that
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg were invaded by Germany because
their occupation had been planned by England and France. British and
French staffs had been cooperating in making certain plans for military
operations in the Low Countries, but the purpose of this planning was to
defend these countries in the event of a German attack.
The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg was entirely without
justification.
It was carried out in pursuance of policies long considered and
prepared, and was plainly an act of aggressive war. The resolve to
invade was made without any other consideration than the advancement of
the aggressive policies of Germany.
_The Aggression against Yugoslavia and Greece_
On 12 August 1939 Hitler had a conversation with Ciano and the Defendant
Von Ribbentrop at Obersalzberg. He said then:
“Generally speaking, the best thing to happen would be for the
neutrals to be liquidated one after the other. This process
could be carried out more easily if on every occasion one
partner of the Axis covered the other while it was dealing with
the uncertain neutral. Italy might well regard Yugoslavia as a
neutral of this kind.”
This observation was made only two months after Hitler had given
assurances to Yugoslavia that he would regard her frontier as final and
inviolable. On the occasion of the visit to Germany of the Prince Regent
of Yugoslavia on 1 June 1939, Hitler had said in a public speech:
“The firmly established reliable relationship of Germany to
Yugoslavia now that owing to historical events we have become
neighbors with common boundaries fixed for all time, will not
only guarantee lasting peace between our two peoples and
countries, but can also represent an element of calm to our
nerve-racked continent. This peace is the goal of all who are
disposed to perform really constructive work.”
On 6 October 1939 Germany repeated these assurances to Yugoslavia, after
Hitler and Von Ribbentrop had unsuccessfully tried to persuade Italy to
enter the war on the side of Germany by attacking Yugoslavia. On 28
October 1940 Italy invaded Greece, but the military operations met with
no success. In November Hitler wrote to Mussolini with regard to the
invasion of Greece, and the extension of the war in the Balkans, and
pointed out that no military operations could take place in the Balkans
before the following March, and therefore Yugoslavia must if at all
possible be won over by other means, and in other ways. But on 12
November 1940 Hitler issued a directive for the prosecution of the war,
and it included the words: “The Balkans: The Commander-in-Chief of the
Army will make preparations for occupying the Greek mainland north of
the Aegean Sea, in case of need entering through Bulgaria.”
On 13 December he issued a directive concerning the operation “Marita,”
the code name for the invasion of Greece, in which he stated:
“1. The result of the battles in Albania is not yet decisive.
Because of a dangerous situation in Albania, it is doubly
necessary that the British endeavor be foiled to create air
bases under the protection of a Balkan front, which would be
dangerous above all to Italy as to the Rumanian oilfields.
2. My plan therefore is (a) to form a slowly increasing task
force in Southern Rumania within the next month, (b) after the
setting in of favorable weather, probably in March, to send a
task force for the occupation of the Aegean north coast by way
of Bulgaria and if necessary to occupy the entire Greek
mainland.”
On 20 January 1941, at a meeting between Hitler and Mussolini, at which
the Defendants Von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Jodl, and others were present,
Hitler stated:
“The massing of troops in Rumania serves a threefold purpose:
(a) An operation against Greece;
(b) Protection of Bulgaria against Russia and Turkey;
(c) Safeguarding the guarantee to Rumania . . . .
It is desirable that this deployment be completed without
interference from the enemy. Therefore, disclose the game as
late as possible. The tendency will be to cross the Danube at
the last possible moment, and to line up for attack at the
earliest possible moment.”
On 19 February 1941 an OKW directive regarding the operation “Marita”
stated: “On 18 February the Führer made the following decision regarding
the carrying out of Operation Marita: The following dates are envisaged:
Commencement of building bridge, 28 February; crossing of the Danube, 2
March.”
On 3 March 1941, British troops landed in Greece to assist the Greeks to
resist the Italians; and on 18 March, at a meeting between Hitler and
the Defendant Raeder, at which the Defendants Keitel and Jodl were also
present, the Defendant Raeder asked for confirmation that the “whole of
Greece will have to be occupied, even in the event of a peaceful
settlement,” to which Hitler replied, “The complete occupation is a
prerequisite of any settlement.”
On 25 March, on the occasion of the adherence of Yugoslavia to the
Tripartite Pact at a meeting in Vienna, the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, on
behalf of the German Government, confirmed the determination of Germany
to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia at
all times. On 26 March the Yugoslav Ministers, who had adhered to the
Tripartite Pact, were removed from office by a _coup d’état_ in Belgrade
on their return from Vienna, and the new Government repudiated the Pact.
Thereupon on 27 March, at a conference in Berlin with the High Command
at which the Defendants Göring, Keitel, and Jodl were present, and the
Defendant Von Ribbentrop part of the time, Hitler stated that Yugoslavia
was an uncertain factor in regard to the contemplated attack on Greece,
and even more so with regard to the attack upon Russia which was to be
conducted later on. Hitler announced that he was determined, without
waiting for possible loyalty declarations of the new Government, to make
all preparations in order to destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a
national unit. He stated that he would act with “unmerciful harshness.”
On 6 April German forces invaded Greece and Yugoslavia without warning,
and Belgrade was bombed by the Luftwaffe. So swift was this particular
invasion that there had not been time to establish any “incidents” as a
usual preliminary, or to find and publish any adequate “political”
explanations. As the attack was starting on 6 April, Hitler proclaimed
to the German people that this attack was necessary because the British
forces in Greece (who were helping the Greeks to defend themselves
against the Italians) represented a British attempt to extend the war to
the Balkans.
It is clear from this narrative that aggressive war against Greece and
Yugoslavia had long been in contemplation, certainly as early as August
of 1939. The fact that Great Britain had come to the assistance of the
Greeks, and might thereafter be in a position to inflict great damage
upon German interests was made the occasion for the occupation of both
countries.
_The Aggressive War against the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics_
On 23 August 1939 Germany signed the non-aggression pact with the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The evidence has shown unmistakably that the Soviet Union on their part
conformed to the terms of this pact; indeed the German Government itself
had been assured of this by the highest German sources. Thus, the German
Ambassador in Moscow informed his Government that the Soviet Union would
go to war only if attacked by Germany, and this statement is recorded in
the German War Diary under the date of 6 June 1941.
Nevertheless, as early as the late summer of 1940, Germany began to make
preparations for an attack on the U.S.S.R., in spite of the
non-aggression pact. This operation was secretly planned under the code
name “Case Barbarossa”, and the former Field Marshal Paulus testified
that on 3 September 1940, when he joined the German General Staff, he
continued developing “Case Barbarossa”, which was finally completed at
the beginning of November 1940; and that even then, the German General
Staff had no information that the Soviet Union was preparing for war.
On 18 December 1940 Hitler issued Directive No. 21, initialed by Keitel
and Jodl, which called for the completion of all preparations connected
with the realization of “Case Barbarossa” by 15 May 1941. This directive
stated:
“The German armed forces must be prepared to crush Soviet Russia
in a quick campaign before the end of the war against England
. . . . Great caution has to be exercised that the intention of
an attack will not be recognized.”
Before the directive of 18 December had been made, the Defendant Göring
had informed General Thomas, chief of the Office of War Economy of the
OKW, of the plan, and General Thomas made surveys of the economic
possibilities of the U.S.S.R., including its raw materials, its power
and transport system, and its capacity to produce arms.
In accordance with these surveys, an economic staff for the Eastern
territories with many military-economic units (inspectorates, commandos,
groups) was created under the supervision of the Defendant Göring. In
conjunction with the military command, these units were to achieve the
most complete and efficient economic exploitation of the occupied
territories in the interest of Germany.
The framework of the future political and economic organization of the
occupied territories was designed by the Defendant Rosenberg over a
period of three months, after conferences with and assistance by the
Defendants, Keitel, Jodl, Raeder, Funk, Göring, Von Ribbentrop, and
Frick, or their representatives. It was made the subject of a most
detailed report immediately after the invasion.
These plans outlined the destruction of the Soviet Union as an
independent State, and its partition, the creation of so-called Reich
Commissariats, and the conversion of Estonia, Latvia, Bielorussia, and
other territories into German colonies.
At the same time Germany drew Hungary, Rumania, and Finland into the war
against the U.S.S.R. In December 1940 Hungary agreed to participate on
the promise of Germany that she should have certain territories at the
expense of Yugoslavia.
In May 1941 a final agreement was concluded with Antonescu, the Prime
Minister of Rumania, regarding the attack on the U.S.S.R., in which
Germany promised to Rumania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and the
right to occupy Soviet territory up to the Dnieper.
On 22 June 1941, without any declaration of war, Germany invaded Soviet
territory in accordance with the plans so long made.
The evidence which has been given before this Tribunal proves that
Germany had the design carefully thought out, to crush the U.S.S.R. as a
political and military power, so that Germany might expand to the east
according to her own desire. In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler had written: “If
new territory were to be acquired in Europe, it must have been mainly at
Russia’s cost, and once again the new German Empire should have set out
on its march along the same road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic
Knights, this time to acquire soil for the German plough by means of the
German sword and thus provide the Nation with its daily bread.” But
there was a more immediate purpose, and in one of the memoranda of the
OKW, that immediate purpose was stated to be to feed the German Armies
from Soviet territory in the third year of the war, even if “as a result
many millions of people will be starved to death if we take out of the
country the things necessary for us.”
The final aims of the attack on the Soviet Union were formulated at a
conference with Hitler on 16 July 1941, in which the Defendants Göring,
Keitel, Rosenberg, and Bormann participated:
“There can be no talk of the creation of a military power west
of the Urals, even if we should have to fight 100 years to
achieve this . . . . All the Baltic regions must become part of
the Reich. The Crimea and adjoining regions (north of the
Crimea) must likewise be incorporated into the Reich. The region
of the Volga as well as the Baku district must likewise be
incorporated into the Reich. The Finns want Eastern Karelia.
However, in view of the large deposits of nickel, the Kola
peninsula must be ceded to Germany.”
It was contended for the defendants that the attack upon the U.S.S.R.
was justified because the Soviet Union was contemplating an attack upon
Germany, and making preparations to that end. It is impossible to
believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.
The plans for the economic exploitation of the U.S.S.R., for the removal
of masses of the population, for the murder of Commissars and political
leaders, were all part of the carefully prepared scheme launched on 22
June without warning of any kind, and without the shadow of legal
excuse. It was plain aggression.
_War against the United States_
Four days after the attack launched by the Japanese on the United States
fleet in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Germany declared war on the
United States.
The Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan, had been signed
on 27 September 1940, and from that date until the attack upon the
U.S.S.R. the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, with other defendants, was
endeavoring to induce Japan to attack British possessions in the Far
East. This, it was thought, would hasten England’s defeat, and keep the
United States out of the war.
The possibility of a direct attack on the United States was considered
and discussed as a matter for the future. Major Von Falkenstein, the
Luftwaffe liaison officer with the Operations Staff of the OKW,
summarizing military problems which needed discussion in Berlin in
October of 1940, spoke of the possibility “of the prosecution of the war
against America at a later date.” It is clear, too, that the German
policy of keeping America out of the war, if possible, did not prevent
Germany promising support to Japan even against the United States. On 4
April 1941 Hitler told Matsuoka, the Japanese Foreign Minister, in the
presence of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, that Germany would “strike
without delay” if a Japanese attack on Singapore should lead to war
between Japan and the United States. The next day Von Ribbentrop himself
urged Matsuoka to bring Japan into the war.
On 28 November 1941, 10 days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Von
Ribbentrop encouraged Japan, through her Ambassador in Berlin, to attack
Great Britain and the United States, and stated that should Japan become
engaged in a war with the United States, Germany would join the war
immediately. A few days later, Japanese representatives told Germany and
Italy that Japan was preparing to attack the United States, and asked
for their support. Germany and Italy agreed to do this, although in the
Tripartite Pact, Italy and Germany had undertaken to assist Japan only
if she were attacked. When the assault on Pearl Harbor did take place,
the Defendant Von Ribbentrop is reported to have been “overjoyed”, and
later, at a ceremony in Berlin, when a German medal was awarded to
Oshima, the Japanese Ambassador, Hitler indicated his approval of the
tactics which the Japanese had adopted of negotiating with the United
States as long as possible, and then striking hard without any
declaration of war.
Although it is true that Hitler and his colleagues originally did not
consider that a war with the United States would be beneficial to their
interest, it is apparent that in the course of 1941 that view was
revised, and Japan was given every encouragement to adopt a policy which
would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. And when
Japan attacked the United States fleet in Pearl Harbor and thus made
aggressive war against the United States, the Nazi Government caused
Germany to enter that war at once on the side of Japan by declaring war
themselves on the United States.
_Violations of International Treaties_
The Charter defines as a crime the planning or waging of war that is a
war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties. The
Tribunal has decided that certain of the defendants planned and waged
aggressive wars against 12 nations, and were therefore guilty of this
series of crimes. This makes it unnecessary to discuss the subject in
further detail, or even to consider at any length the extent to which
these aggressive wars were also “wars in violation of international
treaties, agreements, or assurances.”
These treaties are set out in Appendix C of the Indictment. Those of
principal importance are the following.
_Hague Conventions_
In the 1899 Convention the signatory powers agreed: “before an appeal to
arms . . . to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good
offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers.” A similar clause
was inserted in the Convention for Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes of 1907. In the accompanying Convention Relative to Opening of
Hostilities, Article I contains this far more specific language: “The
Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between them must not
commence without a previous and explicit warning, in the form of either
a declaration of war, giving reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional
declaration of war.” Germany was a party to these conventions.
_Versailles Treaty_
Breaches of certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are also relied
on by the Prosecution—Not to fortify the left bank of the Rhine
(Articles 42-44); to “respect strictly the independence of Austria”
(Article 80); renunciation of any rights in Memel (Article 99) and the
Free City of Danzig (Article 100); the recognition of the independence
of the Czechoslovak State; and the military, naval, and air clauses
against German rearmament found in Part V. There is no doubt that action
was taken by the German Government contrary to all these provisions, the
details of which are set out in Appendix C. With regard to the Treaty of
Versailles, the matters relied on are:
1. The violation of Articles 42 to 44 in respect of the demilitarized
zone of the Rhineland;
2. The annexation of Austria on 13 March 1938, in violation of Article
80;
3. The incorporation of the district of Memel on 22 March 1939, in
violation of Article 99;
4. The incorporation of the Free City of Danzig on 1 September 1939, in
violation of Article 100;
5. The incorporation of the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia on 16 March
1939, in violation of Article 81;
6. The repudiation of the military, naval, and air clauses of the
Treaty, in or about March of 1935.
On 21 May 1935 Germany announced that, whilst renouncing the disarmament
clauses of the Treaty, she would still respect the territorial
limitations, and would comply with the Locarno Pact. (With regard to the
first five breaches alleged, therefore, the Tribunal finds the
allegation proved.)
_Treaties of Mutual Guarantee, Arbitration, and Non-Aggression_
It is unnecessary to discuss in any detail the various treaties entered
into by Germany with other Powers. Treaties of mutual guarantee were
signed by Germany at Locarno in 1925, with Belgium, France, Great
Britain, and Italy, assuring the maintenance of the territorial _status
quo_. Arbitration treaties were also executed by Germany at Locarno with
Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and Poland.
Article I of the latter treaty is typical, providing: “All disputes of
every kind between Germany and Poland . . . which it may not be possible
to settle amicably by the normal methods of diplomacy, shall be
submitted for decision to an arbitral tribunal . . . .”
Conventions of Arbitration and Conciliation were entered into between
Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark in 1926; and between Germany and
Luxembourg in 1929. Non-aggression treaties were executed by Germany
with Denmark and Russia in 1939.
_Kellogg-Briand Pact_
The Pact of Paris was signed on 27 August 1928 by Germany, the United
States, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland, and other
countries; and subsequently by other Powers. The Tribunal has made full
reference to the nature of this Pact and its legal effect in another
part of this judgment. It is therefore not necessary to discuss the
matter further here, save to state that in the opinion of the Tribunal
this Pact was violated by Germany in all the cases of aggressive war
charged in the Indictment. It is to be noted that on 26 January 1934
Germany signed a Declaration for the Maintenance of Permanent Peace with
Poland, which was explicitly based on the Pact of Paris, and in which
the use of force was outlawed for a period of 10 years.
The Tribunal does not find it necessary to consider any of the other
treaties referred to in the Appendix, or the repeated agreements and
assurances of her peaceful intentions entered into by Germany.
_The Law of the Charter_
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement and
Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
for which there shall be individual responsibility, are set out in
Article 6. The law of the Charter is decisive, and binding upon the
Tribunal.
The making of the Charter was the exercise of the sovereign legislative
power by the countries to which the German Reich unconditionally
surrendered; and the undoubted right of these countries to legislate for
the occupied territories has been recognized by the civilized world. The
Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the
victorious Nations, but in the view of the Tribunal, as will be shown,
it is the expression of international law existing at the time of its
creation; and to that extent is itself a contribution to international
law.
The Signatory Powers created this Tribunal, defined the law it was to
administer, and made regulations for the proper conduct of the Trial. In
doing so, they have done together what any one of them might have done
singly; for it is not to be doubted that any nation has the right thus
to set up special courts to administer law. With regard to the
constitution of the Court, all that the defendants are entitled to ask
is to receive a fair trial on the facts and law.
The Charter makes the planning or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties a crime; and it is therefore not
strictly necessary to consider whether and to what extent aggressive war
was a crime before the execution of the London Agreement. But in view of
the great importance of the questions of law involved, the Tribunal has
heard full argument from the Prosecution and the Defense, and will
express its view on the matter.
It was urged on behalf of the defendants that a fundamental principle of
all law—international and domestic—is that there can be no punishment
of crime without a pre-existing law. “_Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla
poena sine lege._“ It was submitted that _ex post facto_ punishment is
abhorrent to the law of all civilized nations, that no sovereign power
had made aggressive war a crime at the time that the alleged criminal
acts were committed, that no statute had defined aggressive war, that no
penalty had been fixed for its commission, and no court had been created
to try and punish offenders.
In the first place, it is to be observed that the maxim _nullum crimen
sine lege_ is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is in general a
principle of justice. To assert that it is unjust to punish those who in
defiance of treaties and assurances have attacked neighboring states
without warning is obviously untrue, for in such circumstances the
attacker must know that he is doing wrong, and so far from it being
unjust to punish him, it would be unjust if his wrong were allowed to go
unpunished. Occupying the positions they did in the Government of
Germany, the defendants, or at least some of them must have known of the
treaties signed by Germany, outlawing recourse to war for the settlement
of international disputes; they must have known that they were acting in
defiance of all international law when in complete deliberation they
carried out their designs of invasion and aggression. On this view of
the case alone, it would appear that the maxim has no application to the
present facts.
This view is strongly reinforced by a consideration of the state of
international law in 1939, so far as aggressive war is concerned. The
General Treaty for the Renunciation of War of 27 August 1928, more
generally known as the Pact of Paris or the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was
binding on 63 nations, including Germany, Italy and Japan at the
outbreak of war in 1939. In the preamble, the signatories declared that
they were:
“Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of
mankind; persuaded that the time has come when a frank
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should
be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now
existing between their peoples should be perpetuated . . . . all
changes in their relations with one another should be sought
only by pacific means . . . thus uniting civilised nations of
the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of
their national policy . . . .”
The first two articles are as follows:
“Article I. The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the
names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to
war for the solution of international controversies and renounce
it as an instrument of national policy in their relations to one
another.”
“Article II. The High Contracting Parties agree that the
settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever
nature or whatever origin they may be, which may arise among
them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”
The question is, what was the legal effect of this Pact? The nations who
signed the Pact or adhered to it unconditionally condemned recourse to
war for the future as an instrument of policy, and expressly renounced
it. After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an
instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the
Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal
in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war, with
its inevitable and terrible consequences, are committing a crime in so
doing. War for the solution of international controversies undertaken as
an instrument of national policy certainly includes a war of aggression,
and such a war is therefore outlawed by the Pact. As Mr. Henry L.
Stimson, then Secretary of State of the United States, said in 1932:
“War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the
Kellogg-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout
practically the entire world . . . an illegal thing. Hereafter,
when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of
them must be termed violators of this general treaty law . . . .
We denounce them as law breakers.”
But it is argued that the Pact does not expressly enact that such wars
are crimes, or set up courts to try those who make such wars. To that
extent the same is true with regard to the laws of war contained in the
Hague Convention. The Hague Convention of 1907 prohibited resort to
certain methods of waging war. These included the inhumane treatment of
prisoners, the employment of poisoned weapons, the improper use of flags
of truce, and similar matters. Many of these prohibitions had been
enforced long before the date of the Convention; but since 1907 they
have certainly been crimes, punishable as offenses against the laws of
war; yet the Hague Convention nowhere designates such practices as
criminal, nor is any sentence prescribed, nor any mention made of a
court to try and punish offenders. For many years past, however,
military tribunals have tried and punished individuals guilty of
violating the rules of land warfare laid down by this Convention. In the
opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that
which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of
one of the rules of the Hague Convention. In interpreting the words of
the Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the
product of an international legislature, and that such international
agreements as the Pact of Paris have to deal with general principles of
law, and not with administrative matters of procedure. The law of war is
to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of
states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the
general principles of justice applied by jurists and practised by
military courts. This law is not static, but by continual adaptation
follows the needs of a changing world. Indeed, in many cases treaties do
no more than express and define for more accurate reference the
principles of law already existing.
The view which the Tribunal takes of the true interpretation of the Pact
is supported by the international history which preceded it. In the year
1923 the draft of a Treaty of Mutual Assistance was sponsored by the
League of Nations. In Article I the Treaty declared “that aggressive war
is an international crime”, and that the parties would “undertake that
no one of them will be guilty of its commission”. The draft treaty was
submitted to 29 states, about half of whom were in favor of accepting
the text. The principal objection appeared to be in the difficulty of
defining the acts which would constitute “aggression”, rather than any
doubt as to the criminality of aggressive war. The preamble to the
League of Nations 1924 Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes (“Geneva Protocol”), after “recognising the
solidarity of the members of the international community”, declared that
“a war of aggression constitutes a violation of this solidarity and is
an international crime.” It went on to declare that the contracting
parties were “desirous of facilitating the complete application of the
system provided in the Covenant of the League of Nations for the pacific
settlement of disputes between the States and of ensuring the repression
of international crimes.” The Protocol was recommended to the members of
the League of Nations by a unanimous resolution in the assembly of the
48 members of the League. These members included Italy and Japan, but
Germany was not then a member of the League.
Although the Protocol was never ratified, it was signed by the leading
statesmen of the world, representing the vast majority of the civilized
states and peoples, and may be regarded as strong evidence of the
intention to brand aggressive war as an international crime.
At the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations on 24 September
1927, all the delegations then present (including the German, the
Italian, and the Japanese), unanimously adopted a declaration concerning
wars of aggression. The preamble to the declaration stated:
“The Assembly:
Recognizing the solidarity which unites the community of
nations;
Being inspired by a firm desire for the maintenance of general
peace;
Being convinced that a war of aggression can never serve as a
means of settling international disputes, and is in consequence
an international crime . . . .”
The unanimous resolution of 18 February 1928 of 21 American republics at
the Sixth (Havana) Pan-American Conference, declared that “war of
aggression constitutes an international crime against the human
species”.
All these expressions of opinion, and others that could be cited, so
solemnly made, reinforce the construction which the Tribunal placed upon
the Pact of Paris, that resort to a war of aggression is not merely
illegal, but is criminal. The prohibition of aggressive war demanded by
the conscience of the world, finds its expression in the series of pacts
and treaties to which the Tribunal has just referred.
It is also important to remember that Article 227 of the Treaty of
Versailles provided for the constitution of a special Tribunal, composed
of representatives of five of the Allied and Associated Powers which had
been belligerents in the first World War opposed to Germany, to try the
former German Emperor “for a supreme offense against international
morality and the sanctity of treaties.” The purpose of this trial was
expressed to be “to vindicate the solemn obligations of international
undertakings, and the validity of international morality”. In Article
228 of the Treaty, the German Government expressly recognized the right
of the Allied Powers “to bring before military tribunals persons accused
of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war”.
It was submitted that international law is concerned with the actions of
sovereign States, and provides no punishment for individuals; and
further, that where the act in question is an act of State, those who
carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the
doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the
Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international
law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon
States has long been recognized. In the recent case of Ex Parte Quirin
(1942 317 U.S. 1), before the Supreme Court of the United States,
persons were charged during the war with landing in the United States
for purposes of spying and sabotage. The late Chief Justice Stone,
speaking for the Court, said:
“From the very beginning of its history this Court has applied
the law of war as including that part of the law of nations
which prescribes for the conduct of war, the status, rights, and
duties of enemy nations as well as enemy individuals.”
He went on to give a list of cases tried by the Courts, where individual
offenders were charged with offenses against the laws of nations, and
particularly the laws of war. Many other authorities could be cited, but
enough has been said to show that individuals can be punished for
violations of international law. Crimes against international law are
committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing
individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international
law be enforced.
The provisions of Article 228 of the Treaty of Versailles already
referred to illustrate and enforce this view of individual
responsibility.
The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances,
protects the representatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which
are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these
acts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order
to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings. Article 7 of the
Charter expressly declares:
“The official position of Defendants, whether as heads of State,
or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be
considered as freeing them from responsibility, or mitigating
punishment.”
On the other hand the very essence of the Charter is that individuals
have international duties which transcend the national obligations of
obedience imposed by the individual state. He who violates the laws of
war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of
the state if the state in authorizing action moves outside its
competence under international law.
It was also submitted on behalf of most of these defendants that in
doing what they did they were acting under the orders of Hitler, and
therefore cannot be held responsible for the acts committed by them in
carrying out these orders. The Charter specifically provides in Article
8:
“The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior shall not free him from
responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of
punishment.”
The provisions of this article are in conformity with the law of all
nations. That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of
the international law of war has never been recognized as a defense to
such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order
may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is
found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the
existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible.
_The Law as to the Common Plan or Conspiracy_
In the previous recital of the facts relating to aggressive war, it is
clear that planning and preparation had been carried out in the most
systematic way at every stage of the history.
Planning and preparation are essential to the making of war. In the
opinion of the Tribunal aggressive war is a crime under international
law. The Charter defines this offense as planning, preparation,
initiation, or waging of a war of aggression “or participation in a
Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment . . . of the
foregoing”. The Indictment follows this distinction. Count One charges
the Common Plan or Conspiracy. Count Two charges the planning and waging
of war. The same evidence has been introduced to support both Counts. We
shall therefore discuss both Counts together, as they are in substance
the same. The defendants have been charged under both Counts, and their
guilt under each Count must be determined.
The “Common Plan or Conspiracy” charged in the Indictment covers 25
years, from the formation of the Nazi Party in 1919 to the end of the
war in 1945. The Party is spoken of as “the instrument of cohesion among
the Defendants” for carrying out the purposes of the conspiracy—the
overthrowing of the Treaty of Versailles, acquiring territory lost by
Germany in the last war and “Lebensraum” in Europe, by the use, if
necessary, of armed force, of aggressive war. The “seizure of power” by
the Nazis, the use of terror, the destruction of trade unions, the
attack on Christian teaching and on churches, the persecution of Jews,
the regimentation of youth—all these are said to be steps deliberately
taken to carry out the common plan. It found expression, so it is
alleged, in secret rearmament, the withdrawal by Germany from the
Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations, universal military
service, and seizure of the Rhineland. Finally, according to the
Indictment, aggressive action was planned and carried out against
Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1936-1938, followed by the planning and
waging of war against Poland; and, successively, against 10 other
countries.
The Prosecution says, in effect, that any significant participation in
the affairs of the Nazi Party or Government is evidence of a
participation in a conspiracy that is in itself criminal. Conspiracy is
not defined in the Charter. But in the opinion of the Tribunal the
conspiracy must be clearly outlined in its criminal purpose. It must not
be too far removed from the time of decision and of action. The
planning, to be criminal, must not rest merely on the declarations of a
party program, such as are found in the 25 points of the Nazi Party,
announced in 1920, or the political affirmations expressed in _Mein
Kampf_ in later years. The Tribunal must examine whether a concrete plan
to wage war existed, and determine the participants in that concrete
plan.
It is not necessary to decide whether a single master conspiracy between
the defendants has been established by the evidence. The seizure of
power by the Nazi Party, and the subsequent domination by the Nazi State
of all spheres of economic and social life must of course be remembered
when the later plans for waging war are examined. That plans were made
to wage war, as early as 5 November 1937, and probably before that, is
apparent. And thereafter, such preparations continued in many
directions, and against the peace of many countries. Indeed the threat
of war—and war itself if necessary—was an integral part of the Nazi
policy. But the evidence establishes with certainty the existence of
many separate plans rather than a single conspiracy embracing them all.
That Germany was rapidly moving to complete dictatorship from the moment
that the Nazis seized power, and progressively in the direction of war,
has been overwhelmingly shown in the ordered sequence of aggressive acts
and wars already set out in this Judgment.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence establishes the common
planning to prepare and wage war by certain of the defendants. It is
immaterial to consider whether a single conspiracy to the extent and
over the time set out in the Indictment has been conclusively proved.
Continued planning, with aggressive war as the objective, has been
established beyond doubt. The truth of the situation was well stated by
Paul Schmidt, official interpreter of the German Foreign Office, as
follows:
“The general objectives of the Nazi leadership were apparent
from the start, namely the domination of the European Continent,
to be achieved first by the incorporation of all German speaking
groups in the Reich, and secondly, by territorial expansion
under the slogan “Lebensraum”. The execution of these basic
objectives, however, seemed to be characterized by
improvisation. Each succeeding step was apparently carried out
as each new situation arose, but all consistent with the
ultimate objectives mentioned above.”
The argument that such common planning cannot exist where there is
complete dictatorship is unsound. A plan in the execution of which a
number of persons participate is still a plan, even though conceived by
only one of them; and those who execute the plan do not avoid
responsibility by showing that they acted under the direction of the man
who conceived it. Hitler could not make aggressive war by himself. He
had to have the co-operation of statesmen, military leaders, diplomats,
and business men. When they, with knowledge of his aims, gave him their
co-operation, they made themselves parties to the plan he had initiated.
They are not to be deemed innocent because Hitler made use of them, if
they knew what they were doing. That they were assigned to their tasks
by a dictator does not absolve them from responsibility for their acts.
The relation of leader and follower does not preclude responsibility
here any more than it does in the comparable tyranny of organized
domestic crime.
Count One, however, charges not only the conspiracy to commit aggressive
war, but also to commit War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. But the
Charter does not define as a separate crime any conspiracy except the
one to commit acts of aggressive war. Article 6 of the Charter provides:
“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating
in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy
to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all
acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”
In the opinion of the Tribunal these words do not add a new and separate
crime to those already listed. The words are designed to establish the
responsibility of persons participating in a common plan. The Tribunal
will therefore disregard the charges in Count One that the defendants
conspired to commit War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, and will
consider only the common plan to prepare, initiate, and wage aggressive
war.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
The evidence relating to War Crimes has been overwhelming, in its volume
and its detail. It is impossible for this Judgment adequately to review
it, or to record the mass of documentary and oral evidence that has been
presented. The truth remains that War Crimes were committed on a vast
scale, never before seen in the history of war. They were perpetrated in
all the countries occupied by Germany, and on the High Seas, and were
attended by every conceivable circumstance of cruelty and horror. There
can be no doubt that the majority of them arose from the Nazi conception
of “total war”, with which the aggressive wars were waged. For in this
conception of “total war”, the moral ideas underlying the conventions
which seek to make war more humane are no longer regarded as having
force or validity. Everything is made subordinate to the overmastering
dictates of war. Rules, regulations, assurances, and treaties all alike
are of no moment; and so, freed from the restraining influence of
international law, the aggressive war is conducted by the Nazi leaders
in the most barbaric way. Accordingly, War Crimes were committed when
and wherever the Führer and his close associates thought them to be
advantageous. They were for the most part the result of cold and
criminal calculation.
On some occasions, War Crimes were deliberately planned long in advance.
In the case of the Soviet Union, the plunder of the territories to be
occupied, and the ill-treatment of the civilian population, were settled
in minute detail before the attack was begun. As early as the autumn of
1940, the invasion of the territories of the Soviet Union was being
considered. From that date onwards, the methods to be employed in
destroying all possible opposition were continuously under discussion.
Similarly, when planning to exploit the inhabitants of the occupied
countries for slave labor on the very greatest scale, the German
Government conceived it as an integral part of the war economy, and
planned and organized this particular War Crime down to the last
elaborate detail.
Other War Crimes, such as the murder of prisoners of war who had escaped
and been recaptured, or the murder of Commandos or captured airmen, or
the destruction of the Soviet Commissars, were the result of direct
orders circulated through the highest official channels.
The Tribunal proposes, therefore, to deal quite generally with the
question of War Crimes, and to refer to them later when examining the
responsibility of the individual defendants in relation to them.
Prisoners of war were ill-treated and tortured and murdered, not only in
defiance of the well-established rules of international law, but in
complete disregard of the elementary dictates of humanity. Civilian
populations in occupied territories suffered the same fate. Whole
populations were deported to Germany for the purposes of slave labor
upon defense works, armament production, and similar tasks connected
with the war effort. Hostages were taken in very large numbers from the
civilian populations in all the occupied countries, and were shot as
suited the German purposes. Public and private property was
systematically plundered and pillaged in order to enlarge the resources
of Germany at the expense of the rest of Europe. Cities and towns and
villages were wantonly destroyed without military justification or
necessity.
_Murder and Ill-Treatment of Prisoners of War_
Article 6 (b) of the Charter defines War Crimes in these words:
“War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.
Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder,
ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other
purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory,
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the
seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private
property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or
devastation not justified by military necessity.”
In the course of the war, many Allied soldiers who had surrendered to
the Germans were shot immediately, often as a matter of deliberate,
calculated policy. On 18 October 1942, the Defendant Keitel circulated a
directive authorized by Hitler, which ordered that all members of Allied
“Commando” units, often when in uniform and whether armed or not, were
to be “slaughtered to the last man”, even if they attempted to
surrender. It was further provided that if such Allied troops came into
the hands of the military authorities after being first captured by the
local police, or in any other way, they should be handed over
immediately to the SD. This order was supplemented from time to time,
and was effective throughout the remainder of the war, although after
the Allied landings in Normandy in 1944 it was made clear that the order
did not apply to “Commandos” captured within the immediate battle area.
Under the provisions of this order, Allied “Commando” troops, and other
military units operating independently, lost their lives in Norway,
France, Czechoslovakia, and Italy. Many of them were killed on the spot,
and in no case were those who were executed later in concentration camps
ever given a trial of any kind. For example, an American military
mission which landed behind the German front in the Balkans in January
1945, numbering about twelve to fifteen men and wearing uniform, were
taken to Mauthausen under the authority of this order, and according to
the affidavit of Adolf Zutte, the adjutant of the Mauthausen
Concentration Camp, all of them were shot.
In March 1944 the OKH issued the “Kugel” or “Bullet” decree, which
directed that every escaped officer and NCO prisoner of war who had not
been put to work, with the exception of British and American prisoners
of war, should on recapture be handed over to the SIPO and SD. This
order was distributed by the SIPO and SD to their regional offices.
These escaped officers and NCO’s were to be sent to the concentration
camp at Mauthausen, to be executed upon arrival, by means of a bullet
shot in the neck.
In March 1944 fifty officers of the British Royal Air Force, who escaped
from the camp at Sagan where they were confined as prisoners, were shot
on recapture, on the direct orders of Hitler. Their bodies were
immediately cremated, and the urns containing their ashes were returned
to the camp. It was not contended by the defendants that this was other
than plain murder, in complete violation of international law.
When Allied airmen were forced to land in Germany, they were sometimes
killed at once by the civilian population. The police were instructed
not to interfere with these killings, and the Ministry of Justice was
informed that no one should be prosecuted for taking part in them.
The treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was characterized by particular
inhumanity. The death of so many of them was not due merely to the
action of individual guards, or to the exigencies of life in the camps.
It was the result of systematic plans to murder. More than a month
before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the OKW were making
special plans for dealing with political representatives serving with
the Soviet Armed Forces who might be captured. One proposal was that
“political Commissars _of the Army_ are not recognized as _Prisoners of
War_, and are to be _liquidated_ at the latest in the transient prisoner
of war camps.” The Defendant Keitel gave evidence that instructions
incorporating this proposal were issued to the German Army.
On 8 September 1941 regulations for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of
war in all prisoner of war camps were issued, signed by General
Reinecke, the head of the prisoner of war department of the High
Command. Those orders stated:
“The Bolshevist soldier has therefore lost all claim to
treatment as an honorable opponent, in accordance with the
Geneva Convention . . . . The order for ruthless and energetic
action must be given at the slightest indication of
insubordination, especially in the case of Bolshevist fanatics.
Insubordination, active or passive resistance, must be broken
immediately by force of arms (bayonets, butts, and firearms)
. . . . Anyone carrying out the order who does not use his
weapons, or does so with insufficient energy, is punishable
. . . . Prisoners of war attempting escape are to be fired on
without previous challenge. No warning shot must ever be fired
. . . . The use of arms against prisoners of war is as a rule
legal.”
The Soviet prisoners of war were left without suitable clothing; the
wounded without medical care; they were starved, and in many cases left
to die.
On 17 July 1941, the Gestapo issued an order providing for the killing
of all Soviet prisoners of war who were or might be dangerous to
National Socialism. The order recited:
“The mission of the Commanders of the SIPO and SD stationed in
Stalags is the political investigation of all camp inmates, the
elimination and further ‘treatment’ (a) of all political,
criminal, or in some other way unbearable elements among them,
(b) of those persons who could be used for the reconstruction of
the occupied territories . . . . Further, the commanders must
make efforts from the beginning to seek out among the prisoners
elements which appear reliable, regardless of whether there are
Communists concerned or not, in order to use them for
intelligence purposes inside of the camp, and if advisable,
later in the occupied territories also. By use of such
informers, and by use of all other existing possibilities, the
discovery of all elements to be eliminated among the prisoners
must proceed step by step at once . . . .”
“Above all, the following must be discovered: all important
functionaries of State and Party, especially professional
revolutionaries . . . all People’s Commissars in the Red Army,
leading personalities of the State . . . leading personalities
of the business world, members of the Soviet Russian
Intelligence, all Jews, all persons who are found to be
agitators or fanatical Communists. Executions are not to be held
in the camp or in the immediate vicinity of the camp . . . . The
prisoners are to be taken for special treatment if possible into
the former Soviet Russian territory.”
The affidavit of Warlimont, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht, and
the testimony of Ohlendorf, former Chief of Amt III of the RSHA, and of
Lahousen, the head of one of the sections of the Abwehr, the Wehrmacht’s
Intelligence Service, all indicate the thoroughness with which this
order was carried out.
The affidavit of Kurt Lindown, a former Gestapo official,
states: “. . . . There existed in the prisoner of war camps on
the Eastern Front small screening teams (Einsatz commandos),
headed by lower ranking members of the Secret Police (Gestapo).
These teams were assigned to the camp commanders and had the job
of segregating the prisoners of war who were candidates for
execution according to the orders that had been given, and to
report them to the office of the Secret Police.”
On 23 October 1941 the camp commander of the Gross Rosen concentration
camp reported to Müller, Chief of the Gestapo, a list of the Soviet
prisoners of war who had been executed there on the previous day.
