Home
  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
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Vol. I)
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Vol. I)" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by TIA-US.



                          [Cover Illustration]



                            NAZI  CONSPIRACY
                            AND  AGGRESSION

                              _VOLUME  I_


                       _Office of United States_
                   _Chief of Counsel For Prosecution_
                         _of Axis Criminality_

                             [Illustration]

                UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                          WASHINGTON  •  1946



                            For Sale by the
                      Superintendent of Documents
                    U. S. Government Printing Office
                          Washington 25, D. C.



American and British Prosecuting Staffs for presentation before the
International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany, in the case of

    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED
    KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF
    SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

                               —against—

    HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM von RIBBENTROP,
    ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED
    ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER
    FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH, KARL
    DOENITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR von SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL,
    ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ von PAPEN, ARTUR
    SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN von NEURATH, and HANS
    FRITZSCHE, Individually and as Members of Any of the Following
    Groups or Organizations to which They Respectively Belonged,
    Namely: DIE REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER
    POLITISCHEN LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN
    ARBEITERPARTEI (LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY); DIE
    SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN
    ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”) and including DIE
    SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
    STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the
    “GESTAPO”); DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER N.S.D.A.P. (commonly known
    as the “SA”) and the GENERAL STAFF and HIGH COMMAND of the
    GERMAN ARMED FORCES all as defined in Appendix B of the
    Indictment,

                                                        Defendants.



                            C O N T E N T S


                                                                    Page
 Preface                                                               v
 Chapter
    I. Agreement by the United States, France, Great Britain, and
       the Soviet Union for the Prosecution and Punishment of the
       Major War Criminals of the European Axis                        1

   II. Charter of the International Military Tribunal and Protocol
       of 6 October 1945                                               4

  III. International Military Tribunal, Indictment No. 1 and
       Statement of Reservation Filed by U. S. Chief of Counsel       13

   IV. Motions, Rulings, and Explanatory Material Relating to
       Certain of the Defendants                                      83
        1. Robert Ley                                                 83
        2. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach                        84
        3. Martin Bormann                                             94
        4. Ernst Kaltenbrunner                                        95
        5. Julius Streicher                                           96
        6. Rudolf Hess                                                97

    V. Opening Address for the United States                         114

   VI. Organization of the Nazi Party and State                      175

  VII. Means used by the Nazi Conspirators in Gaining Control of
       the German State                                              184
        1. Common Objectives, Methods, and Doctrines of the
           Conspiracy                                                184
        2. Acquisition of Totalitarian Political Control             199
        3. Consolidation of Totalitarian Political Control           218
        4. Purge of Political Opponents and Terrorization            239
        5. Destruction of the Free Trade Unions and Acquisition of
           Control over the Productive Labor Capacity                252
        6. Suppression of the Christian Churches                     263
        7. Adoption and Publication of the Program for Persecution
           of Jews                                                   296
        8. Reshaping of Education and Training of Youth              312
        9. Propaganda, Censorship, and Supervision of Cultural
           Activities                                                328
       10. Militarization of Nazi Organizations                      341

 VIII. Economic Aspects of the Conspiracy                            349

   IX. Launching of Wars of Aggression                               370
        1. The Plotting of Aggressive War                            370
        2. Preparation for Aggression: 1933-1936                     410
        3. Aggression Against Austria                                450
        4. The Execution of the Plan to Invade Czechoslovakia        515
        5. Opening Address for the United Kingdom                    593
        6. Aggression as a Basic Nazi Idea: Mein Kampf               644
        7. Treaty Violations                                         651
        8. Aggression against Poland, Danzig, England and France     673
        9. Aggression against Norway and Denmark                     733
       10. Aggression against Belgium, the Netherlands, and
           Luxembourg                                                760
       11. Aggression against Greece and Yugoslavia                  775
       12. Aggression against the USSR                               794
       13. Collaboration with Italy and Japan and Aggressive War
           against the United States: November 1936 to December
           1941                                                      840

    X. The Slave Labor Program, the Illegal Use of Prisoners of
       War, and the Special Responsibility of Sauckel and Speer
       Therefor                                                      875

   XI. Concentration Camps                                           949

  XII. The Persecution of the Jews                                   978

 XIII. Germanization and Spoliation                                 1023

  XIV. The Plunder of Art Treasures                                 1097



                                PREFACE


                                   I

On the 2d day of May 1945, President Truman signed Executive Order 9547
appointing Justice Robert H. Jackson as Representative of the United
States and as its Chief of Counsel in the preparation and prosecution of
the case against the major Axis war criminals. Since that date and up to
the present, the staff of the Office of Chief of Counsel, or OCC, has
been engaged continuously in the discovery, collection, examination,
translation, and marshalling of documentary evidence demonstrating the
criminality of the former leaders of the German Reich. Since the 20th
day of November 1945, a considerable part of this documentary arsenal
has been directed against the 22 major Nazi war criminals who are on
trial before the International Military Tribunal in Nurnberg. As of this
writing the American and British cases-in-chief, on Counts I and II of
the Indictment charging, respectively, conspiracy and the waging of wars
of aggression, have been completed.

There is perhaps no need to recall in these pages that the Nurnberg
trial represents the first time in history that legal proceedings have
been instituted against leaders of an enemy nation. It is perhaps equal
supererogation to state here that there are no exact precedents for the
charges made by the American, British, French, and Russian prosecutors
that to plot or wage a war of aggression is a crime for which
individuals may be punished. Yet it was because of these very facts that
in its indictment the prosecution presented a challenge to itself quite
as great as to the defense. A heavy burden was laid on the accusing
nations to make sure that their proof measured up to the magnitude of
their accusations, and that the daring of their grand conception was
matched by the industry of their research, lest the hard-bought
opportunity to make International Law a guardian of peace should fail by
default.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the American collecting and
processing of documentary evidence, under the general direction of Col.
Robert G. Storey, gradually developed into an operation of formidable
scope. Although some pieces of evidence were secured in Washington and
London, by far the greater part was obtained in the land of the enemy.
As the American Armies had swept into Germany, military investigating
teams had filled document centers with an increasing wealth of materials
which were freely made available by the Army to OCC field investigators.
Special assistance was given by the Document Section, G-2 Division,
SHAEF, and by the Document Sections of the Army Groups and Armies
operating in the European Theater. OCC investigators also made valuable
discoveries while prospecting on their own. They soon found themselves
embarrassed with riches. Perhaps foremost among the prize acquisitions
was the neatly crated collection of all the personal and official
correspondence of Alfred Rosenberg, together with a great quantity of
Nazi Party correspondence. This cache was discovered behind a false wall
in an old castle in Eastern Bavaria, where it had been sent for
safekeeping. Another outstanding collection consisted of thirty-nine
leather-bound volumes containing detailed inventories of the art
treasures of Europe which had been looted by the _Einsatzstab
Rosenberg_. These catalogues, together with much of the priceless
plunder itself, were found hidden deep in an Austrian salt mine. An
innocent-appearing castle near Marburg was found to contain some 485
tons of crated papers, which inspection revealed to be the records of
the German Foreign Office from 1837 to 1944. Among other outstanding
bulk acquisitions were more than 300 crates of German High Command
files, 85 notebooks containing minutes of Hitler’s conferences, and the
complete files of the German Navy.

The task was to screen thoroughly this abundance of material so as to
overlook no relevant item, and yet at the same time to obtain the proof
and to translate it in season, so as not to delay preparation of the
Indictment or commencement of the trial. The procedures followed in this
process are described in the affidavit of Maj. William H. Coogan
(_001-A-PS_), which is listed numerically among the documents. As a
result of those procedures, more than 100,000 documents were
individually examined in order to segregate those of importance. Of
these 100,000 documents, approximately 4,000 were found to be of clear
or potential value. This group of 4,000 was further reduced through
exacting standards of elimination to a total of some 2,000 documents
which it was proposed to offer in evidence, and which make up the bulk
of this publication. Thus, the documents presented in these volumes are
the fittest survivors of a rigorous sifting. Each of them has met
requirements designed to ensure the selection of only the most
significant in bearing on the American case. Documents primarily
concerned with the report of individual barbarities or perversions were
excluded, in conformity with the emphasis placed upon those tending to
prove elements in the Nazi Master Plan.

These documents consist, in the main, of official papers found in
archives of the German Government and Nazi Party, diaries and letters of
prominent Germans, and captured reports and orders. There are included,
in addition, excerpts from governmental and Party decrees, from official
newspapers and from authoritative German publications. The authenticity
of all these materials is established by Maj. Coogan’s affidavit
(_001-A-PS_). Considered together, they reveal a fairly comprehensive
view of the inner workings and outward deeds of the German government
and of the Nazi Party, which were always concealed from the world, and
for which, the world will always hold the Hitler regime in horror and
contempt.

                                   II

It is important that it be clearly understood what this collection of
documents is not. In the first place, it is neither an official record,
nor an unofficial transcript of the trial proceedings. It is not
designed to reproduce what has taken place in court. It is merely the
documentary evidence prepared by the American and British prosecuting
staffs, and is in no wise under the sponsorship of the Tribunal. It is
presented in the belief that this collection containing the full text of
the documents, classified under appropriate subjects, may be more useful
to students of the Nurnberg trial than the official record, when
prepared, may be.

The reason for this goes back to the first few days of the trial, when
the Tribunal ruled that it would treat no written matter as in evidence
unless it was read in full, word by word, in court. The purpose of the
ruling was to enable the documentary material which the American and
British staffs had translated from German into English to be further
translated into Russian and French through the simultaneous interpreting
system in the courtroom. The consequence, however, was to enforce upon
the American and British prosecution the task of trimming their evidence
drastically unless the trial was to be protracted to an unconscionable
length. Counsel therefore had to content themselves in most instances
with introducing, by reading _verbatim_, only the most vital parts of
the documents relied upon. Only these evidentiary minima appear in the
daily transcript, and presumably, since no more is officially in
evidence under the Tribunal’s ruling, no more can properly be included
in the official record. It has frequently been the case, furthermore,
that different parts of certain documents were read in proof of
different allegations, and hence are scattered throughout the
transcript. American counsel, in several instances, read only sketchy
portions of some documents, leaving other portions, at the request of
the French and Soviet delegations, to be read later as a part of their
case. Still other portions of the same document will undoubtedly be read
later on by the defense. It is an unavoidable consequence that the
transcript itself will be a thing of shreds and patches, and that any
comprehensive and orderly notion of the documentary evidence must be
obtained elsewhere. The documentary excerpts, when accompanied by the
explanation of trial counsel, are of course sufficient for the trial and
for the judgment of the Tribunal. But the purposes of historians and
scholars will very likely lead them to wish to examine the documents in
their entirety. It is to those long-range interests that these volumes
are in the main addressed.

Secondly, this collection of documents is not the American case. It is
at once more and less than that. It is less, because it of course cannot
include the captured motion picture and still photographic evidence
relied upon, and because it contains only a few of the organizational
charts and visual presentation exhibits utilized at the trial. It is
more, because although it does contain all the evidence introduced
either in part or in whole by the American staff in proof of Count I, it
also includes many documents not introduced into evidence at all. There
were various reasons for not offering this material to the Tribunal: the
documents were cumulative in nature, better documents were available on
the same point, or the contents did not justify the time required for
reading. (The document index at the end of Volume VIII is marked to
indicate which documents were introduced, either in whole or in part, in
evidence.) Of more than 800 American documents so far introduced in
evidence, a small number were received through judicial notice or oral
summarization, while some 500 were read, in part or in whole, in court.
Approximately 200 more went into evidence in the first few days of the
trial, under an earlier ruling of the Tribunal which admitted documents
without reading, and merely on filing with the court after proof of
authenticity. Of the documents not now in evidence and thus not before
the Tribunal for consideration in reaching its decision, many have been
turned over to the French and Soviet prosecuting staffs and, by the time
these volumes are published, will have been introduced in the course of
their cases. Others will have been put before the Tribunal by the
American case in rebuttal or utilized in cross-examining witnesses
called by the defense.

This publication includes a series of affidavits prepared under the
direction of Col. John Harlan Amen, chief of the OCC Interrogation
Division. Those which were introduced into evidence are listed among the
documents in the _PS_ series. A number of affidavits which were not
offered to the Tribunal are printed in a separate section at the end of
the document series. Affidavits of the latter type were prepared in an
attempt to eliminate surprise by delineating clearly the testimony which
the affiant might be expected to give in court, should it be decided to
call him as a witness. In the case of the affiants who testified in
court, their affidavits represent a substantially accurate outline of
their testimony on direct examination. Others of the affiants may, by
the time of publication, have been called as rebuttal witnesses for the
prosecution. In addition, there are included selected statements of
certain defendants and prisoners written to the prosecutors from prison.
It should be mentioned in this connection that as a result of many
months of exhaustive questioning of the defendants, prisoners of war,
and other potential witnesses, the Interrogation Division has harvested
approximately 15,000 typewritten pages of valuable and previously
unavailable information on a variety of subjects. These extensive
transcripts represent approximately 950 individual interrogations and
are presently being edited and catalogued in Nurnberg so that the
significant materials may be published in a useful form and within a
manageable scope, as a supplement to these present volumes.

This collection also includes approximately 200 documents obtained and
processed by the British prosecuting staff, known as the British War
Crimes Executive, and presented in substantiation of Count II of the
Indictment, which the British delegation assumed the responsibility of
proving. It seems altogether fitting that these documents should be
included in these volumes since, in proving illegal acts of aggression,
they naturally supplement the American documents proving the illegal
conspiracy to commit aggression. The American prosecuting staff is
grateful to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the British Deputy Chief Prosecutor,
from whom and from the goodly company of whose associates there has ever
been the most generous cooperation, for consent to the publication of
the British documents by the United States Government.

Under the division of the case agreed on by the Chief Prosecutors of the
four Allied nations, the French and Soviet delegates are responsible for
the presentation of evidence bearing on the proof of Count III (War
Crimes) and Count IV (Crimes against Humanity) of the Indictment. The
French case will concern itself with these crimes when committed in the
West, while the Russian evidence will concern the commission of these
crimes in the East. None of the documents obtained by these two
prosecuting nations are included in these volumes. The reason is that,
at this writing, the French case has just commenced and the Soviet case
will not be reached for several weeks. Since one of the objects of this
undertaking is to acquaint the American public at the earliest
opportunity with the character of the evidence produced by its
representatives, there seems no justification in delaying publication
until the close of the French and Russian cases, when all the
prosecution documents will be available. As is indicated by the title of
these present volumes, _Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression_, this collection
relates only to Counts I and II of the Indictment, or one-half of the
prosecution case. It is to be hoped, however, that supplementary volumes
containing the French and Soviet documents may be published at a later
time.

Finally, this collection, by its nature limited to a part of the
prosecution case, does not of course purport to present the whole story
of the evidence adduced at Nurnberg. The evidence and arguments of
defense counsel will not be presented for some time, and the text of
these matters will, if possible, be included in any additional volumes,
which it may become possible to publish.

                                  III

On the other hand, it may be useful to indicate what this collection is.
The publication is offered in accordance with the conviction which has
constantly animated the American prosecution, that only a part of its
duty would have been done if it succeeded in persuading the judges of
the International Military Tribunal. Its full task will be accomplished
only if the world is also convinced of the justness of the cause. There
were always some people who, perhaps under the spell of the exposure of
the “atrocity propaganda” used in the First World War, felt that the
deceptions and the outrages laid to the Nazis were quite possibly untrue
and in any event exaggerated. The mission of convincing these skeptics
is one that has not been and cannot be discharged by newspaper reports
of the Nurnberg proceedings, which by their nature are incomplete and
evanescent. But an inspection of the Nazis’ own official records should
suffice to banish all honest doubts, and to make it undeniably clear
that those things really happened because the Nazis planned it that way.
It is the hope of the American prosecution that these volumes may in
some measure expose, for the warning of future generations as well as a
reminder to the present, the anatomy of National Socialism in all its
ugly nakedness. Many of these documents disclose the repressive
governmental machinery and intricate Party bureaucracy by which the
Nazis stifled initiative and opposition. They reveal also the image of
horror which a gang of brigands created in the name of the German state,
in order to seize and maintain power for themselves at the expense of
the liberties of their own people and the lives of their neighbors.
Legal proof has perhaps seldom been so overwhelming, certainly never so
self-admitted, as is this proof of the deeds with which the Nazi
leadership befouled the earth.

Yet, although these documents naturally are concerned primarily with the
guilt of the leaders of the German Reich, they also contain a wealth of
information, much of it hitherto unavailable elsewhere, on many other
matters of importance. Their pages illuminate many dark corners of
recent history. Hence, this collection has an additional purpose. It is
offered as a source book, of interest to historians, political
scientists, students, universities, libraries, government agencies,
private research groups, newspaper editors, and others, so that they may
see, from the official papers of the Nazi government and from the words
of its own leaders, the things that went on in Germany in the days of
that blasphemous regime. These papers, although they include a few legal
matters, are not addressed nor are they expected to appeal primarily to
lawyers. The satisfaction of these professional interests must perforce
be postponed until publication of the official record of the trial.

                                   IV

It is apparent that such a vast collection of documents on a variety of
subjects would be useless to any one not thoroughly conversant with the
field, without some sort of guide through the maze. That is the reason
for the first two volumes, which consist of various explanatory
materials included in order to facilitate understanding. The average
reader who tries to cope with some of the more pompous of the Nazi
titles—such as _Beauftragter des Fuehrers fuer die ueberwachung des
Gesamten Geistigen und Weltausschaulichers Schulung und Erziehung der
NSDAP_, or Delegate of the Fuehrer for the Total Supervision of
Intellectual and Ideological Training and Education of the Party
(Rosenberg)—is plainly in need of assistance. A Glossary of common
German and Nazi titles, designations, and terms has therefore been
compiled. For those who are unfamiliar with the difference between a
_Hauptmann_ and a _Hauptsturmfuehrer_, a table of military ranks, with
their American equivalents, has been prepared. A brief biographical
gazeteer of the more prominent Nazis, together with a listing of the
major officials of the Government, Party, and Armed Forces, has also
been included for reference purposes. In addition, an index of the
Code-Words used by the Nazis to preserve the secrecy of the invasions
they plotted has been compiled. Moreover, in order to make clear
developments in the proceedings affecting the status of several of the
defendants, certain motions of counsel and rulings of the Tribunal,
together with factual accounts, are also presented. And finally the
international treaties relating to land warfare and prisoners of war are
printed in full (_3737-PS_; _3738-PS_).

The principal content of Volumes I and II is composed of what might be
called essays, summarizing and connecting up most of the documents
relating to particular subjects in the order of their mention in Counts
I and II of the Indictment. As an additional aid, at the end of each
essay there appears a descriptive list of all documents referred to in
the essay, so that the reader may quickly discover which of the
published documents bear upon the subject in which he is interested. In
many cases these lists include documents not discussed in the essays for
the reason that they are cumulative in nature or were discovered
subsequent to the preparation of the essays.

Some of these essays are adaptations of factual “trial briefs” prepared
by the staff of OCC. Some of these “trial briefs” were handed to the
Tribunal for its assistance, while others were used only for the
guidance of trial counsel. Others of the essays have been adapted from
the oral presentation and summary of counsel in court. Their difference
in origin explains their difference in form. It must be borne in mind
that each of these essays, which were originally prepared for the
purpose of convincing the Tribunal of the legal guilt of the defendants,
has been submitted to a process of editing and revision in order to
serve a quite different purpose—to give the general reader a general
and coherent conception of the subject matter.

These essays bear the marks of haste and are not offered as in any sense
definitive or exhaustive. The task of translation from German into
English was a formidable one, and in many instances translations of
documents could be made available to the brief-writers only a few days
before the briefs were scheduled to be presented in court. In other
instances it was utterly impossible, with the constantly overburdened
translating staff available, to translate in full all the material known
to be of value if the prosecution was to be ready on the date set for
trial. The diary of Hans Frank, for example (_2233-PS_) consisted of 42
volumes, of which only a few outstanding excerpts, chosen by
German-reading analysts, were translated. Similarly, large portions of
the 250 volumes of the Rosenberg correspondence remain still
untranslated and unused. Books, decrees, and lengthy reports were not
translated, in full, and only salient excerpts were utilized.
Approximately 1,500 documents in the possession of OCC have not yet been
translated and more are being received daily. It is expected that they
will be used for purposes of cross-examination and rebuttal, and may
later be published.

It must also be remembered that these documents are, in the main,
translations from the original German. The magnitude of the task,
coupled with a sense of the hastening on of time, naturally resulted in
imperfections. However, an attempt has been made to preserve the format
of the original documents in the printed translations. Italics represent
underlining in the original documents and editorial additions have been
enclosed in brackets. The reader may notice occasional variations
between the English wording of documents quoted in the essays, and the
full text of the document itself. This divergence is explained by the
fact that translations of the same documents were sometimes made by two
different persons. Variations in the exact means of expression were of
course to be expected in such an event, yet both translations are of
equal authenticity. Certain passages of some documents may strike the
reader as confused or incomplete, and occasionally this is the result of
hasty work. More frequently, however the jumble of language accurately
reflects the chaos of the original German, for the language of National
Socialists was often merely a turgid and mystical aggregation of words
signifying nothing, to which the German language easily lends itself.
The accuracy of the translations is attested to in Maj. Coogan’s
affidavit (_001-A-PS_).