An account of the general conditions and treatment of Soviet prisoners
of war during the first eight months after the German attack upon Russia
was given in a letter which the Defendant Rosenberg sent to the
Defendant Keitel on 28 February 1942:
“The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is on the
contrary a tragedy of the greatest extent . . . . A large part
of them has starved, or died because of the hazards of the
weather. Thousands also died from spotted fever.
“The camp commanders have forbidden the civilian population to
put food at the disposal of the prisoners, and they have rather
let them starve to death.
“In many cases, when prisoners of war could no longer keep up on
the march because of hunger and exhaustion, they were shot
before the eyes of the horrified population, and the corpses
were left.
“In numerous camps, no shelter for the prisoners of war was
provided at all. They lay under the open sky during rain or
snow. Even tools were not made available to dig holes or caves.”
In some cases Soviet prisoners of war were branded with a special
permanent mark. There was put in evidence the OKW order dated 20 July
1942 which laid down that:
“The brand is to take the shape of an acute angle of about 45
degrees, with the long side to be 1 cm. in length, pointing
upwards and burnt on the left buttock . . . . This brand is made
with the aid of a lancet available in any military unit. The
coloring used is Chinese ink.”
The carrying out of this order was the responsibility of the military
authorities, though it was widely circulated by the Chief of the SIPO
and the SD to German police officials for information.
Soviet prisoners of war were also made the subject of medical
experiments of the most cruel and inhuman kind. In July 1943
experimental work was begun in preparation for a campaign of
bacteriological warfare; Soviet prisoners of war were used in these
medical experiments, which more often than not proved fatal. In
connection with this campaign for bacteriological warfare, preparations
were also made for the spreading of bacterial emulsions from planes,
with the object of producing widespread failures of crops and consequent
starvation. These measures were never applied, possibly because of the
rapid deterioration of Germany’s military position.
The argument in defense of the charge with regard to the murder and
ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, that the U.S.S.R. was not a
party to the Geneva Convention, is quite without foundation. On 15
September 1941 Admiral Canaris protested against the regulations for the
treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, signed by General Reinecke on 8
September 1941. He then stated:
“The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is
not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R.
Therefore only the principles of general international law on
the treatment of prisoners of war apply. Since the 18th century
these have gradually been established along the lines that war
captivity is neither revenge nor punishment, but solely
protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the
prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This
principle was developed in accordance with the view held by all
armies that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or
injure helpless people . . . . The decrees for the treatment of
Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on a fundamentally
different view-point.”
This protest, which correctly stated the legal position, was ignored.
The Defendant Keitel made a note on this memorandum:
“The objections arise from the military concept of chivalrous
warfare. This is the destruction of an ideology. Therefore I
approve and back the measures.”
_Murder and Ill-treatment of Civilian Population_
Article 6 (b) of the Charter provides that “ill-treatment . . . of
civilian population of or in occupied territory . . . killing of
hostages . . . wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages” shall
be a war crime. In the main, these provisions are merely declaratory of
the existing laws of war as expressed by the Hague Convention, Article
46, which stated: “Family honor and rights, the lives of persons and
private property, as well as religious convictions and practice must be
respected.”
The territories occupied by Germany were administered in violation of
the laws of war. The evidence is quite overwhelming of a systematic rule
of violence, brutality, and terror. On 7 December 1941 Hitler issued the
directive since known as the “Nacht und Nebel Erlass” (Night and Fog
Decree), under which persons who committed offenses against the Reich or
the German forces in occupied territories, except where the death
sentence was certain, were to be taken secretly to Germany and handed
over to the SIPO and SD for trial or punishment in Germany. This decree
was signed by the Defendant Keitel. After these civilians arrived in
Germany, no word of them was permitted to reach the country from which
they came, or their relatives; even in cases when they died awaiting
trial the families were not informed, the purpose being to create
anxiety in the minds of the family of the arrested person. Hitler’s
purpose in issuing this decree was stated by the Defendant Keitel in a
covering letter, dated 12 December 1941, to be as follows:
“Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either
by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of
the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the
criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred
to Germany.”
Even persons who were only suspected of opposing any of the policies of
the German occupation authorities were arrested, and on arrest were
interrogated by the Gestapo and the SD in the most shameful manner. On
12 June 1942 the Chief of the SIPO and SD published, through Müller, the
Gestapo Chief, an order authorizing the use of “third degree” methods of
interrogation, where preliminary investigation had indicated that the
person could give information on important matters, such as subversive
activities, though not for the purpose of extorting confessions of the
prisoner’s own crimes. This order provided:
“. . . . Third degree may, under this supposition, only be
employed against Communists, Marxists, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
saboteurs, terrorists, members of resistance movements,
parachute agents, anti-social elements, Polish or Soviet Russian
loafers or tramps; in all other cases my permission must first
be obtained . . . . Third degree can, according to
circumstances, consist amongst other methods of very simple diet
(bread and water), hard bunk, dark cell, deprivation of sleep,
exhaustive drilling, also in flogging (for more than twenty
strokes a doctor must be consulted).”
The brutal suppression of all opposition to the German occupation was
not confined to severe measures against suspected members of resistance
movements themselves, but was also extended to their families. On 19
July 1944 the Commander of the SIPO and SD in the district of Radom, in
Poland, published an order, transmitted through the Higher SS and Police
Leaders, to the effect that in all cases of assassination or attempted
assassination of Germans, or where saboteurs had destroyed vital
installations, not only the guilty person, but also all his or her male
relatives should be shot, and female relatives over 16 years of age put
into a concentration camp.
In the summer of 1944 the Einsatz Commando of the SIPO and SD at
Luxembourg caused persons to be confined at Sachsenhausen concentration
camp because they were relatives of deserters, and were therefore
“expected to endanger the interest of the German Reich if allowed to go
free.”
The practice of keeping hostages to prevent and to punish any form of
civil disorder was resorted to by the Germans; an order issued by the
Defendant Keitel on 16 September 1941 spoke in terms of fifty or a
hundred lives from the occupied areas of the Soviet Union for one German
life taken. The order stated that “it should be remembered that a human
life in unsettled countries frequently counts for nothing, and a
deterrent effect can be obtained only by unusual severity.” The exact
number of persons killed as a result of this policy is not known, but
large numbers were killed in France and the other occupied territories
in the West, while in the East the slaughter was on an even more
extensive scale. In addition to the killing of hostages, entire towns
were destroyed in some cases; such massacres as those of
Oradour-sur-Glane in France and Lidice in Czechoslovakia, both of which
were described to the Tribunal in detail, are examples of the organized
use of terror by the occupying forces to beat down and destroy all
opposition to their rule.
One of the most notorious means of terrorizing the people in occupied
territories was the use of concentration camps. They were first
established in Germany at the moment of the seizure of power by the Nazi
Government. Their original purpose was to imprison without trial all
those persons who were opposed to the Government, or who were in any way
obnoxious to German authority. With the aid of a secret police force,
this practice was widely extended, and in course of time concentration
camps became places of organized and systematic murder, where millions
of people were destroyed.
In the administration of the occupied territories the concentration
camps were used to destroy all opposition groups. The persons arrested
by the Gestapo were as a rule sent to concentration camps. They were
conveyed to the camps in many cases without any care whatever being
taken for them, and great numbers died on the way. Those who arrived at
the camp were subject to systematic cruelty. They were given hard
physical labor, inadequate food, clothes and shelter, and were subject
at all times to the rigors of a soulless regime, and the private whims
of individual guards. In the report of the War Crimes Branch of the
Judge Advocate’s Section of the Third U.S. Army, under date 21 June
1945, the conditions at the Flossenburg concentration camp were
investigated, and one passage may be quoted:
“Flossenburg concentration camp can best be described as a
factory dealing in death. Although this camp had in view the
primary object of putting to work the mass slave labor, another
of its primary objects was the elimination of human lives by the
methods employed in handling the prisoners. Hunger and
starvation rations, sadism, inadequate clothing, medical
neglect, disease, beatings, hangings, freezing, forced suicides,
shooting, etc. all played a major role in obtaining their
object. Prisoners were murdered at random; spite killings
against Jews were common, injections of poison and shooting in
the neck were everyday occurrences; epidemics of typhus and
spotted fever were permitted to run rampant as a means of
eliminating prisoners; life in this camp meant nothing. Killing
became a common thing, so common that a quick death was welcomed
by the unfortunate ones.”
A certain number of the concentration camps were equipped with gas
chambers for the wholesale destruction of the inmates, and with furnaces
for the burning of the bodies. Some of them were in fact used for the
extermination of Jews as part of the “final solution” of the Jewish
problem. Most of the non-Jewish inmates were used for labor, although
the conditions under which they worked made labor and death almost
synonymous terms. Those inmates who became ill and were unable to work
were either destroyed in the gas chambers or sent to special
infirmaries, where they were given entirely inadequate medical
treatment, worse food if possible than the working inmates, and left to
die.
The murder and ill-treatment of civilian populations reached its height
in the treatment of the citizens of the Soviet Union and Poland. Some
four weeks before the invasion of Russia began, special task forces of
the SIPO and SD, called Einsatz Groups, were formed on the orders of
Himmler for the purpose of following the German Armies into Russia,
combating partisans and members of Resistance Groups, and exterminating
the Jews and communist leaders and other sections of the population. In
the beginning, four such Einsatz Groups were formed, one operating in
the Baltic States, one towards Moscow, one towards Kiev, and one
operating in the south of Russia. Ohlendorf, former Chief of Amt III of
the RSHA, who led the fourth group, stated in his affidavit:
“When the German army invaded Russia, I was leader of
Einsatzgruppe D, in the southern sector, and in the course of
the year during which I was leader of the Einsatzgruppe D it
liquidated approximately 90,000 men, women, and children. The
majority of those liquidated were Jews, but there were also
among them some communist functionaries.”
In an order issued by the Defendant Keitel on 23 July 1941, and drafted
by the Defendant Jodl, it was stated that:
“In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East, the
forces available for establishing security in these areas will
be sufficient only if all resistance is punished, not by legal
prosecution of the guilty, but by the spreading of such terror
by the Armed Forces as is alone appropriate to eradicate every
inclination to resist among the population . . . . Commanders
must find the means of keeping order by applying suitable
Draconian measures.”
The evidence has shown that this order was ruthlessly carried out in the
territory of the Soviet Union and in Poland. A significant illustration
of the measures actually applied occurs in the document which was sent
in 1943 to the Defendant Rosenberg by the Reich Commissar for Eastern
Territories, who wrote:
“It should be possible to avoid atrocities and to bury those who
have been liquidated. To lock men, women, and children into
barns and set fire to them does not appear to be a suitable
method of combating bands, even if it is desired to exterminate
the population. This method is not worthy of the German cause,
and hurts our reputation severely.”
The Tribunal has before it an affidavit of one Hermann Graebe, dated 10
November 1945, describing the immense mass murders which he witnessed.
He was the manager and engineer in charge of the branch of the Solingen
firm of Josef Jung in Spolbunow, Ukraine, from September 1941 to January
1944. He first of all described the attack upon the Jewish ghetto at
Rowno:
“. . . . Then the electric floodlights which had been erected
all around the ghetto were switched on. SS and militia details
of four to six members entered or at least tried to enter the
houses. Where the doors and windows were closed, and the
inhabitants did not open upon the knocking, the SS men and
militia broke the windows, forced the doors with beams and
crowbars, and entered the dwelling. The owners were driven on to
the street just as they were, regardless of whether they were
dressed or whether they had been in bed. . . . Car after car was
filled. Over it hung the screaming of women and children, the
cracking of whips and rifle shots.”
Graebe then described how a mass execution at Dubno, which he witnessed
on 5 October 1942, was carried out:
“. . . . Now we heard shots in quick succession from behind one
of the earth mounds. The people who had got off the trucks, men,
women, and children of all ages, had to undress upon the orders
of an SS man, who carried a riding or dog whip . . . . Without
screaming or crying, these people undressed, stood around by
families, kissed each other, said farewells, and waited for the
command of another SS man, who stood near the excavation, also
with a whip in his hand. . . . At that moment the SS man at the
excavation called something to his comrade. The latter counted
off about 20 persons, and instructed them to walk behind the
earth mound . . . . I walked around the mound and stood in front
of a tremendous grave; closely pressed together, the people were
lying on top of each other so that only their heads were
visible. The excavation was already two-thirds full; I estimated
that it contained about a thousand people. . . . Now already the
next group approached, descended into the excavation, lined
themselves up against the previous victims and were shot.”
The foregoing crimes against the civilian population are sufficiently
appalling, and yet the evidence shows that at any rate in the East, the
mass murders and cruelties were not committed solely for the purpose of
stamping out opposition or resistance to the German occupying forces. In
Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes were part of a plan to get rid
of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that
their territory could be used for colonization by Germans. Hitler had
written in Mein Kampf on these lines, and the plan was clearly stated by
Himmler in July 1942, when he wrote: “It is not our task to Germanize
the East in the old sense, that is to teach the people there the German
language and the German law, but to see to it that only people of purely
Germanic blood live in the East.”
In August 1942 the policy for the Eastern Territories as laid down by
Bormann was summarized by a subordinate of Rosenberg as follows:
“The Slavs are to work for us. In so far as we do not need them,
they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and Germanic
health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is
undesirable.”
It was Himmler again who stated in October 1943:
“What happens to a Russian, a Czech, does not interest me in the
slightest. What the nations can offer in the way of good blood
of our type, we will take. If necessary, by kidnapping their
children and raising them here with us. Whether nations live in
prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we
need them as slaves for our Kultur, otherwise it is of no
interest to me.”
In Poland the intelligentsia had been marked down for extermination as
early as September 1939, and in May 1940 the Defendant Frank wrote in
his diary of “taking advantage of the focussing of world interest on the
Western Front, by wholesale liquidation of thousands of Poles, first
leading representatives of the Polish intelligentsia.” Earlier, Frank
had been directed to reduce the “entire Polish economy to an absolute
minimum necessary for bare existence. The Poles shall be the slaves of
the Greater German World Empire.” In January 1940 he recorded in his
diary that “cheap labor must be removed from the General Government by
hundreds of thousands. This will hamper the native biological
propagation.” So successfully did the Germans carry out this policy in
Poland that by the end of the war one-third of the population had been
killed, and the whole of the country devastated.
It was the same story in the occupied area of the Soviet Union. At the
time of the launching of the German attack in June 1941 Rosenberg told
his collaborators:
“The object of feeding the German People stands this year
without a doubt at the top of the list of Germany’s claims on
the East, and there the southern territories and the northern
Caucasus will have to serve as a balance for the feeding of the
German People . . . . A very extensive evacuation will be
necessary, without any doubt, and it is sure that the future
will hold very hard years in store for the Russians.”
Three or four weeks later Hitler discussed with Rosenberg, Göring,
Keitel, and others his plan for the exploitation of the Soviet
population and territory, which included among other things the
evacuation of the inhabitants of the Crimea and its settlement by
Germans.
A somewhat similar fate was planned for Czechoslovakia by the Defendant
Von Neurath, in August 1940; the intelligentsia were to be “expelled”,
but the rest of the population was to be Germanized rather than expelled
or exterminated, since there was a shortage of Germans to replace them.
In the West the population of Alsace were the victims of a German
“expulsion action.” Between July and December 1940, 105,000 Alsatians
were either deported from their homes or prevented from returning to
them. A captured German report dated 7 August 1942 with regard to Alsace
states that: “The problem of race will be given first consideration, and
this in such a manner that persons of racial value will be deported to
Germany proper, and racially inferior persons to France.”
_Pillage of Public and Private Property_
Article 49 of the Hague Convention provides that an occupying Power may
levy a contribution of money from the occupied territory to pay for the
needs of the army of occupation, and for the administration of the
territory in question. Article 52 of the Hague Convention provides that
an occupying Power may make requisitions in kind only for the needs of
the army of occupation, and that these requisitions shall be in
proportion to the resources of the country. These articles, together
with Article 48, dealing with the expenditure of money collected in
taxes, and Articles 53, 55, and 56, dealing with public property, make
it clear that under the rules of war, the economy of an occupied country
can only be required to bear the expense of the occupation, and these
should not be greater than the economy of the country can reasonably be
expected to bear. Article 56 reads as follows:
“The property of municipalities, of religious, charitable,
educational, artistic, and scientific institutions, although
belonging to the State, is to be accorded the same standing as
private property. All pre-meditated seizure, destruction, or
damage of such institutions, historical monuments, works of art
and science, is prohibited and should be prosecuted.”
The evidence in this case has established, however, that the territories
occupied by Germany were exploited for the German war effort in the most
ruthless way, without consideration of the local economy, and in
consequence of a deliberate design and policy. There was in truth a
systematic “plunder of public or private property”, which was criminal
under Article 6 (b) of the Charter. The German occupation policy was
clearly stated in a speech made by the Defendant Göring on 6 August 1942
to the various German authorities in charge of occupied territories:
“God knows, you are not sent out there to work for the welfare
of the people in your charge, but to get the utmost out of them,
so that the German People can live. That is what I expect of
your exertions. This everlasting concern about foreign people
must cease now, once and for all. I have here before me reports
on what you are expected to deliver. It is nothing at all, when
I consider your territories. It makes no difference to me in
this connection if you say that your people will starve.”
The methods employed to exploit the resources of the occupied
territories to the full varied from country to country. In some of the
occupied countries in the East and the West, this exploitation was
carried out within the framework of the existing economic structure. The
local industries were put under German supervision, and the distribution
of war materials was rigidly controlled. The industries thought to be of
value to the German war effort were compelled to continue, and most of
the rest were closed down altogether. Raw materials and the finished
products alike were confiscated for the needs of the German industry. As
early as 19 October 1939 the Defendant Göring had issued a directive
giving detailed instructions for the administration of the occupied
territories; it provided:
“The task for the economic treatment of the various
administrative regions is different, depending on whether the
country is involved which will be incorporated politically into
the German Reich, or whether we will deal with the
Government-General, which in all probability will not be made a
part of Germany. In the first mentioned territories, the . . .
safeguarding of all their productive facilities and supplies
must be aimed at, as well as a complete incorporation into the
Greater German economic system, at the earliest possible time.
On the other hand, there must be removed from the territories of
the Government-General all raw materials, scrap materials,
machines, etc., which are of use for the German war economy.
Enterprises which are not absolutely necessary for the meager
maintenance of the naked existence of the population must be
transferred to Germany, unless such transfer would require an
unreasonably long period of time, and would make it more
practicable to exploit those enterprises by giving them German
orders, to be executed at their present location.”
As a consequence of this order, agricultural products, raw materials
needed by German factories, machine tools, transportation equipment,
other finished products, and even foreign securities and holdings of
foreign exchange were all requisitioned and sent to Germany. These
resources were requisitioned in a manner out of all proportion to the
economic resources of those countries, and resulted in famine,
inflation, and an active black market. At first the German occupation
authorities attempted to suppress the black market, because it was a
channel of distribution keeping local products out of German hands. When
attempts at suppression failed, a German purchasing agency was organized
to make purchases for Germany on the black market, thus carrying out the
assurance made by the Defendant Göring that it was “necessary that all
should know that if there is to be famine anywhere, it shall in no case
be in Germany.”
In many of the occupied countries of the East and the West, the
authorities maintained the pretense of paying for all the property which
they seized. This elaborate pretense of payment merely disguised the
fact that the goods sent to Germany from these occupied countries were
paid for by the occupied countries themselves, either by the device of
excessive occupation costs or by forced loans in return for a credit
balance on a “clearing account” which was an account merely in name.
In most of the occupied countries of the East even this pretense of
legality was not maintained; economic exploitation became deliberate
plunder. This policy was first put into effect in the administration of
the Government General in Poland. The main exploitation of the raw
materials in the East was centered on agricultural products and very
large amounts of food were shipped from the Government General to
Germany.
The evidence of the widespread starvation among the Polish People in the
Government General indicates the ruthlessness and the severity with
which the policy of exploitation was carried out.
The occupation of the territories of the U.S.S.R. was characterized by
premeditated and systematic looting. Before the attack on the U.S.S.R.
an economic staff—Oldenburg—was organized to ensure the most efficient
exploitation of Soviet territories. The German Armies were to be fed out
of Soviet territory, even if “many millions of people will be starved to
death.” An OKW directive issued before the attack said: “To obtain the
greatest possible quantity of food and crude oil for Germany—that is
the main economic purpose of the campaign.”
Similarly, a declaration by the Defendant Rosenberg of 20 June 1941 had
advocated the use of the produce from Southern Russia and of the
Northern Caucasus to feed the German People, saying:
“We see absolutely no reason for any obligation on our part to
feed also the Russian People with the products of that surplus
territory. We know that this is a harsh necessity, bare of any
feelings.”
When the Soviet territory was occupied, this policy was put into effect;
there was a large scale confiscation of agricultural supplies, with
complete disregard of the needs of the inhabitants of the occupied
territory.
In addition to the seizure of raw materials and manufactured articles, a
wholesale seizure was made of art treasures, furniture, textiles, and
similar articles in all the invaded countries.
The Defendant Rosenberg was designated by Hitler on 29 January 1940 Head
of the Center for National Socialist Ideological and Educational
Research, and thereafter the organization known as the “Einsatzstab
Rosenberg” conducted its operations on a very great scale. Originally
designed for the establishment of a research library, it developed into
a project for the seizure of cultural treasures. On 1 March 1942 Hitler
issued a further decree, authorizing Rosenberg to search libraries,
lodges, and cultural establishments, to seize material from these
establishments, as well as cultural treasures owned by Jews. Similar
directions were given where the ownership could not be clearly
established. The decree directed the co-operation of the Wehrmacht High
Command, and indicated that Rosenberg’s activities in the West were to
be conducted in his capacity as Reichsleiter, and in the East in his
capacity as Reichsminister. Thereafter, Rosenberg’s activities were
extended to the occupied countries. The report of Robert Scholz, Chief
of the special staff for Pictorial Art, stated: “During the period from
March 1941 to July 1944 the special staff for Pictorial Art brought into
the Reich 29 large shipments, including 137 freight cars with 4,174
cases of art works.”
The report of Scholz refers to 25 portfolios of pictures of the most
valuable works of the art collection seized in the West, which
portfolios were presented to the Führer. Thirty-nine volumes, prepared
by the Einsatzstab, contained photographs of paintings, textiles,
furniture, candelabra, and numerous other objects of art, and
illustrated the value and magnitude of the collection which had been
made. In many of the occupied countries private collections were robbed,
libraries were plundered, and private houses were pillaged.
Museums, palaces, and libraries in the occupied territories of the
U.S.S.R. were systematically looted. Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab, Von
Ribbentrop’s special “Battalion”, the Reichscommissars and
representatives of the Military Command seized objects of cultural and
historical value belonging to the People of the Soviet Union, which were
sent to Germany. Thus the Reichscommissar of the Ukraine removed
paintings and objects of art from Kiev and Kharkov and sent them to East
Prussia. Rare volumes and objects of art from the palaces of Peterhof,
Tsarskoye Selo, and Pavlovsk were shipped to Germany. In his letter to
Rosenberg of 3 October 1941 Reichscommissar Kube stated that the value
of the objects of art taken from Bielorussia ran into millions of
rubles. The scale of this plundering can also be seen in the letter sent
from Rosenberg’s department to Von Milde-Schreden in which it is stated
that during the month of October 1943 alone, about 40 box-cars loaded
with objects of cultural value were transported to the Reich.
With regard to the suggestion that the purpose of the seizure of art
treasures was protective and meant for their preservation, it is
necessary to say a few words. On 1 December 1939 Himmler, as the Reich
Commissioner for the “strengthening of Germanism”, issued a decree to
the regional officers of the secret police in the annexed eastern
territories, and to the commanders of the security service in Radom,
Warsaw, and Lublin. This decree contained administrative directions for
carrying out the art seizure program, and in Clause 1 it is stated:
To strengthen Germanism in the defense of the Reich, all
articles mentioned in Section 2 of this decree are hereby
confiscated . . . . They are confiscated for the benefit of the
German Reich, and are at the disposal of the Reich Commissioner
for the strengthening of Germanism.”
The intention to enrich Germany by the seizures, rather than to protect
the seized objects, is indicated in an undated report by Dr. Hans Posse,
director of the Dresden State Picture Gallery:
“I was able to gain some knowledge on the public and private
collections, as well as clerical property, in Cracow and Warsaw.
It is true that we cannot hope too much to enrich ourselves from
the acquisition of great art works of paintings and sculptures,
with the exception of the Veit-Stoß altar, and the plates of
Hans von Kulnback in the Church of Maria in Cracow . . . and
several other works from the National Museum in Warsaw.”
_Slave Labor Policy_
Article 6 (b) of the Charter provides that the “ill-treatment or
deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian
population of or in occupied territory” shall be a War Crime. The laws
relating to forced labor by the inhabitants of occupied territories are
found in Article 52 of the Hague Convention, which provides:
“Requisition in kind and services shall not be demanded from
municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army
of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of
the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the
inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military
operations against their own country.”
The policy of the German occupation authorities was in flagrant
violation of the terms of this convention. Some idea of this policy may
be gathered from the statement made by Hitler in a speech on 9 November
1941:
“The territory which now works for us contains more than
250,000,000 men, but the territory which works indirectly for us
includes now more than 350,000,000. In the measure in which it
concerns German territory, the domain which we have taken under
our administration, it is not doubtful that we shall succeed in
harnessing the very last man to this work.”
The actual results achieved were not so complete as this, but the German
occupation authorities did succeed in forcing many of the inhabitants of
the occupied territories to work for the German war effort, and in
deporting at least 5,000,000 persons to Germany to serve German industry
and agriculture.
In the early stages of the war, manpower in the occupied territories was
under the control of various occupation authorities, and the procedure
varied from country to country. In all the occupied territories
compulsory labor service was promptly instituted. Inhabitants of the
occupied countries were conscripted and compelled to work in local
occupations, to assist the German war economy. In many cases they were
forced to work on German fortifications and military installations. As
local supplies of raw materials and local industrial capacity became
inadequate to meet the German requirements, the system of deporting
laborers to Germany was put into force. By the middle of April 1940
compulsory deportation of laborers to Germany had been ordered in the
Government General; and a similar procedure was followed in other
eastern territories as they were occupied. A description of this
compulsory deportation from Poland was given by Himmler. In an address
to SS officers he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below zero they had
to “haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands”. On a
later occasion Himmler stated:
“Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion
while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only insofar as
the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished . . . . We must
realize that we have 6-7 million foreigners in Germany . . . .
They are none of them dangerous so long as we take severe
measures at the merest trifles.”
During the first two years of the German occupation of France, Belgium,
Holland, and Norway, however, an attempt was made to obtain the
necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How unsuccessful this was may be
seen from the report of the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1
March 1944. The representative of the Defendant Speer, one Koehrl,
speaking of the situation in France, said: “During all this time a great
number of Frenchmen was recruited, and voluntarily went to Germany.”
He was interrupted by the Defendant Sauckel: “Not only voluntary, some
were recruited forcibly.”
To which Koehrl replied: “The calling up started after the recruitment
no longer yielded enough results.”
To which the Defendant Sauckel replied: “Out of the five million workers
who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily”, and Koehrl
rejoined: “Let us forget for the moment whether or not some slight
pressure was used. Formally, at least, they were volunteers.”
Committees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous
propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for service
in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for example, the promise
that a prisoner of war would be returned for every laborer who
volunteered to go to Germany. In some cases it was supplemented by
withdrawing the ration cards of laborers who refused to go to Germany,
or by discharging them from their jobs and denying them unemployment
benefit or an opportunity to work elsewhere. In some cases workers and
their families were threatened with reprisals by the police if they
refused to go to Germany. It was on 21 March 1942 that the Defendant
Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Utilization of
Labor, with authority over “all available manpower, including that of
workers recruited abroad, and of prisoners of war”.
The Defendant Sauckel was directly under the Defendant Göring as
Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, and a Göring decree of 27 March 1942
transferred all his authority over manpower to Sauckel. Sauckel’s
instructions, too, were that foreign labor should be recruited on a
voluntary basis, but also provided that “where, however, in the occupied
territories, the appeal for volunteers does not suffice, obligatory
service and drafting must under all circumstances be resorted to.” Rules
requiring labor service in Germany were published in all the occupied
territories. The number of laborers to be supplied was fixed by Sauckel,
and the local authorities were instructed to meet these requirements by
conscription if necessary. That conscription was the rule rather than
the exception is shown by the statement of Sauckel already quoted, on 1
March 1944.
The Defendant Sauckel frequently asserted that the workers belonging to
foreign nations were treated humanely, and that the conditions in which
they lived were good. But whatever the intention of Sauckel may have
been, and however much he may have desired that foreign laborers should
be treated humanely, the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the
fact that the conscription of labor was accomplished in many cases by
drastic and violent methods. The “mistakes and blunders” were on a very
great scale. Man-hunts took place in the streets, at motion picture
houses, even at churches and at night in private houses. Houses were
sometimes burnt down, and the families taken as hostages, practices
which were described by the Defendant Rosenberg as having their origin
“in the blackest periods of the slave trade”. The methods used in
obtaining forced labor from the Ukraine appear from an order issued to
SD officers which stated:
“It will not be possible always to refrain from using force
. . . . When searching villages, especially when it has been
necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will be
put at the disposal of the Commissioner by force . . . . As a
rule no more children will be shot . . . . If we limit harsh
measures through the above orders for the time being, it is only
done for the following reason . . . . The most important thing
is the recruitment of workers.”
The resources and needs of the occupied countries were completely
disregarded in carrying out this policy. The treatment of the laborers
was governed, by Sauckel’s instructions of 20 April 1942 to the effect
that: “All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as
to exploit them to the highest possible extent, at the lowest
conceivable degree of expenditure.”
The evidence showed that workers destined for the Reich were sent under
guard to Germany, often packed in trains without adequate heat, food,
clothing, or sanitary facilities. The evidence further showed that the
treatment of the laborers in Germany in many cases was brutal and
degrading. The evidence relating to the Krupp Works at Essen showed that
punishments of the most cruel kind were inflicted on the workers.
Theoretically at least the workers were paid, housed, and fed by the
DAF, and even permitted to transfer their savings and to send mail and
parcels back to their native country; but restrictive regulations took a
proportion of the pay; the camps in which they were housed were
unsanitary; and the food was very often less than the minimum necessary
to give the workers strength to do their jobs. In the case of Poles
employed on farms in Germany, the employers were given authority to
inflict corporal punishment and were ordered, if possible, to house them
in stables, not in their own homes. They were subject to constant
supervision by the Gestapo and the SS, and if they attempted to leave
their jobs they were sent to correction camps or concentration camps.
The concentration camps were also used to increase the supply of labor.
Concentration camp commanders were ordered to work their prisoners to
the limits of their physical power. During the latter stages of the war
the concentration camps were so productive in certain types of work that
the Gestapo was actually instructed to arrest certain classes of
laborers so that they could be used in this way. Allied prisoners of war
were also regarded as a possible source of labor. Pressure was exercised
on non-commissioned officers to force them to consent to work, by
transferring to disciplinary camps those who did not consent. Many of
the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to military
operations, in violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They
were put to work in munition factories and even made to load bombers, to
carry ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous
conditions. This condition applied particularly to the Soviet prisoners
of war. On 16 February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board,
at which the Defendants Sauckel and Speer were present, Milch said:
“We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage
of men in the Ack-Ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be
taken altogether. Thirty thousand are already employed as
gunners. This is an amusing thing, that Russians must work the
guns.”
And on 4 October 1943, at Posen, Himmler, speaking of the Russian
prisoners, captured in the early days of the war, said:
“As that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value
it today, as raw material, as labor. What, after all, thinking
in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now
deplorable by reason of the loss of labor, is that the prisoners
died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and
hunger.”
The general policy underlying the mobilization of slave labor was stated
by Sauckel on 20 April 1942. He said:
“The aim of this new gigantic labor mobilization is to use all
the rich and tremendous sources conquered and secured for us by
our fighting Armed Forces under the leadership of Adolf Hitler,
for the armament of the Armed Forces, and also for the nutrition
of the Homeland. The raw materials, as well as the fertility of
the conquered territories and their human labor power, are to be
used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and
her allies . . . . All prisoners of war from the territories of
the West, as well as the East, actually in Germany, must be
completely incorporated into the German armament and nutrition
industries . . . . Consequently it is an immediate necessity to
use the human reserves of the conquered Soviet territory to the
fullest extent. Should we not succeed in obtaining the necessary
amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we must immediately
institute conscription or forced labor. . . . The complete
employment of all prisoners of war, as well as the use of a
gigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men and women,
has become an indisputable necessity for the solution of the
mobilization of the labor program in this war.”
Reference should also be made to the policy which was in existence in
Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all aged, insane, and
incurable people, “useless eaters,” were transferred to special
institutions where they were killed, and their relatives informed that
they had died from natural causes. The victims were not confined to
German citizens, but included foreign laborers, who were no longer able
to work, and were therefore useless to the German war machine. It has
been estimated that at least some 275,000 people were killed in this
manner in nursing homes, hospitals and asylums, which were under the
jurisdiction of the Defendant Frick, in his capacity as Minister of the
Interior. How many foreign workers were included in this total it has
been quite impossible to determine.
_Persecution of the Jews_
The persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazi Government has been
proved in the greatest detail before the Tribunal. It is a record of
consistent and systematic inhumanity on the greatest scale. Ohlendorf,
Chief of Amt III in the RSHA from 1939 to 1943, and who was in command
of one of the Einsatz groups in the campaign against the Soviet Union
testified as to the methods employed in the extermination of the Jews.
He said that he employed firing squads to shoot the victims in order to
lessen the sense of individual guilt on the part of his men; and the
90,000 men, women, and children who were murdered in one year by his
particular group were mostly Jews.
When the witness Bach Zelewski was asked how Ohlendorf could admit the
murder of 90,000 people, he replied: “I am of the opinion that when, for
years, for decades, the doctrine is preached that the Slav race is an
inferior race, and Jews not even human, then such an outcome is
inevitable.”
But the Defendant Frank spoke the final words of this chapter of Nazi
history when he testified in this Court:
“We have fought against Jewry: we have fought against it for
years: and we have allowed ourselves to make utterances and my
own diary has become a witness against me in this
connection—utterances which are terrible . . . . A thousand
years will pass and this guilt of Germany will still not be
erased.”
The anti-Jewish policy was formulated in Point 4 of the Party Program
which declared “Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of
the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration
of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.” Other
points of the program declared that Jews should be treated as
foreigners, that they should not be permitted to hold public office,
that they should be expelled from the Reich if it were impossible to
nourish the entire population of the State, that they should be denied
any further immigration into Germany, and that they should be prohibited
from publishing German newspapers. The Nazi Party preached these
doctrines throughout its history. _Der Stürmer_ and other publications
were allowed to disseminate hatred of the Jews, and in the speeches and
public declarations of the Nazi leaders, the Jews were held up to public
ridicule and contempt.
With the seizure of power, the persecution of the Jews was intensified.
A series of discriminatory laws was passed, which limited the offices
and professions permitted to Jews; and restrictions were placed on their
family life and their rights of citizenship. By the autumn of 1938, the
Nazi policy towards the Jews had reached the stage where it was directed
towards the complete exclusion of Jews from German life. Pogroms were
organized, which included the burning and demolishing of synagogues, the
looting of Jewish businesses, and the arrest of prominent Jewish
business men. A collective fine of 1 billion marks was imposed on the
Jews, the seizure of Jewish assets was authorized, and the movement of
Jews was restricted by regulations to certain specified districts and
hours. The creation of ghettos was carried out on an extensive scale,
and by an order of the Security Police Jews were compelled to wear a
yellow star to be worn on the breast and back.
It was contended for the Prosecution that certain aspects of this
anti-Semitic policy were connected with the plans for aggressive war.
The violent measures taken against the Jews in November 1938 were
nominally in retaliation for the killing of an official of the German
Embassy in Paris. But the decision to seize Austria and Czechoslovakia
had been made a year before. The imposition of a fine of one billion
marks was made, and the confiscation of the financial holdings of the
Jews was decreed, at a time when German armament expenditure had put the
German treasury in difficulties, and when the reduction of expenditure
on armaments was being considered. These steps were taken, moreover,
with the approval of the Defendant Göring, who had been given
responsibility for economic matters of this kind, and who was the
strongest advocate of an extensive rearmament program notwithstanding
the financial difficulties.
It was further said that the connection of the anti-Semitic policy with
aggressive war was not limited to economic matters. The German Foreign
Office circular, in an article of 25 January 1939, entitled “Jewish
Question as a Factor in German Foreign Policy in the Year 1938”,
described the new phase in the Nazi anti-Semitic policy in these words:
“It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 has
brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question
simultaneously with the realization of the idea of Greater
Germany, since the Jewish policy was both the basis and
consequence of the year 1938. The advance made by Jewish
influence and the destructive Jewish spirit in politics,
economy, and culture, paralyzed the power and the will of the
German People to rise again, more perhaps even than the power
policy opposition of the former enemy Allied Powers of the first
World War. The healing of this sickness among the people, was
therefore certainly one of the most important requirements for
exerting the force which, in the year 1938, resulted in the
joining together of Greater Germany in defiance of the world.”
The Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany before the war, severe and
repressive as it was, cannot compare, however, with the policy pursued
during the war in the occupied territories. Originally the policy was
similar to that which had been in force inside Germany. Jews were
required to register, were forced to live in ghettos, to wear the yellow
star, and were used as slave laborers. In the summer of 1941, however,
plans were made for the “final solution” of the Jewish question in
Europe. This “final solution” meant the extermination of the Jews, which
early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of
an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf
Eichmann, as head of Section B 4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out
the policy.
The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the
attack on the Soviet Union. Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and
SD, formed for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the population
of the areas lying behind the German armies in the East, were given the
duty of exterminating the Jews in those areas. The effectiveness of the
work of the Einsatzgruppen is shown by the fact that in February 1942
Heydrich was able to report that Estonia had already been cleared of
Jews and that in Riga the number of Jews had been reduced from 29,500 to
2,500. Altogether the Einsatzgruppen operating in the occupied Baltic
States killed over 135,000 Jews in three months.
Nor did these special units operate completely independently of the
German Armed Forces. There is clear evidence that leaders of the
Einsatzgruppen obtained the co-operation of Army commanders. In one case
the relations between an Einsatzgruppe and the military authorities was
described at the time as being “very close, almost cordial”; in another
case the smoothness of an Einsatzcommando’s operation was attributed to
the “understanding for this procedure” shown by the Army authorities.
Units of the Security Police and SD in the occupied territories of the
East, which were under civil administration, were given a similar task.
The planned and systematic character of the Jewish persecutions is best
illustrated by the original report of the SS Brigadier-General Stroop,
who was in charge of the destruction of the ghetto in Warsaw, which took
place in 1943. The Tribunal received in evidence that report,
illustrated with photographs, bearing on its title page: “The Jewish
Ghetto in Warsaw No Longer Exists.” The volume records a series of
reports sent by Stroop to the Higher SS and Police Führer East. In April
and May of 1943, in one report, Stroop wrote:
“The resistance put up by the Jews and bandits could only be
suppressed by energetic actions of our troops day and night. The
Reichsführer SS ordered therefore on 23 April 1943 the cleaning
out of the ghetto with utter ruthlessness and merciless
tenacity. I therefore decided to destroy and burn down the
entire ghetto, without regard to the armament factories. These
factories were systematically dismantled and then burnt. Jews
usually left their hideouts, but frequently remained in the
burning buildings, and jumped out of the windows only when the
heat became unbearable. They then tried to crawl with broken
bones across the street into buildings which were not afire
. . . . Life in the sewers was not pleasant after the first
week. Many times we could hear loud voices in the sewers . . . .
Tear gas bombs were thrown into the manholes, and the Jews
driven out of the sewers and captured. Countless numbers of Jews
were liquidated in sewers and bunkers through blasting. The
longer the resistance continued, the tougher became the members
of the Waffen SS, Police and Wehrmacht, who always discharged
their duties in an exemplary manner.
Stroop recorded that his action at Warsaw eliminated “a proved total of
56,065 people. To that we have to add the number of those killed through
blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted.” Grim evidence of mass
murders of Jews was also presented to the Tribunal in cinematograph
films depicting the communal graves of hundreds of victims which were
subsequently discovered by the Allies.
These atrocities were all part and parcel of the policy inaugurated in
1941, and it is not surprising that there should be evidence that one or
two German officials entered vain protests against the brutal manner in
which the killings were carried out. But the methods employed never
conformed to a single pattern. The massacres of Rowno and Dubno, of
which the German engineer Graebe spoke, were examples of one method; the
systematic extermination of Jews in concentration camps, was another.
Part of the “final solution” was the gathering of Jews from all
German-occupied Europe in concentration camps. Their physical condition
was the test of life or death. All who were fit to work were used as
slave laborers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work
were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain
concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for
this main purpose. With regard to Auschwitz, the Tribunal heard the
evidence of Höss, the commandant of the camp from 1 May 1940 to 1
December 1943. He estimated that in the camp of Auschwitz alone in that
time 2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and that a further 500,000
died from disease and starvation. Höss described the screening for
extermination by stating in evidence:
“We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the
incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched
by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they
walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the camp.
Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants.
Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by
reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another
improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the
victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and
at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking
that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course,
frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes
had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently
women would hide their children under their clothes, but of
course when we found them we would send the children in to be
exterminated.”
He described the actual killing by stating:
“It took from three to fifteen minutes to kill the people in the
death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when
the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually
waited about one half-hour before we opened the doors and
removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special
commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the
teeth of the corpses.”
Beating, starvation, torture, and killing were general. The inmates were
subjected to cruel experiments; at Dachau in August 1942, victims were
immersed in cold water until their body temperature was reduced to 28°
Centigrade, when they died immediately. Other experiments included high
altitude experiments in pressure chambers, experiments to determine how
long human beings could survive in freezing water, experiments with
poison bullets, experiments with contagious diseases, and experiments
dealing with sterilization of men and women by X-rays and other methods.
Evidence was given of the treatment of the inmates before and after
their extermination. There was testimony that the hair of women victims
was cut off before they were killed, and shipped to Germany, there to be
used in the manufacture of mattresses. The clothes, money, and valuables
of the inmates were also salvaged and sent to the appropriate agencies
for disposition. After the extermination the gold teeth and fillings
were taken from the heads of the corpses and sent to the Reichsbank.
After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some
instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the
victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. Special groups traveled
through Europe to find Jews and subject them to the “final solution”.
German missions were sent to such satellite countries as Hungary and
Bulgaria, to arrange for the shipment of Jews to extermination camps and
it is known that by the end of 1944, 400,000 Jews from Hungary had been
murdered at Auschwitz. Evidence has also been given of the evacuation of
110,000 Jews from part of Rumania for “liquidation”. Adolf Eichmann, who
had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the
policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6 million Jews, of which 4
million were killed in the extermination institutions.
_The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
Article 6 of the Charter provides:
“(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of
war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to,
murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any
other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied
territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or
persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or
private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
“(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed
against any civilian population, before or during the war; or
persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in
execution of or in connection with any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the
domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”
As heretofore stated, the Charter does not define as a separate crime
any conspiracy except the one set out in Article 6 (a), dealing with
Crimes against Peace.
The Tribunal is of course bound by the Charter, in the definition which
it gives both of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. With respect to
War Crimes, however, as has already been pointed out, the crimes defined
by Article 6, Section (b), of the Charter were already recognized as War
Crimes under international law. They were covered by Articles 46, 50,
52, and 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46,
and 51 of the Geneva Convention of 1929. That violation of these
provisions constituted crimes for which the guilty individuals were
punishable is too well-settled to admit of argument.
But it is argued that the Hague Convention does not apply in this case,
because of the “general participation” clause in Article 2 of the Hague
Convention of 1907. That clause provided:
“The provisions contained in the regulations (Rules of Land
Warfare) referred to in Article I as well as in the present
Convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and
then only if all the belligerents, are parties to the
Convention.”
Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this
Convention.
In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this
question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention
undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at
the time of their adoption. But the convention expressly stated that it
was an attempt “to revise the general laws and customs of war”, which it
thus recognized to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down
in the Convention were recognized by all civilized nations, and were
regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are
referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
A further submission was made that Germany was no longer bound by the
rules of land warfare in many of the territories occupied during the
war, because Germany had completely subjugated those countries and
incorporated them into the German Reich, a fact which gave Germany
authority to deal with the occupied countries as though they were part
of Germany. In the view of the Tribunal it is unnecessary in this case
to decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is upon
military conquest, has any application where the subjugation is the
result of the crime of aggressive war. The doctrine was never considered
to be applicable so long as there was an army in the field attempting to
restore the occupied countries to their true owners, and in this case,
therefore, the doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied
after 1 September 1939. As to the War Crimes committed in Bohemia and
Moravia, it is a sufficient answer that these territories were never
added to the Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.
With regard to Crimes against Humanity there is no doubt whatever that
political opponents were murdered in Germany before the war, and that
many of them were kept in concentration camps in circumstances of great
horror and cruelty. The policy of terror was certainly carried out on a
vast scale, and in many cases was organized and systematic. The policy
of persecution, repression, and murder of civilians in Germany before
the war of 1939, who were likely to be hostile to the Government, was
most ruthlessly carried out. The persecution of Jews during the same
period is established beyond all doubt. To constitute Crimes against
Humanity, the acts relied on before the outbreak of war must have been
in execution of, or in connection with, any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the opinion that
revolting and horrible as many of these crimes were, it has not been
satisfactorily proved that they were done in execution of, or in
connection with, any such crime. The Tribunal therefore cannot make a
general declaration that the acts before 1939 were Crimes against
Humanity within the meaning of the Charter, but from the beginning of
the war in 1939 War Crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were
also Crimes against Humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged
in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not
constitute War Crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in
connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted Crimes
against Humanity.
_The Accused Organizations_
Article 9 of the Charter provides:
“At the trial of any individual member of any group or
organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any
act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or
organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal
organization.”
“After receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such
notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the
Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the
organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave
to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal
character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to
allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed,
the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be
represented and heard.”
Article 10 of the Charter makes clear that the declaration of
criminality against an accused organization is final, and cannot be
challenged in any subsequent criminal proceeding against a member of the
organization. Article 10 is as follows:
“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by
the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory
shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein before national, military or occupation
courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or
organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”
The effect of the declaration of criminality by the Tribunal is well
illustrated by Law Number 10 of the Control Council of Germany passed on
20 December 1945, which provides:
“Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:
. . .
“(d) Membership in categories of a criminal group or organization
declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.
. . .
“(3) Any person found guilty of any of the crimes above mentioned may
upon conviction be punished as shall be determined by the Tribunal to be
just. Such punishment may consist of one or more of the following:
(a) Death.
(b) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without hard
labor.
(c) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labor, in lieu thereof.”
In effect, therefore, a member of an organization which the Tribunal has
declared to be criminal may be subsequently convicted of the crime of
membership and be punished for that crime by death. This is not to
assume that international or military courts which will try these
individuals will not exercise appropriate standards of justice. This is
a far reaching and novel procedure. Its application, unless properly
safeguarded, may produce great injustice.
Article 9, it should be noted, uses the words “The Tribunal may
declare”, so that the Tribunal is vested with discretion as to whether
it will declare any organization criminal. This discretion is a judicial
one and does not permit arbitrary action, but should be exercised in
accordance with well-settled legal principles, one of the most important
of which is that criminal guilt is personal, and that mass punishments
should be avoided. If satisfied of the criminal guilt of any
organization or group, this Tribunal should not hesitate to declare it
to be criminal because the theory of “group criminality” is new, or
because it might be unjustly applied by some subsequent tribunals. On
the other hand, the Tribunal should make such declaration of criminality
so far as possible in a manner to insure that innocent persons will not
be punished.
A criminal organization is analogous to a criminal conspiracy in that
the essence of both is cooperation for criminal purposes. There must be
a group bound together and organized for a common purpose. The group
must be formed or used in connection with the commission of crimes
denounced by the Charter. Since the declaration with respect to the
organizations and groups will, as has been pointed out, fix the
criminality of its members, that definition should exclude persons who
had no knowledge of the criminal purposes or acts of the organization
and those who were drafted by the State for membership, unless they were
personally implicated in the commission of acts declared criminal by
Article 6 of the Charter as members of the organization. Membership
alone is not enough to come within the scope of these declarations.
Since declarations of criminality which the Tribunal makes will be used
by other courts in the trial of persons on account of their membership
in the organizations found to be criminal, the Tribunal feels it
appropriate to make the following recommendations:
1. That so far as possible throughout the four zones of occupation in
Germany the classifications, sanctions, and penalties be standardized.
Uniformity of treatment so far as practical should be a basic principle.
This does not, of course, mean that discretion in sentencing should not
be vested in the court; but the discretion should be within fixed limits
appropriate to the nature of the crime.
2. Law No. 10, to which reference has already been made, leaves
punishment entirely in the discretion of the trial court even to the
extent of inflicting the death penalty.
The De-Nazification Law of 5 March 1946, however, passed for Bavaria,
Greater-Hesse, and Württemberg-Baden, provides definite sentences for
punishment in each type of offense. The Tribunal recommends that in no
case should punishment imposed under Law No. 10 upon any members of an
organization or group declared by the Tribunal to be criminal exceed the
punishment fixed by the De-Nazification Law. No person should be
punished under both laws.
3. The Tribunal recommends to the Control Council that Law No. 10 be
amended to prescribe limitations on the punishment which may be imposed
for membership in a criminal group or organization so that such
punishment shall not exceed the punishment prescribed by the
De-Nazification Law.
The Indictment asks that the Tribunal declare to be criminal the
following organizations; The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party; the
Gestapo; the SD; the SS; the SA; the Reich Cabinet, and the General
Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces.
_THE LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY_
_Structure and Component Parts_: The Indictment has named the Leadership
Corps of the Nazi Party as a group or organization which should be
declared criminal. The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party consisted, in
effect, of the official organization of the Nazi Party, with Hitler as
Führer at its head. The actual work of running the Leadership Corps was
carried out by the Chief of the Party Chancellery (Hess, succeeded by
Bormann) assisted by the Party Reich Directorate, or Reichsleitung,
which was composed of the Reichsleiters, the heads of the functional
organizations of the Party, as well as of the heads of the various main
departments and offices which were attached to the Party Reich
Directorate. Under the Chief of the Party Chancellery were the
Gauleiters, with territorial jurisdiction over the major administrative
regions of the Party, the Gaue. The Gauleiters were assisted by a Party
Gau Directorate or Gauleitung, similar in composition and in function to
the Party Reich Directorate. Under the Gauleiters in the Party hierarchy
were the Kreisleiters with territorial jurisdiction over a Kreis,
usually consisting of a single county, and assisted by a Party Kreis
Directorate, or Kreisleitung. The Kreisleiters were the lowest members
of the Party hierarchy who were full-time paid employees. Directly under
the Kreisleiters were the Ortsgruppenleiters, then the Zellenleiters and
then the Blockleiters. Directives and instructions were received from
the Party Reich Directorate. The Gauleiters had the function of
interpreting such orders and issuing them to lower formations. The
Kreisleiters had a certain discretion in interpreting orders, but the
Ortsgruppenleiters had not, but acted under definite instructions.
Instructions were only issued in writing down as far as the
Ortsgruppenleiters. The Block and Zellenleiters usually received
instructions orally. Membership in the Leadership Corps at all levels
was voluntary.
On 28 February 1946 the Prosecution excluded from the declaration asked
for, all members of the staffs of the Ortsgruppenleiters and all
assistants of the Zellenleiters and Blockleiters. The declaration sought
against the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party thus includes the Führer,
the Reichsleitung, the Gauleiters and their staff officers, the
Kreisleiters and their staff officers, the Ortsgruppenleiters, the
Zellenleiters and the Blockleiters, a group estimated to contain at
least 600,000 people.
_Aims and Activities_: The primary purpose of the Leadership Corps from
its beginning was to assist the Nazis in obtaining and, after 30 January
1933, in retaining, control of the German State. The machinery of the
Leadership Corps was used for the wide-spread dissemination of Nazi
propaganda and to keep a detailed check on the political attitudes of
the German People. In this activity the lower Political Leaders played a
particularly important role. The Blockleiters were instructed by the
Party Manual to report to the Ortsgruppenleiters all persons circulating
damaging rumors or criticism of the regime. The Ortsgruppenleiters, on
the basis of information supplied them by the Blockleiters and
Zellenleiters, kept a card index of the people within their Ortsgruppe
which recorded the factors which would be used in forming a judgment as
to their political reliability.
The Leadership Corps was particularly active during plebiscites. All
members of the Leadership Corps were active in getting out the vote and
insuring the highest possible proportion of “yes” votes.
Ortsgruppenleiters and Political Leaders of higher ranks often
collaborated with the Gestapo and SD in taking steps to determine those
who refused to vote or who voted “no”, and in taking steps against them
which went as far as arrest and detention in a concentration camp.
_Criminal Activity_: These steps, which relate merely to the
consolidation of control of the Nazi Party, are not criminal under the
view of the conspiracy to wage aggressive war which has previously been
set forth. But the Leadership Corps was also used for similar steps in
Austria and those parts of Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, France,
Belgium, Luxembourg, and Yugoslavia which were incorporated into the
Reich and within the Gaue of the Nazi Party. In those territories the
machinery of the Leadership Corps was used for their Germanization
through the elimination of local customs and the detection and arrest of
persons who opposed German occupation. This was criminal under Article 6
(b) of the Charter in those areas governed by the Hague Rules of Land
Warfare and criminal under Article 6 (c) of the Charter as to the
remainder.
The Leadership Corps played its part in the persecution of the Jews. It
was involved in the economic and political discrimination against the
Jews which was put into effect shortly after the Nazis came into power.
The Gestapo and SD were instructed to coordinate with the Gauleiters and
Kreisleiters the measures taken in the pogroms of 9 and 10 November
1938. The Leadership Corps was also used to prevent German public
opinion from reacting against the measures taken against the Jews in the
East. On 9 October 1942, a confidential information bulletin was sent to
all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters entitled “Preparatory Measures for the
Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe. Rumors concerning the
Conditions of the Jews in the East.” This bulletin stated that rumors
were being started by returning soldiers concerning the conditions of
Jews in the East which some Germans might not understand, and outlined
in detail the official explanation to be given. This bulletin contained
no explicit statement that the Jews were being exterminated, but it did
indicate they were going to labor camps, and spoke of their complete
segregation and elimination and the necessity of ruthless severity.
Thus, even at its face value, it indicated the utilization of the
machinery of the Leadership Corps to keep German public opinion from
rebelling at a program which was stated to involve condemning the Jews
of Europe to a lifetime of slavery. This information continued to be
available to the Leadership Corps. The August 1944 edition of _Die
Lage_, a publication which was circulated among the Political Leaders,
described the deportation of 430,000 Jews from Hungary.
The Leadership Corps played an important part in the administration of
the Slave Labor Program. A Sauckel decree dated 6 April 1942 appointed
the Gauleiters as Plenipotentiary for Labor Mobilization for their Gaue
with authority to coordinate all agencies dealing with labor questions
in their Gaue, with specific authority over the employment of foreign
workers, including their conditions of work, feeding, and housing. Under
this authority the Gauleiters assumed control over the allocation of
labor in their Gaue, including the forced laborers from foreign
countries. In carrying out this task the Gauleiters used many Party
offices within their Gaue, including subordinate Political Leaders. For
example, Sauckel’s decree of 8 September 1942, relating to the
allocation for household labor of 400,000 women laborers brought in from
the East, established a procedure under which applications filed for
such workers should be passed on by the Kreisleiters, whose judgment was
final.
Under Sauckel’s directive the Leadership Corps was directly concerned
with the treatment given foreign workers, and the Gauleiters were
specifically instructed to prevent “politically inept factory heads”
from giving “too much consideration to the care of Eastern workers.” The
type of question which was considered in their treatment included
reports by the Kreisleiters on pregnancies among the female slave
laborers, which would result in an abortion if the child’s parentage
would not meet the racial standards laid down by the SS and usually
detention in a concentration camp for the female slave laborer. The
evidence has established that under the supervision of the Leadership
Corps, the industrial workers were housed in camps under atrocious
sanitary conditions, worked long hours and were inadequately fed. Under
similar supervision, the agricultural workers, who were somewhat better
treated, were prohibited transportation, entertainment, and religious
worship, and were worked without any time limit on their working hours
and under regulations which gave the employer the right to inflict
corporal punishment. The Political Leaders, at least down to the
Ortsgruppenleiters, were responsible for this supervision. On 5 May 1943
a memorandum of Bormann instructing that mistreatment of slave laborers
cease was distributed down to the Ortsgruppenleiters. Similarly on 10
November 1944 a Speer circular transmitted a Himmler directive which
provided that all members of the Nazi Party, in accordance with
instructions from the Kreisleiter, would be warned by the
Ortsgruppenleiters of their duty to keep foreign workers under careful
observation.
The Leadership Corps was directly concerned with the treatment of
prisoners of war. On 5 November 1941 Bormann transmitted a directive
down to the level of Kreisleiter instructing them to insure compliance
by the Army with the recent directives of the Department of the Interior
ordering that dead Russian prisoners of war should be buried wrapped in
tar paper in a remote place without any ceremony or any decorations of
their graves. On 25 November 1943 Bormann sent a circular instructing
the Gauleiters to report any lenient treatment of prisoners of war. On
13 September 1944, Bormann sent a directive down to the level of
Kreisleiter ordering that liaison be established between the
Kreisleiters and the guards of the prisoners of war in order “better to
assimilate the commitment of the prisoners of war to the political and
economic demands”. On 17 October 1944 an OKW directive instructed the
officer in charge of the prisoners of war to confer with the
Kreisleiters on questions of the productivity of labor. The use of
prisoners of war, particularly those from the East, was accompanied by a
widespread violation of rules of land warfare. This evidence establishes
that the Leadership Corps down to the level of Kreisleiter was a
participant in this illegal treatment.
The machinery of the Leadership Corps was also utilized in attempts made
to deprive Allied airmen of the protection to which they were entitled
under the Geneva Convention. On 13 March 1940 a directive of Hess
transmitted instructions through the Leadership Corps down to the
Blockleiter for the guidance of the civilian population in case of the
landing of enemy planes or parachutists, which stated that enemy
parachutists were to be immediately arrested or “made harmless”. On 30
May 1944 Bormann sent a circular letter to all Gau- and Kreisleiters
reporting instances of lynchings of Allied low-level fliers in which no
police action was taken. It was requested that Ortsgruppenleiters be
informed orally of the contents of this letter. This letter accompanied
a propaganda drive which had been instituted by Goebbels to induce such
lynchings, and clearly amounted to instructions to induce such lynchings
or at least to violate the Geneva Convention by withdrawing any police
protection. Some lynchings were carried out pursuant to this program,
but it does not appear that they were carried out throughout all of
Germany. Nevertheless, the existence of this circular letter shows that
the heads of the Leadership Corps were utilizing it for a purpose which
was patently illegal and which involved the use of the machinery of the
Leadership Corps at least through the Ortsgruppenleiter.
_Conclusion_
The Leadership Corps was used for purposes which were criminal under the
Charter and involved the Germanization of incorporated territory, the
persecution of the Jews, the administration of the slave labor program,
and the mistreatment of prisoners of war. The Defendants Bormann and
Sauckel, who were members of this organization, were among those who
used it for these purposes. The Gauleiters, the Kreisleiters, and the
Ortsgruppenleiters participated, to one degree or another, in these
criminal programs. The Reichsleitung as the staff organization of the
Party is also responsible for these criminal programs as well as the
heads of the various staff organizations of the Gauleiters and
Kreisleiters. The decision of the Tribunal on these staff organizations
includes only the Amtsleiters who were heads of offices on the staffs of
the Reichsleitung, Gauleitung, and Kreisleitung. With respect to other
staff officers and Party organizations attached to the Leadership Corps
other than the Amtsleiters referred to above, the Tribunal will follow
the suggestion of the Prosecution in excluding them from the
declaration.
The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter
the group composed of those members of the Leadership Corps holding the
positions enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained
members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for
the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or
who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the
commission of such crimes. The basis of this finding is the
participation of the organization in War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity connected with the war; the group declared criminal cannot
include, therefore, persons who had ceased to hold the positions
enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1 September 1939.
_GESTAPO AND SD_
_Structure and Component Parts_: The Prosecution has named Die Geheime
Staatspolizei (Gestapo) and Der Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführer SS
(SD) as groups or organizations which should be declared criminal. The
Prosecution presented the cases against the Gestapo and SD together,
stating that this was necessary because of the close working
relationship between them. The Tribunal permitted the SD to present its
defense separately because of a claim of conflicting interests, but
after examining the evidence has decided to consider the case of the
Gestapo and SD together.
The Gestapo and the SD were first linked together on 26 June 1936 by the
appointment of Heydrich, who was the Chief of the SD, to the position of
Chief of the Security Police, which was defined to include both the
Gestapo and the Criminal Police. Prior to that time the SD had been the
intelligence agency, first of the SS, and, after 4 June 1934, of the
entire Nazi Party. The Gestapo had been composed of the various
political police forces of the several German Federal states which had
been unified under the personal leadership of Himmler, with the
assistance of Göring. Himmler had been appointed Chief of the German
Police in the Ministry of the Interior on 17 June 1936, and in his
capacity as Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police issued his
decree of 26 June 1936, which placed both the Criminal Police, or Kripo,
and the Gestapo in the Security Police, and placed both the Security
Police and the SD under the command of Heydrich.
This consolidation under the leadership of Heydrich of the Security
Police, a State organization, and the SD, a Party organization, was
formalized by the decree of 27 September 1939, which united the various
State and Party offices which were under Heydrich as Chief of the
Security Police and SD into one administrative unit, the Reichs Security
Head Office (RSHA) which was at the same time both one of the principal
offices (Hauptamter) of the SS under Himmler as Reichsführer SS and an
office in the Ministry of the Interior under Himmler as Chief of the
German Police. The internal structure of the RSHA shows the manner in
which it consolidated the offices of the Security Police with those of
the SD. The RSHA was divided into seven offices (Ämter), two of which
(Amt I and Amt II) dealt with administrative matters. The Security
Police were represented by Amt IV, the head office of the Gestapo, and
by Amt V, the head office of the Criminal Police. The SD were
represented by Amt III, the head office for SD activities inside
Germany, by Amt VI, the head office for SD activities outside of Germany
and by Amt VII, the office for ideological research. Shortly after the
creation of the RSHA, in November 1939, the Security Police was
“coordinated” with the SS by taking all officials of the Gestapo and
Criminal Police into the SS at ranks equivalent to their positions.
The creation of the RSHA represented the formalization, at the top
level, of the relationship under which the SD served as the intelligence
agency for the Security Police. A similar coordination existed in the
local offices. Within Germany and areas which were incorporated within
the Reich for the purpose of civil administration, local offices of the
Gestapo, Criminal Police, and SD were formally separate. They were
subject to coordination by Inspectors of the Security Police and SD on
the staffs of the local Higher SS and Police Leaders, however, and one
of the principal functions of the local SD units was to serve as the
intelligence agency for the local Gestapo units. In the occupied
territories, the formal relationship between local units of the Gestapo,
Criminal Police, and SD was slightly closer. They were organized into
local units of the Security Police and SD and were under the control of
both the RSHA and of the Higher SS and Police Leader who was appointed
by Himmler to serve on the staff of the occupying authority. The offices
of the Security Police and SD in occupied territory were composed of
departments corresponding to the various Amts of the RSHA. In occupied
territories which were still considered to be operational military areas
or where German control had not been formally established, the
organization of the Security Police and SD was only slightly changed.
Members of the Gestapo, Kripo, and SD were joined together into military
type organizations known as Einsatz Kommandos and Einsatzgruppen in
which the key positions were held by members of the Gestapo, Kripo, and
SD and in which members of the Order Police, the Waffen SS and even the
Wehrmacht were used as auxiliaries. These organizations were under the
over-all control of the RSHA, but in front line areas were under the
operational control of the appropriate Army Commander.
It can thus be seen that from a functional point of view both the
Gestapo and the SD were important and closely related groups within the
organization of the Security Police and the SD. The Security Police and
SD was under a single command, that of Heydrich and later Kaltenbrunner,
as Chief of the Security Police and SD; it had a single headquarters,
the RSHA; it had its own command channels and worked as one organization
both in Germany, in occupied territories, and in the areas immediately
behind the front lines. During the period with which the Tribunal is
primarily concerned, applicants for positions in the Security Police and
SD received training in all its components, the Gestapo, Criminal
Police, and SD. Some confusion has been caused by the fact that part of
the organization was technically a formation of the Nazi Party while
another part of the organization was an office in the Government, but
this is of no particular significance in view of the law of 1 December
1933, declaring the unity of the Nazi Party and the German State.
The Security Police and SD was a voluntary organization. It is true that
many civil servants and administrative officials were transferred into
the Security Police. The claim that this transfer was compulsory amounts
to nothing more than the claim that they had to accept the transfer or
resign their positions, with a possibility of having incurred official
disfavor. During the war a member of the Security Police and SD did not
have a free choice of assignments within that organization and the
refusal to accept a particular position, especially when serving in
occupied territory, might have led to serious punishment. The fact
remains, however, that all members of the Security Police and SD joined
the organization voluntarily under no other sanction than the desire to
retain their positions as officials.
The organization of the Security Police and SD also included three
special units which must be dealt with separately. The first of these
was the Frontier Police or Grenzpolizei which came under the control of
the Gestapo in 1937. Their duties consisted in the control of passage
over the borders of Germany. They arrested persons who crossed
illegally. It is also clear from the evidence presented that they
received directives from the Gestapo to transfer foreign workers whom
they apprehended to concentration camps. They could also request the
local office of the Gestapo for permission to commit persons arrested to
concentration camps. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Frontier
Police must be included in the charge of criminality against the
Gestapo.
The border and customs protection or Zollgrenzschutz became part of the
Gestapo in the summer of 1944. The functions of this organization were
similar to the Frontier Police in enforcing border regulations with
particular respect to the prevention of smuggling. It does not appear,
however, that their transfer was complete but that about half of their
personnel of 54,000 remained under the Reich Finance Administration or
the Order Police. A few days before the end of the war the whole
organization was transferred back to the Reich Finance Administration.
The transfer of the organization to the Gestapo was so late and it
participated so little in the over-all activities of the organization
that the Tribunal does not feel that it should be dealt with in
considering the criminality of the Gestapo.
The third organization was the so-called Secret Field Police which was
originally under the Army but which in 1942 was transferred by military
order to the Security Police. The Secret Field police was concerned with
security matters within the Army in occupied territory, and also with
the prevention of attacks by civilians on military installations or
units, and committed War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity on a wide
scale. It has not been proved, however, that it was a part of the
Gestapo and the Tribunal does not consider it as coming within the
charge of criminality contained in the Indictment, except such members
as may have been transferred to Amt IV of the RSHA or were members of
organizations declared criminal by this Judgment.
_Criminal Activity_: Originally, one of the primary functions of the
Gestapo was the prevention of any political opposition to the Nazi
regime, a function which it performed with the assistance of the SD. The
principal weapon used in performing this function was the concentration
camp. The Gestapo did not have administrative control over the
concentration camps, but, acting through the RSHA, was responsible for
the detention of political prisoners in those camps. Gestapo officials
were usually responsible for the interrogation of political prisoners at
the camps.
The Gestapo and the SD also dealt with charges of treason and with
questions relating to the press, the churches and the Jews. As the Nazi
program of anti-Semitic persecution increased in intensity the role
played by these groups became increasingly important. In the early
morning of 10 November 1938, Heydrich sent a telegram to all offices of
the Gestapo and SD giving instructions for the organization of the
pogroms of that date and instructing them to arrest as many Jews as the
prisons could hold “especially rich ones”, but to be careful that those
arrested were healthy and not too old. By 11 November 1938, 20,000 Jews
had been arrested and many were sent to concentration camps. On 24
January 1939 Heydrich, the Chief of the Security Police and SD, was
charged with furthering the emigration and evacuation of Jews from
Germany, and on 31 July 1941, with bringing about a complete solution of
the Jewish problem in German-dominated Europe. A special section of the
Gestapo office of the RSHA under Standartenführer Eichmann was set up
with responsibility for Jewish matters which employed its own agents to
investigate the Jewish problem in occupied territory. Local offices of
the Gestapo were used first to supervise the emigration of Jews and
later to deport them to the East both from Germany and from the
territories occupied during the war. Einsatzgruppen of the Security
Police and SD operating behind the lines of the Eastern Front engaged in
the wholesale massacre of Jews. A special detachment from Gestapo
headquarters in the RSHA was used to arrange for the deportation of Jews
from Axis satellites to Germany for the “final solution”.
Local offices of the Security Police and SD played an important role in
the German administration of occupied territories. The nature of their
participation is shown by measures taken in the summer of 1938 in
preparation for the attack on Czechoslovakia which was then in
contemplation. Einsatzgruppen of the Gestapo and SD were organized to
follow the Army into Czechoslovakia to provide for the security of
political life in the occupied territories. Plans were made for the
infiltration of SD men into the area in advance, and for the building up
of a system of files to indicate what inhabitants should be placed under
surveillance, deprived of passports, or liquidated. These plans were
considerably altered due to the cancellation of the attack on
Czechoslovakia, but in the military operations which actually occurred,
particularly in the war against U.S.S.R., Einsatzgruppen of the Security
Police and SD went into operation, and combined brutal measures for the
pacification of the civilian population with the wholesale slaughter of
Jews. Heydrich gave orders to fabricate incidents on the Polish-German
frontier in 1939 which would give Hitler sufficient provocation to
attack Poland. Both Gestapo and SD personnel were involved in these
operations.
The local units of the Security Police and SD continued their work in
the occupied territories after they had ceased to be an area of
operations. The Security Police and SD engaged in widespread arrests of
the civilian population of these occupied countries, imprisoned many of
them under inhumane conditions, subjected them to brutal third degree
methods, and sent many of them to concentration camps. Local units of
the Security Police and SD were also involved in the shooting of
hostages, the imprisonment of relatives, the execution of persons
charged as terrorists and saboteurs without a trial, and the enforcement
of the “Nacht und Nebel” decrees under which persons charged with a type
of offense believed to endanger the security of the occupying forces
were either executed within a week or secretly removed to Germany
without being permitted to communicate with their family and friends.
Offices of the Security Police and SD were involved in the
administration of the Slave Labor Program. In some occupied territories
they helped local labor authorities to meet the quotas imposed by
Sauckel. Gestapo offices inside of Germany were given surveillance over
slave laborers and responsibility for apprehending those who were absent
from their place of work. The Gestapo also had charge of the so-called
work training camps. Although both German and foreign workers could be
committed to these camps, they played a significant role in forcing
foreign laborers to work for the German war effort. In the latter stages
of the war as the SS embarked on a slave labor program of its own, the
Gestapo was used to arrest workers for the purpose of insuring an
adequate supply in the concentration camps.
The local offices of the Security Police and SD were also involved in
the commission of War Crimes involving the mistreatment and murder of
prisoners of war. Soviet prisoners of war in prisoner-of-war camps in
Germany were screened by Einsatz Kommandos acting under the directions
of the local Gestapo offices. Commissars, Jews, members of the
intelligentsia, “fanatical Communists” and even those who were
considered incurably sick were classified as “intolerable”, and
exterminated. The local offices of the Security Police and SD were
involved in the enforcement of the “Bullet” decree, put into effect on 4
March 1944, under which certain categories of prisoners of war, who were
recaptured, were not treated as prisoners of war but taken to Mauthausen
in secret and shot. Members of the Security Police and SD were charged
with the enforcement of the decree for the shooting of parachutists and
commandos.
_Conclusion_
The Gestapo and SD were used for purposes which were criminal under the
Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews,
brutalities, and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the
administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave
labor program, and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The
Defendant Kaltenbrunner, who was a member of this organization, was
among those who used it for these purposes. In dealing with the Gestapo
the Tribunal includes all executive and administrative officials of Amt
IV of the RSHA or concerned with Gestapo administration in other
departments of the RSHA and all local Gestapo officials serving both
inside and outside of Germany, including the members of the Frontier
Police, but not including the members of the Border and Customs
Protection or the Secret Field Police, except such members as have been
specified above. At the suggestion of the Prosecution the Tribunal does
not include persons employed by the Gestapo for purely clerical,
stenographic, janitorial, or similar unofficial routine tasks. In
dealing with the SD the Tribunal includes Ämter III, VI, and VII of the
RSHA and all other members of the SD, including all local
representatives and agents, honorary or otherwise, whether they were
technically members of the SS or not, but not including honorary
informers who were not members of the SS, and members of the Abwehr who
were transferred to the SD.
The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter
the group composed of those members of the Gestapo and SD holding the
positions enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained
members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for
the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or
who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the
commission of such crimes. The basis for this finding is the
participation of the organization in War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot
include, therefore, persons who had ceased to hold the positions
enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1 September 1939.
_SS_
_Structure and Component Parts_: The Prosecution has named Die
Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
(commonly known as the SS) as an organization which should be declared
criminal. The portion of the Indictment dealing with the SS also
includes Der Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführer-SS (commonly known as
the SD). This latter organization, which was originally an intelligence
branch of the SS, later became an important part of the organization of
Security Police and SD and is dealt with in the Tribunal’s Judgment on
the Gestapo.
The SS was originally established by Hitler in 1925 as an elite section
of the SA for political purposes under the pretext of protecting
speakers at public meetings of the Nazi Party. After the Nazis had
obtained power the SS was used to maintain order and control audiences
at mass demonstrations and was given the additional duty of “internal
security” by a decree of the Führer. The SS played an important role at
the time of the Röhm purge of 30 June 1934, and, as a reward for its
services, was made an independent unit of the Nazi Party shortly
thereafter.
In 1929 when Himmler was first appointed as Reichs Führer the SS
consisted of 280 men who were regarded as especially trustworthy. In
1933 it was composed of 52,000 men drawn from all walks of life. The
original formation of the SS was the Allgemeine SS, which by 1939 had
grown to a corps of 240,000 men, organized on military lines into
divisions and regiments. During the war its strength declined to well
under 40,000.
The SS originally contained two other formations, the SS
Verfügungstruppe, a force consisting of SS members who volunteered for
four years’ armed service in lieu of compulsory service with the Army,
and the SS Totenkopf Verbände, special troops employed to guard
concentration camps, which came under the control of the SS in 1934. The
SS Verfügungstruppe was organized as an armed unit to be employed with
the Army in the event of mobilization. In the summer of 1939, the
Verfügungstruppe was equipped as a motorized division to form the
nucleus of the forces which came to be known in 1940 as the Waffen SS.
In that year the Waffen SS comprised 100,000 men, 56,000 coming from the
Verfügungstruppe and the rest from the Allgemeine SS and the Totenkopf
Verbände. At the end of the war it is estimated to have consisted of
about 580,000 men and 40 divisions. The Waffen SS was under the tactical
command of the Army, but was equipped and supplied through the
administrative branches of the SS and under SS disciplinary control.
The SS Central Organization had 12 main offices. The most important of
these were the RSHA, which has already been discussed, the WVHA or
Economic Administration Main Office which administered concentration
camps along with its other duties, a Race and Settlement Office together
with auxiliary offices for repatriation of racial Germans
(Volksdeutschemittelstelle). The SS Central Organization also had a
legal office and the SS possessed its own legal system; and its
personnel were under the jurisdiction of special courts. Also attached
to the SS main offices was a research foundation known as the
Experiments Ahnenerbe. The scientists attached to this organization are
stated to have been mainly honorary members of the SS. During the war an
institute for military scientific research became attached to the
Ahnenerbe which conducted extensive experiments involving the use of
living human beings. An employee of this institute was a certain Dr.
Rascher, who conducted these experiments with the full knowledge of the
Ahnenerbe, which were subsidized and under the patronage of the
Reichsführer SS who was a trustee of the foundation.
Beginning in 1933 there was a gradual but thorough amalgamation of the
police and SS. In 1936 Himmler, the Reichsführer SS, became Chief of the
German Police with authority over the regular uniformed police as well
as the Security Police. Himmler established a system under which Higher
SS and Police Leaders, appointed for each Wehrkreis, served as his
personal representatives in coordinating the activities of the Order
Police, Security Police and SD and Allgemeine SS within their
jurisdictions. In 1939 the SS and police systems were coordinated by
taking into the SS all officials of the Security and Order Police, at SS
ranks equivalent to their rank in the police.
Until 1940 the SS was an entirely voluntary organization. After the
formation of the Waffen SS in 1940 there was a gradually increasing
number of conscripts into the Waffen SS. It appears that about a third
of the total number of people joining the Waffen SS were conscripts,
that the proportion of conscripts was higher at the end of the war than
at the beginning, but that there continued to be a high proportion of
volunteers until the end of the war.
_Criminal Activities_: SS units were active participants in the steps
leading up to aggressive war. The Verfügungstruppe was used in the
occupation of the Sudetenland, of Bohemia and Moravia, and of Memel. The
Henlein Free Corps was under the jurisdiction of the Reichsführer SS for
operations in the Sudetenland in 1938, and the Volksdeutschemittelstelle
financed fifth-column activities there.
The SS was even a more general participant in the commission of War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Through its control over the
organization of the Police, particularly the Security Police and SD, the
SS was involved in all the crimes which have been outlined in the
section of this Judgment dealing with the Gestapo and SD. Other branches
of the SS were equally involved in these criminal programs. There is
evidence that the shooting of unarmed prisoners of war was the general
practice in some Waffen SS divisions. On 1 October 1944 the custody of
prisoners of war and interned persons was transferred to Himmler, who in
turn transferred prisoner-of-war affairs to SS Obergruppenführer Berger
and to SS Obergruppenführer Pohl. The Race and Settlement Office of the
SS together with the Volksdeutschemittelstelle were active in carrying
out schemes for Germanization of occupied territories according to the
racial principles of the Nazi Party and were involved in the deportation
of Jews and other foreign nationals. Units of the Waffen SS and
Einsatzgruppen operating directly under the SS main office were used to
carry out these plans. These units were also involved in the widespread
murder and ill-treatment of the civilian population of occupied
territories. Under the guise of combatting partisan units, units of the
SS exterminated Jews and people deemed politically undesirable by the
SS, and their reports record the execution of enormous numbers of
persons. Waffen SS divisions were responsible for many massacres and
atrocities in occupied territories such as the massacres at Oradour and
Lidice.
From 1934 onwards the SS was responsible for the guarding and
administration of concentration camps. The evidence leaves no doubt that
the consistently brutal treatment of the inmates of concentration camps
was carried out as a result of the general policy of the SS, which was
that the inmates were racial inferiors to be treated only with contempt.