If the case had not been set down for trial until 1948, a complete and
satisfactory preparation would have been possible. A perfect case could
not have been made in less time. But the Allied governments and public
opinion were understandably impatient of delay for whatever reason, and
they had to be respected. The nature of the difficulties caused by the
pressure for speed were stated in Justice Jackson’s address opening the
American case:

    “In justice to the nations and the men associated in this
    prosecution, I must remind you of certain difficulties which may
    leave their mark on this case. Never before in legal history has
    an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single
    litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole
    Continent, and involving a score of nations, countless
    individuals, and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of
    the task, the world has demanded immediate action. This demand
    has had to be met, though perhaps at the cost of finished
    craftsmanship. In my country, established courts, following
    familiar procedures, applying well thumbed precedents, and
    dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events,
    seldom commence a trial within a year of the event in
    litigation. Yet less than eight months ago today the courtroom
    in which you sit was an enemy fortress in the hands of German SS
    troops. Less than eight months ago nearly all our witnesses and
    documents were in enemy hands. The law had not been codified, no
    procedures had been established, no Tribunal was in existence,
    no usable courthouse stood here, none of the hundreds of tons of
    official German documents had been examined, no prosecuting
    staff had been assembled, nearly all the present defendants were
    at large, and the four prosecuting powers had not yet joined in
    common cause to try them. I should be the last to deny that the
    case may well suffer from incomplete researches and quite likely
    will not be the example of professional work which any of the
    prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is,
    however, a completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask
    you to render, and its full development we shall be obliged to
    leave to historians.”

                                   V

No work in a specialized field would be complete without its own occult
paraphernalia, and the curious reader may desire an explanation of the
strange wizardry behind the document classification symbols. The
documents in the American series are classified under the cryptic
categories of “_L_,” “_R_,” “_PS_,” “_EC_,” “_ECH_,” “_ECR_,” and “_C_.”
The letter “_L_” was used as an abbreviation for “London,” and
designates those documents either obtained from American and British
sources in London or processed in the London Office of the OCC, under
the direction of Col. Murray C. Bernays and Col. Leonard Wheeler, Jr.
The letter “_R_” stands for “Rothschild,” and indicates the documents
obtained through the screening activities of Lt. Walter Rothschild of
the London branch of OSS. The origins of the “_PS_” symbol are more
mysterious, but the letters are an abbreviation of the amalgam,
“Paris-Storey.” The “_PS_” symbol, accordingly, denotes those documents
which, although obtained in Germany, were processed by Col. Storey’s
division of the OCC in Paris, as well as those documents later processed
by the same division after headquarters were established in Nurnberg.
The “_EC_” symbol stands for “Economic Case” and designates those
documents which were obtained and processed by the Economic Section of
OCC under Mr. Francis M. Shea, with field headquarters at Frankfurt. The
“_ECH_” variant denotes those which were screened at Heidelberg. The
letter “_C_,” which is an abbreviation for “Crimes,” indicates a
collection of German Navy documents which were jointly processed by
British and American teams, with Lt. Comdr. John Bracken representing
the OCC.

The British documents hence include some in the joint Anglo-American
“_C_” series. The remainder of the British documents are marked with the
symbols “_TC_,” “_UK_,” “_D_,” and “_M_.” The symbol “_TC_” is an
abbreviation of “Treaty Committee” and signifies the documents selected
by a Foreign Office Committee which assisted the British prosecution.
“_UK_” is the abbreviation for “United Kingdom” and indicates documents
collected from another source. No especial significance lurks in the
letters “_D_” and “_M_,” which were apparently the result of accident,
possibly caprice, rather than design. As a matter of record, however,
“_M_” stands for the first name of the British assistant prosecutor.
Finally, “_D_” is merely an humble filing reference, which may have had
some obscure connection with the word “document.”

The reader will note that there are numerous and often lengthy gaps in
the numbering of documents within a given series, and the documents are
not numbered in any apparent order. This anomaly is accounted for by
several different factors. As the documents avalanched into the OCC
offices they were catalogued and numbered in the order received without
examination. Upon subsequent analysis it was frequently found that an
earlier document was superseded in quality by a later acquisition, and
the earlier one was accordingly omitted. Others were withdrawn because
of lack of proof of their authenticity. Occasionally it was discovered
that two copies of the same document had been received from different
sources, and one of them was accordingly stricken from the list. In
other cases blocks of numbers were assigned to field collecting teams,
which failed to exhaust all the numbers allotted. In all these cases no
change was made in the original numbers because of the delay and
confusion which would accompany renumbering. Nor has renumbering been
attempted in this publication, and the original gaps remain. This is
because the documents introduced into evidence carried their originally
assigned numbers, and students of the trial who use these volumes in
conjunction with the official record will therefore be able to refer
rapidly from citations in the record of the proceedings to the text of
the documents cited.

                                   VI

It only remains to acknowledge the toil and devotion of the members of
the OCC staff who were responsible for the original preparation of the
materials contained in these volumes. Mention must first be made of Mr.
Gordon Dean, who was responsible in large part for the conception of
this undertaking, and of Lt. Comdr. Charles A. Horsky, USCGR (T) who set
in motion the governmental machinery necessary to publication.

The material in Chapter VI on the Organization of the Nazi Party and
State was originally prepared by Mr. Ralph G. Albrecht.

The essays in Chapter VII on the Means Used by the Nazi Conspirators in
Gaining Control of the German State were originally prepared by Col.
Leonard Wheeler, Jr., Lt. Col. Benjamin Kaplan, Maj. Frank B. Wallis,
Dr. Edmund A. Walsh, Maj. Seymour M. Peyser, Maj. J. Hartley Murray, Lt.
Paul Johnston, USNR, Lt. Comdr. Morton E. Rome, USNR, Capt. D. A.
Sprecher, Lt. Samuel E. Sharp, Lt. (jg) A. R. Martin, USNR, Lt. Henry V.
Atherton, and Lt. William E. Miller.

The materials on the Economic Aspects of the Conspiracy, contained in
Chapter VIII, on Slave Labor, contained in Chapter X, and on
Germanization and Spoliation, contained in Chapter XIII, were prepared
by Mr. Francis M. Shea, Mr. Benedict Deinard, Lt. Col. Murray I.
Gurfein, Lt. Comdr. W. S. Emmet, USNR, Lt. Thomas L. Karsten, USNR,
Capt. Sam Harris, Capt. James H. Mathias, Capt. Melvin Siegel, Capt.
Edward H. Kenyon, Lt. (jg) Bernard Meltzer, USNR, Lt. (jg) Brady O.
Bryson, USNR, Lt. Raymond Ickes, USMCR, Mr. Jan Charmatz, Mr. Walter
Derenberg, Mr. Sidney Jacoby, Mr. Werner Peiser, Mr. Edgar Bodenheimer,
and Mr. Leon Frechtel.

The materials contained in Chapter IX on Aggressive War, (except those
relating to Aggression as a Basic Nazi Idea, the Violation of Treaties,
and Aggression against Poland, Danzig, England and France, Norway and
Denmark, the Low Countries, and the Balkans) were prepared by Mr. Sidney
S. Alderman, Comdr. Sidney J. Kaplan, USCGR, Lt. Col. Herbert Krucker,
Maj. Lacey Hinely, Maj. Joseph Dainow, Lt. Comdr. Harold Leventhal,
USCGR, Lt. John M. Woolsey, Jr., USNR, Lt. James A. Gorrell, and Lt. Roy
H. Steyer, USNR.

The materials contained in Chapter XII, on Persecution of the Jews, in
Chapter XI on Concentration Camps, and in Chapter XIV on Plunder of Art
Treasures, were prepared by Col. Hardy Hollers, Maj. William F. Walsh,
Mr. Thomas J. Dodd, Capt. Seymour Krieger, Lt. Frederick Felton, USNR,
Lt. (jg) Brady O. Bryson, USNR, Mr. Hans Nathan, Mr. Isaac Stone, Lt.
Daniel F. Margolies, Capt. Edgar Boedeker, Lt. (jg) Bernard Meltzer,
USNR, Lt. Nicholas Doman, and Mr. Walter W. Brudno.

The materials contained in Chapter XVI on the responsibility of the
Individual Defendants were prepared by Col. Howard Brundage, Mr. Ralph
G. Albrecht, Dr. Robert M. W. Kempner, Lt. Col. William H. Baldwin, Maj.
Seymour M. Peyser, Maj. Joseph D. Bryan, Capt. D. A. Sprecher, Capt.
Norman Stoll, Capt. Robert Clagett, Capt. John Auchincloss, Capt.
Seymour Krieger, Lt. Whitney R. Harris, USNR, Lt. Frederick Felton,
USNR, Lt. Henry V. Atherton, Lt. Richard Heller, USNR, Mr. Henry
Kellerman, Mr. Frank Patton, Mr. Karl Lachmann, Mr. Bert Heilpern, Mr.
Walter Menke, Mr. Joseph Michel, Mr. Walter W. Brudno, Mrs. Katherine
Walch, Miss Harriet Zetterberg, Lt. (jg) Brady O. Bryson, USNR, and
Capt. Sam Harris.

The materials contained in the first six sections of Chapter XV on the
Criminal Organizations were prepared by Lt. Col. George E. Seay, Maj.
Warren F. Farr, Lt. Comdr. Wm. S. Kaplan, USNR, Lt. Whitney R. Harris,
USNR, Miss Katherine Fite, Maj. Robert G. Stephens, Lt. Thomas F.
Lambert, Jr., USNR, and Mr. Charles S. Burdell.

The materials contained in Section 7 of Chapter XV on the General Staff
and High Command were prepared on behalf of the American delegation by
Col. Telford Taylor, Maj. Loftus Becker, Maj. Paul Neuland, Capt. Walter
Rapp, Capt. Seymour Krieger, and Mr. Charles Kruszeawski; with the
assistance of a British staff made jointly available to both the
American and British delegations, consisting of W/Cdr. Peter
Calvocoressi, RAFVR, Maj. Oliver Berthoud, IC, Lt. Michael Reade, RNVR,
F/Lt. George Sayers, RAFVR, S/O Barbara Pinion, WAAF, W/O Mary Carter,
WAAF, and Miss Elizabeth Stewart.

The charts reproduced are among those introduced by the prosecution, and
were designed and executed by presentation specialists assigned to OCC
by the Office of Strategic Services, and headed by David Zablodousky
under the direction of Comdr. James B. Donovan, USNR.

Acknowledgment must also be made of the very effective labors of the
British delegation in preparing those materials in Chapter IX on
Aggressive War relating to Aggression as a Basic Nazi Idea, the
Violation of Treaties, and the Aggressions against Poland, Danzig,
England and France, Norway and Denmark, the Low Countries, and the
Balkans, as well as the materials in sections on Individual Defendants
relating to Streicher, Raeder, Doenitz, Neurath, and Ribbentrop. This
share of the common task was borne by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, K.C.,
M.P., Mr. Geoffrey D. Roberts, K.C., Lt. Col. J. M. G. Griffith-Jones,
M.C., Col. Harry J. Phillimore, O.B.E., and Maj. Elwyn Jones, M.P. The
British opening address was delivered by the Attorney General and chief
of the British delegation, Sir Hartley Shawcross, K.C., M.P.

Recognition is also due to Maj. F. Jay Nimitz, Miss Alma Soller, and
Miss Mary Burns, for their loyal and capable assistance in all the
harassing details of compiling, editing and indexing these numerous
papers.

One final word should be said in recognition of the financial burden
assumed by the State and War Departments, which have generously joined
in allocating from their budgets the very considerable funds required to
make this publication possible.

                                        Roger W. Barrett, Captain, JAGD
                              William E. Jackson, Lieutenant (jg), USNR
                                                               _Editors_

Approved:

  Robert H. Jackson
  _Chief of Counsel_
Nurnberg, 20 January 1946.



                               Chapter I


 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 the 30th 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.

_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
                                             [signed]  ROBERT H. JACKSON
                 For the Provisional Government of the French Republic
                                                  [signed]  ROBERT FALCO
             For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                 and Northern Ireland
                                                     [signed]  JOWITT C.
                             For the Government of the Union of Soviet
                                                  Socialist Republics
                                             [signed]  I. T. NIKITCHENKO
                                                 [signed]  A. N. TRAININ



                               Chapter II
             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 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; or persecution 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 Nurnberg,
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.

                 *        *        *        *        *

                                PROTOCOL

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 semi-colon 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 semi-colon 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 reduction en esclavage, la deportation, et tout
autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations civiles, avant ou
pendant la guerre, ou bien les persecutions pour des motifs politiques,
raciaux, ou religieux, lorsque ces actes ou persecutions, qu’ils aient
constitue ou non une violation du droit interne du pays ou ils ont ete
perpetres, ont ete commis a la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la
competence 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/  FRANCOIS 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



                              Chapter III
                    INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL,
                          INDICTMENT NUMBER 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

                               —AGAINST—

HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP, ROBERT
LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK,
WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV
KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL DOENITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR VON
SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ VON PAPEN,
ARTUR SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH, AND HANS
FRITZSCHE, =Individually and as Members of Any of the Following
Groups or Organisations to Which They Respectively Belonged,
Namely=: DIE REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER
POLITISCHEN LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI
(LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY); DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER
NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (=commonly known
as the= “SS”) AND INCLUDING DIE SICHERHEITSDIENST (COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE “SD”); DIE GEHEIME STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE,
=commonly known as the= “GESTAPO”); DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER
N.S.D.A.P. (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE “SA”) AND THE GENERAL STAFF AND HIGH
COMMAND OF THE GERMAN ARMED FORCES ALL AS DEFINED IN APPENDIX B.

                                                              Defendants


                               INDICTMENT

                                   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, Francois 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 8th 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
GOERING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP, ROBERT LEY, WILHELM
KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM
FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP VON
BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL DOENITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR VON SCHIRACH,
FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ VON PAPEN, ARTUR
SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH AND HANS FRITZSCHE,
individually and as members of any of the 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 DIE
SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the “GESTAPO”);
DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER N.S.D.A.P. (commonly known as the “SA”); and
the GENERAL STAFF and HIGH COMMAND of the GERMAN ARMED FORCES. 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 8th 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 wanton 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 Fuehrer 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 1914-1918 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 Fuehrerprinzip
(leadership principle) according to which power was to reside in a
Fuehrer 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 capture 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 30th January, 1933, Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic.
After the Reichstag fire of 28th 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 para-governmental
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 “co-ordinated” 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
GOERING 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 programme 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 labour 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 rearmament programme 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 GOERING as
Plenipotentiary, vesting it with overriding control over Germany’s
economy. Furthermore, on 28th August, 1939, immediately before launching
their aggression against Poland, they appointed the defendant FUNK
Plenipotentiary for Economics; and on 30th August, 1939, they set up the
Ministerial Council for the Defence 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 rearm 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 7th 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 14th October, 1933, they led Germany to leave the
International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.

    (_c_) On 10th March, 1935, the defendant GOERING announced that
Germany was building a military air force.

    (_d_) On 16th 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 21st 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 7th March, 1936, they reoccupied and fortified the
Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact
of Locarno of 16th 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 21st 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 1st 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 11th 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 Fuehrer and Chancellor of 21st
    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
    5th 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 to
    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 8th February, 1938, called Chancellor Schuschnigg to a
    conference at Berchtesgaden. At the meeting of 12th 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
    20th 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, subversive activities of Nazis in Austria
    increased. Schuschnigg on 9th March, 1938, announced a
    plebiscite for the following Sunday on the question of Austrian
    independence. On 11th 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
    12th March, 1938. On 13th 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 21st April, 1938, the Nazi conspirators met and prepared
    to launch an attack on Czechoslovakia not later than 1st
    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 21st 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 3rd September,
    1938, it was decided that all troops were to be ready for action
    on 28th 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 29th September, 1938,
    involving the cession of the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia to
    Germany. Czechoslovakia was required to acquiesce. On 1st
    October, 1938, German troops occupied the Sudetenland.

    4. On 15th 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 23rd 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 1st
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, in violation of the terms of the Briand-Kellogg
Pact, 1928. 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 9th April, 1940;
Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg on 10th May, 1940; Yugoslavia
and Greece on 6th April, 1941. All these invasions had been specifically
planned in advance.

6. _German invasion on June 22nd, 1941, of the U.S.S.R. territory in
violation of Non-Aggression Pact of 23rd August, 1939_

On June 22nd, 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, churches,
historic monuments. The mass deportation of the Soviet citizens for
slave labor to Germany, as well as the annihilation of old people, women
and children, especially Belo-Russians and Ukrainians. The extermination
of Jews committed throughout the 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 ten-year
military-economic alliance signed at Berlin on 27th September, 1940.
This agreement, representing a strengthening of the bonds among those
three nations established by the earlier but more limited pact of 25th
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 of 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 7th 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 11th
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 1st 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 8th 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, 1st September, 1939; against the United Kingdom and
France, 3rd September, 1939; against Denmark and Norway, 9th April,
1940; against Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, 10th May, 1940;
against Yugoslavia and Greece, 6th April, 1941; against the U.S.S.R.,
22nd June, 1941; and against the United States of America, 11th
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 1st September, 1939, and
8th May, 1945, in Germany and in all those countries and territories
occupied by the German armed forces since 1st 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 with religious services, 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 centre 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, Ravensbruck, 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 Clermon-Ferrand[Clermont-Ferrand?] on
25th November, 1943); at Lyons; at Marseilles (round-up of 40,000
persons in January, 1943); at Grenoble (round-up on 24th December,
1943); at Cluny (round-up on 24th December, 1944); at Figeac (round-up
in May, 1944); at Saint Pol de Leon (round-up in July, 1944); at Locminé
(round-up on 3rd July, 1944); at Eyzieux (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 practised in all the prisons of France, notably in Paris,
Lyons, Marseilles, Rennes, Metz, Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse, Nice,
Grenoble, Annecy, Arras, Bethune, Lille, Loos, Valenciennes, Nancy,
Troyes and Caen, and in the torture chambers fitted up at the Gestapo
centres.

In the concentration camps, the health regime, and the labour 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 Compiegne to
Auschwitz in January, 1943, 180 died of exhaustion by the end of four
months.

      2. 143 Frenchmen died of exhaustion between 23rd March and 6th
May, 1943, in Block 8 at Dachau.

      3. 1,797 Frenchmen died of exhaustion between 21st November, 1943,
and 15th 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 1st
January, 1943, and 15th April, 1945.

      6. 11,560 detainees died of exhaustion at Dachau Camp (most of
them in Block 30 reserved for the sick and infirm) between 1st January
and 15th 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 Ravensbruck, study of the evolution of cancer
of the womb at Auschwitz, of typhus at Buchenwald, anatomical research
at Natzweiller, heart injections at Buchenwald, bone grafting and
muscular excisions at Ravensbruck, 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 also systematic extermination was practised, notably at Asq on
1st April, 1944, at Colpo on 22nd July, 1944, at Buzet sur Tarn on 6th
July, 1944 and on 17th August, 1944, at Pluvignier on 8th July, 1944, at
Rennes on 8th June, 1944, at Grenoble on 8th July, 1944, at Saint Flour
on 10th June, 1944, at Ruisnes on 10th 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 Genies Laval, Besancon, 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, Liege, 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, Esthonian,
Latvian, Lithuanian, Karelo-Finnish, and Moldavian Soviet Socialist
Republics, in 19 regions of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist
Republic, and in Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, 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
centre of Berlin (hereinafter called “Eastern Germany”)._

From the 1st September, 1939, when the German armed forces invaded
Poland, and from the 22nd 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 U. S. A., Great
Britain, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Holland, brought to this region
from other concentration camps.

In the Jewish ghetto from 7th September, 1941, to 6th 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 neighbouring 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 Esthonian S.S.R. they shot tens of thousands of persons and in
one day alone, 19th 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 neighbouring 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 Smolenck 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 shot and tortured.

In the Stalingrad region more than 40,000 persons were killed and
tortured. 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, 1941, 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 centre of the city and
shot them in public.

In the city of Lyda in the Grodenen region on 8th 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 6th September to 24th 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, which 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 LABOUR 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 labour upon defence 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 1,500-2,500
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 voyage, for example:

In one of the wagons of the train which left Compiegne for Buchenwald,
on the 17th September, 1943, 80 men died out of 130;

On 4th June, 1944, 484 bodies were taken out of the train at Sarrebourg;

In a train which left Compiegne on the 2nd 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 Compiegne on the 16th 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 voyage;

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 departed from
their country under deplorable conditions as a result of which many of
them perished.

From Belgium between 1940 and 1941 at least 190,000 civilians were
deported to Germany and used as slave labour. 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.

750,000 Czechoslovakian citizens were taken away for forced labor
outside the Czechoslovak frontiers in the interior of the German war
machine.

On June 4, 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 examples 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 February
8th, 1945.

Bodily punishments were inflicted upon non-commissioned officers and
cadets who refused to work. On December 24th, 1943, three French N.C.O’s
were murdered for that motive in Stalag IV A. Many ill-treatments were
inflicted without motive on other ranks: stabbing with bayonets,
striking with rifle-butts 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 gaols 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, 1 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
Stalag 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
Kuebler 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 Chateabriant.