There is evidence that where manpower considerations permitted, Himmler
wanted to rotate guard battalions so that all members of the SS would be
instructed as to the proper attitude to take to inferior races. After
1942 when the concentration camps were placed under the control of the
WVHA they were used as a source of slave labor. An agreement made with
the Ministry of Justice on 18 September 1942 provided that anti-social
elements who had finished prison sentences were to be delivered to the
SS to be worked to death. Steps were continually taken, involving the
use of the Security Police and SD and even the Waffen SS, to insure that
the SS had an adequate supply of concentration camp labor for its
projects. In connection with the administration of the concentration
camps, the SS embarked on a series of experiments on human beings which
were performed on prisoners of war or concentration camp inmates. These
experiments included freezing to death, and killing by poison bullets.
The SS was able to obtain an allocation of Government funds for this
kind of research on the grounds that they had access to human material
not available to other agencies.
The SS played a particularly significant role in the persecution of the
Jews. The SS was directly involved in the demonstrations of 10 November
1938. The evacuation of the Jews from occupied territories was carried
out under the directions of the SS with the assistance of SS Police
units. The extermination of the Jews was carried out under the direction
of the SS Central Organizations. It was actually put into effect by SS
formations. The Einstzgruppen engaged in wholesale massacres of the
Jews. SS Police units were also involved. For example, the massacre of
Jews in the Warsaw ghetto was carried out under the directions of SS
Brigadeführer and Major General of the Police Stroop. A special group
from the SS Central Organization arranged for the deportation of Jews
from various Axis satellites and their extermination was carried out in
the concentration camps run by the WVHA.
It is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not
involved in these criminal activities. The Allgemeine SS was an active
participant in the persecution of the Jews and was used as a source of
concentration camp guards. Units of the Waffen SS were directly involved
in the killing of prisoners of war and the atrocities in occupied
countries. It supplied personnel for the Einsatzgruppen, and had command
over the concentration camp guards after its absorption of the Totenkopf
SS, which originally controlled the system. Various SS Police units were
also widely used in the atrocities in occupied countries and the
extermination of the Jews there. The SS Central Organization supervised
the activities of these various formations and was responsible for such
special projects as the human experiments and “final solution” of the
Jewish question.
The Tribunal finds that knowledge of these criminal activities was
sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal
organization to the extent hereinafter described. It does appear that an
attempt was made to keep secret some phases of its activities, but its
criminal programs were so widespread, and involved slaughter on such a
gigantic scale, that its criminal activities must have been widely
known. It must be recognized, moreover, that the criminal activities of
the SS followed quite logically from the principles on which it was
organized. Every effort had been made to make the SS a highly
disciplined organization composed of the elite of National Socialism.
Himmler had stated that there were people in Germany “who become sick
when they see these black coats” and that he did not expect that “they
should be loved by too many.” Himmler also indicated his view that the
SS was concerned with perpetuating the elite racial stock with the
object of making Europe a Germanic continent and the SS was instructed
that it was designed to assist the Nazi Government in the ultimate
domination of Europe and the elimination of all inferior races. This
mystic and fanatical belief in the superiority of the Nordic German
developed into the studied contempt and even hatred of other races which
led to criminal activities of the type outlined above being considered
as a matter of course if not a matter of pride. The actions of a soldier
in the Waffen SS who in September 1939, acting entirely on his own
initiative, killed 50 Jewish laborers whom he had been guarding, were
described by the statement that as an SS man, he was “particularly
sensitive to the sight of Jews,” and had acted “quite thoughtlessly in a
youthful spirit of adventure” and a sentence of three-years imprisonment
imposed on him was dropped under an amnesty. Hess wrote with truth that
the Waffen SS were more suitable for the specific tasks to be solved in
occupied territory owing to their extensive training in questions of
race and nationality. Himmler, in a series of speeches made in 1943,
indicated his pride in the ability of the SS to carry out these criminal
acts. He encouraged his men to be “tough and ruthless”, he spoke of
shooting “thousands of leading Poles”, and thanked them for their
cooperation and lack of squeamishness at the sight of hundreds and
thousands of corpses of their victims. He extolled ruthlessness in
exterminating the Jewish race and later described this process as
“delousing.” These speeches show that the general attitude prevailing in
the SS was consistent with these criminal acts.
_Conclusions_: The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal
under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the
Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the
administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave
labor program and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The
Defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these
activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who
had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members
of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS
Totenkopf Verbände, and the members of any of the different police
forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the
so-called SS riding units. Der Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführer SS
(commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal’s Judgment on
the Gestapo and SD.
The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter
the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as
members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or
remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being
used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the
Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the
organization in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those
who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give
them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes. The
basis of this finding is the participation of the organization in War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity connected with the war; this group
declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to
belong to the organizations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior
to 1 September 1939.
_THE SA_
_Structure and Component Parts_: The Prosecution has named Die
Sturmabteilungen der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
(commonly known as the SA) as an organization which should be declared
criminal. The SA was founded in 1921 for political purposes. It was
organized on military lines. Its members wore their own uniforms and had
their own discipline and regulations. After the Nazis had obtained power
the SA greatly increased in membership due to the incorporation within
it of certain veterans organizations. In April 1933 the Stahlhelm, an
organization of 1½ million members, was transferred into the SA, with
the exception of its members over 45 years of age and some others,
pursuant to an agreement between their leader Seldte and Hitler. Another
veterans’ organization, the so-called Kyffhauserbund, was transferred in
the same manner, together with a number of rural riding organizations.
Until 1933, there is no question but that membership in the SA was
voluntary. After 1933 civil servants were under certain political and
economic pressure to join the SA. Members of the Stahlhelm, the
Kyffhauserbund, and the rural riding associations were transferred into
the SA without their knowledge, but the Tribunal is not satisfied that
the members in general endeavored to protest against this transfer or
that there was any evidence, except in isolated cases, of the
consequences of refusal. The Tribunal therefore finds that membership in
the SA was generally voluntary.
By the end of 1933 the SA was composed of 4½ million men. As a result of
changes made after 1934, in 1939 the SA numbered 1½ million men.
_Activities_: In the early days of the Nazi movement the storm troopers
of the SA acted as the “strong arm of the Party”. They took part in the
beer hall feuds and were used for street-fighting in battles against
political opponents. The SA was also used to disseminate Nazi ideology
and propaganda and placed particular emphasis on anti-Semitic
propaganda, the doctrine of “Lebensraum”, the revision of the Versailles
Treaty, and the return of Germany’s colonies.
After the Nazi advent to power, and particularly after the elections of
5 March 1933, the SA played an important role in establishing a Nazi
reign of terror over Germany. The SA was involved in outbreaks of
violence against the Jews and was used to arrest political opponents and
to guard concentration camps, where they subjected their prisoners to
brutal mistreatment.
On 30 June and 1 and 2 July 1934 a purge of SA leaders occurred. The
pretext which was given for this purge, which involved the killing of
Röhm, the Chief of Staff of the SA, and many other SA leaders, was the
existence of a plot against Hitler. This purge resulted in a great
reduction in the influence and power of the SA. After 1934, it rapidly
declined in political significance.
After 1934 the SA engaged in certain forms of military or para-military
training. The SA continued to engage in the dissemination of Nazi
propaganda. Isolated units of the SA were even involved in the steps
leading up to aggressive war and in the commission of War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity. SA units were among the first in the occupation
of Austria in March 1938. The SA supplied many of the men and a large
part of the equipment which composed the Sudeten Free Corps of Henlein,
although it appears that the corps was under the jurisdiction of SS
during its operation in Czechoslovakia.
After the occupation of Poland, the SA group Sudeten was used for
transporting prisoners of war. Units of the SA were employed in the
guarding of prisoners in Danzig, Posen, Silesia, and the Baltic States.
Some SA units were used to blow up synagogues in the Jewish pogrom of 10
and 11 November 1938. Groups of the SA were concerned in the
ill-treatment of Jews in the ghettos of Vilna and Kaunas.
_Conclusion_
Until the purge beginning on 30 June 1934, the SA was a group composed
in large part of ruffians and bullies who participated in the Nazi
outrages of that period. It has not been shown, however, that these
atrocities were part of a specific plan to wage aggressive war, and the
Tribunal therefore cannot hold that these activities were criminal under
the Charter. After the purge, the SA was reduced to the status of a
group of unimportant Nazi hangers-on. Although in specific instances
some units of the SA were used for the commission of War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity, it cannot be said that its members generally
participated in or even knew of the criminal acts. For these reasons the
Tribunal does not declare the SA to be a criminal organization within
the meaning of Article 9 of the Charter.
_THE REICH CABINET_
The Prosecution has named as a criminal organization the Reich Cabinet
(Die Reichsregierung) consisting of members of the ordinary cabinet
after 30 January 1933, members of the Council of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich and members of the Secret Cabinet Council. The
Tribunal is of opinion that no declaration of criminality should be made
with respect to the Reich Cabinet for two reasons: (1) because it is not
shown that after 1937 it ever really acted as a group or organization;
(2) because the group of persons here charged is so small that members
could be conveniently tried in proper cases without resort to a
declaration that the Cabinet of which they were members was criminal.
As to the first reason for our decision, it is to be observed that from
the time that it can be said that a conspiracy to make aggressive war
existed the Reich Cabinet did not constitute a governing body, but was
merely an aggregation of administrative officers subject to the absolute
control of Hitler. Not a single meeting of the Reich Cabinet was held
after 1937, but laws were promulgated in the name of one or more of the
cabinet members. The Secret Cabinet Council never met at all. A number
of the cabinet members were undoubtedly involved in the conspiracy to
make aggressive war; but they were involved as individuals and there is
no evidence that the Cabinet as a group or organization took any part in
these crimes. It will be remembered that when Hitler disclosed his aims
of criminal aggression at the Hossbach Conference, the disclosure was
not made before the Cabinet and that the Cabinet was not consulted with
regard to it, but, on the contrary, that it was made secretly to a small
group upon whom Hitler would necessarily rely in carrying on the war.
Likewise no cabinet order authorized the invasion of Poland. On the
contrary, the Defendant Schacht testifies that he sought to stop the
invasion by a plea to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army that Hitler’s
order was in violation of the Constitution because not authorized by the
Cabinet.
It does appear, however, that various laws authorizing acts which were
criminal under the Charter were circulated among the members of the
Reich Cabinet and issued under its authority signed by the members whose
departments were concerned. This does not, however, prove that the Reich
Cabinet, after 1937, ever really acted as an organization.
As to the second reason, it is clear that those members of the Reich
Cabinet who have been guilty of crimes should be brought to trial; and a
number of them are now on trial before the Tribunal. It is estimated
that there are 48 members of the group, that eight of these are dead and
17 are now on trial, leaving only 23 at the most, as to whom the
declaration could have any importance. Any others who are guilty should
also be brought to trial; but nothing would be accomplished to expedite
or facilitate their trials by declaring the Reich Cabinet to be a
criminal organization. Where an organization with a large membership is
used for such purposes, a declaration obviates the necessity of
inquiring as to its criminal character in the later trial of members who
are accused of participating through membership in its criminal purposes
and thus saves much time and trouble. There is no such advantage in the
case of a small group like the Reich Cabinet.
_GENERAL STAFF AND HIGH COMMAND_
The Prosecution has also asked that the General Staff and High Command
of the German Armed Forces be declared a criminal organization. The
Tribunal believes that no declaration of criminality should be made with
respect to the General Staff and High Command. The number of persons
charged, while larger than that of the Reich Cabinet, is still so small
that individual trials of these officers would accomplish the purpose
here sought better than a declaration such as requested. But a more
compelling reason is that in the opinion of the Tribunal the General
Staff and High Command is neither an “organization” nor a “group” within
the meaning of those terms as used in Article 9 of the Charter.
Some comment on the nature of this alleged group is requisite. According
to the Indictment and evidence before the Tribunal, it consists of
approximately 130 officers, living and dead, who at any time during the
period from February 1938, when Hitler reorganized the Armed Forces, and
May 1945, when Germany surrendered, held certain positions in the
military hierarchy. These men were high-ranking officers in the three
armed services: OKH—Army, OKM—Navy, and OKL—Air Force. Above them was
the overall Armed Forces authority, OKW—High Command of the German
Armed Forces with Hitler as the Supreme Commander. The officers in OKW,
including Defendant Keitel as Chief of the High Command, were in a sense
Hitler’s personal staff. In the larger sense they coordinated and
directed the three services, with particular emphasis on the functions
of planning and operations.
The individual officers in this alleged group were, at one time or
another, in one of four categories: 1) Commanders-in-Chief of one of the
three services; 2) Chief of Staff of one of the three services; 3)
“Oberbefehlshabers”, the field Commanders-in-Chief of one of the three
services, which of course comprised by far the largest number of these
persons; or 4) an OKW officer, of which there were three, Defendants
Keitel and Jodl, and the latter’s Deputy Chief, Warlimont. This is the
meaning of the Indictment in its use of the term “General Staff and High
Command”.
The Prosecution has here drawn the line. The Prosecution does not indict
the next level of the military hierarchy consisting of commanders of
army corps, and equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force, nor the
level below, the division commanders or their equivalent in the other
branches. And the staff officers of the four staff commands of OKW, OKH,
OKM, and OKL are not included, nor are the trained specialists who were
customarily called General Staff officers.
In effect, then, those indicted as members are military leaders of the
Reich of the highest rank. No serious effort was made to assert that
they composed an “organization” in the sense of Article 9. The assertion
is rather that they were a “group”, which is a wider and more embracing
term than “organization.”
The Tribunal does not so find. According to the evidence, their planning
at staff level, the constant conferences between staff officers and
field commanders, their operational technique in the field and at
headquarters was much the same as that of the armies, navies, and air
forces of all other countries. The over-all effort of OKW at
coordination and direction could be matched by a similar, though not
identical form of organization in other military forces, such as the
Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff.
To derive from this pattern of their activities the existence of an
association or group does not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, logically
follow. On such a theory the top commanders of every other nation are
just such an association rather than what they actually are, an
aggregation of military men, a number of individuals who happen at a
given period of time to hold the high-ranking military positions.
Much of the evidence and the argument has centered around the question
of whether membership in these organizations was or was not voluntary;
in this case, it seems to the Tribunal to be quite beside the point. For
this alleged criminal organization has one characteristic, a controlling
one, which sharply distinguishes it from the other five indicted. When
an individual became a member of the SS for instance, he did so,
voluntarily or otherwise, but certainly with the knowledge that he was
joining something. In the case of the General Staff and High Command,
however, he could not know he was joining a group or organization for
such organization did not exist except in the charge of the Indictment.
He knew only that he had achieved a certain high rank in one of the
three services, and could not be conscious of the fact that he was
becoming a member of anything so tangible as a “group”, as that word is
commonly used. His relations with his brother officers in his own branch
of the service and his association with those of the other two branches
were, in general, like those of other services all over the world.
The Tribunal therefore does not declare the General Staff and High
Command to be a criminal organization.
Although the Tribunal is of the opinion that the term “group” in Article
9 must mean something more than this collection of military officers, it
has heard much evidence as to the participation of the officers in
planning and waging aggressive war, and in committing War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity. This evidence is, as to many of them, clear and
convincing.
They have been responsible in large measure for the miseries and
suffering that have fallen on millions of men, women, and children. They
have been a disgrace to the honorable profession of arms. Without their
military guidance the aggressive ambitions of Hitler and his fellow
Nazis would have been academic and sterile. Although they were not a
group falling within the words of the Charter, they were certainly a
ruthless military caste. The contemporary German militarism flourished
briefly with its recent ally, National Socialism, as well as or better
than it had in the generations of the past.
Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier’s oath of obedience
to military orders. When it suits their defense they say they had to
obey; when confronted with Hitler’s brutal crimes, which are shown to
have been within their general knowledge, they say they disobeyed. The
truth is they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent
and acquiescent, witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger
and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know.
This must be said.
Where the facts warrant it, these men should be brought to trial so that
those among them who are guilty of these crimes should not escape
punishment.
Article 26 of the Charter provides that the Judgment of the Tribunal as
to the guilt or innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on
which it is based.
The Tribunal will now state those reasons in declaring its Judgment on
such guilt or innocence.
_GÖRING_
Göring is indicted on all four Counts. The evidence shows that after
Hitler he was the most prominent man in the Nazi regime. He was
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, Plenipotentiary for the Four Year
Plan, and had tremendous influence with Hitler, at least until 1943 when
their relationship deteriorated, ending in his arrest in 1945. He
testified that Hitler kept him informed of all important military and
political problems.
_Crimes against Peace_
From the moment he joined the Party in 1922 and took command of the
street-fighting organization, the SA, Göring was the adviser, the active
agent of Hitler, and one of the prime leaders of the Nazi movement. As
Hitler’s political deputy he was largely instrumental in bringing the
National Socialists to power in 1933, and was charged with consolidating
this power and expanding German armed might. He developed the Gestapo,
and created the first concentration camps, relinquishing them to Himmler
in 1934, conducted the Röhm purge in that year, and engineered the
sordid proceedings which resulted in the removal of Von Blomberg and Von
Fritsch from the Army. In 1936 he became Plenipotentiary for the Four
Year Plan, and in theory and in practice was the economic dictator of
the Reich. Shortly after the Pact of Munich, he announced that he would
embark on a five-fold expansion of the Luftwaffe, and speed rearmament
with emphasis on offensive weapons.
Göring was one of the five important leaders present at the Hossbach
Conference of 5 November 1937, and he attended the other important
conferences already discussed in this Judgment. In the Austrian
Anschluss, he was indeed the central figure, the ringleader. He said in
Court: “I must take 100 percent responsibility. . . . I even overruled
objections by the Führer and brought everything to its final
development.” In the seizure of the Sudetenland, he played his role as
Luftwaffe chief by planning an air offensive which proved unnecessary,
and his role as politician by lulling the Czechs with false promises of
friendship. The night before the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the
absorption of Bohemia and Moravia, at a conference with Hitler and
President Hacha he threatened to bomb Prague if Hacha did not submit.
This threat he admitted in his testimony.
Göring attended the Reich Chancellery meeting of 23 May 1939 when Hitler
told his military leaders “there is, therefore, no question of sparing
Poland,” and was present at the Obersalzberg briefing of 22 August 1939.
And the evidence shows he was active in the diplomatic maneuvers which
followed. With Hitler’s connivance, he used the Swedish businessman,
Dahlerus, as a go-between to the British, as described by Dahlerus to
this Tribunal, to try to prevent the British Government from keeping its
guarantee to the Poles.
He commanded the Luftwaffe in the attack on Poland and throughout the
aggressive wars which followed.
Even if he opposed Hitler’s plans against Norway and the Soviet Union,
as he alleged, it is clear that he did so only for strategic reasons;
once Hitler had decided the issue, he followed him without hesitation.
He made it clear in his testimony that these differences were never
ideological or legal. He was “in a rage” about the invasion of Norway,
but only because he had not received sufficient warning to prepare the
Luftwaffe offensive. He admitted he approved of the attack: “My attitude
was perfectly positive.” He was active in preparing and executing the
Yugoslavian and Greek campaigns, and testified that “Plan Marita,” the
attack on Greece, had been prepared long beforehand. The Soviet Union he
regarded as the “most threatening menace to Germany,” but said there was
no immediate military necessity for the attack. Indeed, his only
objection to the war of aggression against the U.S.S.R. was its timing;
he wished for strategic reasons to delay until Britain was conquered. He
testified: “My point of view was decided by political and military
reasons only.”
After his own admissions to this Tribunal, from the positions which he
held, the conferences he attended, and the public words he uttered,
there can remain no doubt that Göring was the moving force for
aggressive war, second only to Hitler. He was the planner and prime
mover in the military and diplomatic preparation for war which Germany
pursued.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
The record is filled with Göring’s admissions of his complicity in the
use of slave labor.
“We did use this labor for security reasons so that they would
not be active in their own country and would not work against
us. On the other hand, they served to help in the economic war.”
And again:
“Workers were forced to come to the Reich. That is something I
have not denied.”
The man who spoke these words was Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan
charged with the recruitment and allocation of manpower. As Luftwaffe
Commander-in-Chief he demanded from Himmler more slave laborers for his
underground aircraft factories: “That I requested inmates of
concentration camps for the armament of the Luftwaffe is correct and it
is to be taken as a matter of course.”
As Plenipotentiary, Göring signed a directive concerning the treatment
of Polish workers in Germany and implemented it by regulations of the
SD, including “special treatment.” He issued directives to use Soviet
and French prisoners of war in the armament industry; he spoke of
seizing Poles and Dutch and making them prisoners of war if necessary,
and using them for work. He agrees Russian prisoners of war were used to
man anti-aircraft batteries.
As Plenipotentiary, Göring was the active authority in the spoliation of
conquered territory. He made plans for the spoliation of Soviet
territory long before the war on the Soviet Union. Two months prior to
the invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler gave Göring the over-all
direction for the economic administration in the territory. Göring set
up an economic staff for this function. As Reichsmarshal of the Greater
German Reich, “the orders of the Reich Marshal cover all economic
fields, including nutrition and agriculture.” His so-called “Green”
folder, printed by the Wehrmacht, set up an “Economic Executive Staff,
East.” This directive contemplated plundering and abandonment of all
industry in the food deficit regions and, from the food surplus regions,
a diversion of food to German needs. Göring claims its purposes have
been misunderstood but admits “that as a matter of course and a matter
of duty we would have used Russia for our purposes,” when conquered.
And he participated in the conference of 16 July 1941 when Hitler said
the National Socialists had no intention of ever leaving the occupied
countries, and that “all necessary measures—shooting, desettling, etc.”
should be taken.
Göring persecuted the Jews, particularly after the November 1938 riots,
and not only in Germany where he raised the billion-mark fine as stated
elsewhere, but in the conquered territories as well. His own utterances
then and his testimony now shows this interest was primarily
economic—how to get their property and how to force them out of the
economic life of Europe. As these countries fell before the German Army,
he extended the Reich’s anti-Jewish laws to them; the
_Reichsgesetzblatt_ for 1939, 1940, and 1941 contains several
anti-Jewish decrees signed by Göring. Although their extermination was
in Himmler’s hands, Göring was far from disinterested or inactive,
despite his protestations in the witness box. By decree of 31 July 1941
he directed Himmler and Heydrich to “bring about a complete solution of
the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.”
There is nothing to be said in mitigation. For Göring was often, indeed
almost always, the moving force, second only to his leader. He was the
leading war aggressor, both as political and as military leader; he was
the director of the slave labor program and the creator of the
oppressive program against the Jews and other races, at home and abroad.
All of these crimes he has frankly admitted. On some specific cases
there may be conflict of testimony but in terms of the broad outline,
his own admissions are more than sufficiently wide to be conclusive of
his guilt. His guilt is unique in its enormity. The record discloses no
excuses for this man.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds the Defendant Göring guilty on all four Counts of the
Indictment.
_HESS_
Hess is indicted under all four Counts. He joined the Nazi Party in 1920
and participated in the Munich Putsch on 9 November 1923. He was
imprisoned with Hitler in the Landsberg fortress in 1924 and became
Hitler’s closest personal confidant, a relationship which lasted until
Hess’ flight to the British Isles. On 21 April 1933 he was appointed
Deputy to the Führer, and on 1 December 1933 was made Reichsminister
without Portfolio. He was appointed member of the Secret Cabinet Council
on 4 February 1938, and a member of the Ministerial Council for the
Defense of the Reich on 30 August 1939. In September 1939 Hess was
officially announced by Hitler as successor designate to the Führer
after Göring. On 10 May 1941 he flew from Germany to Scotland.
_Crimes against Peace_
As deputy to the Führer, Hess was the top man in the Nazi Party with
responsibility for handling all Party matters, and authority to make
decisions in Hitler’s name on all questions of Party leadership. As
Reichs Minister without Portfolio he had the authority to approve all
legislation suggested by the different Reichs Ministers before it could
be enacted as law. In these positions, Hess was an active supporter of
preparations for war. His signature appears on the law of 16 March 1935
establishing compulsory military service. Throughout the years he
supported Hitler’s policy of vigorous rearmament in many speeches. He
told the people that they must sacrifice for armaments, repeating the
phrase, “Guns instead of butter.” It is true that between 1933 and 1937
Hess made speeches in which he expressed a desire for peace and
advocated international economic cooperation. But nothing which they
contained can alter the fact that of all the defendants none knew better
than Hess how determined Hitler was to realize his ambitions, how
fanatical and violent a man he was, and how little likely he was to
refrain from resort to force, if this was the only way in which he could
achieve his aims.
Hess was an informed and willing participant in German aggression
against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He was in touch with the
illegal Nazi Party in Austria throughout the entire period between the
murder of Dollfuss, and the Anschluss, and gave instructions to it
during that period. Hess was in Vienna on 12 March 1938 when the German
troops moved in; and on 13 March 1938 he signed the law for the reunion
of Austria within the German Reich. A law of 10 June 1939 provided for
his participation in the administration of Austria. On 24 July 1938 he
made a speech in commemoration of the unsuccessful putsch by Austrian
National Socialists which had been attempted four years before, praising
the steps leading up to Anschluss and defending the occupation of
Austria by Germany.
In the summer of 1938 Hess was in active touch with Henlein, Chief of
the Sudeten German Party in Czechoslovakia. On 27 September 1938, at the
time of the Munich crisis, he arranged with Keitel to carry out the
instructions of Hitler to make the machinery of the Nazi Party available
for a secret mobilization. On 14 April 1939 Hess signed a decree setting
up the Government of the Sudetenland as an integral part of the Reich;
and an ordinance of 10 June 1939 provided for his participation in the
administration of the Sudetenland. On 7 November 1938 Hess absorbed
Henlein’s Sudeten German Party into the Nazi Party, and made a speech in
which he emphasized that Hitler had been prepared to resort to war if
this had been necessary to acquire the Sudetenland.
On 27 August 1939 when the attack on Poland had been temporarily
postponed in an attempt to induce Great Britain to abandon its guarantee
to Poland, Hess publicly praised Hitler’s “magnanimous offer” to Poland,
and attacked Poland for agitating for war and England for being
responsible for Poland’s attitude. After the invasion of Poland Hess
signed decrees incorporating Danzig and certain Polish territories into
the Reich, and setting up the General Government (Poland).
These specific steps which this defendant took in support of Hitler’s
plans for aggressive action do not indicate the full extent of his
responsibility. Until his flight to England, Hess was Hitler’s closest
personal confidant. Their relationship was such that Hess must have been
informed of Hitler’s aggressive plans when they came into existence. And
he took action to carry out these plans whenever action was necessary.
With him on his flight to England, Hess carried certain peace proposals
which he alleged Hitler was prepared to accept. It is significant to
note that this flight took place only 10 days after the date on which
Hitler fixed, 22 June 1941, as the time for attacking the Soviet Union.
In conversations carried on after his arrival in England Hess
wholeheartedly supported all Germany’s aggressive actions up to that
time, and attempted to justify Germany’s action in connection with
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the
Netherlands. He blamed England and France for the war.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
There is evidence showing the participation of the Party Chancellery,
under Hess, in the distribution of orders connected with the commission
of War Crimes; that Hess may have had knowledge of, even if he did not
participate in, the crimes that were being committed in the East, and
proposed laws discriminating against Jews and Poles; and that he signed
decrees forcing certain groups of Poles to accept German citizenship.
The Tribunal, however, does not find that the evidence sufficiently
connects Hess with those crimes to sustain a finding of guilt.
As previously indicated the Tribunal found, after a full medical
examination of and report on the condition of this defendant, that he
should be tried, without any postponement of his case. Since that time
further motions have been made that he should again be examined. These
the Tribunal denied, after having had a report from the prison
psychologist. That Hess acts in an abnormal manner, suffers from loss of
memory, and has mentally deteriorated during this Trial, may be true.
But there is nothing to show that he does not realize the nature of the
charges against him, or is incapable of defending himself. He was ably
represented at the Trial by counsel, appointed for that purpose by the
Tribunal. There is no suggestion that Hess was not completely sane when
the acts charged against him were committed.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds the Defendant Hess guilty on Counts One and Two; and
not guilty on Counts Three and Four.
_VON RIBBENTROP_
Von Ribbentrop is indicted under all four Counts. He joined the Nazi
Party in 1932. By 1933 he had been made Foreign Policy Adviser to
Hitler, and in the same year the representative of the Nazi Party on
foreign policy. In 1934 he was appointed Delegate for Disarmament
Questions, and in 1935 Minister Plenipotentiary at Large, a capacity in
which he negotiated the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935 and the
Anti-Comintern Pact in 1936. On 11 August 1936 he was appointed
Ambassador to England. On 4 February 1938 he succeeded Von Neurath as
Reichsminister for Foreign Affairs as part of the general reshuffle
which accompanied the dismissal of Von Fritsch and Von Blomberg.
_Crimes against Peace_
Von Ribbentrop was not present at the Hossbach Conference held on 5
November 1937, but on 2 January 1938, while still Ambassador to England,
he sent a memorandum to Hitler indicating his opinion that a change in
the _status quo_ in the East in the German sense could only be carried
out by force and suggesting methods to prevent England and France from
intervening in a European war fought to bring about such a change. When
Von Ribbentrop became Foreign Minister Hitler told him that Germany
still had four problems to solve, Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, and
Danzig, and mentioned the possibility of “some sort of a show-down” or
“military settlement” for their solution.
On 12 February 1938 Von Ribbentrop attended the conference between
Hitler and Schuschnigg at which Hitler, by threats of invasion, forced
Schuschnigg to grant a series of concessions designed to strengthen the
Nazis in Austria, including the appointment of Seyss-Inquart as Minister
of Security and Interior, with control over the police. Von Ribbentrop
was in London when the occupation of Austria was actually carried out
and, on the basis of information supplied him by Göring, informed the
British Government that Germany had not presented Austria with an
ultimatum, but had intervened in Austria only to prevent civil war. On
13 March 1938 Von Ribbentrop signed the law incorporating Austria into
the German Reich.
Von Ribbentrop participated in the aggressive plans against
Czechoslovakia. Beginning in March 1938, he was in close touch with the
Sudeten German Party and gave them instructions which had the effect of
keeping the Sudeten German question a live issue which might serve as an
excuse for the attack which Germany was planning against Czechoslovakia.
In August 1938 he participated in a conference for the purpose of
obtaining Hungarian support in the event of a war with Czechoslovakia.
After the Munich Pact he continued to bring diplomatic pressure with the
object of occupying the remainder of Czechoslovakia. He was instrumental
in inducing the Slovaks to proclaim their independence. He was present
at the conference of 14-15 March 1939 at which Hitler, by threats of
invasion, compelled President Hacha to consent to the German occupation
of Czechoslovakia. After the German troops had marched in, Von
Ribbentrop signed the law establishing a protectorate over Bohemia and
Moravia.
Von Ribbentrop played a particularly significant role in the diplomatic
activity which led up to the attack on Poland. He participated in a
conference held on 12 August 1939, for the purpose of obtaining Italian
support if the attack should lead to a general European war. Von
Ribbentrop discussed the German demands with respect to Danzig and the
Polish Corridor with the British Ambassador in the period from 25 August
to 30 August 1939, when he knew that the German plans to attack Poland
had merely been temporarily postponed in an attempt to induce the
British to abandon their guarantee to the Poles. The way in which he
carried out these discussions makes it clear that he did not enter them
in good faith in an attempt to reach a settlement of the difficulties
between Germany and Poland.
Von Ribbentrop was advised in advance of the attack on Norway and
Denmark and of the attack on the Low Countries, and prepared the
official Foreign Office memoranda attempting to justify these aggressive
actions.
Von Ribbentrop attended the conference on 20 January 1941, at which
Hitler and Mussolini discussed the proposed attack on Greece, and the
conference in January 1941, at which Hitler obtained from Antonescu
permission for German troops to go through Rumania for this attack. On
25 March 1941, when Yugoslavia adhered to the Axis Tripartite Pact, Von
Ribbentrop had assured Yugoslavia that Germany would respect its
sovereignty and territorial integrity. On 27 March 1941 he attended the
meeting, held after the _coup d’état_ in Yugoslavia, at which plans were
made to carry out Hitler’s announced intention to destroy Yugoslavia.
Von Ribbentrop attended a conference in May 1941 with Hitler and
Antonescu relating to Rumanian participation in the attack on the
U.S.S.R. He also consulted with Rosenberg in the preliminary planning
for the political exploitation of Soviet territories and in July 1941,
after the outbreak of war, urged Japan to attack the Soviet Union.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
Von Ribbentrop participated in a meeting of 6 June 1944, at which it was
agreed to start a program under which Allied aviators carrying out
machine gun attacks on the civilian population should be lynched. In
December 1944 Von Ribbentrop was informed of the plans to murder one of
the French generals held as a prisoner of war and directed his
subordinates to see that the details were worked out in such a way as to
prevent its detection by the protecting powers. Von Ribbentrop is also
responsible for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because of his
activities with respect to occupied countries and Axis satellites. The
top German official in both Denmark and Vichy France was a Foreign
Office representative, and Von Ribbentrop is therefore responsible for
the general economic and political policies put into effect in the
occupation of those countries. He urged the Italians to adopt a ruthless
occupation policy in Yugoslavia and Greece.
He played an important part in Hitler’s “final solution” of the Jewish
question. In September 1942 he ordered the German diplomatic
representatives accredited to various Axis satellites to hasten the
deportation of Jews to the East. In June 1942 the German Ambassador to
Vichy requested Laval to turn over 50,000 Jews for deportation to the
East. On 25 February 1943 Von Ribbentrop protested to Mussolini against
Italian slowness in deporting Jews from the Italian occupation zone of
France. On 17 April 1943 he took part in a conference between Hitler and
Horthy on the deportation of Jews from Hungary and informed Horthy that
the “Jews must either be exterminated or taken to concentration camps.”
At the same conference Hitler had likened the Jews to “tuberculosis
bacilli” and said if they did not work they were to be shot.
Von Ribbentrop’s defense to the charges made against him is that Hitler
made all the important decisions and that he was such a great admirer
and faithful follower of Hitler that he never questioned Hitler’s
repeated assertions that he wanted peace or the truth of the reasons
that Hitler gave in explaining aggressive action. The Tribunal does not
consider this explanation to be true. Von Ribbentrop participated in all
of the Nazi aggressions from the occupation of Austria to the invasion
of the Soviet Union. Although he was personally concerned with the
diplomatic rather than the military aspect of these actions, his
diplomatic efforts were so closely connected with war that he could not
have remained unaware of the aggressive nature of Hitler’s actions. In
the administration of territories over which Germany acquired control by
illegal invasion Von Ribbentrop also assisted in carrying out criminal
policies, particularly those involving the extermination of the Jews.
There is abundant evidence, moreover, that Von Ribbentrop was in
complete sympathy with all the main tenets of the National Socialist
creed, and that his collaboration with Hitler and with other defendants
in the commission of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes
against Humanity was whole-hearted. It was because Hitler’s policy and
plans coincided with his own ideas that Von Ribbentrop served him so
willingly to the end.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Von Ribbentrop is guilty on all four Counts.
_KEITEL_
Keitel is indicted on all four Counts. He was Chief of Staff to the then
Minister of War Von Blomberg from 1935 to 4 February 1938; on that day
Hitler took command of the Armed Forces, making Keitel Chief of the High
Command of the Armed Forces. Keitel did not have command authority over
the three Wehrmacht branches which enjoyed direct access to the Supreme
Commander. OKW was in effect Hitler’s military staff.
_Crimes against Peace_
Keitel attended the Schuschnigg conference in February 1938 with two
other generals. Their presence, he admitted, was a “military
demonstration,” but since he had been appointed OKW Chief just one week
before he had not known why he had been summoned. Hitler and Keitel then
continued to put pressure on Austria with false rumors, broadcasts, and
troop maneuvers. Keitel made the military and other arrangements, and
Jodl’s diary noted “the effect is quick and strong.” When Schuschnigg
called his plebiscite, Keitel that night briefed Hitler and his
generals, and Hitler issued “Case Otto” which Keitel initialed.
On 21 April 1938 Hitler and Keitel considered making use of a possible
“incident,” such as the assassination of the German Minister at Prague,
to preface the attack on Czechoslovakia. Keitel signed many directives
and memoranda on “Fall Gruen”, including the directive of 30 May
containing Hitler’s statement: “It is my unalterable decision to smash
Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.” After Munich,
Keitel initialed Hitler’s directive for the attack on Czechoslovakia,
and issued two supplements. The second supplement said the attack should
appear to the outside world as “merely an act of pacification and not a
warlike undertaking.” The OKW Chief attended Hitler’s negotiations with
Hacha when the latter surrendered.
Keitel was present on 23 May 1939 when Hitler announced his decision “to
attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity”. Already he had signed
the directive requiring the Wehrmacht to submit its “Fall Weiss”
timetable to OKW by 1 May.
The invasion of Norway and Denmark he discussed on 12 December 1939 with
Hitler, Jodl, and Raeder. By directive of 27 January 1940 the Norway
plans were placed under Keitel’s “direct and personal guidance.” Hitler
had said on 23 May 1939 he would ignore the neutrality of Belgium and
the Netherlands, and Keitel signed orders for these attacks on 15
October, 20 November, and 28 November 1939. Orders postponing this
attack 17 times until spring all were signed by Keitel or Jodl.
Formal planning for attacking Greece and Yugoslavia had begun in
November 1940. On 18 March 1941 Keitel heard Hitler tell Raeder complete
occupation of Greece was a prerequisite to settlement, and also heard
Hitler decree on 27 March that the destruction of Yugoslavia should take
place with “unmerciful harshness.”
Keitel testified that he opposed the invasion of the Soviet Union for
military reasons, and also because it would constitute a violation of
the Non-aggression Pact. Nevertheless he initialed “Case Barbarossa,”
signed by Hitler on 18 December 1940, and attended the OKW discussion
with Hitler on 3 February 1941. Keitel’s supplement of 13 March
established the relationship between the military and political
officers. He issued his timetable for the invasion on 6 June 1941, and
was present at the briefing of 14 June when the generals gave their
final reports before attack. He appointed Jodl and Warlimont as OKW
representatives to Rosenberg on matters concerning the Eastern
Territories. On 16 June he directed all army units to carry out the
economic directives issued by Göring in the so-called “Green Folder,”
for the exploitation of Russian territory, food, and raw materials.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
On 4 August 1942 Keitel issued a directive that paratroopers were to be
turned over to the SD. On 18 October Hitler issued the Commando Order
which was carried out in several instances. After the landing in
Normandy, Keitel reaffirmed the order, and later extended it to Allied
missions fighting with partisans. He admits he did not believe the order
was legal but claims he could not stop Hitler from decreeing it.
When, on 8 September 1941, OKW issued its ruthless regulations for the
treatment of Soviet POW’s, Canaris wrote to Keitel that under
international law the SD should have nothing to do with this matter. On
this memorandum in Keitel’s handwriting, dated 23 September and
initialed by him, is the statement:
“The objections arise from the military concept of chivalrous
warfare. This is the destruction of an ideology. Therefore I
approve and back the measures.”
Keitel testified that he really agreed with Canaris and argued with
Hitler, but lost. The OKW Chief directed the military authorities to
cooperate with the Einsatzstab Rosenberg in looting cultural property in
occupied territories.
Lahousen testified that Keitel told him on 12 September 1939, while
aboard Hitler’s headquarters train, that the Polish intelligentsia,
nobility, and Jews were to be liquidated. On 20 October, Hitler told
Keitel the intelligentsia would be prevented from forming a ruling
class, the standard of living would remain low, and Poland would be used
only for labor forces. Keitel does not remember the Lahousen
conversation, but admits there was such a policy and that he had
protested without effect to Hitler about it.
On 16 September 1941 Keitel ordered that attacks on soldiers in the East
should be met by putting to death 50 to 100 Communists for one German
soldier, with the comment that human life was less than nothing in the
East. On 1 October he ordered military commanders always to have
hostages to execute when soldiers were attacked. When Terboven, the
Reich Commissioner in Norway, wrote Hitler that Keitel’s suggestion that
workmen’s relatives be held responsible for sabotage, could work only if
firing squads were authorized, Keitel wrote on this memorandum: “Yes,
that is the best.”
On 12 May 1941, five weeks before the invasion of the Soviet Union, OKW
urged upon Hitler a directive of OKH that political commissars be
liquidated by the Army. Keitel admitted the directive was passed on to
field commanders. And on 13 May Keitel signed an order that civilians
suspected of offenses against troops should be shot without trial, and
that prosecution of German soldiers for offenses against civilians was
unnecessary. On 27 July all copies of this directive were ordered
destroyed without affecting its validity. Four days previously he had
signed another order that legal punishment was inadequate and troops
should use terrorism.
On 7 December 1941, as already discussed in this opinion, the so-called
“Nacht und Nebel” Decree, over Keitel’s signature, provided that in
occupied territories civilians who had been accused of crimes of
resistance against the army of occupation would be tried only if a death
sentence was likely; otherwise they would be handed to the Gestapo for
transportation to Germany.
Keitel directed that Russian POW’s be used in German war industry. On 8
September 1942 he ordered French, Dutch, and Belgian citizens to work on
the construction of the Atlantic Wall. He was present on 4 January 1944
when Hitler directed Sauckel to obtain 4 million new workers from
occupied territories.
In the face of these documents Keitel does not deny his connection with
these acts. Rather, his defense relies on the fact that he is a soldier,
and on the doctrine of “superior orders”, prohibited by Article 8 of the
Charter as a defense.
There is nothing in mitigation. Superior orders, even to a soldier,
cannot be considered in mitigation where crimes as shocking and
extensive have been committed consciously, ruthlessly, and without
military excuse or justification.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds Keitel guilty on all four Counts.
_KALTENBRUNNER_
Kaltenbrunner is indicted under Counts One, Three, and Four. He joined
the Austrian Nazi Party and the SS in 1932. In 1935 he became leader of
the SS in Austria. After the Anschluss he was appointed Austrian State
Secretary for Security and when this position was abolished in 1941 he
was made Higher SS and Police Leader. On 30 January 1943 he was
appointed Chief of the Security Police and SD and Head of the Reich
Security Head Office (RSHA), a position which had been held by Heydrich
until his assassination in June 1942. He held the rank of
Obergruppenführer in the SS.
_Crimes against Peace_
As leader of the SS in Austria Kaltenbrunner was active in the Nazi
intrigue against the Schuschnigg Government. On the night of 11 March
1938, after Göring had ordered Austrian National Socialists to seize
control of the Austrian Government, 500 Austrian SS men under
Kaltenbrunner’s command surrounded the Federal Chancellery and a special
detachment under the command of his adjutant entered the Federal
Chancellery while Seyss-Inquart was negotiating with President Miklas.
But there is no evidence connecting Kaltenbrunner with plans to wage
aggressive war on any other front. The Anschluss, although it was an
aggressive act, is not charged as an aggressive war, and the evidence
against Kaltenbrunner under Count One does not, in the opinion of the
Tribunal, show his direct participation in any plan to wage such a war.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
When he became Chief of the Security Police and SD and Head of the RSHA
on 30 January 1943, Kaltenbrunner took charge of an organization which
included the main offices of the Gestapo, the SD, and the Criminal
Police. As Chief of the RSHA, Kaltenbrunner had authority to order
protective custody to and release from concentration camps. Orders to
this effect were normally sent over his signature. Kaltenbrunner was
aware of conditions in concentration camps. He had undoubtedly visited
Mauthausen and witnesses testified that he had seen prisoners killed by
the various methods of execution, hanging, shooting in the back of the
neck, and gassing, as part of a demonstration. Kaltenbrunner himself
ordered the execution of prisoners in those camps and his office was
used to transmit to the camps execution orders which originated in
Himmler’s office. At the end of the war Kaltenbrunner participated in
the arrangements for the evacuation of inmates of concentration camps,
and the liquidation of many of them, to prevent them from being
liberated by the Allied armies.
During the period in which Kaltenbrunner was Head of the RSHA, it was
engaged in a widespread program of War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity. These crimes included the mistreatment and murder of prisoners
of war. Einsatz Kommandos operating under the control of the Gestapo
were engaged in the screening of Soviet prisoners of war. Jews,
commissars, and others who were thought to be ideologically hostile to
the Nazi system were reported to the RSHA, which had them transferred to
a concentration camp and murdered. An RSHA order issued during
Kaltenbrunner’s regime established the “Bullet Decree,” under which
certain escaped prisoners of war who were recaptured were taken to
Mauthausen and shot. The order for the execution of commando troops was
extended by the Gestapo to include parachutists while Kaltenbrunner was
Chief of the RSHA. An order signed by Kaltenbrunner instructed the
police not to interfere with attacks on bailed-out Allied fliers. In
December 1944 Kaltenbrunner participated in the murder of one of the
French generals held as a prisoner of war.
During the period in which Kaltenbrunner was head of the RSHA, the
Gestapo and SD in occupied territories continued the murder and
ill-treatment of the population, using methods which included torture
and confinement in concentration camps, usually under orders to which
Kaltenbrunner’s name was signed.
The Gestapo was responsible for enforcing a rigid labor discipline on
the slave laborers and Kaltenbrunner established a series of labor
reformatory camps for this purpose. When the SS embarked on a slave
labor program of its own, the Gestapo was used to obtain the needed
workers by sending laborers to concentration camps.
The RSHA played a leading part in the “final solution” of the Jewish
question by the extermination of the Jews. A special section under the
Amt IV of the RSHA was established to supervise this program. Under its
direction approximately 6 million Jews were murdered, of which 2 million
were killed by Einsatzgruppen and other units of the Security Police.
Kaltenbrunner had been informed of the activities of these
Einsatzgruppen when he was a Higher SS and Police Leader, and they
continued to function after he had become Chief of the RSHA.
The murder of approximately 4 million Jews in concentration camps has
heretofore been described. This part of the program was also under the
supervision of the RSHA when Kaltenbrunner was head of that
organization, and special missions of the RSHA scoured the occupied
territories and the various Axis satellites arranging for the
deportation of Jews to these extermination institutions. Kaltenbrunner
was informed of these activities. A letter which he wrote on 30 June
1944 described the shipment to Vienna of 12,000 Jews for that purpose,
and directed that all who could not work would have to be kept in
readiness for “special action,” which meant murder. Kaltenbrunner denied
his signature to this letter, as he did on a very large number of orders
on which his name was stamped or typed, and, in a few instances,
written. It is inconceivable that in matters of such importance his
signature could have appeared so many times without his authority.
Kaltenbrunner has claimed that when he took office as Chief of the
Security Police and SD and as Head of the RSHA he did so pursuant to an
understanding with Himmler under which he was to confine his activities
to matters involving foreign intelligence, and not to assume over-all
control over the activities of the RSHA. He claims that the criminal
program had been started before his assumption of office; that he seldom
knew what was going on; and that when he was informed he did what he
could to stop them. It is true that he showed a special interest in
matters involving foreign intelligence. But he exercised control over
the activities of the RSHA, was aware of the crimes it was committing,
and was an active participant in many of them.
_Conclusion._
The Tribunal finds that Kaltenbrunner is not guilty on Count One. He is
guilty under Counts Three and Four.
_ROSENBERG_
Rosenberg is indicted on all four Counts. He joined the Nazi Party in
1919, participated in the Munich Putsch of 9 November 1923, and tried to
keep the illegal Nazi Party together while Hitler was in jail.
Recognized as the Party’s ideologist, he developed and spread Nazi
doctrines in the newspapers _Völkischer Beobachter_ and _NS
Monatshefte_, which he edited, and in the numerous books he wrote. His
book, _Myth of the Twentieth Century_, had a circulation of over a
million copies.
In 1930 Rosenberg was elected to the Reichstag and he became the Party’s
representative for Foreign Affairs. In April 1933 he was made
Reichsleiter and head of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the NSDAP (the
APA). Hitler, in January 1934, appointed Rosenberg his deputy for the
supervision of the entire spiritual and ideological training of the
NSDAP. In January 1940, he was designated to set up the “Hohe Schule,”
the Center of National Socialistic Ideological and Educational Research,
and he organized the “Einsatzstab Rosenberg” in connection with this
task. He was appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern
Territories on 17 July 1941.
_Crimes Against Peace._
As head of the APA, Rosenberg was in charge of an organization whose
agents were active in Nazi intrigue in all parts of the world. His own
reports, for example, claim that the APA was largely responsible for
Rumania’s joining the Axis. As head of the APA, he played an important
role in the preparation and planning of the attack on Norway.
Rosenberg, together with Raeder, was one of the originators of the plan
for attacking Norway. Rosenberg had become interested in Norway as early
as June 1939, when he conferred with Quisling. Quisling had pointed out
the importance of the Norwegian coast in the event of a conflict between
Germany and Great Britain, and stated his fears that Great Britain might
be able to obtain Norwegian assistance. As a result of this conference
Rosenberg arranged for Quisling to collaborate closely with the National
Socialists and to receive political assistance by the Nazis.
When the war broke out Quisling began to express fear of British
intervention in Norway. Rosenberg supported this view, and transmitted
to Raeder a plan to use Quisling for a _coup_ in Norway. Rosenberg was
instrumental in arranging the conferences in December 1939 between
Hitler and Quisling which led to the preparation of the attack on
Norway, and at which Hitler promised Quisling financial assistance.
After these conferences Hitler assigned to Rosenberg the political
exploitation of Norway. Two weeks after Norway was occupied, Hitler told
Rosenberg that he had based his decision to attack Norway “on the
continuous warnings of Quisling as reported to him by Reichsleiter
Rosenberg.”
Rosenberg bears a major responsibility for the formulation and execution
of occupation policies in the Occupied Eastern Territories. He was
informed by Hitler on 2 April 1941 of the coming attack against the
Soviet Union, and he agreed to help in the capacity of a “Political
Adviser.” On 20 April 1941 he was appointed Commissioner for the Central
Control of Questions Connected with the East-European Region. In
preparing the plans for the occupation, he had numerous conferences with
Keitel, Raeder, Göring, Funk, Von Ribbentrop, and other high Reich
authorities. In April and May 1941 he prepared several drafts of
instructions concerning the setting up of the administration in the
Occupied Eastern Territories. On 20 June 1941, two days before the
attack on the U.S.S.R., he made a speech to his assistants about the
problems and policies of occupation. Rosenberg attended Hitler’s
conference of 16 July 1941, in which policies of administration and
occupation were discussed. On 17 July 1941 Hitler appointed Rosenberg
Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and publicly
charged him with responsibility for civil administration.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
Rosenberg is responsible for a system of organized plunder of both
public and private property throughout the invaded countries of Europe.
Acting under Hitler’s orders of January 1940 to set up the “Hohe
Schule”, he organized and directed the “Einsatzstab Rosenberg”, which
plundered museums and libraries, confiscated art treasures and
collections, and pillaged private houses. His own reports show the
extent of the confiscations. In “Action-M” (Möbel), instituted in
December 1941 at Rosenberg’s suggestion, 69,619 Jewish homes were
plundered in the West, 38,000 of them in Paris alone, and it took 26,984
railroad cars to transport the confiscated furnishings to Germany. As of
14 July 1944, more than 21,903 art objects including famous paintings
and museum pieces, had been seized by the Einsatzstab in the West.
With his appointment as Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories
on 17 July 1941, Rosenberg became the supreme authority for those areas.
He helped to formulate the policies of Germanization, exploitation,
forced labor, extermination of Jews and opponents of Nazi rule, and he
set up the administration which carried them out. He took part in the
conference of 16 July 1941, in which Hitler stated that they were faced
with the task of “cutting up the giant cake according to our needs, in
order to be able: first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; and
third, to exploit it”, and indicated that ruthless action was
contemplated. Rosenberg accepted his appointment on the following day.
Rosenberg had knowledge of the brutal treatment and terror to which the
Eastern people were subjected. He directed that the Hague Rules of Land
Warfare were not applicable in the Occupied Eastern Territories. He had
knowledge of and took an active part in stripping the Eastern
Territories of raw materials and foodstuffs, which were all sent to
Germany. He stated that feeding the German People was first on the list
of claims on the East, and that the Soviet People would suffer thereby.
His directives provided for the segregation of Jews, ultimately in
ghettos. His subordinates engaged in mass killings of Jews, and his
civil administrators in the East considered that cleansing the Eastern
Occupied Territories of Jews was necessary. In December 1941 he made the
suggestion to Hitler that in a case of shooting 100 hostages, Jews only
be used. Rosenberg had knowledge of the deportation of laborers from the
East, of the methods of “recruiting” and the transportation horrors, and
of the treatment Eastern laborers received in the Reich. He gave his
civil administrators quotas of laborers to be sent to the Reich, which
had to be met by whatever means necessary. His signature of approval
appears on the order of 14 June 1944 for the “Heu Aktion”, the
apprehension of 40,000 to 50,000 youths, aged 10-14, for shipment to the
Reich.
Upon occasion Rosenberg objected to the excesses and atrocities
committed by his subordinates, notably in the case of Koch, but these
excesses continued and he stayed in office until the end.
_Conclusion._
The Tribunal finds that Rosenberg is guilty on all four Counts.
_FRANK_
Frank is indicted under Counts One, Three, and Four. Frank joined the
Nazi Party in 1927. He became a member of the Reichstag in 1930, the
Bavarian State Minister of Justice in March 1933, and when this position
was incorporated into the Reich Government in 1934, Reich Minister
without Portfolio. He was made a Reichsleiter of the Nazi Party in
charge of Legal Affairs in 1933, and in the same year President of the
Academy of German Law. Frank was also given the honorary rank of
Obergruppenführer in the SA. In 1942 Frank became involved in a
temporary dispute with Himmler as to the type of legal system which
should be in effect in Germany. During the same year he was dismissed as
Reichsleiter of the Nazi Party and as President of the Academy of German
Law.
_Crimes against Peace_
The evidence has not satisfied the Tribunal that Frank was sufficiently
connected with the common plan to wage aggressive war to allow the
Tribunal to convict him on Count One.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
Frank was appointed Chief Civil Administration Officer for occupied
Polish territory and, on 12 October 1939, was made Governor General of
the occupied Polish territory. On 3 October 1939 he described the policy
which he intended to put into effect by stating: “Poland shall be
treated like a colony; the Poles will become the slaves of the Greater
German World Empire.” The evidence establishes that this occupation
policy was based on the complete destruction of Poland as a national
entity, and a ruthless exploitation of its human and economic resources
for the German war effort. All opposition was crushed with the utmost
harshness. A reign of terror was instituted, backed by summary police
courts which ordered such actions as the public shootings of groups of
20 to 200 Poles, and the widespread shootings of hostages. The
concentration camp system was introduced in the General Government by
the establishment of the notorious Treblinka and Maidaneck camps. As
early as 6 February 1940, Frank gave an indication of the extent of this
reign of terror by his cynical comment to a newspaper reporter on Von
Neurath’s poster announcing the execution of the Czech students: “If I
wished to order that one should hang up posters about every seven Poles
shot, there would not be enough forests in Poland with which to make the
paper for these posters.” On 30 May 1940 Frank told a police conference
that he was taking advantage of the offensive in the West which diverted
the attention of the world from Poland to liquidate thousands of Poles
who would be likely to resist German domination of Poland, including
“the leading representatives of the Polish intelligentsia.” Pursuant to
these instructions the brutal A.B. action was begun under which the
Security Police and SD carried out these exterminations which were only
partially subjected to the restraints of legal procedure. On 2 October
1943 Frank issued a decree under which any non-Germans hindering German
construction in the General Government were to be tried by summary
courts of the Security Police and SD and sentenced to death.
The economic demands made on the General Government were far in excess
of the needs of the army of occupation, and were out of all proportion
to the resources of the country. The food raised in Poland was shipped
to Germany on such a wide scale that the rations of the population of
the occupied territories were reduced to the starvation level, and
epidemics were widespread. Some steps were taken to provide for the
feeding of the agricultural workers who were used to raise the crops,
but the requirements of the rest of the population were disregarded. It
is undoubtedly true, as argued by counsel for the Defense, that some
suffering in the General Government was inevitable as a result of the
ravages of war and the economic confusion resulting therefrom. But the
suffering was increased by a planned policy of economic exploitation.
Frank introduced the deportation of slave laborers to Germany in the
very early stages of his administration. On 25 January 1940 he indicated
his intention of deporting 1 million laborers to Germany, suggesting on
10 May 1940 the use of police raids to meet this quota. On 18 August
1942 Frank reported that he had already supplied 800,000 workers for the
Reich, and expected to be able to supply 140,000 more before the end of
the year.
The persecution of the Jews was immediately begun in the General
Government. The area originally contained from 2½ million to 3½ million
Jews. They were forced into ghettos, subjected to discriminatory laws,
deprived of the food necessary to avoid starvation, and finally
systematically and brutally exterminated. On 16 December 1941 Frank told
the Cabinet of the Governor General: “We must annihilate the Jews,
wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain
there the structure of the Reich as a whole.” By 25 January 1944, Frank
estimated that there were only 100,000 Jews left.
At the beginning of his testimony, Frank stated that he had a feeling of
“terrible guilt” for the atrocities committed in the occupied
territories. But his defense was largely devoted to an attempt to prove
that he was not in fact responsible; that he ordered only the necessary
pacification measures; that the excesses were due to the activities of
the police which were not under his control; and that he never even knew
of the activities of the concentration camps. It had also been argued
that the starvation was due to the aftermath of the war and policies
carried out under the Four Year Plan; that the forced labor program was
under the direction of Sauckel; and that the extermination of the Jews
was by the police and SS under direct orders from Himmler.
It is undoubtedly true that most of the criminal program charged against
Frank was put into effect through the police, that Frank had
jurisdictional difficulties with Himmler over the control of the police,
and that Hitler resolved many of these disputes in favor of Himmler. It
therefore may well be true that some of the crimes committed in the
General Government were committed without the knowledge of Frank, and
even occasionally despite his opposition. It may also be true that some
of the criminal policies put into effect in the General Government did
not originate with Frank but were carried out pursuant to orders from
Germany. But it is also true that Frank was a willing and knowing
participant in the use of terrorism in Poland; in the economic
exploitation of Poland in a way which led to the death by starvation of
a large number of people; in the deportation to Germany as slave
laborers of over a million Poles; and in a program involving the murder
of at least 3 million Jews.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Frank is not guilty on Count One but guilty
under Counts Three and Four.
_FRICK_
Frick is indicted on all four Counts. Recognized as the chief Nazi
administrative specialist and bureaucrat, he was appointed
Reichsminister of the Interior in Hitler’s first Cabinet. He retained
this important position until August 1943, when he was appointed Reich
Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. In connection with his duties at the
center of all internal and domestic administration, he became the
Prussian Minister of the Interior, Reich Director of Elections, General
Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich, and a member of the
Reich Defense Council, the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich,
and the “Three Man College”. As the several countries incorporated into
the Reich were overrun, he was placed at the head of the central offices
for their incorporation.
Though Frick did not officially join the Nazi Party until 1925, he had
previously allied himself with Hitler and the National Socialist cause
during the Munich Putsch, while he was an official in the Munich Police
Department. Elected to the Reichstag in 1924, he became a Reichsleiter
as leader of the National Socialist faction in that body.
_Crimes against Peace_
An avid Nazi, Frick was largely responsible for bringing the German
Nation under the complete control of the NSDAP. After Hitler became
Reich Chancellor, the new Minister of the Interior immediately began to
incorporate local governments under the sovereignty of the Reich. The
numerous laws he drafted, signed, and administered abolished all
opposition parties and prepared the way for the Gestapo and their
concentration camps to extinguish all individual opposition. He was
largely responsible for the legislation which suppressed the trade
unions, the church, the Jews. He performed this task with ruthless
efficiency.
Before the date of the Austrian aggression Frick was concerned only with
domestic administration within the Reich. The evidence does not show
that he participated in any of the conferences at which Hitler outlined
his aggressive intentions. Consequently the Tribunal takes the view,
that Frick was not a member of the common plan or conspiracy to wage
aggressive war as defined in this Judgment.
Six months after the seizure of Austria, under the provisions of the
Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938, Frick became General
Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich. He was made
responsible for war administration, except the military and economic, in
the event of Hitler’s proclaiming a state of defense. The Reich
Ministries of Justice, Education, Religion, and the Office of Spatial
Planning were made subordinate to him. Performing his allotted duties,
Frick devised an administrative organization in accordance with wartime
standards. According to his own statement, this was actually put into
operation after Germany decided to adopt a policy of war.
Frick signed the law of 13 March 1938 which united Austria with the
Reich, and he was made responsible for its accomplishment. In setting up
German administration in Austria, he issued decrees which introduced
German law, the Nuremberg decrees, the Military Service Law, and he
provided for police security by Himmler.
He also signed the laws incorporating into the Reich the Sudetenland,
Memel, Danzig, the Eastern territories (West Prussia and Posen), and
Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnot. He was placed in charge of the actual
incorporation, and of the establishment of German administration over
these territories. He signed the law establishing the Protectorate of
Bohemia and Moravia.
As the head of the Central Offices for Bohemia and Moravia, the
Government General, and Norway, he was charged with obtaining close
cooperation between the German officials in these occupied countries and
the supreme authorities of the Reich. He supplied German civil servants
for the administrations in all occupied territories, advising Rosenberg
as to their assignment in the Occupied Eastern Territories. He signed
the laws appointing Terboven Reich Commissioner to Norway and
Seyss-Inquart to Holland.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
Always rabidly anti-Semitic, Frick drafted, signed, and administered
many laws designed to eliminate Jews from German life and economy. His
work formed the basis of the Nuremberg Decrees, and he was active in
enforcing them. Responsible for prohibiting Jews from following various
professions, and for confiscating their property, he signed a final
decree in 1943, after the mass destruction of Jews in the East, which
placed them “outside the law” and handed them over to the Gestapo. These
laws paved the way for the “final solution”, and were extended by Frick
to the incorporated territories and to certain of the occupied
territories. While he was Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia,
thousands of Jews were transferred from the Terezin Ghetto in
Czechoslovakia to Auschwitz, where they were killed. He issued a decree
providing for special penal laws against Jews and Poles in the
Government General.
The police officially fell under the jurisdiction of the Reichsminister
of the Interior. But Frick actually exercised little control over
Himmler and police matters. However, he signed the law appointing
Himmler Chief of the German Police, as well as the decrees establishing
Gestapo jurisdiction over concentration camps and regulating the
execution of orders for protective custody. From the many complaints he
received, and from the testimony of witnesses, the Tribunal concludes
that he knew of atrocities committed in these Camps. With knowledge of
Himmler’s methods, Frick signed decrees authorizing him to take
necessary security measures in certain of the incorporated territories.
What these “security measures” turned out to be has already been dealt
with.
As the Supreme Reich Authority in Bohemia and Moravia, Frick bears
general responsibility for the acts of oppression in that territory
after 20 August 1943, such as terrorism of the population, slave labor,
and the deportation of Jews to the concentration camps for
extermination. It is true that Frick’s duties as Reich Protector were
considerably more limited than those of his predecessor, and that he had
no legislative and limited personal executive authority in the
Protectorate. Nevertheless, Frick knew full well what the Nazi policies
of occupation were in Europe, particularly with respect to Jews, at that
time, and by accepting the office of Reich Protector he assumed
responsibility for carrying out those policies in Bohemia and Moravia.
German citizenship in the occupied countries as well as in the Reich
came under his jurisdiction while he was Minister of the Interior.
Having created a racial register of persons of German extraction, Frick
conferred German citizenship on certain groups of citizens of foreign
countries. He is responsible for Germanization in Austria, Sudetenland,
Memel, Danzig, Eastern territories (West Prussia and Posen), and Eupen,
Malmedy, and Moresnot. He forced on the citizens of these territories,
German law, German courts, German education, German police security, and
compulsory military service.
During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia
was practiced as described elsewhere in this Judgment, came under
Frick’s jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick, and aged
people, “useless eaters”, were being systematically put to death.
Complaints of these murders reached him, but he did nothing to stop
them. A report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that
275,000 mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was
responsible, fell victim to it.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Frick is not guilty on Count One. He is guilty
on Counts Two, Three, and Four.
_STREICHER_
Streicher is indicted on Counts One and Four. One of the earliest
members of the Nazi Party, joining in 1921, he took part in the Munich
Putsch. From 1925 to 1940 he was Gauleiter of Franconia. Elected to the
Reichstag in 1933, he was an honorary general in the SA. His persecution
of the Jews was notorious. He was the publisher of _Der Stürmer_, an
anti-Semitic weekly newspaper, from 1923 to 1945 and was its editor
until 1933.
_Crimes against Peace_
Streicher was a staunch Nazi and supporter of Hitler’s main policies.
There is no evidence to show that he was ever within Hitler’s inner
circle of advisers; nor during his career was he closely connected with
the formulation of the policies which led to war. He was never present,
for example, at any of the important conferences when Hitler explained
his decisions to his leaders. Although he was a Gauleiter there is no
evidence to prove that he had knowledge of those policies. In the
opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence fails to establish his connection
with the conspiracy or common plan to wage aggressive war as that
conspiracy has been elsewhere defined in this Judgment.
_Crimes against Humanity_
For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews,
Streicher was widely known as “Jew-Baiter Number One”. In his speeches
and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German
mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German People to
active persecution. Each issue of _Der Stürmer_, which reached a
circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such articles, often
lewd and disgusting.
Streicher had charge of the Jewish boycott of 1 April 1933. He advocated
the Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. He was responsible for the demolition on
10 August 1938, of the synagogue in Nuremberg. And on 10 November 1938
he spoke publicly in support of the Jewish pogrom which was taking place
at that time.
But it was not only in Germany that this defendant advocated his
doctrines. As early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the
Jewish race. Twenty-three different articles of _Der Stürmer_ between
1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which extermination “root
and branch” was preached. Typical of his teachings was a leading article
in September 1938 which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human
being, but “a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of
diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind”. Other
articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the
Jewish problem have been solved, and predicted that 50 years hence the
Jewish graves “will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals
has after all met its deserved fate”. Streicher, in February 1940,
published a letter from one of _Der Stürmer_’s readers which compared
Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely. Such
was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans
which caused them to follow the National Socialist policy of Jewish
persecution and extermination. A leading article of _Der Stürmer_ in May
1939 shows clearly his aim:
“A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A
punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them
that every murderer and criminal must expect: Death sentence and
execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be
exterminated root and branch.”
As the war in the early stages proved successful in acquiring more and
more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to
incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are 26 articles from
_Der Stürmer_, published between August 1941 and September 1944, 12 by
Streicher’s own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in
unequivocal terms.
He wrote and published on 25 December 1941:
“If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the
Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only
one way—the extermination of that people whose father is the
devil.”
And in February 1944 his own article stated:
“Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he
who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate,
annihilation, death.”
With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern
Territory, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda
of death. Testifying in this trial, he vehemently denied any knowledge
of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he
continually received current information on the progress of the “final
solution”. His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the
East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw
ghetto. The Jewish newspaper, _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_, which
Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish
atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had
been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer
and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in
Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Rumania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in
Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November 1943 Streicher quoted
verbatim an article from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ which stated
that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented “This
is not a Jewish lie.” In December 1942, referring to an article in the
_London Times_ about the atrocities, aiming at extermination, Streicher
said that Hitler had given warning that the second World War would lead
to the destruction of Jewry. In January 1943 he wrote and published an
article which said that Hitler’s prophecy was being fulfilled, that
world Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that
Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors.
In the face of the evidence before the Tribunal it is idle for Streicher
to suggest that the solution of the Jewish problem which he favored was
strictly limited to the classification of Jews as aliens, and the
passing of discriminatory legislation such as the Nuremberg Laws,
supplemented if possible by international agreement on the creation of a
Jewish State somewhere in the world, to which all Jews should emigrate.
Streicher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews
in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly
constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection
with War Crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a Crime
against Humanity.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Streicher is not guilty on Count One, but that
he is guilty on Count Four.
_FUNK_
Funk is indicted under all four Counts. Funk, who had previously been a
financial journalist, joined the Nazi Party in 1931, and shortly
thereafter became one of Hitler’s personal economic advisers. On 30
January 1933 Funk was made Press Chief in the Reich Government, and on
11 March 1933 became Under Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda and
shortly thereafter a leading figure in the various Nazi organizations
which were used to control the press, films, music, and publishing
houses. He took office as Minister of Economics and Plenipotentiary
General for War Economy in early 1938 and as President of the Reichsbank
in January 1939. He succeeded Schacht in all three of these positions.
He was made a member of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the
Reich in August 1939, and a member of the Central Planning Board in
September 1943.
_Crimes against Peace_
Funk became active in the economic field after the Nazi plans to wage
aggressive war had been clearly defined. One of his representatives
attended a conference on 14 October 1938, at which Göring announced a
gigantic increase in armaments and instructed the Ministry of Economics
to increase exports to obtain the necessary exchange. On 28 January 1939
one of Funk’s subordinates sent a memorandum to the OKW on the use of
prisoners of war to make up labor deficiencies which would arise in case
of mobilization. On 30 May 1939 the Under Secretary of the Ministry of
Economics attended a meeting at which detailed plans were made for the
financing of the war.
On 25 August 1939 Funk wrote a letter to Hitler expressing his gratitude
that he was able to participate in such world-shaking events; that his
plans for the “financing of the war”, for the control of wage and price
conditions and for the strengthening of the Reichsbank had been
completed; and that he had inconspicuously transferred into gold all
foreign exchange resources available to Germany. On 14 October 1939,
after the war had begun, he made a speech in which he stated that the
economic and financial departments of Germany working under the Four
Year Plan had been engaged in the secret economic preparation for war
for over a year.
Funk participated in the economic planning which preceded the attack on
the U.S.S.R. His deputy held daily conferences with Rosenberg on the
economic problems which would arise in the occupation of Soviet
territory. Funk himself participated in planning for the printing of
ruble notes in Germany prior to the attack to serve as occupation
currency in the U.S.S.R. After the attack he made a speech in which he
described plans he had made for the economic exploitation of the “vast
territories of the Soviet Union” which were to be used as a source of
raw material for Europe.
Funk was not one of the leading figures in originating the Nazi plans
for aggressive war. His activity in the economic sphere was under the
Supervision of Göring as Plenipotentiary General of the Four Year Plan.
He did, however, participate in the economic preparation for certain of
the aggressive wars, notably those against Poland and the Soviet Union,
but his guilt can be adequately dealt with under Count Two of the
Indictment.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
In his capacity as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Propaganda and
Vice-Chairman of the Reichs Chamber of Culture, Funk had participated in
the early Nazi program of economic discrimination against the Jews. On
12 November 1938 after the pogroms of November, he attended a meeting
held under the chairmanship of Göring to discuss the solution of the
Jewish problem and proposed a decree providing for the banning of Jews
from all business activities, which Göring issued the same day under the
authority of the Four Year Plan. Funk has testified that he was shocked
at the outbreaks of 10 November, but on 15 November he made a speech
describing these outbreaks as a “violent explosion of the disgust of the
German People, because of a criminal Jewish attack against the German
People”, and saying that the elimination of the Jews from economic life
followed logically their elimination from political life.
In 1942 Funk entered into an agreement with Himmler under which the
Reichsbank was to receive certain gold and jewels and currency from the
SS and instructed his subordinates, who were to work out the details,
not to ask too many questions. As a result of this agreement the SS sent
to the Reichsbank the personal belongings taken from the victims who had
been exterminated in the concentration camps. The Reichsbank kept the
coins and bank notes and sent the jewels, watches, and personal
belongings to Berlin municipal pawn shops. The gold from the eyeglasses,
and gold teeth and fillings was stored in the Reichsbank vaults. Funk
has protested that he did not know that the Reichsbank was receiving
articles of this kind. The Tribunal is of the opinion that he either
knew what was being received or was deliberately closing his eyes to
what was being done.
As Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, Funk
participated in the economic exploitation of occupied territories. He
was president of the Continental Oil Company which was charged with the
exploitation of the oil resources of occupied territories in the East.
He was responsible for the seizure of the gold reserves of the
Czechoslovakian National Bank and for the liquidation of the Yugoslavian
National Bank. On 6 June 1942 his deputy sent a letter to the OKW
requesting that funds from the French Occupation Cost Fund be made
available for black market purchases. Funk’s knowledge of German
occupation policies is shown by his presence at the meeting of 8 August
1942, at which Göring addressed the various German occupation chiefs,
told them of the products required from their territories, and added:
“It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your
people will starve.”
In the fall of 1943 Funk was a member of the Central Planning Board
which determined the total number of laborers needed for German
industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually by deportation
from occupied territories. Funk did not appear to be particularly
interested in this aspect of the forced labor program, and usually sent
a deputy to attend the meetings, often SS General Ohlendorf, the former
Chief of the SD inside of Germany and the former Commander of
Einsatzgruppe D. But Funk was aware that the Board of which he was a
member was demanding the importation of slave laborers, and allocating
them to the various industries under its control.
As President of the Reichsbank, Funk was also indirectly involved in the
utilization of concentration camp labor. Under his direction the
Reichsbank set up a revolving fund of 12,000,000 Reichsmarks to the
credit of the SS for the construction of factories to use concentration
camp laborers.
In spite of the fact that he occupied important official positions, Funk
was never a dominant figure in the various programs in which he
participated. This is a mitigating fact of which the Tribunal takes
notice.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Funk is not guilty on Count One but is guilty
under Counts Two, Three, and Four.
_SCHACHT_
Schacht is indicted under Counts One and Two of the Indictment. Schacht
served as Commissioner of Currency and President of the Reichsbank from
1923 to 1930, was reappointed President of the Bank on 17 March 1933,
Minister of Economics in August 1934, and Plenipotentiary General for
War Economy in May 1935. He resigned from these two positions in
November 1937, and was appointed Minister without Portfolio. He was
reappointed as President of the Reichsbank for a 1-year term on 16 March
1937, and for a 4-year term on 9 March 1938, but was dismissed on 20
January 1939. He was dismissed as Minister without Portfolio on 22
January 1943.
_Crimes against Peace_
Schacht was an active supporter of the Nazi Party before its accession
to power on 30 January 1933, and supported the appointment of Hitler to
the post of Chancellor. After that date he played an important role in
the vigorous rearmament program which was adopted, using the facilities
of the Reichsbank to the fullest extent in the German rearmament effort.
The Reichsbank, in its traditional capacity as financial agent for the
German Government, floated long-term Government loans, the proceeds of
which were used for rearmament. He devised a system under which 5-year
notes, known as Mefo bills, guaranteed by the Reichsbank and backed, in
effect, by nothing more than its position as a bank of issue, were used
to obtain large sums for rearmament from the short-term money market. As
Minister of Economics and as Plenipotentiary General for War Economy he
was active in organizing the German economy for war. He made detailed
plans for industrial mobilization and the coordination of the Army with
industry in the event of war. He was particularly concerned with
shortages of raw materials and started a scheme of stock-piling, and a
system of exchange control designed to prevent Germany’s weak foreign
exchange position from hindering the acquisition abroad of raw materials
needed for rearmament. On 3 May 1935 he sent a memorandum to Hitler
stating that “the accomplishment of the armament program with speed and
in quantity is the problem of German politics, that everything else
therefore should be subordinated to this purpose.”
Schacht, by April 1936, began to lose his influence as the central
figure in the German rearmament effort when Göring was appointed
Coordinator for Raw Materials and Foreign Exchange. Göring advocated a
greatly expanded program for the production of synthetic raw materials
which was opposed by Schacht on the ground that the resulting financial
strain might involve inflation. The influence of Schacht suffered
further when, on 16 October 1936, Göring was appointed Plenipotentiary
for the Four Year Plan with the task of putting “the entire economy in a
state of readiness for war” within four years. Schacht had opposed the
announcement of this plan and the appointment of Göring to head it, and
it is clear that Hitler’s action represented a decision that Schacht’s
economic policies were too conservative for the drastic rearmament
policy which Hitler wanted to put into effect.
After Göring’s appointment, Schacht and Göring promptly became embroiled
in a series of disputes. Although there was an element of personal
controversy running through these disputes, Schacht disagreed with
Göring on certain basic policy issues. Schacht, on financial grounds,
advocated a retrenchment in the rearmament program, opposed as
uneconomical much of the proposed expansion of production facilities,
particularly for synthetics, urged a drastic tightening on Government
credit and a cautious policy in dealing with Germany’s foreign exchange
reserves. As a result of this dispute and of a bitter argument in which
Hitler accused Schacht of upsetting his plans by his financial methods,
Schacht went on leave of absence from the Ministry of Economics on 5
September 1937, and resigned as Minister of Economics and as
Plenipotentiary General for War Economy on 16 November 1937.
As President of the Reichsbank Schacht was still involved in disputes.
Throughout 1938 the Reichsbank continued to function, as the financial
agent for the German Government in floating long-term loans to finance
armaments. But on 32 March 1938 Schacht discontinued the practice of
floating short-term notes guaranteed by the Reichsbank for armament
expenditures. At the end of 1938, in an attempt to regain control of
fiscal policy through the Reichsbank, Schacht refused an urgent request
of the Reichsminister of Finance for a special credit to pay the
salaries of civil servants which were not covered by existing funds. On
2 January 1939 Schacht held a conference with Hitler at which he urged
him to reduce expenditures for armaments. On 7 January 1939 Schacht
submitted to Hitler a report signed by the Directors of the Reichsbank
which urged a drastic curtailment of armament expenditures and a
balanced budget as the only method of preventing inflation. On 19
January Hitler dismissed Schacht as President of the Reichsbank. On 22
January 1943 Hitler dismissed Schacht as Reichsminister without
Portfolio, because of his “whole attitude during the present fateful
fight of the German Nation.” On 23 July 1944 Schacht was arrested by the
Gestapo and confined in a concentration camp until the end of the war.
It is clear that Schacht was a central figure in Germany’s rearmament
program, and the steps which he took, particularly in the early days of
the Nazi regime, were responsible for Nazi Germany’s rapid rise as a
military power. But rearmament of itself is not criminal under the
Charter. To be a Crime against Peace under Article 6 of the Charter it
must be shown that Schacht carried out this rearmament as part of the
Nazi plans to wage aggressive wars.
Schacht has contended that he participated in the rearmament program
only because he wanted to build up a strong and independent Germany
which would carry out a foreign policy which would command respect on an
equal basis with other European countries; that when he discovered that
the Nazis were rearming for aggressive purposes he attempted to slow
down the speed of rearmament; and that after the dismissal of Von
Fritsch and Von Blomberg he participated in plans to get rid of Hitler,
first by deposing him and later by assassination.
Schacht, as early as 1936, began to advocate a limitation of the
rearmament program for financial reasons. Had the policies advocated by
him been put into effect, Germany would not have been prepared for a
general European war. Insistence on his policies led to his eventual
dismissal from all positions of economic significance in Germany. On the
other hand, Schacht, with his intimate knowledge of German finance, was
in a peculiarly good position to understand the true significance of
Hitler’s frantic rearmament, and to realize that the economic policy
adopted was consistent only with war as its object.