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 USSR 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 tons
             Siderurgical products             3,822,000 tons
             Bauxite                           1,211,800 tons
             Cement                            5,984,000 tons
             Lime                              1,888,000 tons
             Quarry products                  25,872,000 tons

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 tons
               Milk                      790,000 hectolitres
               Milk (concentrated        460,000 hectolitres
                 and in powder)
               Butter                     76,000 tons
               Cheese                     49,000 tons
               Potatoes                  725,975 tons
               Various vegetables        575,000 tons
               Wine                    7,647,000 hectolitres
               Champagne              87,000,000 bottles
               Beer                    3,821,520 hectolitres
               Various kinds of        1,830,000 hectolitres
                 alcohol

                   _Removal of Manufactured Products_

to a total of 184,640,000 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 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 Fuehrer has decided to erase from the face of the earth St.
Petersburgh. 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. Petersburgh 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 calibres 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 Lev Tolstoy, “Yasnaya Polyana”
and desecrated the grave of the great writer. They destroyed in Klin the
museum of Tsaikovsky 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 Esthonia 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 German 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 harbours,
locks, dykes 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 in 1941, 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 practised the senseless
destruction of populated places. Lezaky and Lidice were burned to the
ground and the inhabitants killed.

                 (_H_) CONSCRIPTION OF CIVILIAN LABOUR

Throughout the occupied territories the defendants conscripted and
forced the inhabitants to labour 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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 endeavoured to assimilate
those territories politically, culturally, socially and economically
into the German Reich. The defendants endeavoured to obliterate the
former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these
plans and endeavours, 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, Holland.

In France in the Departments of the Aisne, the Nord, the Meurthe and
Moselle, and especially in that of the 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 labourers.

In the Department of the Upper Rhine, the Lower Rhine and the 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 September 21st
expulsions and deportation of populations began and on November 22nd,
1940, more than 70,000 Lorrainers or Alsacians were driven into the
South zone of France. From July 31, 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 2nd January, 1942, all the young people of the Departments of
the Upper Rhine and the Lower Rhine, aged from 10 to 18 years, were
incorporated in the Hitler Youth. The same thing was done in the Moselle
from 4th 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 28th September, 1940, an order applicable to the Department of
the Moselle ordained the Germanization of all the surnames and christian
names which were French in form. The same thing was done from the 15th
January, 1943, in the Departments of the Upper Rhine and the Lower
Rhine.

4. Two orders from the 23rd to 24th August, 1942, imposed by force
German nationality on French citizens.

5. On the 8th May, 1941, for the Upper Rhine and the Lower Rhine, the
23rd April, 1941, for the Moselle, orders were promulgated enforcing
compulsory labour service on all French citizens of either sex aged from
17 to 25 years. From the 1st January, 1942, for young men and from the
26th January, 1942, for young girls, national labour service was
effectively organized in the Moselle. It was from the 27th August, 1942,
in the Upper-Rhine and in the 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 labour service. On the 19th August, 1942, an order
instituted compulsory military service in the Moselle. On the 25th
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 the 3rd September, 1942. Later in the Upper Rhine and the
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 8th May, 1945 in Germany and in all those countries and
territories occupied by the German armed forces since 1st 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, 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; favoured 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 labour, 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 the 1st September, 1939, and until 8th 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 the 1st September, 1939.

Since the 1st 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 Thaelmann. They imprisoned in
concentration camps numerous political and religious personages, for
example Chancellor Schuschnigg and Pastor Niemoeller.

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.

                                 ROBERT H. JACKSON.
                     _Acting on Behalf of the United States of America._
                              FRANCOIS DE MENTHON.
                         _Acting on Behalf of the French Republic._
                                HARTLEY SHAWCROSS.
                     _Acting on Behalf of the United Kingdom of Great_
                             _Britain and Northern Ireland._
                                     R. RUDENKO.
                     _Acting on Behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist_
                                      _Republics._

_Berlin, 6th 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:

GOERING:

The defendant GOERING between 1932-1945 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 Goering Industrial Combine, and Successor
Designate to Hitler. The defendant GOERING used the foregoing positions,
his personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 was: a member of the Nazi
Party, a member of the Nazi Reichstag, Advisor to the Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer’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 Fuehrer 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
Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer, Reich Minister without Portfolio, member of the
Reichstag, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defence of the
Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet Council, Successor Designate to the
Fuehrer after the defendant Goering, 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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
“Voelkischer 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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, Odz 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer’s Deputy, head of the
Party Chancery, Secretary of the Fuehrer, member of the Council of
Ministers for the Defence 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 position, his personal influence and his
intimate connection with the Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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 Moresnot, Director of the Central Office for the
Protectorate of Bohemia, Moravia, the Government General, 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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 Fuehrer 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 Labour 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 1932-1945 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 1932-1945 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945: 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 Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer
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
Defence Commissioner and Reichstatthalter and Gauleiter of Vienna. The
defendant SCHIRACH used the foregoing positions, his personal influence
and his intimate connection with the Fuehrer 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 1932-1945 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
prompted 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 1932-1945 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 Stuermer”.
The defendant STREICHER used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his close connection with the Fuehrer 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 Defence of the
Reich, and Field Marshal. The defendant KEITEL used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence and his intimate connection with the
Fuehrer 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 Violations 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 and Chief of Staff OKW and Colonel-General.
The defendant JODL used the foregoing positions, his personal influence,
and his close connection with the Fuehrer 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.

DOENITZ:

The defendant DOENITZ 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 DOENITZ used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Fuehrer 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 Bureo”, 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 fuer die Reichsverteidigung (Council
of Ministers for the Defence of the Reich).

    (iii) Members of der Geheimer Kabinettsrat (Secret Cabinet Council).

Under the Fuehrer, 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, “Politischer 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 Hoheitstraeger, 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 Politischer 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 DIE SICHERHEITSDIENST (COMMONLY
                            KNOWN AS THE SD)

“Die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
(commonly known as the SS) including Die 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
Verbaende, SS Polizei Regimente and the Sicherheitsdienst des
Reichsfuehrers-SS (commonly known as the SD).

The SS, originally established by Hitler in 1925 as an élite section of
the SA to furnish a protective guard for the Fuehrer and Nazi Party
leaders, became an independent formation of the Nazi Party in 1934 under
the leadership of the Reichsfuehrer-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 Fuehrer.
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 Reichsfuehrer-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 Reichsfuehrers-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 GOERING 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 Fuehrer, 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 labour 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 Fuehrungstabes des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief
    of the Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces)

    Stellvertretender Chef des Fuehrungstabes 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 the
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, on 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
Fuehrer 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 12 March 1938, at various
points and places along the German-Austrian 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 Fuehrer 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 Assurance of Germany given on 3
September 1939, 28 April 1939 and 6 October 1939 that they would not
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.

                 *        *        *        *        *

               STATEMENT OF RESERVATION TO THE INDICTMENT

Upon the signing of the Indictment in Berlin on 6 October 1945, Justice
Jackson, on behalf of the United States, filed the following statement
of reservation with the Tribunal and with the Chief Prosecutors of
France, Great Britain, and Soviet Russia:

                                                              Berlin
                                                          6 October 1945

M. Francois 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 USSR. 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,
                                            [signed]  Robert H. Jackson
                                                      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.



                               Chapter IV
               MOTIONS, RULINGS, AND EXPLANATORY MATERIAL
                  RELATING TO CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS


Although 24 individuals were named as defendants in the Indictment
signed in Berlin on 6 October 1945, only 22 remained as defendants when
the trial commenced on 20 November. The number had been reduced by the
suicide of Robert Ley and by the Tribunal’s severance of Gustav Krupp
von Bohlen und Halbach from the proceedings. Of the 22 surviving
defendants only 20 appeared in the prisoners’ dock at the opening of
court. Martin Bormann, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary,
was presumed to be alive and at large. Ernst Kaltenbrunner had been
hospitalized by a cranial hemorrhage, and as a consequence was unable to
be present at the trial save for one period of a few days.

Defense counsel for two of the twenty men in the prisoners’ dock, Hess
and Streicher, sought to have the proceedings against their clients
dismissed on the grounds of their mental incapacity to stand trial.
Expert medical examiners concluded that both defendants were fit to
defend themselves, and the proceedings against them were resumed. One of
them, Hess, who had claimed to be a victim of amnesia, created something
of a sensation by confessing in open court that he had only been
pretending to suffer from amnesia and that his memory was actually in
good repair.

Fuller explanatory notes concerning the positions taken by the
prosecution and the defense and the actions of the Tribunal in the cases
of each of these six defendants, together with significant papers
bearing on these matters, are printed hereinafter.


                             1. ROBERT LEY

Pending the opening of the trial on 20 November 1945 the defendants were
held in the prison at the Palace of Justice in Nurnberg, under the
custody of the United States Army. In the evening of October 25 the
guard on watch before the cell of Robert Ley noticed that the prisoner
had maintained the same position for some time without moving. The guard
entered the cell to find that although the prison officials had taken
every known precaution, Ley had succeeded in committing suicide. Ley had
ripped the hemmed edge from a towel, twisted it, soaked it in water, and
fashioned it into a crude noose which he fastened to an overhead toilet
flush pipe. He had then stuffed his mouth with rags, apparently torn
from his own underwear. When he seated himself, strangulation was
produced, and Robert Ley had succeeded in accomplishing his exit from
the court of judgment, and from the world of living men. A farewell
message written by Ley, together with other statements made by him
during imprisonment, may be found at the end of the last volume
(_Statements_ XI-XIII).


                 2. GUSTAV KRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH

The name of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach stood thirteenth on the
list of twenty-four defendants accused in the Indictment signed in
Berlin on 6 October 1945. On 4 November counsel for Krupp filed a motion
requesting that the Tribunal defer proceedings against the defendant
until his health permitted him to stand trial, and that he should not be
tried in his absence. The Tribunal on 5 November appointed a medical
commission consisting of representatives of the Soviet Union, France,
Great Britain, and the United States, to examine Krupp and determine
whether he was fit to stand trial. On 12 November the Chief of Counsel
for the United States filed an answer opposing the motion of defense
counsel and proposing that Gustav Krupp should not be dismissed from the
proceedings unless Alfried Krupp, the son and sole owner of the Krupp
Works, were substituted as a defendant. On 14 November, before the
opening of the trial itself, the Tribunal heard oral argument by the
prosecution and defense, in which substantially the same views were
presented as had been previously expressed in the written motions.

The Tribunal on 15 November announced its ruling postponing the
proceedings against Gustav Krupp, but retaining the Indictment charges
against him on the docket for later trial if his physical and mental
condition should permit. The ruling stated that the question of adding
another name to the Indictment would be considered later. Thereupon, on
16 November, the American Chief of Counsel filed a memorandum with the
Tribunal stating as a matter of record that the United States was not
committed to participate in any subsequent four-power trial. On the same
day the Soviet and French Chief Prosecutors joined the United States
Chief of Counsel in a motion formally designating Alfried Krupp a
defendant. On the following day the Tribunal announced its ruling
rejecting the motion to add the name of Alfried Krupp as a defendant.

The significant papers pertaining to these questions are set forth
below.

 A. _MOTION BY DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
                  GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH_

                                              Nurnberg, 4 November 1945

THEODOR KLEFISCH
LAWYER
COLOGNE, 43, BLUMENTHALSTRASSE

To: The International Military Tribunal Nurnberg.

As defending counsel to the accused Dr. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und
Halbach I beg to state 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 Statute 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 the 19th 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, 2 medical certificates are enclosed viz. that of the
court medical expert Doctor Karl Gersdorf of Werfen Salzburg of 9th
September 1945 and that of the Professor Doctor Otto Gerke of Bedgnstein
of 13th September.

Latterly Herr Krupp von Bohlen has been examined several times by
American military doctors. As far as it is possible I should like to
request for another complete medical examination. If the accused is
unable to appear before the court, then according to article 12 of the
statute he could only be tried 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 statute:

1. By article 16 Section (a) of the statute a copy of the indictment in
a language which he understands will be served on the accused at a
suitably appointed time. 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
only 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 f.

The legislators who set up these guarantees for the defense, cannot wish
to deny them undeservedly to an accused who cannot make use of them
owing to illness. If by Article 12 of the statute the trial of an absent
defendant is allowed then this exception to the rule can only be applied
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.

                                                   [signed]  Klefisch
                                                                 Lawyer
B. _ANSWER FOR THE UNITED STATES TO THE MOTION FILED IN BEHALF OF KRUPP
                              VON BOHLEN_

To the International Military Tribunal:

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 the circumstances 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 interest of justice” requires 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. Krupp von Bohlen was only a nominal owner himself; his wife,
Bertha Krupp, owned the bulk of the stock. About 1937 their son, Alfried
Krupp, became plant manager and was actively associated in policy-making
and executive management thereafter. In 1940, Krupp von Bohlen, getting
on in years, became Chairman of the Board of the concerns, 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 March 1, 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 Fuehrer 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 April 25, 1931
von Bohlen acted as chairman of the Association of German Industry to
bring it into line with Nazi policies. On May 30, 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 Fuehrer 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 April 6th and 7th, 1938 two speeches approved
annexation of Austria; on October 13, 1938 he publicly approved Nazi
occupation of the Sudetenland; on September 4, 1939 he approved the
invasion of Poland; on May 6, 1941 he spoke commemorating the success of
Nazi arms in the West. Alfried Krupp also made speeches to the same
general effect. The Krupps were thus one of the most persistent and
influential forces that made this war.

The 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, the 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 October 12, 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:

                                                      _Marks_
         For year ending Sept. 30, 1935                57,216,392
         For year ending Sept. 30, 1938                97,071,632
         For year ending Sept. 30, 1941               111,555,216

The book value of the Krupp concerns mounted from 75,962,000 Marks on
October 1, 1933 to 237,316,093 Marks on October 1, 1943. Even this
included many going concerns in occupied countries carried 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
November 12, 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 June 7, 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. Learning the
serious condition of Krupp von Bohlen, immediately upon service of the
Indictment, 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 three-to-one. 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 can not, 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
considerations, 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:

                                           [signed]  Robert H. Jackson
                                                    ROBERT H. JACKSON,
                     Chief of Counsel for the United States of America.
 12 November 1945.
            C. _RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 15 NOVEMBER 1945_

  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COUNSEL FOR KRUPP VON BOHLEN FOR
         POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT

Council for Gustav Krupp von Bohlen has applied to the Tribunal for
postponement of the proceedings against this defendant on the ground
that his physical and mental condition are such that he is incapable of
understanding the proceedings against him and of presenting any defence
that he may have.

On November 5, the Tribunal appointed a medical commission composed of
the following physicians: R. E. Tunbridge, Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D.,
M.Sc., F.R.C.P., Consulting Physician, British Army of the Rhine; Rene
Piedelievre, M.D., professor a la Faculte de Medicine de Paris; Expert
pres les Tribuneaux; Nicolas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine,
Medical Institute of Moscow; Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public
Health, U.S.S.R.; Eugene Sepp, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Neurology,
Medical Institute of Moscow; Member, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.;
Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D.; Professor of Psychiatry, Medical Institute of
Moscow; Bertram Schaffner, Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army
of the United States.

The Commission has reported to the Tribunal that it is unanimously of
the opinion that Krupp von Bohlen suffers from senile softening of the
brain; that his mental condition is such that he is incapable of
understanding court procedure and of understanding or cooperating in
interrogations; that his physical state is such that he cannot be moved
without endangering his life; and that his condition is unlikely to
improve but rather will deteriorate further.

The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical commission to which
exception is taken neither by the Prosecution nor by the Defense.

Article 12 of the Charter authorizes the trial of a defendant _in
absentia_ if found by the Tribunal to be “necessary in the interests of
justice”. It is contended on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors that in the
interests of justice Krupp von Bohlen should be tried _in absentia_,
despite his physical and mental condition.

It is the decision of the Tribunal that upon the facts presented the
interests of justice do not require that Krupp von Bohlen be tried _in
absentia_. The Charter of the Tribunal envisages a fair trial in which
the Chief Prosecutors may present the evidence in support of an
indictment and the defendants may present such defence as they may
believe themselves to have. Where nature rather than flight or contumacy
has rendered such a trial impossible, it is not in accordance with
justice that the case should proceed in the absence of a defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal _Orders that_:

1. The application for postponement of the proceeding against Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen is granted.

2. 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.

Further questions raised by the Chief Prosecutors, including the
question of adding another name to the Indictment, will be considered
later.

      D. _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:

                                          [signed]  Robert H. Jackson
                                                   ROBERT H. JACKSON,
                                 Chief of Counsel for the United States
 16 November 1945
  E. _MOTION BY THE SOVIET, FRENCH, AND AMERICAN CHIEF PROSECUTORS TO
                DESIGNATE ALFRIED KRUPP AS A DEFENDANT_

TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:

Upon the Indictment, the motion of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach
and the answers thereto, and all proceedings had thereunder, 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 December 2, 1945. For this purpose, the Committee of Prosecutors
adopts and ratifies the Answer filed on behalf of the United States on
November 12, 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 on November 16, 1945.

                                                  [signed]  Pokrovsky
                            For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
                                        [signed]  Francois de Menthon
                               For the Provisional Government of France
                                          [signed]  Robert H. Jackson
                                      For the United States of America.
 16 November 1945.
 F. _RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE PROSECUTION’S MOTION TO NAME
                     ALFRIED KRUPP AS A DEFENDANT_

                    INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
           Sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 17 November 1945,
                         In session 1500 hours

THE PRESIDENT: The motion to amend the indictment by adding the name of
Alfried Krupp has been considered by the Tribunal in all its aspects and
the application is rejected.

The Tribunal will now adjourn.

(Whereupon at 1505 the Tribunal adjourned.)


                           3. MARTIN BORMANN

As the day of the trial approached, Martin Bormann, although named as a
defendant in the Indictment, had not yet been apprehended despite the
efforts of numerous special investigators. On 17 November 1945 the
Tribunal requested the views of the prosecution on the question of trial
_in absentia_. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Great
Britain, reviewed the information available and, on behalf of the United
States and France as well as Great Britain, stated that: “The
prosecution cannot say that the matter is beyond a probability that
Bormann is dead. There is still the clear possibility that he is alive.”
Notice had been publicly given, in the manner prescribed by the
Tribunal, that Bormann had been named a defendant, and it was therefore
suggested that the case fell within Article 12 of the Charter
authorizing trial _in absentia_. The Soviet representative expressed
concurrence; whereupon Lord Justice Lawrence, presiding, orally
announced the Tribunal’s ruling, on the same date:

    “The Tribunal has decided that, in pursuance of Article 12 of
    the Charter, it will try the Defendant Bormann in his absence,
    and it announces that counsel for the Defendant Bormann will be
    appointed to defend him.”

Thereafter, the counsel named to defend Bormann moved for postponement
of the proceedings against the defendant. The Tribunal announced on 22
November through Lord Justice Lawrence, presiding, that:

    “* * * in view of the fact that the provisions of the Charter
    and the Tribunal’s rule of procedure have been strictly carried
    out in the notices which have been given, and the fact that
    counsel for Bormann will have ample time before they are called
    upon to present defense on his behalf, the motion is denied.”


                         4. ERNST KALTENBRUNNER

On 18 November 1945, two days before the opening of the trial,
Kaltenbrunner suffered a spontaneous subarachanoid hemorrhage and was
taken to the hospital for treatment. He remained there until 6 December,
when he was returned to the jail. He attended the 10 December session of
the Tribunal and was in court for several days thereafter, but his
condition deteriorated so that it was necessary to return him to the
hospital for further treatment. Medical opinion expects at this writing
(23 January), that he will be required to remain under hospital care for
a considerable period.

On 2 January Kaltenbrunner’s counsel, Dr. Kauffmann, requested the
Tribunal to postpone the case against his client because of his illness.
The Tribunal ruled (1) that the prosecution should proceed with any
evidence which it proposed to direct against the criminality of
organizations with which Kaltenbrunner was connected, (2) that any
prosecution evidence directed against Kaltenbrunner as an individual
should be withheld until the prosecution reached that part of its case
in which it had planned to trace the responsibility of individual
defendants, and (3) that Kaltenbrunner’s case should properly be left
until the end of this section of the evidence. If at that time the
defendant should be still unable to be present in court, the Tribunal
ruled that “the evidence will have to be given in his absence.”

A closed session followed at which the Tribunal heard both the
prosecution and defense counsel, as a result of which the Tribunal
modified its ruling. Since the prosecution’s evidence was so
inextricably mingled that it was impossible to divide it between that
which bore against Kaltenbrunner as an individual and that which bore
against the organizations which he headed, the Tribunal ruled that it
would hear the prosecution’s evidence in its entirety. Counsel for
Kaltenbrunner, however, was given the privilege of cross-examining at a
later date any witnesses which the prosecution might call against
Kaltenbrunner. The Tribunal pointed out that defense counsel would also,
of course, have an opportunity to deal with any documentary evidence
against Kaltenbrunner when the time came for the presentation of the
defense case.