Moreover Schacht continued to participate in German economic life and
even, in a minor way, in some of the early Nazi aggressions. Prior to
the occupation of Austria he set a rate of exchange between the mark and
the schilling. After the occupation of Austria he arranged for the
incorporation of the Austrian National Bank into the Reichsbank and made
a violently pro-Nazi speech in which he stated that the Reichsbank would
always be Nazi as long as he was connected with it, praised Hitler,
defended the occupation of Austria, scoffed at objections to the way it
was carried out, and ended with “to our Führer a triple ‘Sieg Heil’.” He
has not contended that this speech did not represent his state of mind
at the time. After the occupation of the Sudetenland, he arranged for
currency conversion and for the incorporation into the Reichsbank of
local Czech banks of issue. On 29 November 1938 he made a speech in
which he pointed with pride to his economic policy which had created the
high degree of German armament, and added that this armament had made
Germany’s foreign policy possible.
Schacht was not involved in the planning of any of the specific wars of
aggression charged in Count Two. His participation in the occupation of
Austria and the Sudetenland (neither of which are charged as aggressive
wars) was on such a limited basis that it does not amount to
participation in the common plan charged in Count One. He was clearly
not one of the inner circle around Hitler which was most closely
involved with this common plan. He was regarded by this group with
undisguised hostility. The testimony of Speer shows that Schacht’s
arrest on 23 July 1944 was based as much on Hitler’s enmity towards
Schacht growing out of his attitude before the war as it was on
suspicion of his complicity in the bomb plot. The case against Schacht
therefore depends on the inference that Schacht did in fact know of the
Nazi aggressive plans.
On this all-important question evidence has been given for the
Prosecution, and a considerable volume of evidence for the Defense. The
Tribunal has considered the whole of this evidence with great care, and
comes to the conclusion that this necessary inference has not been
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
_Conclusion._
The Tribunal finds that Schacht is not guilty on this Indictment, and
directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal when the Tribunal
presently adjourns.
_DÖNITZ_
Dönitz is indicted on Counts One, Two, and Three. In 1935 he took
command of the first U-boat flotilla commissioned since 1918, became in
1936 commander of the submarine arm, was made Vice-Admiral in 1940,
Admiral in 1942, and on 30 January 1943 Commander-in-Chief of the German
Navy. On 1 May 1945 he became the Head of State, succeeding Hitler.
_Crimes against Peace_
Although Dönitz built and trained the German U-boat arm, the evidence
does not show he was privy to the conspiracy to wage aggressive wars or
that he prepared and initiated such wars. He was a line officer
performing strictly tactical duties. He was not present at the important
conferences when plans for aggressive wars were announced, and there is
no evidence he was informed about the decisions reached there. Dönitz
did, however, wage aggressive war within the meaning of that word as
used by the Charter. Submarine warfare which began immediately upon the
outbreak of war, was fully coordinated with the other branches of the
Wehrmacht. It is clear that his U-boats, few in number at the time, were
fully prepared to wage war.
It is true that until his appointment in January 1943 as
Commander-in-Chief he was not an “Oberbefehlshaber”. But this statement
underestimates the importance of Dönitz’ position. He was no mere army
or division commander. The U-boat arm was the principal part of the
German fleet and Dönitz was its leader. The High Seas fleet made a few
minor, if spectacular, raids during the early years of the war, but the
real damage to the enemy was done almost exclusively by his submarines
as the millions of tons of Allied and neutral shipping sunk will
testify. Dönitz was solely in charge of this warfare. The Naval War
Command reserved for itself only the decision as to the number of
submarines in each area. In the invasion of Norway, for example, Dönitz
made recommendations in October 1939 as to submarine bases, which he
claims were no more than a staff study, and in March 1940 he made out
the operational orders for the supporting U-boats, as discussed
elsewhere in this Judgment.
That his importance to the German war effort was so regarded is
eloquently proved by Raeder’s recommendation of Dönitz as his successor
and his appointment by Hitler on 30 January 1943 as Commander-in-Chief
of the Navy. Hitler, too, knew that submarine warfare was the essential
part of Germany’s naval warfare.
From January 1943, Dönitz was consulted almost continuously by Hitler.
The evidence was that they conferred on naval problems about 120 times
during the course of the war.
As late as April 1945, when he admits he knew the struggle was hopeless,
Dönitz as its Commander-in-Chief urged the Navy to continue its fight.
On 1 May 1945 he became the Head of State and as such ordered the
Wehrmacht to continue its war in the East, until capitulation on 9 May
1945. Dönitz explained that his reason for these orders was to insure
that the German civilian population might be evacuated and the Army
might make an orderly retreat from the East.
In the view of the Tribunal, the evidence shows that Dönitz was active
in waging aggressive war.
_War Crimes_
Dönitz is charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare contrary to
the Naval Protocol of 1936, to which Germany acceded, and which
reaffirmed the rules of submarine warfare laid down in the London Naval
Agreement of 1930.
The Prosecution has submitted that on 3 September 1939 the German U-boat
arm began to wage unrestricted submarine warfare upon all merchant
ships, whether enemy or neutral, cynically disregarding the Protocol;
and that a calculated effort was made throughout the war to disguise
this practice by making hypocritical references to international law and
supposed violations by the Allies.
Dönitz insists that at all times the Navy remained within the confines
of international law and of the Protocol. He testified that when the war
began, the guide to submarine warfare was the German Prize Ordinance
taken almost literally from the Protocol, that pursuant to the German
view, he ordered submarines to attack all merchant ships in convoy, and
all that refused to stop or used their radio upon sighting a submarine.
When his reports indicated that British merchant ships were being used
to give information by wireless, were being armed, and were attacking
submarines on sight, he ordered his submarines on 17 October 1939 to
attack all enemy merchant ships without warning on the ground that
resistance was to be expected. Orders already had been issued on 21
September 1939 to attack all ships, including neutrals, sailing at night
without lights in the English Channel.
On 24 November 1939 the German Government issued a warning to neutral
shipping that, owing to the frequent engagements taking place in the
waters around the British Isles and the French Coast between U-boats and
Allied merchant ships which were armed and had instructions to use those
arms as well as to ram U-boats, the safety of neutral ships in those
waters could no longer be taken for granted. On 1 January 1940 the
German U-boat Command, acting on the instructions of Hitler, ordered
U-boats to attack all Greek merchant ships in the zone surrounding the
British Isles which was banned by the United States to its own ships and
also merchant ships of every nationality in the limited area of the
Bristol Channel. Five days later a further order was given to U-boats to
“make immediately unrestricted use of weapons against all ships” in an
area of the North Sea, the limits of which were defined. Finally on 18
January 1940, U-boats were authorized to sink, without warning, all
ships “in those waters near the enemy coasts in which the use of mines
can be pretended”. Exceptions were to be made in the cases of United
States, Italian, Japanese, and Soviet ships.
Shortly after the outbreak of war the British Admiralty, in accordance
with its _Handbook of Instructions_ of 1938 to the Merchant Navy, armed
its merchant vessels, in many cases convoyed them with armed escort,
gave orders to send position reports upon sighting submarines, thus
integrating merchant vessels into the warning network of naval
intelligence. On 1 October 1939 the British Admiralty announced that
British merchant ships had been ordered to ram U-boats if possible.
In the actual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is not prepared
to hold Dönitz guilty for his conduct of submarine warfare against
British armed merchant ships.
However, the proclamation of operational zones and the sinking of
neutral merchant vessels which enter those zones presents a different
question. This practice was employed in the war of 1914-18 by Germany
and adopted in retaliation by Great Britain. The Washington Conference
of 1922, the London Naval Agreement of 1930, and the Protocol of 1936
were entered into with full knowledge that such zones had been employed
in the first World War. Yet the Protocol made no exception for
operational zones. The order of Dönitz to sink neutral ships without
warning when found within these zones was therefore, in the opinion of
the Tribunal, a violation of the Protocol.
It is also asserted that the German U-boat arm not only did not carry
out the warning and rescue provisions of the Protocol but that Dönitz
deliberately ordered the killing of survivors of shipwrecked vessels,
whether enemy or neutral. The Prosecution has introduced much evidence
surrounding two orders of Dönitz—War Order Number 154, issued in 1939,
and the so-called “Laconia” Order of 1942. The Defense argues that these
orders and the evidence supporting them do not show such a policy and
introduced much evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal is of the opinion
that the evidence does not establish with the certainty required that
Dönitz deliberately ordered the killing of shipwrecked survivors. The
orders were undoubtedly ambiguous, and deserve the strongest censure.
The evidence further shows that the rescue provisions were not carried
out and that the Defendant ordered that they should not be carried out.
The argument of the Defense is that the security of the submarine is, as
the first rule of the sea, paramount to rescue, and that the development
of aircraft made rescue impossible. This may be so, but the Protocol is
explicit. If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot
sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his
periscope. These orders, then, prove Dönitz is guilty of a violation of
the Protocol.
In view of all of the facts proved and in particular of an order of the
British Admiralty announced on 8 May 1940, according to which all
vessels should be sunk at night in the Skagerrak, and the answers to
interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine
warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from
the first day that Nation entered the war, the sentence of Dönitz is not
assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of
submarine warfare.
Dönitz was also charged with responsibility for Hitler’s Commando Order
of 18 October 1942. Dönitz admitted he received and knew of the order
when he was Flag Officer of U-boats, but disclaimed responsibility. He
points out that the order by its express terms excluded men captured in
naval warfare, that the Navy had no territorial commands on land, and
that submarine commanders would never encounter commandos.
In one instance, when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, in 1943,
the members of the crew of an Allied motor torpedo boat were captured by
German Naval Forces. They were interrogated for intelligence purposes on
behalf of the local Admiral, and then turned over by his order to the SD
and shot. Dönitz said that if they were captured by the Navy their
execution was a violation of the Commando Order, that the execution was
not announced in the Wehrmacht communiqué, and that he was never
informed of the incident. He pointed out that the Admiral in question
was not in his chain of command, but was subordinate to the Army general
in command of the Norway occupation. But Dönitz permitted the order to
remain in full force when he became Commander-in-Chief, and to that
extent he is responsible.
Dönitz, in a conference of 11 December 1944, said “12,000 concentration
camp prisoners will be employed in the shipyards as additional labor”.
At this time Dönitz had no jurisdiction over shipyard construction, and
claims that this was merely a suggestion at the meeting that the
responsible officials do something about the production of ships, that
he took no steps to get these workers since it was not a matter for his
jurisdiction and that he does not know whether they ever were procured.
He admits he knew of concentration camps. A man in his position must
necessarily have known that citizens of occupied countries in large
numbers were confined in the concentration camps.
In 1945 Hitler requested the opinion of Jodl and Dönitz whether the
Geneva Convention should be denounced. The notes of the meeting between
the two military leaders on 20 February 1945 show that Dönitz expressed
his view that the disadvantages of such an action outweighed the
advantages. The summary of Dönitz’ attitude shown in the notes taken by
an officer, included the following sentence: “It would be better to
carry out the measures considered necessary without warning, and at all
costs to save face with the outer world.”
The Prosecution insisted that “the measures” referred to meant the
Convention should not be denounced, but should be broken at will. The
Defense explanation is that Hitler wanted to break the Convention for
two reasons: to take away from German troops the protection of the
Convention, thus preventing them from continuing to surrender in large
groups to the British and Americans, and also to permit reprisals
against Allied prisoners of war because of Allied bombing raids. Dönitz
claims that what he meant by “measures” were disciplinary measures
against German troops to prevent them from surrendering, and that his
words had no reference to measures against the Allies; moreover that
this was merely a suggestion, and that in any event no such measures
were ever taken, either against Allies or Germans. The Tribunal,
however, does not believe this explanation. The Geneva Convention was
not, however, denounced by Germany. The Defense has introduced several
affidavits to prove that British naval prisoners of war in camps under
Dönitz’ jurisdiction were treated strictly according to the Convention,
and the Tribunal takes this fact into consideration, regarding it as a
mitigating circumstance.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds Dönitz is not guilty on Count One of the Indictment,
and is guilty on Counts Two and Three.
_RAEDER_
Raeder is indicted on Counts One, Two, and Three. In 1928 he became
Chief of Naval Command and in 1935 Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine
(OKM); in 1939 Hitler made him Gross-Admiral. He was a member of the
Reich Defense Council. On 30 January 1943 Dönitz replaced him at his own
request, and he became Admiral Inspector of the Navy, a nominal title.
_Crimes against Peace_
In the 15 years he commanded it, Raeder built and directed the German
Navy; he accepts full responsibility until retirement in 1943. He admits
the Navy violated the Versailles Treaty, insisting it was “a matter of
honor for every man” to do so, and alleges that the violations were for
the most part minor, and Germany built less than her allowable strength.
These violations, as well as those of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement
of 1935, have already been discussed elsewhere in this Judgment.
Raeder received the directive of 24 June 1937 from Von Blomberg
requiring special preparations for war against Austria. He was one of
the five leaders present at the Hossbach Conference of 5 November 1937.
He claims Hitler merely wished by this conference to spur the Army to
faster rearmament, insists he believed the questions of Austria and
Czechoslovakia would be settled peacefully, as they were, and points to
the new naval treaty with England which had just been signed. He
received no orders to speed construction of U-boats, indicating that
Hitler was not planning war.
Raeder received directives on “Fall Grün” and the directives on “Fall
Weiss” beginning with that of 3 April 1939; the latter directed the Navy
to support the Army by intervention from the sea. He was also one of the
few chief leaders present at the meeting of 23 May 1939. He attended the
Obersalzberg briefing of 22 August 1939.
The conception of the invasion of Norway first arose in the mind of
Raeder and not that of Hitler. Despite Hitler’s desire, as shown by his
directive of October 1939 to keep Scandinavia neutral, the Navy examined
the advantages of naval bases there as early as October. Admiral Karls
originally suggested to Raeder the desirable aspects of bases in Norway.
A questionnaire, dated 3 October 1939, which sought comments on the
desirability of such bases, was circulated within SKL. On 10 October
Raeder discussed the matter with Hitler; his War Diary entry for that
day says Hitler intended to give the matter consideration. A few months
later Hitler talked to Raeder, Quisling, Keitel, and Jodl; OKW began its
planning and the Naval War Staff worked with OKW staff officers. Raeder
received Keitel’s directive for Norway on 27 January 1940 and the
subsequent directive of 1 March, signed by Hitler.
Raeder defends his actions on the ground it was a move to forestall the
British. It is not necessary again to discuss this defense, which has
heretofore been treated in some detail, concluding that Germany’s
invasion of Norway and Denmark was aggressive war. In a letter to the
Navy, Raeder said: “The operations of the Navy in the occupation of
Norway will for all time remain the great contribution of the Navy to
this war.”
Raeder received the directives, including the innumerable postponements,
for the attack in the West. In a meeting of 18 March 1941 with Hitler he
urged the occupation of all Greece. He claims this was only after the
British had landed and Hitler had ordered the attack, and points out the
Navy had no interest in Greece. He received Hitler’s directive on
Yugoslavia.
Raeder endeavored to dissuade Hitler from embarking upon the invasion of
the U.S.S.R. In September 1940 he urged on Hitler an aggressive
Mediterranean policy as an alternative to an attack on Russia. On 14
November 1940 he urged the war against England “as our main enemy” and
that submarine and naval air force construction be continued. He voiced
“serious objections against the Russian campaign before the defeat of
England”, according to notes of the German Naval War Staff. He claims
his objections were based on the violation of the Non-Aggression Pact as
well as strategy. But once the decision had been made, he gave
permission 6 days before the invasion of the Soviet Union to attack
Russian submarines in the Baltic Sea within a specified warning area and
defends this action because these submarines were “snooping” on German
activities.
It is clear from this evidence that Raeder participated in the planning
and waging of aggressive war.
_War Crimes_
Raeder is charged with War Crimes on the High Seas. The Athenia, an
unarmed British passenger liner, was sunk on 3 September 1939, while
outward bound to America. The Germans 2 months later charged that Mr.
Churchill deliberately sank the Athenia to encourage American hostility
to Germany. In fact, it was sunk by the German U-boat 30. Raeder claims
that an inexperienced U-boat commander sank it in mistake for an armed
merchant cruiser, that this was not known until the U-30 returned
several weeks after the German denial and that Hitler then directed the
Navy and Foreign Office to continue denying it. Raeder denied knowledge
of the propaganda campaign attacking Mr. Churchill.
The most serious charge against Raeder is that he carried out
unrestricted submarine warfare, including sinking of unarmed merchant
ships, of neutrals, non-rescue and machine-gunning of survivors,
contrary to the London Protocol of 1936. The Tribunal makes the same
finding on Raeder on this charge as it did as to Dönitz, which has
already been announced, up until 30 January 1943 when Raeder retired.
The Commando Order of 18 October 1942, which expressly did not apply to
naval warfare, was transmitted by the Naval War Staff to the lower naval
commanders with the direction it should be distributed orally by
flotilla leaders and section commanders to their subordinates. Two
commandos were put to death by the Navy, and not the SD, at Bordeaux on
10 December 1942. The comment of the Naval War Staff was that this was
“in accordance with the Führer’s special order, but is nevertheless
something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform.”
Raeder admits he passed the order down through the chain of command, and
he did not object to Hitler.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Raeder is guilty on Counts One, Two, and Three.
_VON SCHIRACH_
Von Schirach is indicted under Counts One and Four. He joined the Nazi
Party and the SA in 1925. In 1929 he became the leader of the National
Socialist Students Union. In 1931 he was made Reichs Youth Leader of the
Nazi Party with control over all Nazi youth organizations, including the
Hitler Jugend. In 1933, after the Nazis had obtained control of the
Government, Von Schirach was made Leader of Youth in the German Reich,
originally a position within the Ministry of the Interior, but, after 1
December 1936, an office in the Reich Cabinet. In 1940 Von Schirach
resigned as head of the Hitler Jugend and Leader of Youth in the German
Reich, but retained his position as Reichsleiter with control over Youth
Education. In 1940 he was appointed Gauleiter of Vienna, Reichs Governor
of Vienna, and Reichs Defense Commissioner for that territory.
_Crimes against Peace_
After the Nazis had come to power Von Schirach, utilizing both physical
violence and official pressure, either drove out of existence or took
over all youth groups which competed with the Hitler Jugend. A Hitler
decree of 1 December 1936 incorporated all German youth within the
Hitler Jugend. By the time formal conscription was introduced in 1940,
97 percent of those eligible were already members.
Von Schirach used the Hitler Jugend to educate German Youth “in the
spirit of National Socialism” and subjected them to an intensive program
of Nazi propaganda. He established the Hitler Jugend as a source of
replacements for the Nazi Party formations. In October 1938 he entered
into an agreement with Himmler under which members of the Hitler Jugend
who met SS standards would be considered as the primary source of
replacements for the SS.
Von Schirach also used the Hitler Jugend for pre-military training.
Special units were set up whose primary purpose was training specialists
for the various branches of the service. On 11 August 1939 he entered
into an agreement with Keitel under which the Hitler Jugend agreed to
carry out its pre-military activities under standards laid down by the
Wehrmacht and the Wehrmacht agreed to train 30,000 Hitler Jugend
instructors each year. The Hitler Jugend placed particular emphasis on
the military spirit and its training program stressed the importance of
return of the colonies, the necessity for Lebensraum, and the noble
destiny of German youth to die for Hitler.
Despite the warlike nature of the activities of the Hitler Jugend,
however, it does not appear that Von Schirach was involved in the
development of Hitler’s plan for territorial expansion by means of
aggressive war, or that he participated in the planning or preparation
of any of the wars of aggression.
_Crimes against Humanity_
In July 1940 Von Schirach was appointed Gauleiter of Vienna. At the same
time he was appointed Reichs Governor for Vienna and Reichs Defense
Commissioner, originally for Military District 17, including the Gaue of
Vienna, Upper Danube, and Lower Danube and, after 17 November 1942, for
the Gaue of Vienna alone. As Reichs Defense Commissioner, he had control
of the civilian war economy. As Reichs Governor he was head of the
municipal administration of the City of Vienna, and, under the
supervision of the Minister of the Interior, in charge of the
governmental administration of the Reich in Vienna.
Von Schirach is not charged with the commission of War Crimes in Vienna,
only with the commission of Crimes against Humanity. As has already been
seen, Austria was occupied pursuant to a common plan of aggression. Its
occupation is, therefore, a “crime within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal”, as that term is used in Article 6 (c) of the Charter. As a
result, “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts” and “persecutions on political, racial, or religious
grounds” in connection with this occupation constitute a Crime against
Humanity under that Article.
As Gauleiter of Vienna, Von Schirach came under the Sauckel decree,
dated 6 April 1942, making the Gauleiters Sauckel’s plenipotentiaries
for manpower with authority to supervise the utilization and treatment
of manpower within their Gaue. Sauckel’s directives provided that the
forced laborers were to be fed, sheltered, and treated so as to exploit
them to the highest possible degree at the lowest possible expense.
When Von Schirach became Gauleiter of Vienna the deportation of the Jews
had already been begun, and only 60,000 out of Vienna’s original 190,000
Jews remained. On 2 October 1940 he attended a conference at Hitler’s
office and told Frank that he had 50,000 Jews in Vienna which the
General Government would have to take over from him. On 3 December 1940
Von Schirach received a letter from Lammers stating that after the
receipt of the reports made by Von Schirach, Hitler had decided to
deport the 60,000 Jews still remaining in Vienna to the General
Government because of the housing shortage in Vienna. The deportation of
the Jews from Vienna was then begun and continued until the early fall
of 1942. On 15 September 1942 Von Schirach made a speech in which he
defended his action in having driven “tens of thousands upon tens of
thousands of Jews into the ghetto of the East” as “contributing to
European culture”.
While the Jews were being deported from Vienna, reports, addressed to
him in his official capacity, were received in Von Schirach’s office
from the office of the Chief of the Security Police and SD which
contained a description of the activities of Einsatzgruppen in
exterminating Jews. Many of these reports were initialed by one of Von
Schirach’s principal deputies. On 30 June 1944 Von Schirach’s office
also received a letter from Kaltenbrunner informing him that a shipment
of 12,000 Jews was on its way to Vienna for essential war work and that
all those who were incapable of work would have to be kept in readiness
for “special action”.
The Tribunal finds that Von Schirach, while he did not originate the
policy of deporting Jews from Vienna, participated in this deportation
after he had become Gauleiter of Vienna. He knew that the best the Jews
could hope for was a miserable existence in the ghettos of the East.
Bulletins describing the Jewish extermination were in his office.
While Gauleiter of Vienna Von Schirach continued to function as
Reichsleiter for Youth Education and in this capacity he was informed of
the Hitler Jugend’s participation in the plan put into effect in the
fall of 1944 under which 50,000 young people between the ages of 10 and
20 were evacuated into Germany from areas recaptured by the Soviet
forces and used as apprentices in German industry and as auxiliaries in
units of the German Armed Forces. In the summer of 1942 Von Schirach
telegraphed Bormann urging that a bombing attack on an English cultural
town be carried out in retaliation for the assassination of Heydrich
which, he claimed, had been planned by the British.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Von Schirach is not guilty on Count One. He is
guilty under Count Four.
_SAUCKEL_
Sauckel is indicted under all four Counts. Sauckel joined the Nazi Party
in 1923, and became Gauleiter of Thuringia in 1927. He was a member of
the Thuringian legislature from 1927 to 1933, was appointed
Reichsstatthalter for Thuringia in 1932, and Thuringian Minister of the
Interior and head of the Thuringian State Ministry in May 1933. He
became a member of the Reichstag in 1933. He held the formal rank of
Obergruppenführer in both the SA and the SS.
_Crimes against Peace_
The evidence has not satisfied the Tribunal that Sauckel was
sufficiently connected with the common plan to wage aggressive war or
sufficiently involved in the planning or waging of the aggressive wars
to allow the Tribunal to convict him on Counts One or Two.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
On 21 March 1942 Hitler appointed Sauckel Plenipotentiary General for
the Utilization of Labor, with authority to put under uniform control
“the utilization of all available manpower, including that of workers
recruited abroad and of prisoners of war”. Sauckel was instructed to
operate within the fabric of the Four Year Plan, and on 27 March 1942
Göring issued a decree as Commissioner for the Four Year Plan
transferring his manpower sections to Sauckel. On 30 September 1942
Hitler gave Sauckel authority to appoint Commissioners in the various
occupied territories, and “to take all necessary measures for the
enforcement” of the Decree of 21 March 1942.
Under the authority which he obtained by these decrees, Sauckel set up a
program for the mobilization of the labor resources available to the
Reich. One of the important parts of this mobilization was the
systematic exploitation, by force, of the labor resources of the
occupied territories. Shortly after Sauckel had taken office, he had the
governing authorities in the various occupied territories issue decrees,
establishing compulsory labor service in Germany. Under the authority of
these decrees Sauckel’s commissioners, backed up by the police
authorities of the occupied territories, obtained and sent to Germany
the laborers which were necessary to fill the quotas given them by
Sauckel. He described so-called “voluntary” recruiting by a whole batch
of male and female agents just as was done in the olden times for
shanghaiing”. That real voluntary recruiting was the exception rather
than the rule is shown by Sauckel’s statement on 1 March 1944, that “out
of five million foreign workers who arrived in Germany not even 200,000
came voluntarily”. Although he now claims that the statement is not
true, the circumstances under which it was made, as well as the evidence
presented before the Tribunal, leave no doubt that it was substantially
accurate.
The manner in which the unfortunate slave laborers were collected and
transported to Germany, and what happened to them after they arrived,
has already been described. Sauckel argues that he is not responsible
for these excesses in the administration of the program. He says that
the total number of workers to be obtained was set by the demands from
agriculture and from industry; that obtaining the workers was the
responsibility of the occupation authorities transporting them to
Germany that of the German railways, and taking care of them in Germany
that of the Ministries of Labor and Agriculture, the German Labor Front,
and the various industries involved. He testifies that insofar as he had
any authority he was constantly urging humane treatment.
There is no doubt, however, that Sauckel had over-all responsibility for
the slave labor program. At the time of the events in question he did
not fail to assert control over the fields which he now claims were the
sole responsibility of others. His regulations provided that his
commissioners should have authority for obtaining labor, and he was
constantly in the field supervising the steps which were being taken. He
was aware of ruthless methods being taken to obtain laborers, and
vigorously supported them on the ground that they were necessary to fill
the quotas.
Sauckel’s regulations also provided that he had responsibility for
transporting the laborers to Germany, allocating them to employers and
taking care of them, and that the other agencies involved in these
processes were subordinate to him. He was informed of the bad conditions
which existed. It does not appear that he advocated brutality for its
own sake, or was an advocate of any program such as Himmler’s plan for
extermination through work. His attitude was thus expressed in a
regulation:
“All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as
to exploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest
conceivable degree of expenditure.”
The evidence shows that Sauckel was in charge of a program which
involved deportation for slave labor of more than 5,000,000 human
beings, many of them under terrible conditions of cruelty and suffering.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Sauckel is not guilty on Counts One and Two. He
is guilty under Counts Three and Four.
_JODL_
Jodl is indicted on all four Counts. From 1935 to 1938 he was Chief of
the National Defense Section in the High Command. After a year in
command of troops, in August 1939 he returned to become Chief of the
Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces. Although his
immediate superior was Defendant Keitel, he reported directly to Hitler
on operational matters. In the strict military sense, Jodl was the
actual planner of the war and responsible in large measure for the
strategy and conduct of operations.
Jodl defends himself on the ground he was a soldier sworn to obedience,
and not a politician; and that his staff and planning work left him no
time for other matters. He said that when he signed or initialed orders,
memoranda, and letters, he did so for Hitler and often in the absence of
Keitel. Though he claims that as a soldier he had to obey Hitler, he
says that he often tried to obstruct certain measures by delay, which
occasionally proved successful as when he resisted Hitler’s demand that
a directive be issued to lynch Allied “terror fliers”.
_Crimes against Peace_
Entries in Jodl’s diary of 13 and 14 February 1938 show Hitler
instructed both him and Keitel to keep up military pressure against
Austria begun at the Schuschnigg conference by simulating military
measures, and that these achieved their purpose. When Hitler decided
“not to tolerate” Schuschnigg’s plebiscite, Jodl brought to the
conference the “old draft”, the existing staff plan. His diary for 10
March shows Hitler then ordered the preparation of “Case Otto”, and the
directive was initialed by Jodl. Jodl issued supplementary instructions
on 11 March, and initialed Hitler’s order for the invasion on the same
date.
In planning the attack on Czechoslovakia, Jodl was very active,
according to the Schmundt Notes. He initialed items 14, 17, 24, 36, and
37 in the Notes. Jodl admits he agreed with OKH that the “incident” to
provide German intervention must occur at the latest by 1400 on X-1 Day,
the day before the attack, and said it must occur at a fixed time in
good flying weather. Jodl conferred with the propaganda experts on
“imminent common tasks” such as German violations of international law,
exploitation of them by the enemy and refutations by the Germans, which
“task” Jodl considered “particularly important”.
After Munich, Jodl wrote:
“Czechoslovakia as a power is out . . . . The genius of the
Führer and his determination not to shun even a World War have
again won the victory without the use of force. The hope remains
that the incredulous, the weak, and the doubtful people have
been converted and will remain that way.”
Shortly after the Sudeten occupation, Jodl went to a post command and
did not become Chief of the Operations Staff in OKW until the end of
August 1939.
Jodl discussed the Norway invasion with Hitler, Keitel, and Raeder on 12
December 1939; his diary is replete with late entries on his activities
in preparing this attack. Jodl explains his comment that Hitler was
still looking for an “excuse” to move meant he was waiting for reliable
intelligence on the British plans, and defends the invasion as a
necessary move to forestall them. His testimony shows that from October
1939 Hitler planned to attack the West through Belgium, but was doubtful
about invading Holland until the middle of November. On 8 February 1940,
Jodl, his deputy Warlimont, and Jeschonnek, the Air Forces planner,
discussed among themselves the “new idea” of attacking Norway, Denmark,
and Holland, but guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. Many of the 17
orders postponing the attack in the West for various reasons including
weather conditions, until May 1940, were signed by Jodl.
He was active in the planning against Greece and Yugoslavia. The Hitler
order of 11 January 1941 to intervene in Albania was initialed by Jodl.
On 20 January, 4 months before the attack, Hitler told a conference of
German and Italian generals in Jodl’s presence that German troop
concentrations in Rumania were to be used against Greece. Jodl was
present on 18 March when Hitler told Raeder all Greece must be occupied
before any settlement could be reached. On 27 March, when Hitler told
the German High Command that the destruction of Yugoslavia should be
accomplished with “unmerciful harshness”, and the decision was taken to
bomb Belgrade without a declaration of war, Jodl was also there.
Jodl testified that Hitler feared an attack by Russia and so attacked
first. This preparation began almost a year before the invasion. Jodl
told Warlimont as early as 29 July 1940 to prepare the plans since
Hitler had decided to attack; and Hitler later told Warlimont he had
planned to attack in August 1940 but postponed it for military reasons.
He initialed Hitler’s directive of 12 November 1940 that preparations
verbally ordered should be continued and also initialed “Case
Barbarossa” on 18 December. On 3 February 1941 Hitler, Jodl, and Keitel
discussed the invasion, and he was present on 14 June when final reports
on “Case Barbarossa” were made.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
On 18 October 1942 Hitler issued the Commando Order and a day later a
supplementary explanation to commanding officers only. The covering
memorandum was signed by Jodl. Early drafts of the order were made by
Jodl’s staff, with his knowledge. Jodl testified he was strongly opposed
on moral and legal grounds, but could not refuse to pass it on. He
insists he tried to mitigate its harshness in practice by not informing
Hitler when it was not carried out. He initialed the OKW memorandum of
25 June 1944 reaffirming the Order after the Normandy landings.
A plan to eliminate Soviet commissars was in the directive for “Case
Barbarossa”. The decision whether they should be killed without trial
was to be made by an officer. A draft contains Jodl’s handwriting
suggesting this should be handled as retaliation, and he testified this
was his attempt to get around it.
When in 1945 Hitler considered denouncing the Geneva Convention, Jodl
argued the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. On 21 February he
told Hitler adherence to the Convention would not interfere with the
conduct of the war, giving as an example the sinking of a British
hospital ship as a reprisal and calling it a mistake. He said he did so
because it was the only attitude Hitler would consider, that moral or
legal arguments had no effect and argues he thus prevented Hitler from
denouncing the Convention.
There is little evidence that Jodl was actively connected with the slave
labor program, and he must have concentrated on his strategic planning
function. But in his speech of 7 November 1943 to the Gauleiters he said
it was necessary to act “with remorseless vigor and resolution” in
Denmark, France, and the Low Countries to compel work on the Atlantic
Wall.
By teletype of 28 October 1944 Jodl ordered the evacuation of all
persons in northern Norway and burning of their houses so they could not
help the Russians. Jodl says he was against this, but Hitler ordered it
and it was not fully carried out. A document of the Norwegian Government
says such an evacuation did take place in northern Norway and 30,000
houses were damaged. On 7 October 1941, Jodl signed an order that Hitler
would not accept an offer of surrender of Leningrad or Moscow, but on
the contrary he insisted that they be completely destroyed. He says this
was done because the Germans were afraid those cities would be mined by
the Russians as was Kiev. No surrender was ever offered.
His defense, in brief, is the doctrine of “superior orders”, prohibited
by Article 8 of the Charter as a defense. There is nothing in
mitigation. Participation in such crimes as these has never been
required of any soldier and he cannot now shield himself behind a
mythical requirement of soldierly obedience at all costs as his excuse
for commission of these crimes.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Jodl is guilty on all four Counts.
_VON PAPEN_
Von Papen is indicted under Counts One and Two. He was appointed
Chancellor of the Reich on 1 June 1932, and was succeeded by Von
Schleicher on 2 December 1932. He was made Vice Chancellor in the Hitler
Cabinet on 30 January 1933, and on 13 November 1933 Plenipotentiary for
the Saar. On 26 July 1934 he was appointed Minister to Vienna, and was
recalled on 4 February 1938. On 29 April 1939 he was appointed
Ambassador to Turkey. He returned to Germany when Turkey broke off
diplomatic relations with Germany in August 1944.
_Crimes against Peace_
Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the
Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30
January 1933. As Vice Chancellor in that Cabinet he participated in the
Nazi consolidation of control in 1933. On 16 June 1934, however, Von
Papen made a speech at Marburg which contained a denunciation of the
Nazi attempts to suppress the free press and the church, of the
existence of a reign of terror, and of “150 percent Nazis” who were
mistaking “brutality for vitality”. On 30 June 1934, in the wave of
violence which accompanied the so-called Röhm Purge, Von Papen was taken
into custody by the SS, his office force was arrested, and two of his
associates, including the man who had helped him work on the Marburg
speech, were murdered. Von Papen was released on 3 July 1934.
Notwithstanding the murder of his associates, Von Papen accepted the
position of Minister to Austria on 26 July 1934, the day after Dollfuss
had been assassinated. His appointment was announced in a letter from
Hitler which instructed him to direct relations between the two
countries “into normal and friendly channels” and assured him of
Hitler’s “complete and unlimited confidence”. As Minister to Austria,
Von Papen was active in trying to strengthen the position of the Nazi
Party in Austria for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. In early
1935 he attended a meeting in Berlin at which the policy was laid down
to avoid everything which would give the appearance of German
intervention in the internal affairs of Austria. Yet he arranged for
200,000 marks a month to be transmitted to “the persecuted National
Socialist sufferers in Austria”. On 17 May 1935 he reported to Hitler
the results of a conference with Captain Leopold, the leader of the
Austrian Nazis, and urged Hitler to make a statement recognizing the
national independence of Austria, and predicting that the result might
be to help the formation of a coalition between Schuschnigg’s Christian
Socialists and the Austrian Nazis against Starhemberg. On 27 July 1935
Von Papen reported to Hitler that the union of Austria and Germany could
not be brought about by external pressure but only by the strength of
the National Socialist movement. He urged that the Austrian Nazi Party
change its character as a centralized Reich German party and become a
rallying point for all National Germans.
Von Papen was involved in occasional Nazi political demonstrations,
supported Nazi propaganda activities and submitted detailed reports on
the activities of the Nazi Party, and routine reports relating to
Austrian military defenses. His Austrian policy resulted in the
agreement of 11 July 1936, which nominally restored relations between
Germany and Austria to “normal and friendly form”, but which had a
secret supplement providing for an amnesty for Austrian Nazis, the
lifting of censorship on Nazi papers, the resumption of political
activities by Nazis and the appointment of men friendly to the Nazis in
the Schuschnigg Cabinet.
After the signing of this agreement Von Papen offered to resign, but his
resignation was not accepted. Thereafter he proceeded to bring continued
pressure on the Austrian Government to bring Nazis into the Schuschnigg
Cabinet and to get them important positions in the Fatherland Front,
Austria’s single legal party. On 1 September 1936 Von Papen wrote Hitler
advising him that anti-Nazis in the Austrian Ministry of Security were
holding up the infiltration of the Nazis into the Austrian Government
and recommended bringing “slowly intensified pressure directed at
changing the regime”.
On 4 February 1938 Von Papen was notified of his recall as Minister to
Austria, at the same time that Von Fritsch, Von Blomberg, and Von
Neurath were removed from their positions. He informed Hitler that he
regretted his recall because he had been trying since November 1937 to
induce Schuschnigg to hold a conference with Hitler and Schuschnigg had
indicated his willingness to do so. Acting under Hitler’s instructions,
Von Papen then returned to Austria and arranged the conference which was
held at Berchtesgaden on 12 February 1938. Von Papen accompanied
Schuschnigg to that conference, and at its conclusion advised
Schuschnigg to comply with Hitler’s demands. On 10 March 1938 Hitler
ordered Von Papen to return to Berlin. Von Papen was in the Chancellery
on 11 March when the occupation of Austria was ordered. No evidence has
been offered showing that Von Papen was in favor of the decision to
occupy Austria by force, and he has testified that he urged Hitler not
to take this step.
After the annexation of Austria Von Papen retired into private life and
there is no evidence that he took any part in politics. He accepted the
position of Ambassador to Turkey in April 1939, but no evidence has been
offered concerning his activities in that position implicating him in
crimes.
The evidence leaves no doubt that Von Papen’s primary purpose as
Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and
strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about
Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and
bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against
political morality, however bad these may be. Under the Charter Von
Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of
aggressive war. There is no evidence that he was a party to the plans
under which the occupation of Austria was a step in the direction of
further aggressive action, or even that he participated in plans to
occupy Austria by aggressive war if necessary. But it is not established
beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the purpose of his activity, and
therefore the Tribunal cannot hold that he was a party to the common
plan charged in Count One or participated in the planning of the
aggressive wars charged under Count Two.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment,
and directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal, when the
Tribunal presently adjourns.
_SEYSS-INQUART_
Seyss-Inquart is indicted under all Four Counts. Seyss-Inquart, an
Austrian attorney, was appointed State Councillor in Austria in May 1937
as a result of German pressure. He had been associated with the Austrian
Nazi Party since 1931, but had often had difficulties with that Party
and did not actually join the Nazi Party until 13 March 1938. He was
appointed Austrian Minister of Security and Interior with control over
the police, pursuant to one of the conditions which Hitler had imposed
on Schuschnigg in the Berchtesgaden Conference of 12 February 1938.
_Activities in Austria_
Seyss-Inquart participated in the last stages of the Nazi intrigue which
preceded the German occupation of Austria, and was made Chancellor of
Austria as a result of German threats of invasion.
On 12 March 1938 Seyss-Inquart met Hitler at Linz and made a speech
welcoming the German forces and advocating the reunion of Germany and
Austria. On 13 March he obtained the passage of a law providing that
Austria should become a province of Germany and succeeded Miklas as
President of Austria when Miklas resigned rather than sign the law.
Seyss-Inquart’s title was changed to Reich Governor of Austria on 15
March 1938, and on the same day he was given the title of a general in
the SS. He was made a Reich Minister without Portfolio on 1 May 1939.
On 11 March 1939 he visited the Slovakian Cabinet in Bratislava and
induced them to declare their independence in a way which fitted in
closely with Hitler’s offensive against the independence of
Czechoslovakia.
As Reich Governor of Austria, Seyss-Inquart instituted a program of
confiscating Jewish property. Under his regime Jews were forced to
emigrate, were sent to concentration camps, and were subject to pogroms.
At the end of his regime he cooperated with the Security Police and SD
in the deportation of Jews from Austria to the East. While he was
Governor of Austria, political opponents of the Nazis were sent to
concentration camps by the Gestapo, mistreated, and often killed.
_Criminal Activities in Poland and the Netherlands_
In September 1939 Seyss-Inquart was appointed Chief of Civil
Administration of South Poland. On 12 October 1939 Seyss-Inquart was
made Deputy Governor General of the General Government of Poland under
Frank. On 18 May 1940 Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissioner for
Occupied Netherlands. In these positions he assumed responsibility for
governing territory which had been occupied by aggressive wars and the
administration of which was of vital importance in the aggressive war
being waged by Germany.
As Deputy Governor General of the General Government of Poland,
Seyss-Inquart was a supporter of the harsh occupation policies which
were put in effect. In November 1939, while on an inspection tour
through the General Government, Seyss-Inquart stated that Poland was to
be so administered as to exploit its economic resources for the benefit
of Germany. Seyss-Inquart also advocated the persecution of Jews and was
informed of the beginning of the AB action which involved the murder of
many Polish intellectuals.
As Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands, Seyss-Inquart was
ruthless in applying terrorism to suppress all opposition to the German
occupation, a program which he described as “annihilating” his
opponents. In collaboration with the local Higher SS and Police Leaders
he was involved in the shooting of hostages for offenses against the
occupation authorities and sending to concentration camps all suspected
opponents of occupation policies including priests and educators. Many
of the Dutch police were forced to participate in these programs by
threats of reprisal against their families. Dutch courts were also
forced to participate in this program, but when they indicated their
reluctance to give sentences of imprisonment because so many prisoners
were in fact killed, a greater emphasis was placed on the use of summary
police courts.
Seyss-Inquart carried out the economic administration of the Netherlands
without regard for rules of the Hague Convention, which he described as
obsolete. Instead, a policy was adopted for the maximum utilization of
economic potential of the Netherlands, and executed with small regard
for its effect on the inhabitants. There was widespread pillage of
public and private property which was given color of legality by
Seyss-Inquart’s regulations, and assisted by manipulations of the
financial institutions of the Netherlands under his control.
As Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, Seyss-Inquart immediately
began sending forced laborers to Germany. Until 1942 labor service in
Germany was theoretically voluntary, but was actually coerced by strong
economic and governmental pressure. In 1942 Seyss-Inquart formally
decreed compulsory labor service, and utilized the services of the
Security Police and SD to prevent evasion of his order. During the
occupation over 500,000 people were sent from the Netherlands to the
Reich as laborers and only a very small proportion were actually
volunteers.
One of Seyss-Inquart’s first steps as Reich Commissioner of the
Netherlands was to put into effect a series of laws imposing economic
discriminations against the Jews. This was followed by decrees requiring
their registration, decrees compelling them to reside in ghettos and to
wear the Star of David, sporadic arrests and detention in concentration
camps, and finally, at the suggestion of Heydrich, the mass deportation
of almost 120,000 of Holland’s 140,000 Jews to Auschwitz and the “final
solution”. Seyss-Inquart admits knowing that they were going to
Auschwitz, but claims that he heard from people who had been to
Auschwitz that the Jews were comparatively well off there, and that he
thought that they were being held there for resettlement after the war.
In light of the evidence and on account of his official position it is
impossible to believe this claim.
Seyss-Inquart contends that he was not responsible for many of the
crimes committed in the occupation of the Netherlands because they were
either ordered from the Reich, committed by the Army, over which he had
no control, or by the German Higher SS and Police Leader, who, he
claims, reported directly to Himmler. It is true that some of the
excesses were the responsibility of the Army, and that the Higher SS and
Police Leader, although he was at the disposal of Seyss-Inquart, could
always report directly to Himmler. It is also true that in certain cases
Seyss-Inquart opposed the extreme measures used by these other agencies,
as when he was largely successful in preventing the Army from carrying
out a scorched earth policy, and urged the Higher SS and Police Leaders
to reduce the number of hostages to be shot. But the fact remains that
Seyss-Inquart was a knowing and voluntary participant in War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity which were committed in the occupation of the
Netherlands.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Seyss-Inquart is guilty under Counts Two, Three,
and Four. Seyss-Inquart is not guilty on Count One.
_SPEER_
Speer is indicted under all four Counts. Speer joined the Nazi Party in
1932. In 1934 he was made Hitler’s architect and became a close personal
confidant. Shortly thereafter he was made a department head in the
German Labor Front and the official in charge of capital construction on
the staff of the deputy to the Führer, positions which he held through
1941. On 15 February 1942, after the death of Fritz Todt, Speer was
appointed Chief of the Organization Todt and Reich Minister for
Armaments and Munitions (after 2 September 1943, for Armaments and War
Production). The positions were supplemented by his appointments in
March and April 1942 as General Plenipotentiary for Armaments and as a
member of the Central Planning Board, both within the Four Year Plan.
Speer was a member of the Reichstag from 1941 until the end of the war.
_Crimes against Peace_
The Tribunal is of opinion that Speer’s activities do not amount to
initiating, planning, or preparing wars of aggression, or of conspiring
to that end. He became the head of the armament industry well after all
of the wars had been commenced and were under way. His activities in
charge of German armament production were in aid of the war effort in
the same way that other productive enterprises aid in the waging of war;
but the Tribunal is not prepared to find that such activities involve
engaging in the common plan to wage aggressive war as charged under
Count One or waging aggressive war as charged under Count Two.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
The evidence introduced against Speer under Counts Three and Pour
relates entirely to his participation in the slave labor program. Speer
himself had no direct administrative responsibility for this program.
Although he had advocated the appointment of a General Plenipotentiary
for the Utilization of Labor because he wanted one central authority
with whom he could deal on labor matters, he did not obtain
administrative control over Sauckel. Sauckel was appointed directly by
Hitler, under the decree of 21 March 1942, which provided that he should
be directly responsible to Göring, as Plenipotentiary of the Four Year
Plan.
As Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions and General
Plenipotentiary for Armaments under the Four Year Plan, Speer had
extensive authority over production. His original authority was over
construction and production of arms for the OKW. This was progressively
expanded to include naval armaments, civilian production and finally, on
1 August 1944, air armament. As the dominant member of the Central
Planning Board, which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German
production and the allocation and development of raw materials, Speer
took the position that the Board had authority to instruct Sauckel to
provide laborers for industries under its control and succeeded in
sustaining this position over the objection of Sauckel. The practice was
developed under which Speer transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the
total number of workers needed. Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated
it to the various industries in accordance with instructions supplied by
Speer.
Speer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would be
supplied by foreign laborers serving under compulsion. He participated
in conferences involving the extension of the slave labor program for
the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was present at a conference
held during 10 and 12 August 1942 with Hitler and Sauckel, at which it
was agreed that Sauckel should bring laborers by force from occupied
territories where this was necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the
industries under Speer’s control. Speer also attended a conference in
Hitler’s headquarters on 4 January 1944, at which the decision was made
that Sauckel should obtain “at least 4 million new workers from occupied
territories” in order to satisfy the demands for labor made by Speer,
although Sauckel indicated that he could do this only with help from
Himmler.
Sauckel continually informed Speer and his representatives that foreign
laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of 1 March 1944
Speer’s deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about his failure to live
up to the obligation to supply 4 million workers from occupied
territories. In some cases Speer demanded laborers from specific foreign
countries. Thus, at the conference of 10-12 August 1942 Sauckel was
instructed to supply Speer with “a further million Russian laborers for
the German armament industry up to and including October 1942”. At a
meeting of the Central Planning Board on 22 April 1943 Speer discussed
plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal mines, and flatly
vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit should be made up by
German labor.
Speer has argued that he advocated the reorganization of the labor
program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of German labor in
war production in Germany and on the use of labor in occupied countries
in local production of consumer goods formerly produced in Germany.
Speer took steps in this direction by establishing the so-called
“blocked industries” in the occupied territories which were used to
produce goods to be shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries
were immune from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker
who had been ordered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he went
to work for a blocked industry. This system, although somewhat less
inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still illegal. The system of
blocked industries played only a small part in the over-all slave labor
program, although Speer urged its cooperation with the slave labor
program, knowing the way in which it was actually being administered. In
an official sense, he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly
urged its extension.
Speer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced labor, as
Chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt functioned
principally in the occupied areas on such projects as the Atlantic Wall
and the construction of military highways, and Speer has admitted that
he relied on compulsory service to keep it adequately staffed. He also
used concentration camp labor in the industries under his control. He
originally arranged to tap this source of labor for use in small
out-of-the-way factories; and later, fearful of Himmler’s jurisdictional
ambitions, attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as
possible.
Speer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in armament
industries but contends that he utilized Soviet prisoners of war only in
industries covered by the Geneva Convention.
Speer’s position was such that he was not directly concerned with the
cruelty in the administration of the slave labor program, although he
was aware of its existence. For example, at meetings of the Central
Planning Board he was informed that his demands for labor were so large
as to necessitate violent methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the
Central Planning Board on 30 October 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that
many slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and stated:
“There is nothing to be said against SS and police taking drastic steps
and putting those known as slackers into concentration camps.” Speer,
however, insisted that the slave laborers be given adequate food and
working conditions so that they could work efficiently.
In mitigation it must be recognized that Speer’s establishment of
blocked industries did keep many laborers in their homes and that in the
closing stages of the war he was one of the few men who had the courage
to tell Hitler that the war was lost and to take steps to prevent the
senseless destruction of production facilities, both in occupied
territories and in Germany. He carried out his opposition to Hitler’s
scorched earth program in some of the Western countries and in Germany
by deliberately sabotaging it at considerable personal risk.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Speer is not guilty on Counts One and Two, but
is guilty under Counts Three and Four.
_VON NEURATH_
Von Neurath is indicted under all four Counts. He is a professional
diplomat who served as German Ambassador to Great Britain from 1930 to
1932. On 2 June 1932 he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the
Von Papen Cabinet, a position which he held under the Cabinets of Von
Schleicher and Hitler. Von Neurath resigned as Minister of Foreign
Affairs on 4 February 1938, and was made Reich Minister without
Portfolio, President of the Secret Cabinet Council, and a member of the
Reich Defense Council. On 18 March 1939 he was appointed Reich Protector
for Bohemia and Moravia, and served in this capacity until 27 September
1941. He held the formal rank of Obergruppenführer in the SS.
_Crimes against Peace_
As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Von Neurath advised Hitler in connection
with the withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of
Nations on 14 October 1933, the institution of rearmament, the passage
on 16 March 1935 of the law for universal military service, and the
passage on 21 May 1935 of the secret Reich Defense Law. He was a key
figure in the negotiation of the Naval Accord entered into between
Germany and England on 18 June 1935. He played an important part in
Hitler’s decision to reoccupy the Rhineland on 7 March 1936, and
predicted that the occupation could be carried through without any
reprisals from the French. On 18 May 1936 he told the American
Ambassador to France that it was the policy of the German Government to
do nothing in foreign affairs until “the Rhineland had been digested”,
and that as soon as the fortifications in the Rhineland had been
constructed and the countries of central Europe realized that France
could not enter Germany at will, “all those countries will begin to feel
very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation
will develop”.
Von Neurath took part in the Hossbach conference of 5 November 1937. He
has testified that he was so shocked by Hitler’s statements that he had
a heart attack. Shortly thereafter he offered to resign, and his
resignation was accepted on 4 February 1938, at the same time that Von
Fritsch and Von Blomberg were dismissed. Yet with knowledge of Hitler’s
aggressive plans he retained a formal relationship with the Nazi regime
as Reich Minister without Portfolio, President of the Secret Cabinet
Council and a member of the Reich Defense Council. He took charge of the
Foreign Office at the time of the occupation of Austria, assured the
British Ambassador that this had not been caused by a German ultimatum,
and informed the Czechoslovakian Minister that Germany intended to abide
by its arbitration convention with Czechoslovakia. Von Neurath
participated in the last phase of the negotiations preceding the Munich
Pact, but contends that he entered these discussions only to urge Hitler
to make every effort to settle the issues by peaceful means.
_Criminal Activities in Czechoslovakia_
Von Neurath was appointed Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia on 18
March 1939. Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by military force. Hacha’s
consent, obtained as it was by duress, cannot be considered as
justifying the occupation. Hitler’s decree of 16 March 1939,
establishing the Protectorate, stated that this new territory should
“belong henceforth to the territory of the German Reich”, an assumption
that the Republic of Czechoslovakia no longer existed. But it also went
on the theory that Bohemia and Moravia retained their sovereignty
subject only to the interests of Germany as expressed by the
Protectorate. Therefore even if the doctrine of subjugation should be
considered to be applicable to territory occupied by aggressive action,
the Tribunal does not believe that this Proclamation amounted to an
incorporation which was sufficient to bring the doctrine into effect.
The occupation of Bohemia and Moravia must therefore be considered a
military occupation covered by the rules of warfare. Although
Czechoslovakia was not a party to the Hague Convention of 1907, the
rules of land warfare expressed in this Convention are declaratory of
existing international law and hence are applicable.
As Reich Protector, Von Neurath instituted an administration in Bohemia
and Moravia similar to that in effect in Germany. The free press,
political parties, and trade unions were abolished. All groups which
might serve as opposition were outlawed. Czechoslovakian industry was
worked into the structure of German war production, and exploited for
the German war effort. Nazi anti-Semitic policies and laws were also
introduced. Jews were barred from leading positions in Government and
business.
In August 1939 Von Neurath issued a proclamation warning against any
acts of sabotage and stating that “the responsibility for all acts of
sabotage is attributed not only to individual perpetrators but to the
entire Czech population.” When the war broke out on 1 September 1939,
8,000 prominent Czechs were arrested by the Security Police in Bohemia
and Moravia and put into protective custody. Many of this group died in
concentration camps as a result of mistreatment.
In October and November 1939 Czechoslovakian students held a series of
demonstrations. As a result, on Hitler’s orders, all universities were
closed, 1,200 students imprisoned, and the nine leaders of the
demonstration shot by Security Police and SD. Von Neurath testified that
he was not informed of this action in advance, but it was announced by
proclamation over his signature posted on placards throughout the
Protectorate, which he claims, however, was done without his authority.
On 31 August 1940 Von Neurath transmitted to Lammers a memorandum which
he had prepared dealing with the future of the Protectorate, and a
memorandum with his approval prepared by Carl Herman Frank on the same
subject. Both dealt with the question of Germanization and proposed that
the majority of the Czechs might be assimilated racially into the German
Nation. Both advocated the elimination of the Czechoslovakian
intelligentsia and other groups which might resist Germanization, Von
Neurath’s by expulsion, Frank’s by expulsion or “special treatment.”
Von Neurath has argued that the actual enforcement of the repressive
measures was carried out by the Security Police and SD who were under
the control of his State Secretary, Carl Herman Frank, who was appointed
at the suggestion of Himmler and who, as a Higher SS and Police Leader,
reported directly to Himmler. Von Neurath further argues that
anti-Semitic measures and those resulting in economic exploitation were
put into effect in the Protectorate as the result of policies decided
upon in the Reich. However this may be, he served as the chief German
official in the Protectorate when the administration of this territory
played an important role in the wars of aggression which Germany was
waging in the East, knowing that War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
were being committed under his authority.
In mitigation it must be remembered that Von Neurath did intervene with
the Security Police and SD for the release of many of the Czechoslovaks
who were arrested on 1 September 1939, and for the release of students
arrested later in the fall. On 23 September 1941 he was summoned before
Hitler and told that he was not being harsh enough and that Heydrich was
being sent to the Protectorate to combat the Czechoslovakian resistance
groups. Von Neurath attempted to dissuade Hitler from sending Heydrich,
but in vain, and when he was not successful, offered to resign. When his
resignation was not accepted he went on leave, on 27 September 1941, and
refused to act as Protector after that date. His resignation was
formally accepted in August 1943.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Von Neurath is guilty under all four Counts.
_FRITZSCHE_
Fritzsche is indicted on Counts One, Three, and Four. He was best known
as a radio commentator, discussing once a week the events of the day on
his own program, “Hans Fritzsche Speaks.” He began broadcasting in
September 1932; in the same year he was made the head of the Wireless
News Service, a Reich Government agency. When, on 1 May 1933, this
agency was incorporated by the National Socialists into their Reich
Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Fritzsche became a
member of the Nazi Party and went to that Ministry. In December 1938 he
became head of the Home Press Division of the Ministry; in October 1942
he was promoted to the rank of Ministerial Director. After serving
briefly on the Eastern Front in a propaganda company, he was, in
November 1942, made head of the Radio Division of the Propaganda
Ministry and Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of the
Greater German Radio.
_Crimes against Peace_
As head of the Home Press Division Fritzsche supervised the German press
of 2,300 daily newspapers. In pursuance of this function he held daily
press conferences to deliver the directives of the Propaganda Ministry
to these papers. He was, however, subordinate to Dietrich, the Reich
Press Chief, who was in turn a subordinate of Goebbels. It was Dietrich
who received the directives to the press of Goebbels and other Reich
Ministers, and prepared them as instructions, which he then handed to
Fritzsche for the press.
From time to time, the “Daily Paroles of the Reich Press Chief”, as
these instructions were labeled, directed the press to present to the
people certain themes, such as the Leadership Principle, the Jewish
problem, the problem of living space, or other standard Nazi ideas. A
vigorous propaganda campaign was carried out before each major act of
aggression. While Fritzsche headed the Home Press Division, he
instructed the press how the actions or wars against Bohemia and
Moravia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union should be dealt with.
Fritzsche had no control of the formulation of these propaganda
policies. He was merely a conduit to the press of the instructions
handed him by Dietrich. In February 1939 and before the absorption of
Bohemia and Moravia, for instance, he received Dietrich’s order to bring
to the attention of the press Slovakia’s efforts for independence, and
the anti-Germanic policies and politics of the existing Prague
Government. This order to Dietrich originated in the Foreign Office.
The Radio Division, of which Fritzsche became the head in November 1942,
was one of the 12 divisions of the Propaganda Ministry. In the beginning
Dietrich and other heads of divisions exerted influence over the
policies to be followed by radio. Towards the end of the war, however,
Fritzsche became the sole authority within the Ministry for radio
activities. In this capacity he formulated and issued daily radio
“paroles” to all Reich propaganda offices, according to the general
political policies of the Nazi regime, subject to the directives of the
Radio-Political Division of the Foreign Office, and the personal
supervision of Goebbels.
Fritzsche, with other officials of the Propaganda Ministry, was present
at Goebbels’ daily staff conferences. Here they were instructed in the
news and propaganda policies of the day. After 1943 Fritzsche himself
occasionally held these conferences, but only when Goebbels and his
State Secretaries were absent. And even then his only function was to
transmit the Goebbels’ directives relayed to him by telephone.
This is the summary of Fritzsche’s positions and influence in the Third
Reich. Never did he achieve sufficient stature to attend the planning
conferences which led to aggressive war; indeed according to his own
uncontradicted testimony he never even had a conversation with Hitler.
Nor is there any showing that he was informed of the decisions taken at
these conferences. His activities cannot be said to be those which fall
within the definition of the common plan to wage aggressive war as
already set forth in this Judgment.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
The Prosecution has asserted that Fritzsche incited and encouraged the
commission of War Crimes by deliberately falsifying news to arouse in
the German People those passions which led them to the commission of
atrocities under Counts Three and Four. His position and official duties
were not sufficiently important, however, to infer that he took part in
originating or formulating propaganda campaigns.
Excerpts in evidence from his speeches show definite anti-Semitism on
his part. He broadcast, for example, that the war had been caused by
Jews and said their fate had turned out “as unpleasant as the Führer
predicted.” But these speeches did not urge persecution or extermination
of Jews. There is no evidence that he was aware of their extermination
in the East. The evidence moreover shows that he twice attempted to have
publication of the anti-Semitic _Der Stürmer_ suppressed, though
unsuccessfully.
In these broadcasts Fritzsche sometimes spread false news, but it was
not proved he knew it to be false. For example, he reported that no
German U-boat was in the vicinity of the _Athenia_ when it was sunk.
This information was untrue; but Fritzsche, having received it from the
German Navy, had no reason to believe it was untrue.
It appears that Fritzsche sometimes made strong statements of a
propagandistic nature in his broadcasts. But the Tribunal is not
prepared to hold that they were intended to incite the German People to
commit atrocities on conquered peoples, and he cannot be held to have
been a participant in the crimes charged. His aim was rather to arouse
popular sentiment in support of Hitler and the German war effort.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Fritzsche is not guilty under this Indictment,
and directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal when the Tribunal
presently adjourns.
_BORMANN_
Bormann is indicted on Counts One, Three, and Four. He joined the
National Socialist Party in 1925, was a member of the Staff of the
Supreme Command of the SA from 1928 to 1930, was in charge of the Aid
Fund of the Party, and was Reichsleiter from 1933 to 1945. From 1933 to
1941 he was Chief of Staff in the Office of the Führer’s Deputy and,
after the flight of Hess to England, became Head of the Party
Chancellery on 12 May 1941. On 12 April 1943 he became Secretary to the
Führer. He was political and organizational head of the Volkssturm and a
general in the SS.
_Crimes against Peace_
Bormann in the beginning a minor Nazi, steadily rose to a position of
power and, particularly in the closing days, of great influence over
Hitler. He was active in the Party’s rise to power and even more so in
the consolidation of that power. He devoted much of his time to the
persecution of the churches and of the Jews within Germany.
The evidence does not show that Bormann knew of Hitler’s plans to
prepare, initiate, or wage aggressive wars. He attended none of the
important conferences when Hitler revealed piece by piece these plans
for aggression. Nor can knowledge be conclusively inferred from the
positions he held. It was only when he became head of the Party
Chancellery in 1941, and later in 1943 Secretary to the Führer when he
attended many of Hitler’s conferences, that his positions gave him the
necessary access. Under the view stated elsewhere which the Tribunal has
taken of the conspiracy to wage aggressive war, there is not sufficient
evidence to bring Bormann within the scope of Count One.
_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity_
By decree of 29 May 1941 Bormann took over the offices and powers held
by Hess; by the decree of 24 January 1942 these powers were extended to
give him control over all laws and directives issued by Hitler. He was
thus responsible for laws and orders issued thereafter. On 1 December
1942 all Gaue became Reich defense districts, and the Party Gauleiters
responsible to Bormann were appointed Reich Defense Commissioners. In
effect, this made them the administrators of the entire civilian war
effort. This was so not only in Germany, but also in those territories
which were incorporated into the Reich from the absorbed and conquered
territories.
Through this mechanism Bormann controlled the ruthless exploitations of
the subjected populace. His order of 12 August 1942 placed all Party
agencies at the disposal of Himmler’s program for forced resettlement
and denationalization of persons in the occupied countries. Three weeks
after the invasion of Russia, he attended the conference of 16 July 1941
at Hitler’s field quarters with Göring, Rosenberg, and Keitel; Bormann’s
reports show that there were discussed and developed detailed plans of
enslavement and annihilation of the population of these territories. And
on 8 May 1942 he conferred with Hitler and Rosenberg on the forced
resettlement of Dutch personnel in Latvia, the extermination program in
Russia, and the economic exploitation of the Eastern territories. He was
interested in the confiscation of art and other properties in the East.
His letter of 11 January 1944 called for the creation of a large scale
organization to withdraw commodities from the occupied territories for
the bombed-out German populace.
Bormann was extremely active in the persecution of the Jews, not only in
Germany but also in the absorbed and conquered countries. He took part
in the discussions which led to the removal of 60,000 Jews from Vienna
to Poland in cooperation with the SS and the Gestapo. He signed the
decree of 31 May 1941 extending the Nuremberg Laws to the annexed
Eastern territories. In an order of 9 October 1942 he declared that the
permanent elimination of Jews in Greater German territory could no
longer be solved by emigration, but only by applying “ruthless force” in
the special camps in the East. On 1 July 1943 he signed an ordinance
withdrawing Jews from the protection of the law courts and placing them
under the exclusive jurisdiction of Himmler’s Gestapo.
Bormann was prominent in the slave labor program. The Party leaders
supervised slave labor matters in the respective Gaue, including
employment, conditions of work, feeding, and housing. By his circular of
5 May 1943 to the Leadership Corps, distributed down to the level of
Ortsgruppenleiter, he issued directions regulating the treatment of
foreign workers, pointing out they were subject to SS control on
security problems, and ordered the previous mistreatment to cease. A
report of 4 September 1942 relating to the transfer of 500,000 female
domestic workers from the East to Germany showed that control was to be
exercised by Sauckel, Himmler, and Bormann. Sauckel by decree of 8
September directed the Kreisleiter to supervise the distribution and
assignment of these female laborers.
Bormann also issued a series of orders to the Party leaders dealing with
the treatment of prisoners of war. On 5 November 1941 he prohibited
decent burials for Russian prisoners of war. On 25 November 1943 he
directed Gauleiter to report cases of lenient treatment of prisoners of
war. And on 13 September 1944 he ordered liaison between the Kreisleiter
with the camp commandants in determining the use to be made of prisoners
of war for forced labor. On 29 January 1943 he transmitted to his
leaders OKW instructions allowing the use of firearms, and corporal
punishment on recalcitrant prisoners of war, contrary to the Rules of
Land Warfare. On 30 September 1944 he signed a decree taking from the
OKW jurisdiction over prisoners of war and handing them over to Himmler
and the SS.
Bormann is responsible for the lynching of Allied airmen. On 30 May 1944
he prohibited any police action or criminal proceedings against persons
who had taken part in the lynching of Allied fliers. This was
accompanied by a Goebbels’ propaganda campaign inciting the German
people to take action of this nature, and the conference of 6 June 1944,
where regulations for the application of lynching were discussed.
His Counsel, who has labored under difficulties, was unable to refute
this evidence. In the face of these documents, which bear Bormann’s
signature, it is difficult to see how he could do so even were the
defendant present. Counsel has argued that Bormann is dead and that the
Tribunal should not avail itself of Article 12 of the Charter, which
gives it the right to take proceedings _in absentia_. But the evidence
of death is not conclusive, and the Tribunal, as previously stated, is
determined to try him _in absentia_. If Bormann is not dead and is later
apprehended, the Control Council for Germany may, under Article 29 of
the Charter, consider any facts in mitigation, and alter or reduce his
sentence, if deemed proper.
_Conclusion_
The Tribunal finds that Bormann is not guilty on Count One, but is
guilty on Counts Three and Four.
1 October 1946
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE /s/ NORMAN BIRKETT
President
/s/ FRANCIS BIDDLE /s/ JOHN J. PARKER
/s/ H. DONNEDIEU DE VABRES /s/ R. FALCO
/s/ NIKITCHENKO /s/ A. VOLCHKOV
DISSENTING OPINION OF THE SOVIET MEMBER
OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal decided:
a) To acquit the Defendants Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen, and Hans
Fritzsche;
b) To sentence the Defendant Rudolf Hess to life imprisonment;
c) Not to declare criminal the following organizations: the
Reichscabinet, General Staff, and OKW.
In this respect I can not agree with the decision adopted by the
Tribunal as it does not correspond to the facts of the case and is based
on incorrect conclusions.
I. _The Unfounded Acquittal of Defendant Schacht_
The evidence, submitted to the Tribunal in the case of Schacht,
confirms, the following facts:
a) Schacht established contact with Göring in December 1930 and with
Hitler at the beginning of 1931. He subsequently established contact
between the leadership of the Nazi Party, and the foremost
representatives of the German industrial and financial circles. This, in
particular, is confirmed by the testimony of Witness Severing
(Transcript, Afternoon Session, 23 May 1946; USA-615).
b) In July 1932 Schacht demanded that Von Papen resign his post as Reich
Chancellor in favor of Hitler. This fact is confirmed by Von Papen’s
testimony at the preliminary interrogation and by Schacht’s own
testimony in Court (Transcript, Afternoon Session, 2 May 1946).
c) In November 1932 Schacht collected signatures of German
industrialists, urging them to come out for Hitler’s appointment as
Reich Chancellor. On 12 November 1932 Schacht wrote to Hitler:
“I have no doubt that the way we are directing the course of
events can only lead to your appointment as Reich Chancellor. We
are trying to secure a large number of signatures among the
industrial circles to ensure your appointment to this post.”
(EC-456, USA-773; PS-3901, USA-837)
d) In February 1933 Schacht organized the financing of the pre-election
campaign conducted by the Nazi Party, and demanded at the conference of
Hitler and Göring with the industrialists that the latter provide three
million marks (D-203). Schacht admitted in Court that he had pointed out
the necessity for providing the Nazi leaders with this sum (Transcript,
Afternoon Session, 3 May 1946), while the Defendant Funk and the former
member of the management of “I. G. Farbenindustrie” Schnitzler, who were
present at this conference, both confirmed that it was Schacht who was
the initiator of the financing of the pre-election campaign (Transcript,
4 July 1946; EC-439, USA-618).
e) Utilizing his prestige, Schacht also repeatedly admitted in his
public statements that he asked for the support in the elections of both
the Nazi Party and of Hitler (USA-615; USA-616; Transcript, Afternoon
Session, 2 May 1946).
On 29 August 1932, Schacht wrote to Hitler: “No matter where my
activities lead me in the near future, even if some day you see me
imprisoned in a fortress, you can always depend on me as your loyal
aide” (EC-457, USA-619).
_Thus, Schacht consciously and deliberately supported the Nazi Party and
actively aided in the seizure of power in Germany by the Fascists._ Even
prior to his appointment as Plenipotentiary for War Economy, and
immediately after the seizure of power by the Nazis, Schacht led in
planning and developing the German armaments, as follows:
a) On 17 March 1933, Schacht was appointed President of the Reichsbank
(PS-3021, USA-11), and as he himself stated in a speech before his
Reichsbank colleagues on 21 March 1938, the Reichsbank under his
management was “none other than a National Socialist institution”
(Transcript, Afternoon Session, 3 May 1946).
b) In August 1934, Schacht was appointed Reich Minister of Economy
(PS-3021, USA-11). His Ministry “was given the task of carrying out the
economic preparation for war” (EC-128, USA-623). A special decree
granted Schacht, in his capacity of Reich Minister of Economy, unlimited
authority in the field of economy (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1934, Part 1, p.
565).
c) Making use of these powers in 1934 Schacht launched upon the
execution of the “new program” developed by him (_Reichsgesetzblatt_,
1934, Part 1, p. 826), and, as Schacht himself noted in his speech of 29
November 1938, this organization played a tremendous part in the course
of Germany’s rearmament (EC-611, USA-662).
d) For the purpose of the most effective execution of this “new program”
Schacht used the property and means of those political enemies of the
Nazi regime, who either became the victims of terror or were forced to
emigrate (Schacht’s note to Hitler of 3 May 1939; PS-1168, USA-37).
Schacht used swindler’s tactics and coercion in an effort to acquire raw
material and foreign currency for armaments (Affidavit of Vice-President
of the Reichsbank, Puhl; EC-437, USA-624).
e) During the first days of his association with the Reichsbank, Schacht
issued a series of decrees (27 October 1933, 23 March 1934, 19 February
1935), which in the long run helped realize the broad program of the
financing of armaments, developed by him, and with the aid of which, as
he testified, he “had found the way to finance the rearmament program.”
In his speech in Leipzig on 4 March 1935, Schacht, while summing up his
preceding economic and financial activities, announced “. . . everything
that I say and do has the Führer’s full agreement and I shall not do or
say anything which is not approved by the Führer” (Transcript, Afternoon
Session, 3 May 1946).
Having become the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, Schacht
unified under himself the leadership of the entire German economy and
through his efforts the establishment of the Hitlerite war machine was
accomplished.
a) The secret law of 21 May 1935, which appointed Schacht the
Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, states as follows:
“The task of the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy is to
place all the economic resources in the service of warfare. The
Plenipotentiary General for War Economy within the framework of
his functions is given the right to issue legal orders,
deviating from the existing laws. He is the responsible head for
financing wars through the Reich Ministry and the Reichsbank”
(PS-2261, USA-24).
b) Schacht financed German armaments through the Mefo system of
promissory notes, which was a swindling venture on a national scale that
has no precedent, and the success of which was dependent upon the
realization of the aggressive plans of the Hitlerites. It was because of
this that Schacht set 1942 as the date when the Mefo notes were to
mature, and he pointed out in his speech of 29 November 1938 the
relation between “the daring credit policy” of the Reichsbank and the
aims of the Hitlerite foreign policy (EC-611, USA-622).
c) Having made full use of his plenary powers, Schacht carefully
developed and carried out a broad program of economic mobilization which
allowed the Hitlerite leaders to wage war at any time considered most
favorable. In particular, from the report of Schacht’s deputy, Wohltat,
“the preparation for mobilization carried out by the Plenipotentiary for
War Economy” shows that Schacht provided to the last detail for the
system of exploitation of the German economy in war time, all the way
from the utilization of industrial enterprises, of raw material
resources and manpower down to the distribution of 80,000,000 ration
cards (EC-258, USA-625). It is significant that this report was drawn up
a month after Hitler’s statement at the conference of 5 November 1937,
at which Hitler set forth this concrete plan of aggression (PS-386,
USA-25).
Summarizing his past activity, Schacht wrote in January 1937: “I worked
out the preparation for war in accordance with the principle that the
plan of our war economy must be built in peace time in such a way that
there will be no necessity for any reorganization in case of war”.
Schacht confirmed his statement in court (Transcript, Afternoon Session,
2 May 1946).
Schacht consciously and deliberately prepared Germany for war.
d) The former Minister of War Von Blomberg testified that: “Schacht was
fully cognizant of the plans for development and increase of the German
Armed Forces, since he was constantly informed . . . of all the
financing necessary for the development of the German armed forces”
(USA-838).
On 31 August 1936, Von Blomberg informed Schacht that: “The
establishment of all the Air Force units must be completed by 1 April
1937, and therefore large expenditures must be entailed in 1936 . . . .”
(PS-1301, USA-123).
In the spring of 1937, Schacht participated in the military exercises in
Godesberg (EC-174).
e) In his memorandum to Hitler on 3 May 1935, entitled the “Financing of
Rearmament”, Schacht wrote: “A speedy fulfillment of the program for
rearmament on a mass scale is the basis of German policy, and,
therefore, everything else must be subordinate to this task; the
completion of this task, the achievement of this purpose must meet no
obstacles . . . .” (PS-1168, USA-37).
In his speech on 29 November 1938, Schacht announced that Reichsbank’s
credit policy made it possible for Germany to create an “unsurpassed
machine, and, in turn, this war machine made possible the realization of
the aims of our policy” (EC-611, USA-622).
One must exclude the supposition that Schacht was not informed as to
what purposes these weapons were to serve since he could not but take
into consideration their unprecedented scale and an obvious preference
for offensive types of weapons (heavy tanks, bombers, and so on).
Besides, Schacht knew perfectly well that not a single country intended
to wage war on Germany nor had it any reasons to do so.
a) Schacht utilized the military might growing under his direction to
back Germany’s territorial demands which grew in proportion to the
increase in armaments.
Schacht testified in Court that “at first he confined himself (in his
demands) to the colonies which had once belonged to Germany”
(Transcript, Morning Session, 3 May 1946).
In September 1934, during his talk with the American Ambassador Dodd,
Schacht pointed out that he desired annexation if possible without war,
but through war, if the United States would stay out of it (EC-461,
USA-58).
In 1935, Schacht announced to the American Consul Fuller:
“Colonies are essential to Germany. If it is possible, we shall
acquire them through negotiations, if not, we shall seize them.”
(EC-450, USA-629)
Schacht admitted in Court that military pressure put upon Czechoslovakia
was “in some measure the result and the fruit of his labor” (Transcript,
Morning Session, 3 May 1946).
b) Schacht personally participated in the plunder of private and State
property of the countries which became victims of Hitlerite aggressions.
The minutes of the conference of the Military-Economic Staff on 11 March
1938, in which Schacht participated, state that those present were given
Hitler’s latest directives about the invasion of Austria. Further, the
minutes state: “After this, at the suggestion of Schacht, it was decided
that . . . all the financial accounting will be made in Reichsmarks at
the rate of exchange: two schillings for one Reichsmark” (EC-421,
USA-645).
Schacht admitted in Court that he personally was in charge of the
seizure of the Czechoslovak National Bank after the occupation of
Czechoslovakia (Transcript, Morning Session, 3 May 1946).
c) At the beginning of 1940, Schacht offered Hitler his services for
negotiations with the United States in regard to the discontinuance of
aid to England and he informed Göring of his offer (PS-3700; USA-780).
d) Schacht considered it his duty to greet and congratulate Hitler
publicly after the signing of armistice with France, although Schacht,
better than anyone else, understood the usurpatory nature of the
armistice (German Documentary Film, USA-635).
e) In his letter to Funk on 17 October 1941, Schacht suggested a more
effective exploitation of occupied territory. In this case, too, Schacht
acted on his own initiative (EC-504; USA-830).
Schacht also participated in the persecution of the Jews:
a) He testified in Court that he “agreed to the policy of the
persecution of the Jews as a matter of principle” (Transcript, Afternoon
Session, 2 May 1946) although, he stated, “to a certain extent” it was a
matter of conscience which, however, “was not serious enough to bring
about a break” between him and the Nazis (Transcript, Afternoon Session,
2 May 1946; USA-616).
b) In his capacity of Minister of Economy, Schacht signed a series of
decrees, in accordance with which the property of the Jews in Germany
was subject to plunder with impunity (USA-832; USA-616). Schacht
confirmed in Court the fact that he had signed a series of anti-Semitic
decrees (Transcript, Afternoon Session, 2 May 1946).
As to the reasons for Schacht’s resignation from the post of the
Minister of Economy and the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy in
November 1937, and also from the post of the President of the Reichsbank
on 20 November 1939, and finally from the post of the Minister without
Portfolio in January 1943, the evidence submitted establishes the
following:
a) The reason is not Schacht’s disagreement with the economic
preparation for aggressive wars.
Three weeks before leaving the Ministry of Economy and the post of
Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, Schacht wrote to Göring: “. . .
I also don’t consider that my opinion can differ from yours on economic
policy . . . .” (EC-497, USA-775).
In his reply Göring states:
“. . . You promised me your support and collaboration . . . .
You have repeated this promise many times, even after
differences of opinion began to creep up between us.” (EC-493,
USA-642).
Schacht testified in Court that Göring and he only “differed in matters
of procedure” (Transcript, Morning Session, 3 May 1946).
In the preliminary examination Göring testified that Schacht’s leaving
the Reichsbank “had no relation to the program of rearmament” (USA-648).