                          5. JULIUS STREICHER

Counsel for Streicher orally requested the Tribunal, on 15 November
1945, to appoint a commission to make a psychiatric examination of the
defendant. This was requested for the Defense Counsel’s “own
protection”, although the defendant thought himself normal and did not
wish an examination. The Tribunal directed the Defense Counsel to make
his motion in writing. The Soviet prosecutor suggested to the Tribunal
the desirability of having such an examination, if it were necessary at
all, while medical experts from the Soviet Union remained in Nurnberg.
Subsequently a panel of three medical experts examined Streicher and
reported that he was fit to stand trial. The Tribunal thereupon ruled,
Lord Justice Lawrence making the announcement orally in court on 22
November, that

    “* * * the Tribunal wishes me to announce the decision on the
    application made on behalf of the Defendant Julius Streicher by
    his counsel that his condition should be examined. It has been
    examined by three medical experts on behalf of the Tribunal and
    their report has been submitted to and considered by the
    Tribunal; and it is as follows:

    “‘1. The Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.

    “‘2. The 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 policy of his acts during the
    period of time covered by the indictment.’

    “The Tribunal accepts the report of the medical experts and the
    trial against Julius Streicher will, therefore, proceed.”


                             6. RUDOLF HESS

Through his pre-trial confinement in the Nurnberg prison, Hess had
consistently maintained that he was suffering from amnesia and therefore
could not remember facts concerning his previous activities. In order to
determine Hess’ mental state the Tribunal appointed a commission of
psychiatric experts from the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and
France, to examine the defendant and furnish a report. After receiving
the medical report the Tribunal directed that oral argument by the
prosecution and defense counsel should be heard on 30 November 1945
concerning the issues raised by the medical report. Prior to the oral
argument, both the prosecution and defense filed written motions which
outlined substantially the positions later taken in court.

At the conclusion of the oral arguments, the Tribunal called upon Hess
for a statement. Hess thereupon announced that he had simulated loss of
memory for tactical reasons and that his memory was “again in order.” On
the following day the Tribunal ruled that Hess was capable of standing
trial and that his case would proceed.

The papers pertaining to these matters are set out below.

A. _RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDERING ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY
                          THE MEDICAL REPORTS_

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 Zurich 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 Krasnuchkin, M.D., Professor Psychiatry,
      Medical Institute of Moscow, assisted by
    Eugene Sepp, M.D., Professor Neurology,
      Medical Institute of Moscow
      Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, USSR; and,
    Nicolas Kuraskov, M.D., Professor of Medicine
      Medical Institute of Moscow,
      Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, USSR.
    Lord Moran, M.D., F.R.C.P.
      President of the Royal College of Physicians, assisted by
    Dr. T. Reece, M.D., F.R.C.P.
      Chief Consultant Psychiatrist to the War Office, and
    Dr. George Ruddock, M.D., F.R.C.P.
      Director of Neurology to the London Hospital and
      Chief Consultant Neurologist to the War Office
    Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, assisted by
    Dr. D. Ewen Cameron and
    Col. 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,
November 30 at 4 P. M.

                    INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
                                          [signed]  Geoffrey Lawrence
                                                    Geoffrey Lawrence
                                                              President
 Dated Nurnberg, Germany this 24th day of November, 1945
 Copies of four (4) Medical Reports attached:
                      _(1) British Medical Report_

REPORT on Rudolf Hess, telephoned from London.

“The undersigned, having seen and examined Rudolf Hess, have come to the
following conclusion:

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 a delusion of
poisoning, and other similar paranoid ideas.

Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission, these abnormalities
got worse, and led to suicidal attempts.

In addition, he has a marked hysterical tendency, which has led to the
development of 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 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 decides to proceed with the Trial,
the question should afterwards be reviewed on psychiatric grounds.”

                                                        [signed]  Moran
                                                      J. Rees, MD, FRCP
                                                         George Riddoch
 Dated 19th November, 1945
             _(2) Joint American and French Medical Report_
                                                       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 November
15th and 19th, 1945, in his cell in the Military Prison in Nurnberg.

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 November
14th and November 16th, 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 behaviour 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)  D. Ewen Cameron
                                                  DR. D. EWEN CAMERON
                            Professor of Psychiatrie, McGill University
                                               (s)  Paul L. Schroeder
                                               COL. PAUL L. SCHROEDER
                                     A.U.S. Neuropsychiatric Consultant
                                                      (s)  Jean Delay
                                                       DR. JEAN DELAY
           Professor of Psychiatrie at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris
                                               (s)  Nolan D. C. Lewis
                                                DR. NOLAN D. C. LEWIS
                              Professor Psychiatry, Columbia University
                      _(3) Soviet Medical Report_

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.

Appendix: 1 Conclusions and 2 the Report on the examination of Mr. Hess.

                                     (signed)  Professor Krasnushkin,
                                                     Doctor of Medicine
                                            (signed)  Professor Sepp,
                              Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the
                                                    Academy of Medicine
                                        (signed)  Professor Kushakov,
                          Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist of the
                                 Commissariat of Health of the U.S.S.R.
 November 17, 1945
                           (_a_) 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 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 reexamined again 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 November 15 by the representative of
the French Delegation, Professor Jean Delay.

After an examination of Mr. Hess which took place on November 15, 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 November 14 and to follow the
suggestion of that Paragraph in present form.

                                     (signed)  Professor Krasnushkin,
                                                     Doctor of Medicine
                                            (signed)  Professor Sepp,
                              Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the
                                                    Academy of Medicine
                                       (signed)  Professor Kurshakov,
                           Doctor of Medicine, Chief Theraputist of the
                                 Commissariat of Health of the U.S.S.R.
                                       (signed)  Professor Jean Delay
                                     of the School of Medicine in Paris
 November 16, 1945
               (_b_) Record of Examination of Rudolf Hess

According to the information obtained on Nov. 16, 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 Nov. 14, 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 shakening
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 Nurnberg 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
Lieut. Gilbert, M.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 Nov. 14 Hess refused the injection of narcotics which were offered
for the purpose of making an analysis of his psychological condition. On
Nov. 15, in answer to Prof. 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:

I. 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 paranoic 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.

II. The loss of memory of 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.

III. 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.

                                     (signed)  Professor Krasnushkin,
                                                     Doctor of Medicine
                                            (signed)  Professor Sepp,
                              Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the
                                                    Academy of Medicine
                                       (signed)  Professor Kurshakov,
                           Doctor of Medicine, Chief Theraputist of the
                                 Commissariat of Health of the U.S.S.R.
 17 November 1945
 B. _MOTION BY DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
                                 HESS_

Attorney-at-law von Rohrscheidt
Defense Counsel for Rudolf Hess

                                             Nurnberg, 29 November 1945

To the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal,
Nurnberg:

_Reference: Rudolf Hess—Session of 30 November 1945._

I. Reply to the request of the Tribunal of 28 November 1945.

II. Preparatory statement for the trial.

                                   I

I, as Counsel for the Defendant Hess, answer the request of the Tribunal
of 28 November 1945 as follows:

1. No formal objection is being raised by Defense against presentation
and use of the expert opinions obtained by the Tribunal.

2. The Defense does not think the defendant Hess to be
“verhandlungsfaehig” (in a state of health to be tried).

3. Material objections are being raised by the Defense, inasmuch as the
expert opinion denies the competence of the defendant as a consequence
of a mental disorder.

                                   II

For the proceedings, I, as Counsel for the Defendant Hess, wish to make
the following statement:

1. _I move_:

_a._ That a decision be made to adjourn the proceedings against the
defendant temporarily.

_b._ That in case incapacity to be tried is asserted, proceedings in
absentia against the defendant should not be carried on.

_c._ That in case my motion _ad a_ is rejected, a super expert opinion
be obtained from additional eminent psychiatrists.

2. I _argue_ these motions as follows:

_ad 1-a_:  The adjournment of the proceedings is necessary because of the
           unfitness of the defendant to follow them.

In this respect the (medical) opinions state unanimously upon the
questions asked by the Tribunal, that “the ability of the Defendant Hess
is impaired to the extent that he cannot defend himself, nor oppose a
witness, nor understand the details of evidence.” Even if the amnesia
does not keep him from understanding what happens about him or to
understand the course of the trial, this amnesia nevertheless has a
disturbing effect on his defense.

The impairment of the defendant in his defense, through his amnesia,
recognized by all opinions as a mental defect, has to be acknowledged as
such, in view of the statements in the opinions of the Soviet, English
and American Delegations of 14 November 1945, which designate the mental
condition as one of a mixed kind, but more as one of a sort of mental
abnormality. This will not make a pertinent defense possible for him
(Hess).

In this respect, it does not have to be considered that the defendant is
not mentally ill “in the literal meaning of the word” and that he can
follow the proceedings. The question whether the defendant is at present
incapable, as a result of the diminution of his “mental powers,” to
understand all occurrences and to defend himself properly, has nothing
to do with his mental derangement when committing the crime.

In the opinion of counsel, the defendant is in no case in a position to
make himself understood or to understand argument, because he is
impaired in his mental clarity through the loss of his memory and
because he has completely lost the knowledge of previous events and of
people of former acquaintance.

Since the expert establishment of his mental disorder which impairs the
defendant in the full execution of his defense, makes proceedings
against him inadmissible, the statement of the defendant that he thinks
himself capable of being tried has no significance.

According to expert opinion, the impairment of the defendant cannot be
removed within a measurable space of time. It is not sure whether
treatment through Narco-Analysis, as proposed by the medical experts,
will have the desired result. The defendant has refused to submit to
this treatment only because he thinks of himself as capable of being
tried and consequently not in need of such treatment. Furthermore,
because he is opposed to any forcible influence upon the body, and
finally, he is afraid of physical disturbances which would prevent him
from participating in the trial if such method of treatment is used at
this time. The proceedings would have to be dropped in case of an
illness of long duration which excludes his fitness to be tried.

_ad 1-b_:  According to Article 12 of the Statutes, the Tribunal has the
           right to proceed against a defendant in absentia if

he, the defendant, cannot be located or if the Tribunal thinks it
necessary, for other reasons, in the interests of justice. If the
Tribunal, on the basis of convincing expert opinions, establishes that
the defendant is not in a position to put up a pertinent defense and
consequently decides not to proceed against him, proceedings in
absentia, according to Article 12, could then only be carried on if this
is in the interest of justice. It would not be compatible with objective
justice, in case that actual proof of this fact is available, if the
defendant is impeded by an impairment based upon health reasons, in
personally standing up for his rights and in being present at the trial.

In proceedings which accuse the defendant of such serious crimes and
possibly carry the death penalty, it would not be compatible with
objective justice if he were personally denied the opportunity to look
after his rights as stated in Article 16 of the Statutes. These rights
provide for his self-defense. The possibility to “personally present
evidence for one’s defense and to cross-examine each witness of the
prosecution” is of such importance that any exclusion of such rights has
to be considered an injustice toward the defendant. Proceedings in
absentia can, under no circumstances, be accepted as a “fair trial.”

The same is true for the exclusion of the defendant from the rights
which are granted him during the proceedings according to Article 24.

If the defendant is impaired in his ability to defend himself for the
reasons of the expert opinions, and to the extent explained therein,
then he is just as little in a position to give his Counsel the
necessary information and to enable him to take care of the defense in
his absence.

Since the Statutes establish the rights for the defense in this precise
manner, it does not seem fair to withhold these from a defendant in a
case when he is prevented from personally taking care of his defense
during the proceedings. The rules in Article 12, regarding the
proceedings against an absent defendant, have to be considered as an
exception which should only be used against a defendant who tries to
dodge in spite of his being in a position to be tried. The Defendant
Hess has always been prepared to be tried in order to avoid proceedings
in absentia, which he considers an injustice of the highest measure.

_ad 1-c_:  In case the Court should not agree with the explanations and
           should not consider the statements of the expert

opinion in the sense of the defense, and therefore come to a denial of
the Application ad a, it seems necessary to obtain the super opinion
because the opinions testify to the fact that the defendant is a
psychopathic personality who suffers from hallucinations and still today
shows, in the loss of memory, clear signs of a serious hysteria. If the
Tribunal does not consider these sentiments alone as sufficient for the
establishment of incapability to be tried, a more intensive examination
would have to follow which would not be confined to an examination of
only one or two hours on several days, but require a clinical
observation.

The opinions, themselves, provide for another examination of the mental
condition of the defendant, which seems to prove that the experts
possibly have a “disturbance of the mental capacity” in mind if the
condition of the defendant lasts and the Tribunal, against expectations,
declares the defendant unfit to be tried and therewith incompetent under
all circumstances.

                                            /Signed/  von Rohrscheidt
                                                        Attorney-at-Law
 Translator: Dr. H. v. V. Veith
               C. _ANSWER BY THE FOUR CHIEF PROSECUTORS_

TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
MATTER OF RUDOLF HESS

The undersigned representatives of their respective nations answer the
request of the Tribunal of 28 November, 1945 respectfully as follows:

1. We do not challenge or question the report of the Committee.

2. It is our position that the defendant Rudolf Hess is fit to stand
trial.

3. Observations may be filed by any of the undersigned based on their
respective relationships to the subject matter.

                                                 [signed]  R. RUDENKO
                            For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
                                                  [signed]  C. DUBOST
                               For the Provisional Government of France
                                         [signed]  DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE
           For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                          [signed]  ROBERT H. JACKSON
                                       For the United States of America
 29 November 1945
           _(1) Answer by the United States Chief of Counsel_

TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:

The United States respectfully files the following observations on the
application of RUDOLF HESS:

Hess’ condition was known to the undersigned representative of the
United States immediately after his delivery to the Nurnberg prison and
was the subject of a report by Major Douglas McG. Kelley of the Medical
Corps of the United States Army, which report is attached hereto.

The report of Major Kelley and his recommendation for treatment were
submitted to me and on October 20, 1945, I advised that “any treatment
of this case involving the use of drugs which might cause injury to the
subject is disapproved.” This was not because I disapproved of the
treatment. I approve of the treatment and would insist on its being
employed if the victim were a member of my own family. But I was of the
opinion that the private administration of any kind of drug to Hess
would be dangerous because if he should thereafter die, even of natural
causes, it would become the subject of public controversy. This
completely agreed with the opinion of the Security Officer, Colonel B.
C. Andrus, whose report is attached.

In view of the statements contained in the medical report of the
Commission and in view of the facts which I have recited, the United
States must regard Hess as a victim, at most, of a voluntary amnesia and
presenting no case for excuse from trial.

Respectfully submitted

                                          [signed]  Robert H. Jackson
                                Chief of Counsel for the United States.
 29 November 1945.

                 *        *        *        *        *

 [Enclosure]

                              HEADQUARTERS
                      INTERNAL SECURITY DETACHMENT
                       OFFICE US CHIEF OF COUNSEL
                            APO 403, US ARMY

                                                        16 October 1945

SUBJECT: Psychiatric Status of Internee.
TO: Commanding Officer, Internal Security Detachment.

1. Internee Rudolf HESS has been carefully studied since his admission
to Nurnberg Prison.

2. On entry HESS manifested a spotty amnesia. The British psychiatrist
accompanying him stated that from 4 October 43 to 4 February 45 HESS
presented symptoms of total amnesia. From 4 February 45 to 12 July 45 he
recovered, and is said to have made a statement that his previous
amnesia was simulated. On 12 July 45 he again developed amnesia which
has lasted to the present. Also while in England HESS claimed he was
being poisoned and sealed up numerous samples of food, chocolate,
medicine, etc. as “evidence” to be analyzed prior to his trials. Such
behavior could be either simulated or a true paranoid reaction.

3. Present examination reveals a normal mental status with the exception
of the amnesia. Attitude and general behavior are normal, mood and
affect, while slightly depressed, are intact and normal. Sensorium is
intact and insight is good. Content reveals vague paranoid trends, but
there is no evidence of any actual psychosis. His reactions to his
suspicions are not fixed—and delusioned trends—are distinctly spotty
and disconnected. His reactions are those of an individual who has given
up a simulated behavior pattern rather than those of the psychotic.
Oddly enough his memory for this phase of behavior is excellent.

4. Special examinations with Rorschach cards indicate some neurotic
patterns. They point to a highly schizoid personality with hysterical
and obsessive components. Such findings are confirmed in the patient’s
present reactions. He complains bitterly of “stomach cramps” which are
obviously neurotic manifestations. He is over-dramatic in his actions
presenting typical hysterical gestures, complaints and symptoms. His
amnesia is at present limited to personal events concerning his history
after joining the party. The amnesia however shifts in a highly
suspicious fashion. Such amnesias may be hysterical in nature but in
such cases do not change in depth from day to day and facts recently
learned are not lost as with Hess.

5. In HESS’ case there is also the factor of his long amnesia in
England. It is quite possible that he has suggested an amnesia to
himself for so long that he partially believes in it. In a person of
hysterical make-up such auto suggestion could readily produce an amnesic
state. Also the “gain” or protection found in amnesia, fancied or real,
would be a bar to its easy clearance. Finally a large conscious element
may well be present.

6. In this case I believe all those factors are present. Treatment will
have to be formulated along lines attacking the suggestive factors and
overcoming conscious restraints. Hypnosis would be a value but probably
chemical hypnosis will be required. Such narco-hypnosis and analysis
require the use of intra venous drugs of the barbitol series, either
sodium amytol or sodium pentothal. Such treatment is in general
innocuous if proper precautions are taken. It must be borne in mind,
however, that occasional accidents happen in any intravenous technique.
With the drugs mentioned above rare fatalities have been reported
although in more than 1000 such cases personally treated, I have never
seen one.

7. Essentially the present situation is as follows:

_a._ Internee HESS is sane and responsible.

_b._ Internee HESS is a profound neurotic of the hysterical type.

_c._ His amnesia is of mixed etiology, stemming from auto suggestions
and conscious malingering in a hysterical personality.

_d._ Treatment will be required if it is felt desirable to remove this
amnesia.

_e._ Such treatment, though it cannot eliminate the conscious element is
of great value in estimating its importance. With such techniques
accurate estimates of malingering can be made. If this is a true
amnesia, total recovery can be predicted.

_f._ Such treatment is essentially harmless except in extremely rare
instances. In ordinary practice the value of the treatment far outweighs
any of its hazards.

8. Clarification as to the desired degree of treatment in this case is
requested.

                                        [signed]  DOUGLAS McG. KELLEY
                                                              Major, MC

                 *        *        *        *        *

                                1st Ind

HEADQUARTERS, INTERNAL SECURITY DETACHMENT, OFFICE US CHIEF OF
COUNSEL—APO 403, U. S. ARMY—17 OCTOBER 1945

TO: Mr. Justice Jackson’s Office US Chief of Counsel
    APO 403, U. S. Army
    (Attention: Colonel Gill)

HESS believes or has pretended that the British attempted to poison him.
Treatment with drugs might call forth the same suspicion or allegation
against us by him. Undue alarm might be injurious to the patient.

                                               /s/  B. C. Andrus
                                             /t/  B. C. ANDRUS
                                                         Colonel Cav
                                                              Commandant

                 *        *        *        *        *

                                2nd Ind

OFFICE US CHIEF OF COUNSEL, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, APO, 403, U. S. ARMY

                                                        20 October 1945

TO: Headquarters, Internal Security Detachment.
    Office US Chief of Counsel

Any treatment of this case involving the use of drugs which might cause
injury to the subject is disapproved.

                                                ROBT. J. GILL
                                                      Colonel, CMP
                                                               Executive

      D. _STATEMENT BY HESS TO THE TRIBUNAL CONCERNING HIS MEMORY_

                                                       30 November 1945
                                                      Afternoon Session

“Mr. President: At the beginning of this afternoon’s proceedings, I
handed my defense counsel a note stating that I am of the opinion that
these proceedings could be shortened if I could speak briefly. What I
have to say is as follows: In order to prevent any possibility of my
being declared incapable of pleading—although I am willing to take part
in the rest of the proceedings with the rest of them, I would like to
make the following declaration to the Tribunal although I originally
intended not to make this declaration until a later time. My memory is
again in order. The reason why I simulated loss of memory was tactical.
In fact, it is only that my power for concentration is slightly reduced
but in conflict to that my capacity to follow the trial, my capacity to
defend myself, to put questions to witnesses or even to answer
questions—in these, my capacities are not influenced. I emphasize the
fact that I bear full responsibility for everything that I have done,
signed or have signed as co-signatory. My fundamental attitude that the
Tribunal is not legally competent, is not affected by the statement I
have just made. Hitherto, in my conversations with my official defense
counsel, I have maintained my loss of memory. He was, therefore, acting
in good faith when he asserted I had lost my memory.”

                      E. _RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL_

The ruling of the International Military Tribunal was announced orally
by Lord Justice Lawrence, presiding, on 1 December 1945:

“The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the motion of Counsel
for the Defendant Hess, and it has had the advantage of hearing full
argument upon it both from the Defense and from the Prosecution. The
Tribunal has also considered the very full medical reports, which have
been made on the condition of the Defendant Hess, and has come to the
conclusion that no grounds whatever exist for a further examination to
be ordered.

“After hearing the statement of the Defendant Hess in court yesterday,
and in view of all the evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the
Defendant Hess is capable of standing his trial at the present time, and
the motion of Counsel for the Defense is, therefore, denied, and the
trial will proceed.”