The vice-president of the Reichsbank, Puhl, confirmed that Schacht’s
resignation from the Reichsbank can be explained by “his desire to
extricate himself from a dangerous situation” which developed as the
result of Schacht’s own crooked financial operations (EC-438, USA-646).
b) The reason is not Schacht’s disapproval of mass terror conducted by
the Hitlerites.
The witness for the Defense, Gisevius, testified that he constantly
informed Schacht of the criminal actions of the Gestapo, created by
Göring, and that nevertheless, right up to the end of 1936, Schacht
looked for “Göring’s support” (Transcript, Morning Session, 24 April
1946).
In his letter to Von Blomberg on 24 December 1935, Schacht suggested
that the Gestapo apply “more cautious methods” since the open terror of
the Gestapo “hinders the objectives of the armament” (Transcript,
Afternoon Session, 2 May 1946).
On 30 January 1937, Schacht was awarded a golden Party insignia by
Hitler (EC-500; Transcript, Afternoon Session, 2 May 1946). As stated in
an official German publication, “he was able to be of greater help to
the Party than if he were actually a member of the Party” (EC-460,
USA-617).
Only in 1943, having understood earlier than many other Germans, the
inevitability of the failure of the Hitlerite regime, did Schacht
establish contact with the opposition circles, however, doing nothing to
help depose this regime. Therefore, it was not by chance that having
found out these connections of Schacht, Hitler still spared Schacht’s
life.
It is thus indisputably established that:
a) Schacht actively assisted in the seizure of power by the Nazis;
b) During a period of 12 years Schacht closely collaborated with Hitler;
c) Schacht provided the economic and financial basis for the creation of
the Hitlerite military machine;
d) Schacht prepared Germany’s economy for the waging of aggressive wars;
e) Schacht participated in the persecution of Jews and in the plunder of
territories occupied by the Germans.
_Therefore, Schacht’s leading part in the preparation and execution of
the common criminal plan is proved._
The decision to acquit Schacht is in obvious contradiction with existing
evidence.
II. _The Unfounded Acquittal of Defendant Von Papen._
The verdict does not dispute the fact that Von Papen prepared the way
for Hitler’s appointment to the post of the Reich Chancellor and that he
actively helped the Nazis in their seizure of power.
In a speech of November 1933, Von Papen said the following on the
subject:
“. . . just as I at the time of taking over the Chancellorship
(this was in 1932) have advocated to pave the way to power for
the young fighting liberation movement, just as I on 30 January
was selected by a gracious fate to put the hands of our
Chancellor and Führer into the hands of our beloved Field
Marshal, so do I today again feel the obligation to say to the
German People and all those who have kept confidence in me:
“The kind Lord has blessed Germany by giving it in times of deep
distress a leader . . . .” (PS-3375).
_It was Von Papen who revoked Bruning’s order dissolving the SS and the
SA_, thus allowing the Nazis to realize their program of mass terror
(D-631).
Again it was the defendant who, by the application of brute force, did
away with the Social Democrat Government of Braun and Severing
(Severing’s Testimony, Transcript, Afternoon Session, 14 June 1946).
On 4 January 1933, Von Papen had a conference with Hitler, Hess, and
Himmler (D-632).
Von Papen participated in the purge of the State machinery of all
personnel considered unreliable from the Nazi point of view; _on 21
March 1933, he signed a decree creating special political tribunals_; he
had also signed an order granting amnesty to criminals whose crimes were
committed in the course of the “national revolution”; he participated in
drafting the text of the order “insuring Party and State unity”; and so
on.
Subsequently Von Papen faithfully served the Hitler regime.
After the Putsch of 1934, _Von Papen ordered his subordinate Tschirschky
to appear in the Gestapo_, knowing full well what awaited him there
(D-684).
Von Papen helped to keep the bloody murder secret from public opinion
(D-717; D-718).
The defendant played a tremendous role in helping Nazis to take
possession of Austria.
Three weeks after the assassination of Dollfuss, on 26 July 1934, Hitler
told Von Papen that he was being appointed Minister to Vienna,
especially noting in a letter: “You have been and continue to be in
possession of my fullest and most unlimited trust . . . .” (PS-2799).
In this connection it is impossible to ignore the testimony of the
American Ambassador Messersmith who quoted Von Papen as saying that “the
seizure of Austria is only the first step” and that he, Von Papen, was
in Austria for the purpose of “further weakening the Austrian
Government” (USA-57).
The defendant was Hitler’s chief advisor in effecting plans for the
seizure of Austria. It was he who proposed several tactical maneuvers to
quiet the vigilance of world opinion on the one hand, and allow Germany
to conclude her war preparations, on the other.
This follows indisputably from Von Papen’s statement to the Austrian
Minister Berger-Waldeneck (PS-1760), from the report of Gauleiter Reuner
of 6 July 1939 (USA-61), from Von Papen’s report to Hitler of 21 August
1936 (D-706), from Von Papen’s report to Hitler of 1 September 1936
(PS-2246, USA-67), and from a series of other documents which had been
submitted in evidence.
Von Papen played this game until the issuance of the order for alerting
the German Armed Forces for moving into Austria. He participated in
arranging the conference between Hitler and Schuschnigg of 12 February
1938 (USA-69).
It was Von Papen who in a letter to Hitler emphatically recommended that
financial aid be given the Nazi organization in Austria known as the
“Freedom Union”, specifically for “its fight against the Jewry”
(PS-2830).
Indisputable appears the fact of the Nazi seizure of Austria and of Von
Papen’s participation in this act of aggression. After the occupation of
Austria, Hitler rewarded Von Papen with the golden insignia of the Nazi
Party (D-632).
Neither is it possible to ignore Von Papen’s role as agent provocateur
when in his capacity of diplomat he was the German Ambassador to
Turkey—whenever evaluation of his activity there is made.
The post, of Ambassador to Turkey was at the time of considerable
importance in helping the Nazis realize their aggressive plans.
The official Nazi biographer wrote about Von Papen as follows: “Shortly
(after the occupation of Austria) the Führer had need of Von Papen’s
services again and on 18 April 1939, he therefore appointed him German
Ambassador in Ankara” (D-632).
It should also be noted that for his Turkish activities, Hitler rewarded
Von Papen with the Knight’s Cross of the War Merit Order with Swords
(D-632).
Thus, evidence submitted establishes beyond doubt that:
a) Von Papen actively aided the Nazis in their seizure of power.
b) Von Papen used both his efforts and his connections to solidify and
strengthen the Hitlerian terroristic regime in Germany.
c) Von Papen actively participated in the Nazi aggression against
Austria culminating in its occupation.
d) Von Papen faithfully served Hitler up to the very end, aiding the
Nazi plans of aggression both with his ability and his diplomatic skill.
It therefore follows that Defendant Von Papen bears considerable
responsibility for the crimes of the Hitlerite regime.
For these reasons I cannot consent to the acquittal of Defendant Von
Papen.
III. _The Unfounded Acquittal of Defendant Fritzsche_
The acquittal of Defendant Hans Fritzsche follows from the reasoning
that Fritzsche, allegedly, had not reached in Germany the official
position making him responsible for the criminal actions of the Hitler
regime and that his own personal activity in this respect cannot be
considered criminal. The verdict characterizes him as a secondary figure
carrying out the directives of Goebbels and Von Ribbentrop, and of the
Reich Press Director Dietrich.
The verdict does not take into consideration or mention the fact that it
was Fritzsche who until 1942 was the director _de facto_ of the Reich
press and that, according to himself, subsequent to 1942 he became the
“commander-in-chief of the German radio” (Transcript, Morning Session,
23 January 1946).
For the correct definition of the role of Defendant Hans Fritzsche it is
necessary, firstly, to keep clearly in mind the importance attached by
Hitler and his closest associates (as Göring, for example) to propaganda
in general and to radio propaganda in particular. This was considered
one of the most important and essential factors in the success of
conducting an aggressive war.
In the Germany of Hitler, propaganda was invariably a factor in
preparing and conducting acts of aggression and in training the German
populace to accept obediently the criminal enterprises of German
fascism.
The aims of these enterprises were served by a huge and well centralized
propaganda machinery. With the help of the police controls and of a
system of censorship it was possible to do away altogether with the
freedom of press and of speech.
The basic method of the Nazi propagandistic activity lay in the false
presentation of facts. This is stated quite frankly in Hitler’s _Mein
Kampf_: “With the help of a skilful and continuous application of
propaganda it is possible to make the people conceive even of heaven as
hell and also make them consider heavenly the most miserly existence”
(USA-276).
The dissemination of provocative lies and the systematic deception of
public opinion were as necessary to the Hitlerites for the realization
of their plans as were the production of armaments and the drafting of
military plans. Without propaganda, founded on the total eclipse of the
freedom of press and of speech, it would not have been possible for
German fascism to realize its aggressive intentions, to lay the
groundwork and then to put to practice the War Crimes and the Crimes
against Humanity.
In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and
the radio that were the most important weapons.
In his court testimony, Defendant Göring named three factors as
essential in the successful conduct of modern war according to the Nazi
concept, namely, (1) the military operations of the armed forces, (2)
economic warfare, (3) propaganda. With reference to the latter he said:
“For what great importance the war of propaganda had, enemy
propaganda which extended by way of radio far into the
hinterland, no one has experienced more strongly than Germany”
(Transcript, Afternoon Session, 15 March 1946).
With such concepts in ascendance it is impossible to suppose that the
supreme rulers of the Reich would appoint to the post of the Director of
Radio Propaganda who supervised radio activity of all the broadcasting
companies and directed their propagandistic content—a man they
considered a secondary figure.
The point of view of the verdict contradicts both the evidence submitted
and the actual state of affairs.
Beginning with 1942 and into 1945 Fritzsche was not only Chief of the
Radio Department of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda but also
“Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of Radio in Greater
Germany”. This circumstance is fully proven by the sworn affidavit of
Fritzsche himself (PS-3469, USA-721). It thus follows that not at all
was Fritzsche merely “one of the 12 departmental chiefs in the Ministry
of Propaganda” who acquired responsibility for all radio propaganda only
toward the end of the war, as the verdict asserts.
Fritzsche was the political director of the German radio up and into
1945, i. e., up to the moment of German defeat and capitulation. For
this reason it is Fritzsche who bears responsibility for the false and
provocative broadcasts of the German radio during the years of the war.
As Chief of the Press Section inside Germany it was also Fritzsche who
was responsible for the activity of the German daily press consisting of
2,300 newspapers. It was Fritzsche who created and perfected the
Information Section winning from the Reich Government for the purpose an
increase in the subsidy granted the newspapers from 400,000 to 4,000,000
marks. Subsequently Fritzsche participated energetically in the
development of the propaganda campaigns preparatory to the acts of
aggression against Czechoslovakia and Poland. (Transcript, Morning
Session, 23 January 1946). A similar active propaganda campaign was
conducted by the defendant prior to the attack on Yugoslavia as he
himself admitted on oath in Court (Transcript, Morning Session, 23
January 1946).
Fritzsche was informed of the plan to attack the Soviet Union and was
made _au courant_ of the military intentions at a conference with
Rosenberg (PS-1039, USA-146, “Rosenberg’s Written Report to Hitler on
the Subject of Preliminary Work in Eastern European Questions”).
Fritzsche headed the German press campaign falsifying reports of
Germany’s aggressive war against France, England, Norway, the Soviet
Union, the United States, and the other States.
The assertion that Fritzsche was not informed of the War Crimes and the
Crimes against Humanity then being perpetrated by the Hitlerites in the
occupied regions does not agree with the facts. From Fritzsche’s
testimony in Court it is obvious that already in May 1942, while in the
Propaganda Section of the 6th Army, he was aware of Hitler’s decree
ordering execution for all Soviet political workers and Soviet
intellectuals, the so-called “Commissar Decree” (Transcript, Afternoon
Session, 27 June 1946). It is also established that already at the
beginning of hostilities Fritzsche was fully aware of the fact that the
Nazis were carrying out their decision to do away with all Jews in
Europe. For instance, when commenting on Hitler s statement that “among
results of the war there will be the annihilation of the Jewish race in
Europe” (Transcript, Afternoon Session, 22 November 1945), Fritzsche
stated that: “As the Führer predicted it would occur in the event of war
in Europe, the fate of the European Jewry turned out to be quite sad”
(Transcript, Morning Session, 23 January 1946). It is further
established that the defendant systematically preached the anti-social
theory of race hatred and characterized peoples inhabiting countries
victimized by aggression as “sub-humans” (Transcript, Afternoon Session,
27 June 1946; Transcript, Morning Session, 28 June 1946).
When the fate of Nazi Germany became clear, Fritzsche came out with
energetic support of the Defendant Martin Bormann and of other fanatical
Hitler adherents who organized the undercover fascist association, the
so-called “Werewolf”.
On 7 April 1945, for example, in his last radio address, Fritzsche
agitated for all the civilian population of Germany to take active part
in the activities of this terroristic Nazi underground organization.
He said:
“Let no one be surprised to find the civilian population,
wearing civilian clothes, still continuing the fight in the
regions already occupied and even after occupation has taken
place. We shall call this phenomenon “Werewolf” since it will
have arisen without any preliminary planning and without a
definite organization, out of the very instinct of life.”
(USSR-496)
In his radio addresses Fritzsche welcomed the German use of the new
terror weapons in conducting the war, specifically the use of the “V”
rockets. On receiving a plan for the introduction of bacterial warfare
he immediately forwarded it to the OKW for acceptance. (USSR-484;
Evidence submitted during the Afternoon Session, 28 June 1946)
I consider Fritzsche’s responsibility fully proven. His activity had a
most basic relation to the preparation and the conduct of aggressive
warfare as well as to the other crimes of the Hitler regime.
IV. _Concerning the Sentence of the Defendant Rudolf Hess_
The Judgment of the Tribunal correctly and adequately portrays the
outstanding position which Rudolf Hess occupied in the leadership of the
Nazi Party and State. He was indeed Hitler’s closest personal confidant
and his authority was exceedingly great: In this connection it is
sufficient to quote Hitler’s decree appointing Hess as his deputy: “I
hereby appoint Hess as my deputy and give him full power to make
decisions in my name on all questions of Party leadership” (Transcript,
Afternoon Session, 7 February 1946).
But the authority of Hess was not only confined to questions of Party
leadership.
The official NSDAP publication _National Socialist Year Book for 1941_
states that:
“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: First—participation in national and state
legislation, including the preparation of the Führer’s order.
The deputy of the Führer in this way validates the conception of
the Party . . . Second—approval of the deputy of the Führer of
proposed appointments for official, and labor service leaders.
Third—securing the influence of the Party over the
self-government of the municipal units.” (USA-255, PS-3163)
Hess was an active supporter of Hitler’s aggressive policy. The Crimes
against Peace committed by him are dealt with in sufficient detail in
the Judgment. The mission undertaken by Hess in flying to England should
be considered as the last of these crimes, as it was undertaken in the
hope of facilitating the realization of aggression against the Soviet
Union by temporarily restraining England from fighting.
The failure of this mission led to Hess’s isolation and he took no
direct part in the planning and commission of subsequent crimes of the
Hitler regime. There can be no doubt, however, that Hess did everything
possible for the preparation of these crimes.
Hess, together with Himmler, occupied the role of creator of the SS
police organizations of German fascism which afterwards committed the
most ruthless Crimes against Humanity. The defendant clearly pointed out
the “special tasks” which faced the SS formations in occupied
territories.
When the Waffen SS was being formed Hess issued a special order through
the Party Chancellery which made aiding the conscription of Party
members into these organizations by all means compulsory for Party
organs. He outlined the tasks set before the Waffen SS as follows:
“The units of the Waffen SS composed of National Socialists are more
suitable than other armed units _for the specific tasks to be solved in
the occupied Eastern territories_ due to the intensive training in
regard to questions of race and nationality” (GB-267, PS-3245).
As early as 1934 the defendant initiated a proposal that the so-called
SD under the Reichsführer SS (Security Service) be given extraordinary
powers and thus become the leading force in Nazi Germany.
On 9 June 1934 Hess issued a decree in accordance with which the
“Security Service of the Reichsführer SS” was declared to be the “sole
political news and defense service of the Party” (GB-257).
Thus the defendant played a direct part in the creation and
consolidation of the system of special police organs which were being
prepared for the commission of crimes in occupied territories.
We find Hess to have always been an advocate of the man-hating “master
race” theory. In a speech made on 16 January 1937 while speaking of the
education of the German Nation, Hess pointed out: “_Thus, they are being
educated to put Germans above the subjects of a foreign nation_,
regardless of their positions or their origin” (GB-253, PS-3124).
Hess signed the so-called “Law for the Protection of Blood and Honor” on
15 September 1935 (USA-200, PS-3179). The body of this law states that
“the Führer’s deputy is authorized to issue all necessary decrees and
directives” for the practical realization of the “Nuremberg decrees”.
On 14 November 1935, Hess issued an ordinance under the Reich
citizenship law in accordance with which the Jews were denied the right
to vote at elections or hold public office (GB-258, PS-1417).
On 20 May 1938 a decree signed by Hess extended the Nuremberg laws to
Austria (GB-259, PS-2124).
On 12 October 1939 Hess signed a decree creating the administration of
Polish occupied territories (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, No. 210, 1939, p.
2077). Article 2 of this decree gave the Defendant Frank the power of
dictator.
There is sufficiently convincing evidence showing that this defendant
did not limit himself to this general directive which introduced into
the occupied Polish territories a regime of unbridled terror. As is
shown in the letter of the Reichsminister of Justice to the Chief of the
Reich Chancellery dated 17 April 1941, Hess was the initiator in the
formation of special “penal laws” for Poles and Jews in occupied Eastern
territories. The role of this defendant in the drawing up of these
“laws” is characterized by the Minister of Justice in the following
words:
“In accordance with the opinion of the Führer’s deputy I started
from the point of view that the Pole is less susceptible to the
infliction of ordinary punishment . . . . 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
. . . . The introduction of corporal punishment, which the
deputy of the Führer has brought up for discussion has not been
included in the draft. I can not agree to this type of
punishment . . . . The procedure for enforcing prosecution has
been abrogated, for it seemed intolerable that Poles or Jews
should be able to instigate a public indictment. Poles and Jews
have also been deprived of the right to prosecute in their own
names or join the public prosecution in an action . . . . From
the very beginning it was intended to intensify special
treatment in case of need: When this necessity became actual a
supplementary decree was issued to which the Führer’s deputy
refers to in his letter . . . .” (GB-268, R-96)
Thus, there can be no doubt that Hess together with the other major war
criminals is guilty of Crimes against Humanity.
Taking into consideration that among political leaders of Hitlerite
Germany Hess was third in significance and played a decisive role in the
crimes of the Nazi regime, I consider the only justified sentence in his
case can be death.
V. _Incorrect Judgment with regard to the Reich Cabinet_
The Prosecution has posed before the Tribunal the question of declaring
the Reich Cabinet a criminal organization. The verdict rejects the claim
of the Prosecution, unfoundedly refusing to declare the Hitler
Government a criminal organization.
With such a decision I cannot agree.
The Tribunal considers it proven that the Hitlerites have committed
innumerable and monstrous crimes.
The Tribunal also considers it proven that these crimes were as a rule
committed intentionally and on an organized scale, according to
previously prepared plans and directives (“Plan Barbarossa”, “Night and
Fog”, “Bullet”, etc.).
The Tribunal has declared criminal several of the Nazi mass
organizations founded for the realization and putting into practice the
plans of the Hitler Government.
In view of this it appears particularly untenable and rationally
incorrect to refuse to declare the Reich Cabinet the directing organ of
the State with a direct and active role in the working out of the
criminal enterprises, a criminal organization. The members of this
directing staff had great power, each headed an appropriate Government
agency, each participated in preparing and realizing the Nazi program.
In confirmation it is deemed proper to cite several facts:
1. Immediately after the Nazi accession to power—on 24 March
1933—there was a law passed entitled “The Law of Defense of the People
and the State” whereby the Reich Cabinet, besides the Reichstag, was
empowered to enact new laws.
On 26 May 1933 the Reich Government issued a decree ordering the
confiscation of the property of all Communist organizations and on 14
June, the same year, it also confiscated the property of the Social
Democrat organizations. On 1 December 1933 the Reich Government issued
the law “Ensuring Party and State Unity”.
Following through its program of liquidating democratic institutions, in
1934 the Government passed a law of the “Reconstruction of the Reich”
whereby democratic elections were abolished for both central and local
representative bodies. The Reichstag thereby became an institution
without functional meaning. (Transcript, Afternoon Session, 22 November
1945)
By the law of 7 April 1933 and others, all Reich Government employees,
including judges, ever noted for any anti-Nazi tendencies or ever having
belonged to leftist organizations, as well as all Jews, were to be
removed from the Government service and replaced by Nazis. In accordance
with the “Basic Positions of the German Law on Government Employees” of
26 January 1937, “the inner harmony of the official and the Nazi Party
is a necessary presupposition of his appointment to his post . . . .
Government employees must be the executors of the will of the National
Socialist State, directed by the NSDAP.” (Defense Document Number 28)
On 1 May 1934 there was created the Ministry of Education instructed to
train students in the spirit of militarism, of racial hatred, and in
terms of reality thoroughly falsified by Nazi ideology (PS-2078).
Free trade unions were abolished, their property confiscated, and the
majority of the leaders jailed.
To suppress even a semblance of resistance the Government created the
Gestapo and the concentration camps. Without any trial or even a
concrete charge hundreds of thousands of persons were arrested and then
done away with merely on a suspicion of an anti-Nazi tendency.
There were issued the so-called “Nuremberg Laws” against the Jews. Hess
and Frick, both members of the Reich Government, implemented these by
additional decrees.
It was the activity of the Reich Cabinet that brought on the war which
took millions of human lives and caused inestimable damage in property
and in suffering borne by the many Nations.
On 4 February 1938, Hitler organized the Secret Council of Ministers
defining its activity as follows: “To aid me by advice on problems of
foreign policies I am creating this Secret Council”
(_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1938, Part I, p. 112, PS-2031). The foreign policy
of the Hitler Government was the policy of aggression. For this reason
the members of the Secret Council should be held responsible for this
policy. There were attempts in Court to represent the Secret Council as
a fictitious organization, never actually functioning. This however is
an inadmissible position. It is sufficient to recall Rosenberg’s letter
to Hitler where the former insistently tried to be appointed member of
the Secret Council of Ministers—to appreciate fully the significance of
the Council.
Even more important practically in conducting aggressive warfare was the
Reich Defense Council headed by Hitler and Göring. The following were
members of the Defense Council, as is well known: Hess, Frick, Funk,
Keitel, Raeder, Lammers (PS-2194; PS-2018).
Göring characterized the function of the Defense Council and its role in
war preparations as follows, during the Court session of 23 June 1939:
“The Defense Council of the Reich _was the deciding Reich organ on all
questions concerning preparation for war_“ (PS-3787, USA-782).
At the same time Göring emphasized the fact that “the meeting of the
Defense Council always took place for the purpose of making the most
important decisions”. From the minutes of these meetings, submitted as
evidence by the Prosecution, it is quite clear that the Council made
very important decisions indeed. The minutes also show that other
Cabinet Ministers sometimes took part in the meetings of the Defense
Council alongside the members of the Council when war enterprises and
war preparedness were discussed.
For example, the following Cabinet Ministers took part in the meeting of
23 June 1939: of Labor, of Food and Agriculture, of Finance, of
Communication, and a number of others, while the minutes of the meeting
were sent to all the members of the Cabinet (USA-782).
The verdict of the Tribunal justly points out certain peculiarities of
the Hitler Government as the directing organ of the State, namely: the
absence of regular cabinet meetings, the occasional issuance of laws by
the individual Ministers having unusual independence of action, the
tremendous personal power of Hitler himself. These peculiarities do not
refute but on the contrary further confirm the conclusion that the
Hitler Government is not an ordinary rank and file cabinet but a
criminal organization.
Certainly Hitler had an unusual measure of personal power but this in no
way frees of responsibility the members of his Cabinet who were his
convinced followers and the actual executors of his program until and
when the day of reckoning arrived.
I consider that there is every reason to declare the Hitler Government a
criminal organization.
VI. _Incorrect Judgment with regard to the General Staff
and the OKW_
The verdict incorrectly rejects the accusation of criminal activity
directed against the General Staff and the OKW.
The rejection of the accusation of criminal activity of the General
Staff and of the OKW contradicts both the actual situation and the
evidence submitted in the course of the Trial.
It has been established beyond doubt that the Leadership Corps of the
Armed Forces of Nazi Germany, together with the SS-Party machine,
represented the most important agency in preparing and realizing the
Nazi aggressive and man-hating program. This was constantly and
forcefully reiterated by the Hitlerites themselves in their official
bulletins meant for the officer personnel of the armed forces. In the
Nazi Party bulletin called “Politics and the Officer in the III Reich”
it is quite clearly stated that the Nazi regime is founded on
“. . . two pillars: the Party and the Armed Forces. Both are
forms of expression of the same philosophy of life . . . the
tasks before the Party and the Armed Forces are in an organic
relationship to each other and each bears the same
responsibility . . . both these agencies depend on each other’s
success or failure.” (PS-4060, USA-928)
This organic inter-relationship between the Nazi Party and the SS on the
one hand and the Nazi Armed Forces on the other hand, was particularly
evident among the upper circles of military hierarchy which the
Indictment groups together under the concept of criminal
organization—that is, among the members of the General Staff and the
OKW.
The very selection of members of the Supreme Command of the Army in Nazi
Germany was based on the criteria of their loyalty to the regime and
their readiness not to pursue aggressive militaristic policies but also
to fulfill such special directives as related to treatment meted out to
prisoners of war and to the civilian populations of occupied
territories.
The leaders of the German Armed Forces were not merely officers who
reached certain levels of the military hierarchy. They represented,
first of all, a closely-knit group which was entrusted with the most
secret plans of the Nazi leadership. Evidence submitted to the Tribunal
has fully confirmed the contention that the military leaders of Germany
justified this trust completely and that they were the convinced
followers and ardent executors of Hitler’s plans.
It is not accidental that at the head of the Air Force stood the “second
man” of the Nazi Reich, namely Göring; that the Commander-in-Chief of
the Navy was Dönitz, subsequently designated by Hitler to be the
latter’s successor; that the command of the Ground Forces was
concentrated in the hands of Keitel who signed the major part of the
decrees concerning the execution of the prisoners of war and of the
civilians in occupied territories.
Thus the comparisons made with the organization of the supreme commands
in Allied countries cannot be considered valid. In a democratic country,
not one self-respecting military expert would agree to prepare plans for
mass reprisals and merciless killings of prisoners of war side by side
with plans of a purely military and strategic character.
Meanwhile it is precisely such matters that occupied the supreme command
of the General Staff and of the OKW in Nazi Germany. The commission by
them of the heaviest Crimes against Peace, of the War Crimes, and of the
Crimes against Humanity is not denied but is particularly emphasized in
the verdict of the Tribunal. And yet the commission of these crimes has
not brought the logical conclusion.
The verdict states: “They have been a disgrace to the honorable
profession of arms. Without their military guidance the aggressive
ambitions of Hitler and his fellow Nazis would have been academic and
sterile . . . .”
And subsequently:
“Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier’s oath of
obedience to military orders. When it suits their defense they
say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler’s brutal
crimes, which are shown to have been within their general
knowledge, they say they disobeyed. The truth is they actively
participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent,
witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more
shocking than the world ever had the misfortune to know. This
must be said.”
All these assertions in the verdict are correct and are based on
numerous and reliable depositions. It remains only incomprehensible why
“these hundred or so higher officers” who have caused the world and
their own country so much suffering should not be acknowledged a
criminal organization.
The verdict advances the following reasons for the decision, reasons
quite contradictory to the facts:
a) That the crimes were committed by representatives of the General
Staff and of the OKW as private individuals and not as members of a
criminal conspiracy.
b) That the General Staff and the OKW were merely weapons in the hands
of the conspirators and interpreters or executors of the conspirators’
will.
Considerable evidence disputes such conclusions.
1. _The leading representatives of the General Staff and of the OKW,
along with a small circle of the higher Hitlerite officials, were called
upon by the conspirators to participate in the development and the
realization of the plans of aggression, not as passive functionaries,
but as active participants in the conspiracy against peace and
humanity._
Without their advice and active cooperation, Hitler could not have
solved these problems.
In the majority of cases their opinion was decisive. It is impossible to
imagine how the aggressive plans of Hitler’s Germany could have been
realized had it not been for the full support given him by the leading
staff members of the armed forces.
Least of all did Hitler conceal his criminal plans and motivations from
the leaders of the High Command.
For instance, while preparing for the attack on Poland, as early as 29
May 1939, at a conference with the high military commanders of the new
Reich Chancellery, he stated:
“For us the matter consists of the expansion of ‘Lebensraum’ to
the East. Thus the question of sparing Poland cannot be
considered, and, instead, we have to consider the decision to
attack Poland at the first opportunity.” (L-79)
Long before the seizure of Czechoslovakia, in a directive of 30 May
1938, Hitler, addressing the representatives of the High Command,
cynically stated: “From the military and political point of view, the
most favorable time is a lightning attack on the basis of some incident,
by which Germany will have been strongly provoked and which will morally
justify the military measures to at least part of the world opinion”
(PS-388).
Prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, in a directive dated 27 March 1941,
addressing the representatives of the High Command, Hitler wrote: “Even
if Yugoslavia declares its loyalty, it must be considered an enemy and
must, therefore, be smashed as soon as possible” (PS-1746).
While preparing for the invasion of the U.S.S.R., Hitler invited the
representatives of the General Staff and the OKW to help him work out
the related plans and directives not at all as simply the military
experts.
In the instructions to apply propaganda in the region “Barbarossa”,
issued by the OKW in June 1941, it is pointed out that: “For the time we
should not have propaganda directed at the dismemberment of the Soviet
Union” (USSR-477).
As early as 13 May 1941, OKW ordered the troops to use any terrorist
measures against the civilian populations of the temporarily occupied
regions of the Soviet Union.
And the same order read: “To confirm only such sentences as are in
accordance with the political intentions of the High Command.” (G-50.)
2. _OKW and the General Staff issued the most brutal decrees and orders
for relentless measures against the unarmed peaceful population and the
prisoners of war._
In the decree of special liability to punishment in the region
“Barbarossa” while preparing for the attack upon the Soviet Union, the
OKW abolished beforehand the jurisdiction of the military courts,
granting the right of repressions over the peaceful population to
individual officers and soldiers.
It is particularly stated there that:
“Crimes of hostile civilians are excluded from the jurisdiction
of the courts martial, . . . Suspected elements must be
immediately delivered to the officer. The latter will decide
whether they should be shot . . . it is absolutely forbidden to
hold suspects for the purpose of bringing them to trial.”
There are also provisions for “the most extreme measures, and, in
particular, ‘measures for mass violence’, if circumstances do not permit
the rapid detection of the guilty.”
In the same decree of the OKW the guarantee of impunity was assured in
advance to the military criminals from the service personnel of the
German Army. It states there as follows: “The bringing of suits of
actions, committed by officials of the Army and by the service personnel
against hostile civilians is not obligatory even in cases where such
actions at the same time constitute military crimes or offenses . . . .”
In the course of the war the High Command consistently followed this
policy, increasing its terroristic actions with regard to prisoners of
war and the peaceful populations of occupied countries.
The OKW directive of 16 September 1941, states: “At the same time, it
must be borne in mind that a human life in the countries in question is
frequently held to be of no account and that a warning example can be
made only by measures of exceptional severity” (PS-389).
Addressing the commanders of the army groups on 23 July 1941, the OKW
simply briefed them as follows: “It is not in the demand for additional
security detachments, but in the application of appropriate draconic
measures that the commanding officers must use to keep order in the
regions under their jurisdiction” (PS-459).
The OKW directive of 16 December 1941, states: “The troops . . . have
the right and are obliged to apply . . . any measures whatsoever _also
against women and children_ if this contributes to success . . . .”
(USSR-16).
Among the most brutal OKW directives concerning the treatment of
prisoners of war one must consider the order entitled “Kugel (bullet)”.
The reasons for resorting to capital punishment for prisoners of war
were offenses, which according to international conventions, generally
should not carry any punishment (for example, escape from the camp).
Another order, “Nacht und Nebel”, states:
“Penalty for such offenses, consisting of loss of freedom and
even a life sentence is a sign of weakness. Only death sentence
or measures which entail ignorance of the fate of the guilty by
local population will achieve real effectiveness.” (L-90,
USA-224; Transcript, Afternoon Session, 25 January 1946)
In the course of the present Trial a great deal of evidence of
application of the “Kugel” order has been submitted. One of the examples
of this kind of crime is the murder of 50 officer-pilots. The fact that
this crime was inspired by the High Command cannot be doubted.
OKW also distributed an order for the destruction of the “commando”
units. The original order was submitted to the Court (PS-498, USA-501).
According to this order officers and soldiers of the “commando” units
had to be shot, except in cases when they were to be questioned, after
which they were shot in any case.
These orders were unswervingly carried out by the commanding officers of
Army units. In June 1944 Rundstedt, the Commander-in-Chief of the German
troops in the West, reported that Hitler’s order in regard to “the
treatment of the ‘commando’ groups of the enemy is still being carried
out” (PS-531, USA-550).
3. _The High Command, along with the SS and the Police, is guilty of the
most brutal police actions in the occupied regions._
The instructions relating to special regions, issued by OKW on 13 March
1941, contemplated the necessity of synchronizing the activities in
occupied territories between the army command and the Reichsführer of
the SS. As is seen from the testimony of the chief of the 3d Department
of RSHA and who was concurrently chief of the Einsatzgruppe “D”, Otto
Ohlendorf, and of the chief of the VI Department of RSHA, Walter
Schellenberg, in accordance with OKW instructions there was an agreement
made between the General Staff and the RSHA about the organization of
special “operational groups” of the Security Police and
SD—“Einsatzgruppen”, assigned to the appropriate army detachments.
Crimes committed by the Einsatzgruppen on the territory of the
temporarily occupied regions are countless. The Einsatzgruppen were
acting in close contact with the commanding officers of the appropriate
army groups.
The following excerpt from the report of Einsatzgruppe “A” is extremely
characteristic as evidence:
“. . . among our functions as the establishment of personal
liaison with the commanding officer both at the front and in the
rear. It must be pointed out that the relations with the army
were of the best, in some cases very close, almost hearty, as,
for instance, the commander of the tank group, Colonel-General
Hoppner” (L-180).
4. _The representatives of the High Command acted in all the echelons of
the army, as members of a criminal group._
The directives of the OKW and the General Staff, in spite of the
manifest violations of international law and customs of warfare, not
only did not provoke any protest on the part of the higher staff
officers of the command of the various groups of the armies but were:
inflexibly applied and supplemented by still more cruel orders in the
development of such directives.
In this connection it is characteristic to note the directive of
Fieldmarshal Von Reichenau, army group commander, addressed to his
soldiers: “The soldier in the eastern territories is not only a warrior
skilled in the art of warfare but a bearer of a merciless national
ideology.” And elsewhere, calling for the extermination of the Jews, Von
Reichenau wrote: “Thus the soldier must be in full cognizance of the
necessity for harsh and just revenge on those sub-humans, the Jews”
(USA-556).
As another, example the order of Fieldmarshal Von Mannstein addressed to
his soldiers can be referred to. On the basis of the “political aims of
the war” the Fieldmarshal cynically appealed to his soldiers to wage the
war in violation of the “recognized laws of warfare in Europe”
(USA-927).
Thus, in the course of the hearing of evidence it has been proven
beyond, all, doubt, that the General Staff and the High Command of the
Hitlerite Army comprised a highly dangerous criminal organization.
* * * *
I consider it my duty as a Judge to draw up my dissenting opinion
concerning those important questions on which I disagree with, the
decision adopted by the members of the Tribunal,
Soviet Member, International Military Tribunal,
Major General Jurisprudence.
/s/ I. T. Nikitchenko
1 October 1946
SENTENCES
In accordance with Article 27 of the Charter, the President of the
International Military Tribunal, at its concluding session of 1 October
1946, pronounced the sentence on the defendants convicted on the
Indictment:
“Defendant Hermann Wilhelm Göring, on the Counts of the Indictment on
which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal
sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Rudolf Hess, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for
life.
“Defendant Joachim von Ribbentrop, on the Counts of the Indictment on
which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by
hanging.
“Defendant Wilhelm Keitel, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Ernst Kaltenbrunner, on the Counts of the Indictment on which
you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, on the Counts of the Indictment on which
you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Hans Frank, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have
been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Wilhelm Frick, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Julius Streicher, on the Count of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Walter Funk, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for
life.
“Defendant Karl Dönitz, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to 10 years’
imprisonment.
“Defendant Erich Raeder, on the Counts of the indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to imprisonment for
life.
“Defendant Baldur Von Schirach, on the Count of the Indictment on which
you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to 20 years’
imprisonment.
“Defendant Fritz Sauckel, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Alfred Jodl, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.
“Defendant Arthur Seyss-Inquart, on the Counts of the Indictment on
which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by
hanging.
“Defendant Albert Speer, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you
have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to 20 years’
imprisonment.
“Defendant Constantin von Neurath, on the Counts of the Indictment on
which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to 15 years’
imprisonment.
“The Tribunal sentences the Defendant Martin Bormann, on the Counts of
the Indictment on which he has been convicted, to death by hanging.”
Tabulation of Sentences
30th September 1946[20]
Defendant Counts on Sentence
which
convicted
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING 1, 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
RUDOLF HESS 1, 2 Imprisonment for life
JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP 1, 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
WILHELM KEITEL 1, 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
ERNST KALTENBRUNNER 3, 4 Death by hanging
ALFRED ROSENBERG 1, 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
HANS FRANK 3, 4 Death by hanging
WILHELM FRICK 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
JULIUS STREICHER 4 Death by hanging
WALTER FUNK 2, 3, 4 Imprisonment for life
HJALMAR SCHACHT Not guilty
KARL DÖNITZ 2, 3 Ten years’ imprisonment
ERICH RAEDER 1, 2, 3 Imprisonment for life
BALDUR VON SCHIRACH 4 Twenty years’
imprisonment
FRITZ SAUCKEL 3, 4 Death by hanging
ALFRED JODL 1, 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
FRANZ VON PAPEN Not guilty
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART 2, 3, 4 Death by hanging
ALBERT SPEER 3, 4 Twenty years’
imprisonment
CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH 1, 2, 3, 4 Fifteen years’
imprisonment
HANS FRITZSCHE Not guilty
MARTIN BORMANN 3, 4 Death by hanging
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE, President
/s/ FRANCIS BIDDLE A TRUE COPY
/s/ H. DONNEDIEU DE VABRES /s/ JOHN E. RAY
/s/ NIKITCHENKO Colonel, FA
-----
[20] These sentences were read in open court by the President on 1
October 1946.
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Punctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document
depending on the author. Multiple occurrences of the following spellings
which differ and are found throughout the book are as follows:
cooperate co-operate
fifh column fifth-column
gas wagons gas-wagons
peace time peace-time
Nazi dominated Nazi-dominated
Reichsführer SS Reichsführer-SS
Major General Major-General
Brigadier General Brigadier-General
Governor General Governor-General
Government General Government-General
An attempt has been made to produce this ebook in a format as close as
possible to the original document's presentation and layout.
[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal: Nuremberg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Vol. 1)_,
by Various.]
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I - Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946: Vol. I" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.