                               Chapter V
                  OPENING ADDRESS FOR THE UNITED STATES


_The following address, opening the American case under Count I of the
Indictment, was delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel
for the United States, before the Tribunal on 21 November 1945:_

May it please Your Honors,

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against
the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which
we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and
so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored
because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations,
flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance
and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law
is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to
Reason.

This tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of
abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic
theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the
most mighty of nations, with the support of seventeen more, to utilize
International Law to meet the greatest menace of our times—aggressive
war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with
the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men
who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted
use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world
untouched. It is a cause of this magnitude that the United Nations will
lay before Your Honors.

In the prisoners’ dock sit twenty-odd broken men. Reproached by the
humiliation of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the
desolation of those they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil
is forever past. It is hard now to perceive in these miserable men as
captives the power by which as Nazi leaders they once dominated much of
the world and terrified most of it. Merely as individuals, their fate is
of little consequence to the world.

What makes this inquest significant is that those prisoners represent
sinister influence that will lurk in the world long after their bodies
have returned to dust. They are living symbols of racial hatreds, of
terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They
are symbols of fierce nationalisms and militarism, of intrigue and
war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation,
crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life.
They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived
and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a
victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to
their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social
forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or
indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.

What these men stand for we will patiently and temperately disclose. We
will give you undeniable proofs of incredible events. The catalogue of
crimes will omit nothing that could be conceived by a pathological
pride, cruelty, and lust for power. These men created in Germany, under
the _Fuehrerprinzip_, a National Socialist despotism equalled only by
the dynasties of the ancient East. They took from the German people all
those dignities and freedoms that we hold natural and inalienable rights
in every human being. The people were compensated by inflaming and
gratifying hatreds toward those who were marked as “scape-goats.”
Against their opponents, including Jews, Catholics, and free labor the
Nazis directed such a campaign of arrogance, brutality, and annihilation
as the world has not witnessed since the pre-Christian ages. They
excited the German ambition to be a “master race,” which of course
implies serfdom for others. They led their people on a mad gamble for
domination. They diverted social energies and resources to the creation
of what they thought to be an invincible war machine. They overran their
neighbors. To sustain the “master race” in its war-making, they enslaved
millions of human beings and brought them into Germany, where these
hapless creatures now wander as “displaced persons”. At length
bestiality and bad faith reached such excess that they aroused the
sleeping strength of imperiled civilization. Its united efforts have
ground the German war machine to fragments. But the struggle has left
Europe a liberated yet prostrate land where a demoralized society
struggles to survive. These are the fruits of the sinister forces that
sit with these defendants in the prisoners’ dock.

In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I
must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on
this case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to
bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a
decade, covering a whole Continent, and involving a score of nations,
countless individuals, and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of
the task, the world has demanded immediate action. This demand has had
to be met, though perhaps at the cost of finished craftsmanship. In my
country, established courts, following familiar procedures, applying
well thumbed precedents, and dealing with the legal consequences of
local and limited events seldom commence a trial within a year of the
event in litigation. Yet less than eight months ago today the courtroom
in which you sit was an enemy fortress in the hands of German SS troops.
Less than eight months ago nearly all our witnesses and documents were
in enemy hands. The law had not been codified, no procedure had been
established, no Tribunal was in existence, no usable courthouse stood
here, none of the hundreds of tons of official German documents had been
examined, no prosecuting staff had been assembled, nearly all the
present defendants were at large, and the four prosecuting powers had
not yet joined in common cause to try them. I should be the last to deny
that the case may well suffer from incomplete researches and quite
likely will not be the example of professional work which any of the
prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is, however, a
completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to render, and
its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians.

Before I discuss particulars of evidence, some general considerations
which may affect the credit of this trial in the eyes of the world
should be candidly faced. There is a dramatic disparity between the
circumstances of the accusers and of the accused that might discredit
our work if we should falter, in even minor matters, in being fair and
temperate.

Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution
and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The
worldwide scope of the aggressions carried out by these men has left but
few real neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we
must leave the defeated to judge themselves. After the First World War,
we learned the futility of the latter course. The former high station of
these defendants, the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of
their conduct to provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between
the demand for a just and measured retribution, and the unthinking cry
for vengeance which arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so
far as humanly possible, to draw the line between the two. We must never
forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the
record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants
a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon
such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial
will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to
do justice.

At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these
men to trial is to do them an injustice entitling them to some special
consideration. These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill
used. Let us see what alternative they would have to being tried.

More than a majority of these prisoners surrendered to or were tracked
down by forces of the United States. Could they expect us to make
American custody a shelter for our enemies against the just wrath of our
Allies? Did we spend American lives to capture them only to save them
from punishment? Under the principles of the Moscow Declaration, those
suspected war criminals who are not to be tried internationally must be
turned over to individual governments for trial at the scene of their
outrages. Many less responsible and less culpable American-held
prisoners have been and will be turned over to other United Nations for
local trial. If these defendants should succeed, for any reason, in
escaping the condemnation of this Tribunal, or if they obstruct or abort
this trial, those who are American-held prisoners will be delivered up
to our continental Allies. For these defendants, however, we have set up
an International Tribunal and have undertaken the burden of
participating in a complicated effort to give them fair and
dispassionate hearings. That is the best known protection to any man
with a defense worthy of being heard.

If these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be
prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given a
chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law. Realistically,
the Charter of this Tribunal, which gives them a hearing, is also the
source of their only hope. It may be that these men of troubled
conscience, whose only wish is that the world forget them, do not regard
a trial as a favor. But they do have a fair opportunity to defend
themselves—a favor which these men, when in power, rarely extended to
their fellow countrymen. Despite the fact that public opinion already
condemns their acts, we agree that here they must be given a presumption
of innocence, and we accept the burden of proving criminal acts and the
responsibility of these defendants for their commission.

When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we prove crime, I
do not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of international
conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that
involves moral as well as legal wrong. And we do not mean conduct that
is a natural and human, even if illegal, cutting of corners, such as
many of us might well have committed had we been in the defendants’
positions. It is not because they yielded to the normal frailties of
human beings that we accuse them. It is their abnormal and inhuman
conduct which brings them to this bar.

We will not ask you to convict these men on the testimony of their foes.
There is no count of the Indictment that cannot be proved by books and
records. The Germans were always meticulous record keepers, and these
defendants had their share of the Teutonic passion for thoroughness in
putting things on paper. Nor were they without vanity. They arranged
frequently to be photographed in action. We will show you their own
films. You will see their own conduct and hear their own voices as these
defendants reenact for you, from the screen, some of the events in the
course of the conspiracy.

We would also make clear that we have no purpose to incriminate the
whole German people. We know that the Nazi Party was not put in power by
a majority of the German vote. We know it came to power by an evil
alliance between the most extreme of the Nazi revolutionists, the most
unrestrained of the German reactionaries, and the most aggressive of the
German militarists. If the German populace had willingly accepted the
Nazi program, no Stormtroopers would have been needed in the early days
of the Party and there would have been no need for concentration camps
or the Gestapo, both of which institutions were inaugurated as soon as
the Nazis gained control of the German state. Only after these lawless
innovations proved successful at home were they taken abroad.

The German people should know by now that the people of the United
States hold them in no fear, and in no hate. It is true that the Germans
have taught us the horrors of modern warfare, but the ruin that lies
from the Rhine to the Danube shows that we, like our Allies, have not
been dull pupils. If we are not awed by German fortitude and proficiency
in war, and if we are not persuaded of their political maturity, we do
respect their skill in the arts of peace, their technical competence,
and the sober, industrious and self-disciplined character of the masses
of the German people. In 1933, we saw the German people recovering
prestige in the commercial, industrial and artistic world after the
set-back of the last war. We beheld their progress neither with envy nor
malice. The Nazi regime interrupted this advance. The recoil of the Nazi
aggression has left Germany in ruins. The Nazi readiness to pledge the
German word without hesitation and to break it without shame has
fastened upon German diplomacy a reputation for duplicity that will
handicap it for years. Nazi arrogance has made the boast of the “master
race” a taunt that will be thrown at Germans the world over for
generations. The Nazi nightmare has given the German name a new and
sinister significance throughout the world which will retard Germany a
century. The German, no less than the non-German world, has accounts to
settle with these defendants.

The fact of the war and the course of the war, which is the central
theme of our case, is history. From September 1st, 1939, when the German
armies crossed the Polish frontiers, until September, 1942, when they
met epic resistance at Stalingrad, German arms seemed invincible.
Denmark and Norway, The Netherlands and France, Belgium and Luxembourg,
the Balkans and Africa, Poland and the Baltic States, and parts of
Russia, all had been overrun and conquered by swift, powerful,
well-aimed blows. That attack upon the peace of the world is the crime
against international society which brings into international cognizance
crimes in its aid and preparation which otherwise might be only internal
concerns. It was aggressive war, which the nations of the world had
renounced. It was war in violation of treaties, by which the peace of
the world was sought to be safeguarded.

This war did not just happen—it was planned and prepared for over a
long period of time and with no small skill and cunning. The world has
perhaps never seen such a concentration and stimulation of the energies
of any people as that which enabled Germany twenty years after it was
defeated, disarmed, and dismembered to come so near carrying out its
plan to dominate Europe. Whatever else we may say of those who were the
authors of this war, they did achieve a stupendous work in organization,
and our first task is to examine the means by which these defendants and
their fellow conspirators prepared and incited Germany to go to war.

In general, our case will disclose these defendants all uniting at some
time with the Nazi Party in a plan which they well knew could be
accomplished only by an outbreak of war in Europe. Their seizure of the
German state, their subjugation of the German people, their terrorism
and extermination of dissident elements, their planning and waging of
war, their calculated and planned ruthlessness in the conduct of
warfare, their deliberate and planned criminality toward conquered
peoples, all these are ends for which they acted in concert; and all
these are phases of the conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal
only to set out for another and more ambitious one. We shall also trace
for you the intricate web of organizations which these men formed and
utilized to accomplish these ends. We will show how the entire structure
of offices and officials was dedicated to the criminal purposes and
committed to use of the criminal methods planned by these defendants and
their co-conspirators, many of whom war and suicide have put beyond
reach.

It is my purpose to open the case, particularly under Count One of the
Indictment, and to deal with the common plan or conspiracy to achieve
ends possible only by resort to crimes against peace, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity. My emphasis will not be on individual
barbarities and perversions which may have occurred independently of any
central plan. One of the dangers ever-present is that this trial may be
protracted by details of particular wrongs and that we will become lost
in a “wilderness of single instances.” Nor will I now dwell on the
activity of individual defendants except as it may contribute to
exposition of the common plan.

The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the
brains and authority back of all the crimes. These defendants were men
of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They
were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the
planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil
architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the
violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions,
of this terrible war.

                       THE LAWLESS ROAD TO POWER

The chief instrumentality of cohesion in plan and action was the
National Socialist German Workers Party, known as the Nazi Party. Some
of the defendants were with it from the beginning. Others joined only
after success seemed to have validated its lawlessness or power had
invested it with immunity from the processes of the law. Adolf Hitler
became its supreme leader or _fuehrer_ in 1921.

On the 24th of February, 1920, at Munich, it publicly had proclaimed its
program (_1708-PS_). Some of its purposes would commend themselves to
many good citizens, such as the demands for “profit-sharing in the great
industries,” “generous development of provision for old age,” “creation
and maintenance of a healthy middle class,” “a land reform suitable to
our national requirements,” and “raising the standard of health.” It
also made a strong appeal to that sort of nationalism which in ourselves
we call patriotism and in our rivals chauvinism. It demanded “equality
of rights for the German people in its dealing with other nations and
the evolution of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germaine.” It
demanded the “union of all Germans on the basis of the right of
self-determination of peoples to form a Great Germany.” It demanded
“land and territory (colonies) for the enrichment of our people and the
settlement of our surplus population.” All these, of course, were
legitimate objectives if they were to be attained without resort to
aggressive warfare.

The Nazi Party from its inception, however, contemplated war. It
demanded “the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a
national army.” It proclaimed that “In view of the enormous sacrifice of
life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment
through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand,
therefore, the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.” I do not
criticise this policy. Indeed, I wish it were universal. I merely point
out that in a time of peace, war was a preoccupation of the Party, and
it started the work of making war less offensive to the masses of the
people. With this it combined a program of physical training and sports
for youth that became, as we shall see, the cloak for a secret program
of military training.

The Nazi Party declaration also committed its members to an anti-Semitic
program. It declared that no Jew or any person of non-German blood could
be a member of the nation. Such persons were to be disfranchised,
disqualified for office, subject to the alien laws, and entitled to
nourishment only after the German population had first been provided
for. All who had entered Germany after August 2, 1914 were to be
required forthwith to depart, and all non-German immigration was to be
prohibited.

The Party also avowed, even in those early days, an authoritarian and
totalitarian program for Germany. It demanded creation of a strong
central power with unconditional authority, nationalization of all
businesses which had been “amalgamated,” and a “reconstruction” of the
national system of education which “must aim at teaching the pupil to
understand the idea of the State (state sociology).” Its hostility to
civil liberties and freedom of the press was distinctly announced in
these words: “It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which do not
conduce to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all
tendencies in art or literature of a kind likely to disintegrate our
life as a nation and the suppression of institutions which might
militate against the above requirements.”

The forecast of religious persecution was clothed in the language of
religious liberty, for the Nazi program stated, “We demand liberty for
all religious denominations in the State.” But, it continues with the
limitation, “so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate
against the morality and moral sense of the German race.”

The Party program foreshadowed the campaign of terrorism. It announced,
“We demand ruthless war upon those whose activities are injurious to the
common interests”, and it demanded that such offenses be punished with
death.

It is significant that the leaders of this Party interpreted this
program as a belligerent one certain to precipitate conflict. The Party
platform concluded, “The leaders of the Party swear to proceed
regardless of consequences—if necessary, at the sacrifice of their
lives—toward the fulfillment of the foregoing points.” It is this
Leadership Corps of the Party, not its entire membership, that stands
accused as a criminal organization.

Let us now see how the leaders of the Party fulfilled their pledge to
proceed regardless of consequences. Obviously, their foreign objectives,
which were nothing less than to undo international treaties and to wrest
territory from foreign control, as well as most of their internal
program, could be accomplished only by possession of the machinery of
the German State. The first effort, accordingly, was to subvert the
Weimar Republic by violent revolution. An abortive putsch at Munich in
1923 landed many of them in jail. The period of meditation which
followed produced _Mein Kampf_, henceforth the source of law for the
Party workers and a source of considerable revenue to its supreme
leader. The Nazi plans for the violent overthrow of the feeble Republic
then turned to plans for its capture.

No greater mistake could be made than to think of the Nazi Party in
terms of the loose organizations which we of the western world call
“political parties.” In discipline, structure, and method the Nazi Party
was not adapted to the democratic process of persuasion. It was an
instrument of conspiracy and of coercion. The Party was not organized to
take over power in the German State by winning support of a majority of
the German people. It was organized to seize power in defiance of the
will of the people.

The Nazi Party, under the _Fuehrerprinzip_, was bound by an iron
discipline into a pyramid, with the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, at the top
and broadening into a numerous Leadership Corps, composed of overlords
of a very extensive Party membership at the base. By no means all of
those who may have supported the movement in one way or another were
actual Party members. The membership took the Party oath which in
effect, amounted to an abdication of personal intelligence and moral
responsibility. This was the oath: “I vow inviolable fidelity to Adolf
Hitler; I vow absolute obedience to him and to the leaders he designates
for me.” The membership in daily practice followed its leaders with an
idolatry and self-surrender more Oriental than Western.

We will not be obliged to guess as to the motives or goal of the Nazi
Party. The immediate aim was to undermine the Weimar Republic. The order
to all Party members to work to that end was given in a letter from
Hitler of August 24, 1931 to Rosenberg, of which we will produce the
original. Hitler wrote,

    “I am just reading in the VOELKISCHER BEOBACHTER, edition
    235/236, page 1, an article entitled “Does Wirth intend to come
    over?” The tendency of the article is to prevent on our part a
    crumbling away from the present form of government. I myself am
    travelling all over Germany to achieve exactly the opposite. May
    I therefore ask that my own paper will not stab me in the back
    with tactically unwise articles * * *” (_047-PS_).

Captured film enables us to present the defendant, Alfred Rosenberg, who
from the screen will himself tell you the story. The SA practiced
violent interference with elections. We have the reports of the SD
describing in detail how its members later violated the secrecy of
elections in order to identify those who opposed them. One of the
reports makes this explanation:

    “The control was effected in the following way: some members of
    the election-committee marked all the ballot papers with
    numbers. During the ballot itself, a voters’ list was made up.
    The ballot-papers were handed out in numerical order, therefore
    it was possible afterwards with the aid of this list to find out
    the persons who cast no-votes or invalid votes. One sample of
    these marked ballot-papers is enclosed. The marking was done on
    the back of the ballot-papers with skimmed milk * * *”
    (_R-142_).

The Party activity, in addition to all the familiar forms of political
contest, took on the aspect of a rehearsal for warfare. It utilized a
Party formation, _DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN_, commonly known as the SA. This
was a voluntary organization of youthful and fanatical Nazis trained for
the use of violence under semi-military discipline. Its members began by
acting as bodyguards for the Nazi leaders and rapidly expanded from
defensive to offensive tactics. They became disciplined ruffians for the
breaking up of opposition meetings and the terrorization of adversaries.
They boasted that their task was to make the Nazi Party “master of the
streets.” The SA was the parent organization of a number of others. Its
offspring include _DIE SCHUTZSTAFFELN_, commonly known as the SS, formed
in 1925 and distinguished for the fanaticism and cruelty of its members;
_DER SICHERHEITSDIENST_, known as the SD; and _DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI_, the Secret State Police, the infamous Gestapo formed in
1934 after Nazi accession to power.

A glance at a chart of the Party organization (_Chart No. 1_) is enough
to show how completely it differed from the political parties we know.
It had its own source of law in the fuehrer and sub-fuehrers. It had its
own courts and its own police. The conspirators set up a government
within the Party to exercise outside the law every sanction that any
legitimate state could exercise and many that it could not. Its chain of
command was military, and its formations were martial in name as well as
in function. They were composed of battalions set up to bear arms under
military discipline, motorized corps, flying corps, and the infamous
“Death Head Corps”, which was not misnamed. The Party had its own secret
police, its security units, its intelligence and espionage division, its
raiding forces, and its youth forces. It established elaborate
administrative mechanisms to identify and liquidate spies and informers,
to manage concentration camps, to operate death vans, and to finance the
whole movement. Through concentric circles of authority, the Nazi Party,
as its leadership later boasted, eventually organized and dominated
every phase of German life—but not until they had waged a bitter
internal struggle characterized by brutal criminality. In preparation
for this phase of their struggle, they created a party police system.
This became the pattern and the instrument of the police state, which
was the first goal in their plan.

The Party formations, including the Leadership Corps of the Party, the
SD, the SS, the SA and the infamous Secret State Police, or Gestapo—all
these stand accused before you as criminal organizations; organizations
which, as we will prove from their own documents, were recruited only
from recklessly devoted Nazis, ready in conviction and temperament to do
the most violent of deeds to advance the common program. They terrorized
and silenced democratic opposition and were able at length to combine
with political opportunists, militarists, industrialists, monarchists,
and political reactionaries.

On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German
Republic. An evil combination, represented in the prisoners’ dock, by
its most eminent survivors, had succeeded in possessing itself of the
machinery of the German Government, a facade behind which they
thenceforth would operate to make a reality of the war of conquest they
so long had plotted. The conspiracy had passed into its second phase.

                    THE CONSOLIDATION OF NAZI POWER

We shall now consider the steps, which embraced the most hideous of
crimes against humanity, to which the conspirators resorted in
perfecting control of the German State and in preparing Germany for the
aggressive war indispensable to their ends.

The Germans of the 1920’s were a frustrated and baffled people as a
result of defeat and the disintegration of their traditional government.
The democratic elements, which were trying to govern Germany through the
new and feeble machinery of the Weimar Republic, got inadequate support
from the democratic forces of the rest of the world. It is not to be
denied that Germany, when worldwide depression was added to her other
problems, was faced with urgent and intricate pressure in her economic
and political life which necessitated bold measures.

The internal measures by which a nation attempts to solve its problems
are ordinarily of no concern to other nations. But the Nazi program from
the first was recognized as a desperate program for a people still
suffering the effects of an unsuccessful war. The Nazi policy embraced
ends always recognized as attainable only by a renewal and a more
successful outcome of war. The conspirators’ answer to Germany’s
problems was nothing less than to plot the regaining of territories lost
in the First World War and the acquisition of other fertile lands of
Central Europe by dispossessing or exterminating those who inhabited
them. They also contemplated destroying or permanently weakening all
other neighboring peoples so as to win virtual domination of Europe and
probably of the world. The precise limits of their ambition we need not
define for it was and is as illegal to wage aggressive war for small
stakes as for large ones.

We find at this period two governments in Germany—the real and the
ostensible. The forms of the German Republic were maintained for a time,
and it was the outward and visible government. But the real authority in
the State was outside of and above the law and rested in the Leadership
Corps of the Nazi Party.

On February 27, 1933, less than a month after Hitler became Chancellor,
the Reichstag building was set on fire. The burning of this symbol of
free parliamentary government was so providential for the Nazis that it
was believed they staged the fire themselves. Certainly when we
contemplate their known crimes, we cannot believe they would shrink from
mere arson. It is not necessary, however, to resolve the controversy as
to who set the fire. The significant point is in the use that was made
of the fire and of the state of public mind it produced. The Nazis
immediately accused the Communist Party of instigating and committing
the crime, and turned every effort to portray this single act of arson
as the beginning of a Communist revolution. Then, taking advantage of
the hysteria, the Nazi met this phantom revolution with a real one. In
the following December, the German Supreme Court with commendable
courage and independence acquitted the accused Communists, but it was
too late to influence the tragic course of events which the Nazi
conspirators had set rushing forward.

Hitler, on the morning after the fire, obtained from the aged and ailing
President von Hindenburg a Presidential decree suspending the extensive
guarantees of individual liberty contained in the Constitution of the
Weimar Republic. The decree provided that:

    “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the
    Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further
    notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of
    free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on
    the right of assembly and the right of association, and
    violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic
    communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for
    confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also
    permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
    (_1390-PS_).

The extent of the restriction on personal liberty under the decree of
February 28, 1933 may be understood by reference to the rights under the
Weimar Constitution which were suspended:

    “_Article 114._ The freedom of the person is inviolable.
    Curtailment or deprivation of personal freedom by a public
    authority is only permissible on a legal basis.

    “Persons who have been deprived of their freedom must be
    informed at the latest on the following day by whose authority
    and for what reasons the deprivation of freedom was ordered;
    opportunity shall be afforded them without delay of submitting
    objections to their deprivation of freedom.

    “_Article 115._ Every German’s home is his sanctuary and
    inviolable. Exceptions may only be made as provided by law.

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “_Article 117._ The secrecy of letters and all postal,
    telegraphic and telephone communications is inviolable.
    Exceptions are inadmissible except by Reich law.

    “_Article 118._ Every German has the right, within the limits of
    the general laws, to express his opinions freely in speech, in
    writing, in print, in picture form or in any other way. No
    conditions of work or employment may detract from this right and
    no disadvantage may accrue to him from any person for making use
    of this right. * * *

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “_Article 123._ All Germans have the right to assemble
    peacefully and unarmed without giving notice and without special
    permission.

    “A Reich law may make previous notification obligatory for
    assemblies in the open air, and may prohibit them in the case of
    immediate danger to the public safety.

    “_Article 124._ All the Germans have the right to form
    associations or societies for purposes not contrary to criminal
    law. This right may not be curtailed by preventive measures. The
    same provisions apply to religious associations and societies.

    “Every association may become incorporated (Erwerb der
    Rechtsfaehigkeit) according to the provisions of the civil law.
    The right may not be refused to any association on the grounds
    that its aims are political, social-political or religious.

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “_Article 153._ Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its
    content and limits are defined by the laws.

    “Expropriation can only take place for the public benefit and on
    a legal basis. Adequate compensation shall be granted, unless a
    Reich law orders otherwise. In the case of dispute concerning
    the amount of compensation, it shall be possible to submit the
    matter to the ordinary civil courts, unless Reich laws determine
    otherwise. Compensation must be paid if the Reich expropriates
    property belonging to the Lands, Communes, or public utility
    associations.

    “Property carries obligations. Its use shall also serve the
    common good.” (_2050-PS_).

It must be said in fairness to von Hindenburg that the Constitution
itself authorized him temporarily to suspend these fundamental rights
“if the public safety and order in the German Reich are considerably
disturbed or endangered.” It must also be acknowledged that President
Ebert previously had invoked this power.

But the National Socialist coup was made possible because the terms of
the Hitler-Hindenburg decree departed from all previous ones in which
the power of suspension had been invoked. Whenever Ebert had suspended
constitutional guarantees of individual rights, his decree had expressly
revived the Protective Custody Act adopted by the Reichstag in 1916
during the previous war. This Act guaranteed a judicial hearing within
24 hours of arrest, gave a right to have counsel and to inspect all
relevant records, provided for appeal, and authorized compensation from
Treasury funds for erroneous arrests.

The Hitler-Hindenburg decree of February 28, 1933 contained no such
safeguards. The omission may not have been noted by von Hindenburg.
Certainly he did not appreciate its effect. It left the Nazi police and
party formations, already existing and functioning under Hitler,
completely unrestrained and irresponsible. Secret arrest and indefinite
detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without
counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom
the Nazi police suspected or disliked. No court could issue an
injunction, or writ of _habeas corpus_, or _certiorari_. The German
people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of
the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men, of
whom the defendants here before you are surviving and representative
leaders.

The Nazi conspiracy, as we shall show, always contemplated not merely
overcoming current opposition but exterminating elements which could not
be reconciled with its philosophy of the state. It not only sought to
establish the Nazi “new order” but to secure its sway, as Hitler
predicted, “for a thousand years.” Nazis were never in doubt or
disagreement as to what these dissident elements were. They were
concisely described by one of them, Col. General von Fritsch, on
December 11, 1938, in these words:

    “Shortly after the first war I came to the conclusion that we
    should have to be victorious in three battles if Germany were to
    become powerful again: 1. The battle against the working
    class—Hitler has won this. 2. Against the Catholic Church,
    perhaps better expressed against Ultramontanism. 3. Against the
    Jews.” (_1947-PS_).

The warfare against these elements was continuous. The battle in Germany
was but a practice skirmish for the worldwide drive against them. We
have in point of geography and of time two groups of crimes against
humanity—one within Germany before and during the war, the other in
occupied territory during the war. But the two are not separated in Nazi
planning. They are a continuous unfolding of the Nazi plan to
exterminate peoples and institutions which might serve as a focus or
instrument for overturning their “new world order” at any time. We
consider these Crimes against Humanity in this address as manifestations
of the one Nazi plan and discuss them according to General von Fritsch’s
classification.

                1. The Battle Against the Working Class

When Hitler came to power, there were in Germany three groups of trade
unions. The General German Trade Union Confederation (ADGB) with
twenty-eight affiliated unions, and the General Independent Employees
Confederation (AFA) with thirteen federated unions together numbered
more than 4,500,000 members. The Christian Trade Union had over
1,250,000 members.

The working people of Germany, like the working people of other nations,
had little to gain personally by war. While labor is usually brought
around to the support of the nation at war, labor by and large is a
pacific, though by no means a pacifist force in the world. The working
people of Germany had not forgotten in 1933 how heavy the yoke of the
war lord can be. It was the workingmen who had joined the sailors and
soldiers in the revolt of 1918 to end the First World War. The Nazis had
neither forgiven nor forgotten. The Nazi program required that this part
of the German population not only be stripped of power to resist
diversion of its scanty comforts to armament, but also be wheedled or
whipped into new and unheard of sacrifices as part of the Nazi war
preparation. Labor must be cowed, and that meant its organizations and
means of cohesion and defense must be destroyed.

The purpose to regiment labor for the Nazi Party was avowed by Ley in a
speech to workers on May 2, 1933, as follows:

    “You may say what else do you want, you have the absolute power.
    True we have the power, but we do not have the whole people, we
    do not have you workers 100%, and it is you whom we want; we
    will not let you be until you stand with us in complete, genuine
    acknowledgment.” (_614-PS_).

The first Nazi attack was upon the two larger unions. On April 21, 1933
an order not even in the name of the Government, but of the Nazi Party
was issued by the conspirator Robert Ley as “Chief of Staff of the
political organization of the NSDAP,” applicable to the Trade Union
Confederation and the Independent Employees Confederation. It directed
seizure of their properties and arrest of their principal leaders. The
party order directed party organs which we here denounce as criminal
associations, the SA and SS “to be employed for the occupation of the
trade union properties, and for the taking into custody of personalities
who come into question.” And it directed the taking into “protective
custody” of all chairmen and district secretaries of such unions and
branch directors of the labor bank (_392-PS_).

These orders were carried out on May 2, 1933. All funds of the labor
unions, including pension and benefit funds, were seized. Union leaders
were sent to concentration camps. A few days later, on May 10, 1933,
Hitler appointed Ley leader of the German Labor Front (_DEUTSCHE
ARBEITSFRONT_), which succeeded to the confiscated union funds. The
German Labor Front, a Nazi controlled labor bureau, was set up under Ley
to teach the Nazi philosophy to German workers and to weed out from
industrial employment all who were backward in their lessons
(_1940-PS_). “Factory Troops” were organized as an “ideological shock
squad within the factory” (_1817-PS_). The Party order provided that
“outside of the German Labor Front, no other organization (whether of
workers or of employees) is to exist.” On June 24, 1933 the remaining
Christian Trade Unions were seized pursuant to an order of the Nazi
Party signed by Ley.

On May 19, 1933, this time by government decree, it was provided that
“trustees” of labor, appointed by Hitler, should regulate the conditions
of all labor contracts, replacing the former process of collective
bargaining (_405-PS_). On January 20, 1934 a decree “regulating national
labor” introduced the fuehrer-principle into industrial relations. It
provided that the owners of enterprises should be the “fuehrers” and the
workers should be the followers. The enterpriser-fuehrers should “make
decisions for employees and laborers in all matters concerning the
enterprise” (_1861-PS_). It was by such bait that the great German
industrialists were induced to support the Nazi cause, to their own
ultimate ruin.

Not only did the Nazis dominate and regiment German labor, but they
forced the youth into the ranks of the laboring people they had thus led
into chains. Under a compulsory labor service decree on 26 June, 1935,
young men and women between the ages of 18 and 25 were conscripted for
labor (see _1654-PS_). Thus was the purpose to subjugate German labor
accomplished. In the words of Ley, this accomplishment consisted “in
eliminating the association character of the trade union and employees’
associations, and in its place we have substituted the conception
‘soldiers of work’.” The productive manpower of the German nation was in
Nazi control. By these steps the defendants won the battle to liquidate
labor unions as potential opposition and were enabled to impose upon the
working class the burdens of preparing for aggressive warfare.

Robert Ley, the field marshal of the battle against labor, answered our
indictment with suicide. Apparently he knew no better answer.

                   2. The Battle Against the Churches

The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology.
But we who believe in freedom of conscience and of religion base no
charge of criminality on anybody’s ideology. It is not because the Nazi
themselves were irreligious or pagan, but because they persecuted others
of the Christian faith that they become guilty of crime, and it is
because the persecution was a step in the preparation for aggressive
warfare that the offense becomes one of international consequence. To
remove every moderating influence among the German people and to put its
population on a total war footing, the conspirators devised and carried
out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and
churches.

We will ask you to convict the Nazis on their own evidence. Martin
Bormann in June, 1941, issued a secret decree on the relation of
Christianity and National Socialism. The decree provided:

    “For the first time in German history the Fuehrer consciously
    and completely has the leadership of the people in his own hand.
    With the party, its components and attached units the Fuehrer
    has created for himself and thereby the German Reich leadership
    an instrument which makes him independent of the church. All
    influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the
    people exercised by the Fuehrer with help of the NSDAP, must be
    eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the
    churches and their organs, the pastors. Of course, the churches
    must and will, seen from their viewpoint, defend themselves
    against this loss of power. But never again must an influence on
    leadership of the people be yielded to the churches. This
    (influence) must be broken completely and finally.

    “Only the Reich government and by its direction the party, its
    components and attached units have a right to leadership of the
    people. Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers
    and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the state, so
    must the possibility of church influence also be totally
    removed. Not until this has happened, does the state leadership
    have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are
    people and Reich secure in their existence for all the future”
    (_D-75_).

And how the party had been securing the Reich from Christian influence,
will be proved by such items as this teletype from the Gestapo, Berlin,
to the Gestapo, Nurnberg, on July 24, 1938. Let us hear their own
account of events in Rottenburg.

    “The Party on 23 July 1939 from 2100 on carried out the third
    demonstration against Bishop Sproll. Participants about
    2500-3000 were brought in from outside by bus, etc. The
    Rottenburg populace again did not participate in the
    demonstration. This town took rather a hostile attitude to the
    demonstrations. The action got completely out of hand of the
    Party Member responsible for it. The demonstrators stormed the
    palace, beat in the gates and doors. About 150 to 200 people
    forced their way into the palace, searched the rooms, threw
    files out of the windows and rummaged through the beds in the
    rooms of the palace. One bed was ignited. Before the fire got to
    the other objects of equipment in the rooms and the palace, the
    flaming bed could be thrown from the window and the fire
    extinguished. The Bishop was with Archbishop Groeber of Freiburg
    and the ladies and gentlemen of his menage in the chapel at
    prayer. About 25 to 30 people pressed into this chapel and
    molested those present. Bishop Groeber was taken for Bishop
    Sproll. He was grabbed by the robe and dragged back and forth.
    Finally the intruders realized that Bishop Groeber is not the
    one they are seeking. They could then be persuaded to leave the
    building. After the evacuation of the palace by the
    demonstrators I had an interview with Archbishop Groeber, who
    left Rottenburg in the night. Groeber wants to turn to the
    Fuehrer and Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, anew. On
    the course of the action, the damage done as well as the homage
    of the Rottenburg populace beginning today for the Bishop I
    shall immediately hand in a full report, after I am in the act
    of suppressing counter mass meetings. * * *

    “In case the Fuehrer has instructions to give in this matter, I
    request that these be transmitted most quickly * * *”
    (_848-PS_).

Later, defendant Rosenberg wrote to Bormann reviewing the proposal of
Kerrl as Church Minister to place the Protestant Church under State
tutelage and proclaim Hitler its Supreme head. Rosenberg was opposed,
hinting that Naziism was to suppress the Christian Church completely
after the war (see _098-PS_).

The persecution of all pacifist and dissenting sects, such as Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Pentecostal Association, was peculiarly relentless and
cruel. The policy toward the Evangelical Churches, however, was to use
their influence for the Nazis’ own purposes. In September, 1933, Mueller
was appointed the Fuehrer’s representative with power to deal with the
“affairs of the Evangelical Church” in its relations to the State.
Eventually, steps were taken to create a Reich Bishop vested with power
to control this Church. A long conflict followed, Pastor Niemoeller was
sent to concentration camp, and extended interference with the internal
discipline and administration of the Churches occurred.

A most intense drive was directed against the Roman Catholic Church.
After a strategic concordat with the Holy See, signed in July, 1933 in
Rome, which never was observed by the Nazi Party, a long and persistent
persecution of the Catholic Church, its priesthood and its members, was
carried out. Church Schools and educational institutions were suppressed
or subjected to requirements of Nazi teaching inconsistent with the
Christian faith. The property of the Church was confiscated and inspired
vandalism directed against Church property was left unpunished.
Religious instruction was impeded and the exercise of religion made
difficult. Priests and bishops were laid upon, riots were stimulated to
harass them, and many were sent to concentration camps.

After occupation of foreign soil, these persecutions went on with
greater vigor than ever. We will present to you from the files of the
Vatican the earnest protests made by the Vatican to Ribbentrop
summarizing the persecutions to which the priesthood and the Church had
been subjected in this Twentieth Century under the Nazi regime.
Ribbentrop never answered them. He could not deny. He dared not justify.

                       3. Crimes Against the Jews

The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis
were those against the Jews. These in Germany, in 1933, numbered about
500,000. In the aggregate, they had made for themselves positions which
excited envy, and had accumulated properties which excited the avarice
of the Nazis. They were few enough to be helpless and numerous enough to
be held up as a menace.

Let there be no misunderstanding about the charge of persecuting Jews.
What we charge against these defendants is not those arrogances and
pretensions which frequently accompany the intermingling of different
peoples and which are likely despite the honest efforts of government,
to produce regrettable crimes and convulsions. It is my purpose to show
a plan and design, to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to
annihilate all Jewish people. These crimes were organized and promoted
by the Party Leadership, executed and protected by the Nazi officials,
as we shall convince you by written orders of the Secret State Police
itself.

The persecution of the Jews was a continuous and deliberate policy. It
was a policy directed against other nations as well as against the Jews
themselves. Anti-Semitism was promoted to divide and embitter the
democratic peoples and to soften their resistance to the Nazi
aggression. As Robert Ley declared in _Der Angriff_ on 14 May 1944, “The
second German secret weapon is Anti-Semitism because if it is constantly
pursued by Germany, it will become a universal problem which all nations
will be forced to consider.”

Anti-Semitism also has been aptly credited with being a “spearhead of
terror.” The ghetto was the laboratory for testing repressive measures.
Jewish property was the first to be expropriated, but the custom grew
and included similar measures against Anti-Nazi Germans, Poles, Czechs,
Frenchmen, and Belgians. Extermination of the Jews enabled the Nazis to
bring a practiced hand to similar measures against Poles, Serbs, and
Greeks. The plight of the Jew was a constant threat to opposition or
discontent among other elements of Europe’s population—pacifists,
conservatives, communists, Catholics, Protestants, socialist. It was, in
fact, a threat to every dissenting opinion and to every non-Nazi’s life.

The persecution policy against the Jews commenced with non-violent
measures, such as disfranchisement and discriminations against their
religion, and the placing of impediments in the way of success in
economic life. It moved rapidly to organized mass violence against them,
physical isolation in ghettos, deportation, forced labor, mass
starvation, and extermination. The Government, the Party formation
indicated before you as criminal organizations, the Secret State Police,
the Army, private and semi-public associations, and “spontaneous” mobs
that were carefully inspired from official sources, were all agencies
concerned in this persecution. Nor was it directed against individual
Jews for personal bad citizenship or unpopularity. The avowed purpose
was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole, as an end in
itself, as a measure of preparation for war, and as a discipline of
conquered peoples.

The conspiracy or common plan to exterminate the Jew was so methodically
and thoroughly pursued that despite the German defeat and Nazi
prostration, this Nazi aim largely has succeeded. Only remnants of the
European Jewish population remain in Germany, in the countries which
Germany occupied, and in those which were her satellites or
collaborators. Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in Nazi-dominated Europe,
60 percent are authoritatively estimated to have perished. 5,700,000
Jews are missing from the countries in which they formerly lived, and
over 4,500,000 cannot be accounted for by the normal death rate nor by
immigration; nor are they included among displaced persons. History does
not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever
carried out with such calculated cruelty.

You will have difficulty, as I have, to look into the faces of these
defendants and believe that in this Twentieth Century human beings could
inflict such sufferings as will be proved here on their own countrymen
as well as upon their so-called “inferior” enemies. Particular crimes,
and the responsibility of defendants for them, are to be dealt with by
the Soviet Government’s Counsel, when committed in the East, and by
Counsel for the Republic of France when committed in the West. I advert
to them only to show their magnitude as evidence of a purpose and a
knowledge common to all defendants, of an official plan rather than of a
capricious policy of some individual commander, and to show such a
continuity of Jewish persecution from the rise of the Nazi conspiracy to
its collapse as forbids us to believe that any person could be
identified with any part of Nazi action without approving this most
conspicuous item of its program.

The Indictment itself recites many evidences of the anti-Semitic
persecutions. The defendant Streicher led the Nazis in anti-Semitic
bitterness and extremism. In an article appearing in _Der Stuermer_ on
19 March, 1942 he complained that Christian teachings have stood in the
way of “radical solution of the Jewish question in Europe,” and quoted
enthusiastically as the Twentieth Century solution the Fuehrer’s
proclamation of February 24, 1942 that “the Jew will be exterminated.”
And on November 4, 1943, Streicher declared in _Der Stuermer_ that the
Jews “have disappeared from Europe and that the Jewish ‘Reservoir of the
East’ from which the Jewish plague has for centuries beset the people of
Europe, has ceased to exist.” Streicher now has the effrontery to tell
us he is “only a Zionist”—he says he wants only to return the Jews to
Palestine. But on May 7, 1942 his newspaper, _Der Stuermer_, had this to
say:

    “It is also not only an European problem! _The Jewish question
    is a world question!_ Not only is Germany not safe in the face
    of the Jews as long as one Jew lives in Europe, but also the
    Jewish question is hardly solved in Europe so long as Jews live
    in the rest of the world.”

And the defendant Hans Frank, a lawyer by profession I say with shame,
summarized in his Diary in 1944 the Nazi policy thus: “The Jews are a
race which has to be eliminated; whenever we catch one, it is his end.”
(Frank Diary, 4 March 1944, p. 26). And earlier, speaking of his
function as Governor-General of Poland, he confided to his diary this
sentiment: “Of course I cannot eliminate all lice and Jews in only a
year’s time.” (_2233-C-PS_) I could multiply endlessly this kind of Nazi
ranting but I will leave it to the evidence and turn to the fruit of
this perverted thinking.

The most serious of the actions against Jews were outside of any law,
but the law itself was employed to some extent. There were the infamous
Nurnberg decrees of September 15, 1935 (_Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1935, Part
I, p. 1146). The Jews were segregated into ghettos and put into forced
labor; they were expelled from their professions; their property was
expropriated; all cultural life, the press, the theatre, and schools
were prohibited them; and the SD was made responsible for them
(_212-PS_; _069-PS_). This was an ominous guardianship, as the following
order for “The Handling of the Jewish Question” shows:

    “The competency of the Chief of the Security Police and Security
    Service, who is charged with the mission of solving the European
    Jewish question, extends even to the occupied eastern provinces.
    * * *

    “An eventual act by the civilian population against the Jews is
    not to be prevented as long as this is compatible with the
    maintenance of order and security in the rear of the fighting
    troops * * *

    “The first main goal of the German measures must be strict
    segregation of Jewry from the rest of the population. In the
    execution of this, first of all is the seizing of the Jewish
    populace by the introduction of a registration order and similar
    appropriate measures * * *

    “Then immediately, the wearing of the recognition sign
    consisting of a yellow Jewish star is to be brought about and
    all rights of freedom for Jews are to be withdrawn. They are to
    be placed in Ghettos and at the same time are to be separated
    according to sexes. The presence of many more or less closed
    Jewish settlements in White Ruthenia and in the Ukraine makes
    this mission easier. Moreover, places are to be chosen which
    make possible the full use of the Jewish manpower in case labor
    needs are present * * *

    “The entire Jewish property is to be seized and confiscated with
    exception of that which is necessary for a bare existence. As
    far as the economical situation permits, the power of disposal
    of their property is to be taken from the Jews as soon as
    possible through orders and other measures given by the
    commissariate, so that the moving of property will quickly
    cease.

    “Any cultural activity will be completely forbidden, to the Jew.
    This includes the outlawing of the Jewish press, the Jewish
    theatres and schools.

    “The slaughtering of animals according to Jewish rites is also
    to be prohibited * * *” (_212-PS_).

The anti-Jewish campaign became furious in Germany following the
assassination in Paris of the German Legation Councillor von Rath.
Heydrich, Gestapo head, sent a teletype to all Gestapo and SD offices
with directions for handling “spontaneous” uprising anticipated for the
nights of November 9 and 10, 1938, so as to aid in destruction of
Jewish-owned property and protect only that of Germans (_374-PS_;
_765-PS_). No more cynical document ever came into evidence. Then there
is a report by an SS Brigade Leader, Dr. Stahlecher, to Himmler, which
recites that:

    “Similarly, native anti-Semitic forces were induced to start
    pogroms against Jews during the first hours after capture,
    though this inducement proved to be very difficult. Following
    our orders, the Security Police was determined to solve the
    Jewish question with all possible means and most decisively. But
    it was desirable that the Security Police should not put in an
    immediate appearance, at least in the beginning, since the
    extraordinarily harsh measures were apt to stir even German
    circles. It had to be shown to the world that the native
    population itself took the first action by way of natural
    reaction against the suppression by Jews during several decades
    and against the terror exercised by the Communists during the
    preceding period.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “In view of the extension of the area of operations and the
    great number of duties which had to be performed by the Security
    Police, it was intended from the very beginning to obtain the
    cooperation of the reliable population for the fight against
    vermin—that is mainly the Jews and Communists. Beyond our
    directing of the first spontaneous actions of self-cleansing,
    which will be reported elsewhere, care had to be taken that
    reliable people should be put to the cleansing job and that they
    were appointed auxiliary members of the Security Police.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “Kowno * * * To our surprise it was not easy at first to set in
    motion an extensive pogrom against Jews. KLIMATIS, the leader of
    the partisan unit, mentioned above, who was used for this
    purpose primarily, succeeded in starting a pogrom on the basis
    of advice given to him by a small advanced detachment acting in
    Kowno, and in such a way that no German order or German
    instigation was noticed from the outside. During the first
    pogrom in the night from 25. to 26.6 the Lithuanian partisans
    did away with more than 1,500 Jews, set fire to several
    synagogues or destroyed them by other means and burned down a
    Jewish dwelling district consisting of about 60 houses. During
    the following nights about 2,300 Jews were made harmless in a
    similar way. In other parts of Lithuania similar actions
    followed the example of Kowno, though smaller and extending to
    the Communists who had been left behind.

    “These self-cleansing actions went smoothly because the Army
    authorities who had been informed showed understanding for this
    procedure. From the beginning it was obvious that only the first
    days after the occupation would offer the opportunity for
    carrying out pogroms. After the disarmament of the partisans the
    self-cleansing actions ceased necessarily.

    “It proved much more difficult to set in motion similar
    cleansing actions in Latvia.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “From the beginning it was to be expected that the Jewish
    problem in the East could not be solved by pogroms alone. In
    accordance with the basic orders received, however, the
    cleansing activities of the Security Police had to aim at a
    complete annihilation of the Jews * * *

    “The sum total of the Jews liquidated in Lithuania amounts to
    71,105.” (_L-180_).

Of course, it is self-evident that these “uprisings” were managed by the
government and the Nazi Party. If we were in doubt, we could resort to
Streicher’s memorandum of April 14, 1939, which says, “The anti-Jewish
action of November, 1938 did not arise spontaneously from the people. *
* * Part of the party formation have been charged with the execution of
the anti-Jewish action.” (_406-PS_). Jews as a whole were fined a
billion Reichsmarks. They were excluded from all businesses, and claims
against insurance companies for their burned properties were
confiscated, all by decree of the defendant Goering
(_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1938, Part I, Pp. 1579-1582).

Synagogues were the objects of a special vengeance. On November 10,
1938, the following order was given: “By order of the Group Commander,
all Jewish Synagogues in the area of Brigade 50 have to be blown up or
set afire. * * * The operation will be carried out in civilian clothing.
* * * Execution of the order will be reported * * *.” (_1721-PS_). Some
40 teletype messages from various police headquarters will tell the fury
with which all Jews were pursued in Germany on those awful November
nights. The SS troops were turned loose and the Gestapo supervised.
Jewish-owned property was authorized to be destroyed. The Gestapo
ordered twenty to thirty thousand “well-to-do Jews” to be arrested.
Concentration camps were to receive them. Healthy Jews, fit for labor,
were to be taken (_3051-PS_).

As the German frontiers were expanded by war, so the campaign against
the Jews expanded. The Nazi plan never was limited to extermination in
Germany; always it contemplated extinguishing the Jew in Europe and
often in the world. In the west, the Jews were killed and their property
taken over. But the campaign achieved its zenith of savagery in the
East. The Eastern Jew has suffered as no people ever suffered. Their
sufferings were carefully reported to the Nazi authorities to show
faithful adherence to the Nazi design. I shall refer only to enough of
the evidence of these to show the extent of the Nazi design for killing
Jews.

If I should recite these horrors in words of my own, you would think me
intemperate and unreliable. Fortunately, we need not take the word of
any witness but the Germans themselves. I invite you now to look at a
few of the vast number of captured German orders and reports that will
be offered in evidence, to see what a Nazi invasion meant. We will
present such evidence as the report of _Einsatzgruppe_ (Action Group) A
of October 15, 1941, which boasts that in overrunning the Baltic States,
“Native Anti-Semitic forces were induced to start pogroms against the
Jews during the first hours after occupation * * *.” The report
continues:

    “From the beginning it was to be expected that the Jewish
    problem in the East could not be solved by pogroms alone. In
    accordance with the basic orders received, however, the
    cleansing activities of the Security Police had to aim at a
    complete annihilation of the Jews. Special detachments
    reinforced by selected units—in Lithuania partisan detachments,
    in Latvia units of the Latvian auxiliary police—therefore
    performed extensive executions both in the towns and in rural
    areas. The actions of the execution detachments were performed
    smoothly.

    “The sum total of the Jews liquidated in Lithuania amounts to
    71,105. During the pogroms in Kowno 3,800 Jews were eliminated,
    in the smaller towns about 1,200 Jews.

    “In Latvia, up to now a total of 30,000 Jews were executed. 500
    were eliminated by pogroms in Riga.” (_L-180_).

This is a captured report from the Commissioner of Sluzk on October 30,
1941, which describes the scene in more detail. It says:

    “The first lieutenant explained that the police battalion had
    received the assignment to effect the liquidation of all Jews
    here in the town of Sluzk, within two days. Then I requested him
    to postpone the action one day. However, he rejected this with
    the remark that he had to carry out this action everywhere and
    in all towns and that only two days were allotted for Sluzk.
    Within these two days, the town of Sluzk had to be cleared of
    Jews by all means. * * * All Jews without exception were taken
    out of the factories and shops and deported in spite of our
    agreement. It is true that part of the Jews was moved by way of
    the ghetto where many of them were processed and still
    segregated by me, but a large part was loaded directly on trucks
    and liquidated without further delay outside of the town. * * *
    For the rest, as regards the execution of the action, I must
    point out to my deepest regret that the latter bordered already
    on sadism. The town itself offered a picture of horror during
    the action. With indescribable brutality on the part of both the
    German police officers and particularly the Lithuanian
    partisans, the Jewish people, but also among them White
    Ruthenians, were taken out of their dwellings and herded
    together. Everywhere in the town shots were to be heard and in
    different streets the corpses of shot Jews accumulated. The
    White Ruthenians were in greatest distress to free themselves
    from the encirclement. Regardless of the fact that the Jewish
    people, among whom were also tradesmen, were mistreated in a
    terribly barbarous way in the face of the White Ruthenian
    people, the White Ruthenians themselves were also worked over
    with rubber clubs and rifle butts. There was no question of an
    action against the Jews any more. It rather looked like a
    revolution. * * *” (_1104-PS_).

There are reports which merely tabulate the numbers slaughtered. An
example is an account of the work of _Einsatzgruppen_ of Sipo and SD in
the East, which relates that—

    In Estonia, all Jews were arrested immediately upon the arrival
    of the Wehrmacht. Jewish men and women above the age of 16 and
    capable of work were drafted for forced labor. Jews were
    subjected to all sorts of restrictions and all Jewish property
    was confiscated.

    All Jewish males above the age of 16 were executed, with the
    exception of doctors and elders. Only 500 of an original 4,500
    Jews remained.

    37,180 persons have been liquidated by the Sipo and SD in White
    Ruthenia during October.

    In one town, 337 Jewish women were executed for demonstrating a
    “provocative attitude.” In another, 380 Jews were shot for
    spreading vicious propaganda.

And so the report continues, listing town after town, where hundreds
upon hundreds of Jews were murdered.

    In Witebsk 3,000 Jews were liquidated because of the danger of
    epidemics.

    In Kiew, 33,771 Jews were executed on September 29 and 30 in
    retaliation for some fires which were set off there.

    In Shitomir, 3,145 Jews “had to be shot” because, judging from
    experience they had to be considered as the carriers of
    Bolshevik propaganda.

    In Cherson, 410 Jews were executed in reprisal against acts of
    sabotage.

    In the territory east of the Djnepr, the Jewish problem was
    “solved” by the liquidation of 4,891 Jews and by putting the
    remainder into labor battalions of up to 1,000 persons
    (_R-102_).

Other accounts tell not of the slaughter so much as of the depths of
degradation to which the tormentors stooped. For example, we will show
the reports made to defendant Rosenberg about the army and the SS in the
area under Rosenberg’s jurisdiction, which recited the following:

    “Details: In presence of SS man, a Jewish dentist has to break
    all gold teeth and fillings out of mouth of German and Russian
    Jews _before_ they are executed.”

    Men, women and children are locked into barns and burned alive.

    Peasants, women and children are shot on pretext that they are
    suspected of belonging to bands (_R-135_).

We of the Western World heard of Gas Wagons in which Jews and political
opponents were asphyxiated. We could not believe it. But here we have
the report of May 16, 1942 from the German SS officer, Becker, to his
supervisor in Berlin which tells this story:

    Gas vans in C. group can be driven to execution spot, which is
    generally stationed 10 to 15 kms. from main road only in dry
    weather. Since those to be executed become frantic if conducted
    to this place, such vans become immobilized in wet weather.

    Gas vans in D. group camouflaged as cabin trailers, but vehicles
    well known to authorities and civilian population which calls
    them “Death Vans”.

    Writer of letter (Becker) ordered all men to keep as far away as
    possible during gassing. Unloading van has “atrocious spiritual
    and physical effect” on men and they should be ordered not to
    participate in such work (_501-PS_).

I shall not dwell on this subject longer than to quote one more
sickening document which evidences the planned and systematic character
of the Jewish persecutions. I hold a report written with Teutonic
devotion to detail, illustrated with photographs to authenticate its
almost incredible text, and beautifully bound in leather with the loving
care bestowed on a proud work. It is the original report of the SS
Brigadier General Stroop in charge of the destruction of the Warsaw
Ghetto, and its title page carries the inscription, “The Jewish Ghetto
in Warsaw no longer exists.” It is characteristic that one of the
captions explains that the photograph concerned shows the driving out of
Jewish “bandits”; those whom the photograph shows being driven out are
almost entirely women and little children. It contains a day-by-day
account of the killings mainly carried out by the SS organization, too
long to relate, but let me quote General Stroop’s summary:

    “The resistance put up by the Jews and bandits could only be
    suppressed by energetic actions of our troops day and night.
    _The Reichsfuehrer 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 burned. 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.
    Sometimes they changed their hideouts during the night into the
    ruins of burned buildings. Life in the sewers was not pleasant
    after the first week. Many times we could hear loud voices in
    the sewers. SS men or policemen climbed bravely through the
    manholes to capture these Jews. Sometimes they stumbled over
    Jewish corpses; sometimes they were shot at. 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. Frequently Jews who tried to replenish their food
    supplies during the night or to communicate with neighboring
    groups were exterminated.” (_1061-PS_).

This action eliminated, says the SS commander, “a proved total of
56,065. To that we have to add the number of those killed through
blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted.”

We charge that all atrocities against Jews were the manifestation and
culmination of the Nazi plan to which every defendant here was a party.
I know very well that some of these men did take steps to spare some
particular Jew for some personal reason from the horrors that awaited
the unrescued Jew. Some protested that particular atrocities were
excessive, and discredited the general policy. While a few defendants
may show efforts to make specific exceptions to the policy of Jewish
extermination, I have found no instance in which any defendant opposed
the policy itself or sought to revoke or even modify it.

Determination to destroy the Jews was a binding force which at all times
cemented the elements of this conspiracy. On many internal policies
there were differences among the defendants. But there is not one of
them who has not echoed the rallying cry of Naziism—_DEUTSCHLAND
ERWACHE JUDA VERRECKE!_ (GERMANY AWAKE, JEWRY PERISH!)

                   TERRORISM AND PREPARATION FOR WAR

How a Government treats its own inhabitants generally is thought to be
no concern of other Governments or of international society. Certainly
few oppressions or cruelties would warrant the intervention of foreign
powers. But the German mistreatment of Germans is now known to pass in
magnitude and savagery any limits of what is tolerable by modern
civilization. Other nations, by silence, would take a consenting part in
such crimes. These Nazi persecutions, moreover, take character as
international crimes because of the purpose for which they were
undertaken.

The purpose, as we have seen, of getting rid of the influence of free
labor, the churches, and the Jews was to clear their obstruction to the
precipitation of aggressive war. If aggressive warfare in violation of
treaty obligation is a matter of international cognizance, the
preparations for it must also be of concern to the international
community. Terrorism was the chief instrument for securing the cohesion
of the German people in war purposes. Moreover, these cruelties in
Germany served as atrocity practice to discipline the membership of the
criminal organization to follow the pattern later in occupied countries.

Through the police formations that before you are accused as criminal
organizations, the Nazi Party leaders, aided at some point in their
basic and notorious purpose by each of the individual defendants
instituted a reign of terror. These espionage and police organizations
were utilized to hunt down every form of opposition and to penalize
every nonconformity. These organizations early founded and administered
concentration camps—Buchenwald in 1933, Dachau in 1934. But these
notorious names were not alone. Concentration camps came to dot the
German map and to number scores. At first they met with resistance from
some Germans. We have a captured letter from Minister of Justice
Guertner to Hitler which is revealing. A Gestapo official had been
prosecuted for crimes committed in the camp at Hohnstein, and the Nazi
Governor of Saxony had promptly asked that the proceeding be quashed.
The Minister of Justice in June of 1935 protested because, as he said:

    “In this camp unusually grave mistreatments of prisoners have
    occurred at least since Summer 1933. The prisoners not only were
    beaten with whips without cause, similarly as in the
    Concentration Camp Bredow near Stettin till they lost
    consciousness, but they were also tortured in other manners,
    e.g. with the help of a dripping apparatus constructed
    exclusively for this purpose, under which prisoners had to stand
    until they were suffering from serious purulent wounds of the
    scalp * * *” (_787-PS_).

I shall not take time to detail the ghastly proceedings in these
concentration camps. Beatings, starvings, tortures, and killings were
routine—so routine that the tormenters became blase and careless. We
have a report of discovery that in Ploetzens one night, 186 persons were
executed while there were orders for only 180. Another report describes
how the family of one victim received two urns of ashes by mistake.
Inmates were compelled to execute each other. In 1942, they were paid
five Reichsmarks per execution, but on June 27, 1942, SS General Gluecks
ordered commandants of all concentration camps to reduce this honorarium
to three cigarettes. In 1943, the Reichsleader of the SS and Chief of
German Police ordered the corporal punishments on Russian women to be
applied by Polish women and vice versa, but the price was not frozen.
“As reward, a few cigarettes” was authorized. Under the Nazis, human
life had been progressively devalued until it finally became worth less
than a handful of tobacco—ersatz tobacco. There were, however, some
traces of the milk of human kindness. On August 11, 1942, an order went
from Himmler to the commanders of fourteen concentration camps that
“only German prisoners are allowed to beat other German prisoners.”
(_2189-PS_).

Mystery and suspense was added to cruelty in order to spread torture
from the inmate to his family and friends. Men and women disappeared
from their homes or business or from the streets, and no word came of
them. The omission of notice was not due to overworked staff; it was due
to policy. The Chief of the SD and Sipo reported that in accordance with
orders from the Fuehrer anxiety should be created in the minds of the
family of the arrested person (_668-PS_). Deportations and secret
arrests were labeled, with a Nazi wit which seems a little ghoulish,
_Nacht und Nebel_ (Night and Fog) (_L-90, 833-PS_). One of the many
orders for these actions gave this explanation:

    “The decree carries a basic innovation. The Fuehrer and
    Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces commands that crimes of
    the specified sort committed by civilians of the occupied
    territories are to be punished by the pertinent courts-martial
    in the occupied territories _only_ when

    _a._ the sentence calls for the death penalty, and

    _b._ the sentence is pronounced within 8 days after the arrest.

    “Only when both conditions are met does the Fuehrer and
    Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces hope for the desired
    deterrent effect from the conduct of punitive proceedings in the
    occupied territories.

    “In other cases in the future the accused are to be secretly
    brought to Germany and the further conduct of the trial carried
    on here. The deterrent effect of those measures lies

    _a._ in allowing the disappearance of the accused without a
    trace,

    _b._ therein, that no information whatsoever may be given about
    their whereabouts and their fate.” (_833-PS_).

To clumsy cruelty, scientific skill was added. “Undesirables” were
exterminated by injection of drugs into the bloodstream, by asphyxiation
in gas chambers. They were shot with poison bullets, to study the
effects (_L-103_).

Then, to cruel experiments the Nazi added obscene ones. These were not
the work of underling degenerates but of master minds high in the Nazi
conspiracy. In May 20, 1942, General Field Marshal Milch authorized SS
General Wolff to go ahead at Dachau Camp with so-called “cold
experiments”; and four female gypsies were supplied for the purpose.
Himmler gave permission to carry on these “experiments” also in other
camps (_1617-PS_). At Dachau, the reports of the “doctor” in charge show
that victims were immersed in cold water until their body temperature
was reduced to 28 degrees centigrade (82.4 degrees Fahrenheit), when
they all died immediately (_1618-PS_). This was in August 1942. But the
“doctor’s” technique improved. By February, 1943, he was able to report
that thirty persons were chilled to 27 to 29 degrees, their hands and
feet frozen white, and their bodies “rewarmed” by a hot bath. But the
Nazi scientific triumph was “rewarming with animal heat.” The victim,
all but frozen to death, was surrounded with bodies of living women
until he revived and responded to his environment by having sexual
intercourse (_1616-PS_). Here Nazi degeneracy reached its nadir.

I dislike to encumber the record with such morbid tales, but we are in
the grim business of trying men as criminals, and these are the things
their own agents say happened. We will show you these concentration
camps in motion pictures, just as the Allied armies found them when they
arrived, and the measures General Eisenhower had to take to clean them
up. Our proof will be disgusting and you will say I have robbed you of
your sleep. But these are the things which have turned the stomach of
the world and set every civilized hand against Nazi Germany.

Germany became one vast torture chamber. Cries of its victims were heard
round the world and brought shudders to civilized people everywhere. I
am one who received during this war most atrocity tales with suspicion
and skepticism. But the proof here will be so overwhelming that I
venture to predict not one word I have spoken will be denied. These
defendants will only deny personal responsibility or knowledge.

Under the clutch of the most intricate web of espionage and intrigue
that any modern state has endured, and persecution and torture of a kind
that has not been visited upon the world in many centuries, the elements
of the German population which were both decent and courageous were
annihilated. Those which were decent but weak were intimidated. Open
resistance, which had never been more than feeble and irresolute,
disappeared. But resistance, I am happy to say, always remained,
although it was manifest in only such events as the abortive effort to
assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. With resistance driven underground,
the Nazi had the German State in his own hands.

But the Nazis not only silenced discordant voices. They created positive
controls as effective as their negative ones. Propaganda organs, on a
scale never before known, stimulated the party and party formations with
a permanent enthusiasm and abandon such as we democratic people can work
up only for a few days before a general election. They inculcated and
practiced the _fuehrerprinzip_, which centralized control of the Party
and of the Party-controlled state over the lives and thought of the
German people, who are accustomed to look upon the German State by
whomever controlled with a mysticism that is incomprehensible to my
people.

All these controls from their inception were exerted with unparalleled
energy and singlemindedness to put Germany on a war footing. We will
show from the Nazis’ own documents their secret training of military
personnel, their secret creation of a military air force. Finally, a
conscript army was brought into being. Financiers, economists,
industrialists, joined in the plan and promoted elaborate alterations in
industry and finance to support an unprecedented concentration of
resources and energies upon preparations for war. Germany’s rearmament
so outstripped the strength of her neighbors that in about a year she
was able to crush the whole military force of Continental Europe,
exclusive of that of Soviet Russia, and then to push the Russian armies
back to the Volga. These preparations were of a magnitude which
surpassed all need of defense and every defendant, and every intelligent
German, well understood them to be for aggressive purposes.

                       EXPERIMENTS IN AGGRESSION

Before resorting to open aggressive warfare, the Nazis undertook some
rather cautious experiments to test the spirit and resistance of those
who lay across their path. They advanced, but only as others yielded,
and kept in a position to draw back if they found a temper that made
persistence dangerous.

On 7 March 1936, the Nazis reoccupied the Rhineland and then proceeded
to fortify it in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Pact of
Locarno. They encountered no substantial resistance and were emboldened
to take the next step, which was the acquisition of Austria. Despite
repeated assurances that Germany had no designs on Austria, invasion was
perfected. Threat of attack forced Schuschnigg to resign as Chancellor
of Austria and put the Nazi defendant Seyss-Inquart in his place. The
latter immediately opened the frontier and invited Hitler to invade
Austria “to preserve order.” On March 12th the invasion began. The next
day, Hitler proclaimed himself Chief of the Austrian State, took command
of its armed forces, and a law was enacted annexing Austria to Germany.

Threats of aggression had succeeded without arousing resistance. Fears
nevertheless had been stirred. They were lulled by an assurance to the
Czechoslovak Government that there would be no attack on that country.
We will show that the Nazi Government already had detailed plans for the
attack. We will lay before you the documents in which these conspirators
planned to create an incident to justify their attack. They even gave
consideration to assassinating their own Ambassador at Prague in order
to create a sufficiently dramatic incident. They did precipitate a
diplomatic crisis which endured through the summer. Hitler set September
30th as the day when troops should be ready for action. Under the threat
of immediate war, the United Kingdom and France concluded a pact with
Germany and Italy at Munich on September 29, 1938 which required
Czechoslovakia to acquiesce in the cession of the Sudetenland to
Germany. It was consummated by German occupation on October 1, 1938.

The Munich Pact pledged no further aggression against Czechoslovakia,
but the Nazi pledge was lightly given and quickly broken. On the 15th of
March, 1939, in defiance of the treaty of Munich itself, the Nazis
seized and occupied Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the major
part of Czechoslovakia not already ceded to Germany. Once again the West
stood aghast, but it dreaded war, it saw no remedy except war, and it
hoped against hope that the Nazi fever for expansion had run its course.
But the Nazi world was intoxicated by these unresisted successes in open
alliance with Mussolini and covert alliance with Franco. Then, having
made a deceitful, delaying peace with Russia, the conspirators entered
upon the final phase of the plan to renew war.

                           WAR OF AGGRESSION

I will not prolong this address by detailing the steps leading to the
war of aggression which began with the invasion of Poland on September,
1, 1939. The further story will be unfolded to you from documents
including those of the German High Command itself. The plans had been
laid long in advance. As early as 1935 Hitler appointed the defendant
Schacht to the position of “General Deputy for the War Economy.”
(_2261-PS_). We have the diary of General Jodl (_1780-PS_); the “Plan
Otto,” Hitler’s own order for attack on Austria in case trickery failed
(_C-102_); the “Plan Green” which was the blueprint for attack on
Czechoslovakia (_388-PS_); plans for the War in the West (_376-PS_,
_375-PS_); Funk’s letter to Hitler dated August 25, 1939, detailing the
long course of economic preparation (_699-PS_); Keitel’s top secret
mobilization order for 1939-40 prescribing secret steps to be taken
during a “period of tension” during which no “‘state of war’ will be
publicly declared even if open war measures against the foreign enemy
will be taken.” This latter order (_1639-A-PS_) is in our possession
despite a secret order issued on March 16, 1945, when Allied troops were
advancing into the heart of Germany, to burn these plans. We have also
Hitler’s directive, dated December 18, 1940, for the “Barbarossa
Contingency” outlining the strategy of the attack upon Russia
(_446-PS_). That plan in the original bears the initials of the
defendants Keitel and Jodl. They were planning the attack and planning
it long in advance of the declaration of war. We have detailed
information concerning “Case White,” the plan for attack on Poland
(_C-120_). That attack began the war. The plan was issued by Keitel on
April 3rd, 1939. The attack did not come until September. Steps in
preparation for the attack were taken by subordinate commanders, one of
whom issued an order on June 14, providing that:

    “The Commander-in-Chief of the Army has ordered the working out
    of a _plan of deployment against Poland_ which takes in account
    the demands of the political leadership _for the opening of war
    by surprise and for quick success_ * * *

    “I declare it the duty of the Commanding Generals, the
    divisional commanders and the commandants to limit as much as
    possible the number of persons who will be informed, and to
    limit the extent of the information, and ask that all suitable
    measures be taken to prevent persons not concerned from getting
    information.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “The operation, in order to forestall an orderly Polish
    mobilization and concentration, is to be opened by surprise with
    forces which are for the most part armored and motorized, placed
    on alert in the neighborhood of the border. The initial
    superiority over the Polish frontier-guards and surprise that
    can be expected with certainty are to be maintained by quickly
    bringing up other parts of the army as well to counteract the
    marching up of the Polish Army.

    “If the development of the Political situation should show that
    a surprise at the beginning of the war is out of question,
    because of well advanced defense preparations on the part of the
    Polish Army, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army will order the
    opening of the hostilities only after the assembling of
    sufficient additional forces. The basis of all preparations will
    be to surprise the enemy.” (_2327-PS_).

We have also the order for the invasion of England, signed by Hitler and
initialed by Keitel and Jodl. It is interesting that it commences with a
recognition that although the British military position is “hopeless,”
they show not the slightest sign of giving in (_442-PS_).

Not the least incriminating are the minutes of Hitler’s meeting with his
high advisers. As early as November 5, 1937, Hitler told defendants
Goering, Raeder, and Neurath, among others, that German rearmament was
practically accomplished and that he had decided to secure by force,
starting with a lightning attack on Czechoslovakia and Austria, greater
living space for Germans in Europe no later than 1943-45 and perhaps as
early as 1938 (_386-PS_). On the 23rd of May, 1939, the Fuehrer advised
his staff that—

    “It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and
    of securing our food supplies * * * over and above the natural
    fertility, thorough-going German exploitation will enormously
    increase the surplus.”

    “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.” (_L-79_).

On August 22nd, 1939 Hitler again addressed members of the High Command,
telling them when the start of military operations would be ordered. He
disclosed that for propaganda purposes, he would provocate a good
reason. “It will make no difference,” he announced, “whether this reason
will sound convincing or not. After all, the victor will not be asked
whether he talked the truth or not. We have to proceed brutally. The
stronger is always right.” (_1014-PS_). On 23 November 1939 after the
Germans had invaded Poland, Hitler made this explanation:

    “For the first time in history we have to fight on only one
    front, the other front is at present free. But no one can know
    how long that will remain so. I have doubted for a long time
    whether I should strike in the east and then in the west.
    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 * * *”
    (_789-PS_).

We know the bloody sequel. Frontier incidents were staged. Demands were
made for cession of territory. When Poland refused, the German forces
invaded on September 1st, 1939. Warsaw was destroyed; Poland fell. The
Nazis, in accordance with plan, moved swiftly to extend their aggression
throughout Europe and to gain the advantage of surprise over their
unprepared neighbors. Despite repeated and solemn assurances of peaceful
intentions, they invaded Denmark and Norway on 9th April, 1940; Belgium,
The Netherlands and Luxembourg on 10th May, 1940; Yugoslavia and Greece
on 6th April, 1941.

As part of the Nazi preparation for aggression against Poland and her
allies, Germany, on 23rd August, 1939 had entered into a nonaggression
pact with Soviet-Russia. It was only a delaying treaty intended to be
kept no longer than necessary to prepare for its violation. On June 22,
1941, pursuant to long matured plans, the Nazis hurled troops into
Soviet territory without any declaration of war. The entire European
world was aflame.

                         CONSPIRACY WITH JAPAN

The Nazi plans of aggression called for use of Asiatic allies and they
found among the Japanese men of kindred mind and purpose. They were
brothers, under the skin.

Himmler records a conversation he had on January 31, 1939 with General
Oshima, Japanese Ambassador at Berlin. He wrote:

    “Furthermore, he (Oshima) had succeeded up to now to send 10
    Russians with bombs across the Caucasian frontier. These
    Russians had the mission to kill Stalin. A number of additional
    Russians, whom he had also sent across, had been shot at the
    frontier.” (_2195-PS_).

On September 27th, 1940, the Nazis concluded a German-Italian-Japanese
ten-year military and economic alliance by which those powers agreed “to
stand by and cooperate 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 * * *.”

On March 5, 1941, a top secret directive was issued by defendant Keitel.
It stated that “The Fuehrer has ordered instigation of Japan’s active
participation in the war” and directed that “Japan’s military power has
to be strengthened by the disclosure of German war experiences and
support of a military, economic and technical nature has to be given.”
The aim was stated to be to crush England quickly, “thereby keeping the
United States out of the war.” (_C-75_).

On March 29, 1941, Ribbentrop told Matsuoka, the Japanese Foreign
Minister, that the German Army was ready to strike against Russia.
Matsuoka reassured Ribbentrop about the Far East. Japan, he reported,
was acting at the moment as though she had no interest whatever in
Singapore, but “intends to strike when the right moment comes.”
(_1877-PS_). On April 5, 1941, Ribbentrop urged Matsuoka that entry of
Japan into the war would “hasten the victory” and would be more in the
interest of Japan that of Germany since it would give Japan a unique
chance to fulfill her national aims and to play a leading part in
Eastern Asia (_1882-PS_).

The proofs in this case will also show that the leaders of Germany were
planning war against the United States from its Atlantic as well as
instigating it from its Pacific approaches. A captured memorandum from
the Fuehrer’s headquarters, dated October 29, 1940, asks certain
information as to air bases and supply and reports further that

    “The Fuehrer is at present occupied with the question of the
    occupation of the Atlantic islands with a view to the
    prosecution of war against America at a later date.
    Deliberations on this subject are being embarked upon here.”
    (_376-PS_).

On December 7, 1941, a day which the late President Roosevelt declared
“will live in infamy,” victory for German aggression seemed certain. The
Wehrmacht was at the gates of Moscow. Taking advantage of the situation,
and while her plenipotentiaries were creating a diplomatic diversion in
Washington, Japan without declaration of war treacherously attacked the
United States at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Attacks followed
swiftly on the British Commonwealth and The Netherlands in the Southwest
Pacific. These aggressions were met in the only way they could be met,
with instant declarations of war and with armed resistance which mounted
slowly through many long months of reverse until finally the Axis was
crushed to earth and deliverance for its victims was won.

                      CRIMES IN THE CONDUCT OF WAR

Even the most warlike of peoples have recognized in the name of humanity
some limitations on the savagery of warfare. Rules to that end have been
embodied in international conventions to which Germany became a party.
This code had prescribed certain restraints as to the treatment of
belligerents. The enemy was entitled to surrender and to receive quarter
and good treatment as a prisoner of war. We will show by German
documents that these rights were denied, that prisoners of war were
given brutal treatment and often murdered. This was particularly true in
the case of captured airmen, often my countrymen.

It was ordered that captured English and American airmen should no
longer be granted the status of prisoners of war. They were to be
treated as criminals and the Army was ordered to refrain from protecting
them against lynching by the populace (_R-118_). The Nazi Government,
through its police and propaganda agencies, took pains to incite the
civilian population to attack and kill airmen who crash-landed. The
order, given by the Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, on 10 August 1943,
directed that,

    “It is not the task of the police to interfere in clashes
    between German and English and American fliers who have bailed
    out.”

This order was transmitted on the same day by SS Obersturmbannfuhrer
Brand of Himmler’s Personal Staff to all Senior Executive SS and Police
officers, with these directions:

    “I am sending you the inclosed order with the request that the
    Chief of the Regular Police and of the Security Police be
    informed. They are to make this instruction known to their
    subordinate officers verbally.” (_R-110_).

Similarly, we will show Hitler’s top secret order, dated 18 October
1942, that commandos, regardless of condition, were “to be slaughtered
to the last man” after capture (_498-PS_). We will show the circulation
of secret orders, one of which was signed by Hess, to be passed orally
to civilians, that enemy fliers or parachutists were to be arrested or
liquidated (_062-PS_). By such means were murders incited and directed.

This Nazi campaign of ruthless treatment of enemy forces assumed its
greatest proportions in the fight against Russia. Eventually all
prisoners of war were taken out of control of the Army and put in the
hands of Himmler and the SS (_058-PS_). In the East, the German fury
spent itself. Russian prisoners were ordered to be branded. They were
starved. I shall quote passages from a letter written February 28, 1942
by defendant Rosenberg to defendant Keitel:

    “The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is on the
    contrary a tragedy of the greatest extent. Of 3.6 millions of
    prisoners of war, only several hundred thousand are still able
    to work fully. 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 civilian 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.

    “Finally, the shooting of prisoners of war must be mentioned.
    For instance, in various camps, all the ‘Asiatics’ were shot.”
    (_081-PS_).

Civilized usage and conventions to which Germany was a party had
prescribed certain immunities for civilian populations unfortunate
enough to dwell in lands overrun by hostile armies. The German
occupation forces, controlled or commanded by men on trial before you,
committed a long series of outrages against the inhabitants of occupied
territory that would be incredible except for captured orders and the
captured reports showing the fidelity with which these orders were
executed.

We deal here with a phase of common criminality designed by the
conspirators as part of the common plan. We can appreciate why these
crimes against their European enemies were not of a casual character but
were planned and disciplined crimes when we get at the reason for them.
Hitler told his officers on August 22, 1939 that “The main objective in
Poland is the destruction of the enemy and not the reaching of a certain
geographical line.” (_1014-PS_). The project of deporting promising
youth from occupied territories was approved by Rosenberg on the theory
that “a desired weakening of the biological force of the conquered
people is being achieved.” (_031-PS_). To Germanize or to destroy was
the program. Himmler announced, “Either we win over any good blood that
we can use for ourselves and give it a place in our people or,
gentlemen—you may call this cruel, but nature is cruel—we destroy this
blood.” As to “racially good types” Himmler further advised, “Therefore,
I think that it is our duty to take their children with us to remove
them from their environment if necessary by robbing or stealing them.”
(_L-70_). He urged deportation of Slavic children to deprive potential
enemies of future soldiers.

The Nazi purpose was to leave Germany’s neighbors so weakened that even
if she should eventually lose the war, she would still be the most
powerful nation in Europe. Against this background, we must view the
plan for ruthless warfare, which means a plan for the commission of war
crimes and crimes against humanity.

Hostages in large numbers were demanded and killed. Mass punishments
were inflicted, so savage that whole communities were extinguished.
Rosenberg was advised of the annihilation of three unidentified villages
in Slovakia. In May of 1943, another village of about 40 farms and 220
inhabitants was ordered wiped out. The entire population was ordered
shot, the cattle and property impounded, and the order required that
“the village will be destroyed totally by fire.” A secret report from
Rosenberg’s Reich Ministry of Eastern territory reveals that:

    “Food rations allowed the Russian population are so low that
    they fail to secure their existence and provide only for minimum
    subsistence of limited duration. The population, does not know
    if they will still live tomorrow. They are faced with death by
    starvation.

    “The roads are clogged by hundreds of thousands of people,
    sometime as many as one million according to the estimate of
    experts, who wander around in search of nourishment.

    “Sauckel’s action has caused great unrest among the civilians.
    Russian girls were deloused by men, nude photos in forced
    positions were taken, women doctors were locked into freight
    cars for the pleasure of the transport commanders, women in
    night shirts were fettered and forced through the Russian towns
    to the railroad station, etc. All this material has been sent to
    the OKH.”

Perhaps the deportation to slave labor was the most horrible and
extensive slaving operation in history. On few other subjects is our
evidence so abundant or so damaging. In a speech made on January 25,
1944, the defendant Frank, Governor-General of Poland, boasted, “I have
sent 1,300,000 Polish workers into the Reich.” The defendant Sauckel
reported that “out of the five million foreign workers who arrived in
Germany not even 200,000 came voluntarily.” This fact was reported to
the Fuehrer and defendants Speer, Goering, and Keitel (_R-124_).
Children of 10 to 14 years were impressed into service by telegraphic
order of Rosenberg’s Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories:

    “The Command is further charged with the transferring of
    worthwhile Russian youth between 10-14 years of age, to the
    Reich. The authority is not affected by the changes connected
    with the evacuation and transportation to the reception camps of
    Pialystok, Krajewo, and Olitei. The Fuehrer wishes that this
    activity be increased even more.” (_200-PS_).

When enough labor was not forthcoming, prisoners of war were forced in
war work in flagrant violation of international conventions (_016-PS_).
Slave labor came from France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and the East.
Methods of recruitment were violent (_R-124, 018-PS, 204-PS_). The
treatment of these slave laborers was stated in general terms, not
difficult to translate into concrete deprivations, in a letter to the
defendant Rosenberg from the defendant Sauckel, which stated:

    “All _prisoners of war_, from the _territories_ of the West as
    well of the East, actually in Germany, must be completely
    incorporated into the German armament and munition industries.
    Their production must be brought to the highest possible level.

    “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 undisputable necessity for the solution
    of the mobilization of labor program in this war.

    “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 degrees of expenditure.” (_016-PS_).

In pursuance of the Nazi plan permanently to reduce the living standards
of their neighbors and to weaken them physically and economically, a
long series of crimes were committed. There was extensive destruction,
serving no military purpose, of the property of civilians. Dikes were
thrown open in Holland almost at the close of the war not to achieve
military ends but to destroy the resources and retard the economy of the
thrifty Netherlanders.

There was carefully planned economic syphoning off of the assets of
occupied countries. An example of the planning is shown by a report on
France dated December 7, 1942 made by the Economic Research Department
of the Reichsbank. The question arose whether French occupation costs
should be increased from 15 million Reichsmarks per day to 25 million
Reichsmarks per day. The Reichsbank analyzed French economy to determine
whether it could bear the burden. It pointed out that the armistice had
burdened France to that date to the extent of 18½ billion Reichsmarks,
equalling 370 billion Francs. It pointed out that the burden of these
payments within two and a half years equalled the aggregate French
national income in the year 1940, and that the amount of payments handed
over to Germany in the first six months of 1942 corresponded to the
estimate for the total French revenue for that whole year. The report
concluded, “In any case, the conclusion is inescapable that relatively
heavier tributes have been imposed on France since the armistice in
June, 1940 than upon Germany after the World War. In this connection, it
must be noted that the economic powers of France never equalled those of
the German Reich and that vanquished France could not draw on foreign
economic and financial resources in the same degree as Germany after the
last World War.”

The defendant Funk was the Reichs Minister of Economics and President of
the Reichsbank; the defendant Ribbentrop was Foreign Minister; the
defendant Goering was Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan, and all of
them participated in the exchange of views of which this captured
document is a part (_2149-PS_). Notwithstanding this analysis by the
Reichsbank, they proceeded to increase the imposition on France from 15
million Reichsmarks daily to 25 million daily.

It is small wonder that the bottom has been knocked out of French
economy. The plan and purpose of the thing appears in a letter from
General Stulpnagle, head of the German Armistice Commission, to the
defendant Jodl as early as 14th September, 1940 when he wrote, “The
slogan ‘Systematic weakening of France’ has already been surpassed by
far in reality.”

Not only was there a purpose to debilitate and demoralize the economy of
Germany’s neighbors for the purpose of destroying their competitive
position, but there was looting and pilfering on an unprecedented scale.
We need not be hypocritical about this business of looting. I recognize
that no army moves through occupied territory without some pilfering as
it goes. Usually the amount of pilfering increases as discipline wanes.
If the evidence in this case showed no looting except of that sort, I
certainly would ask no conviction of these defendants for it.

But we will show you that looting was not due to the lack of discipline
or to the ordinary weaknesses of human nature. The German organized
plundering, planned it, disciplined it, and made it official just as he
organized everything else, and then he compiled the most meticulous
records to show that he had done the best job of looting that was
possible under the circumstances. And we have those records.

The defendant Rosenberg was put in charge of a systematic plundering of
the art objects of Europe by direct order of Hitler dated 29 January
1940 (_136-PS_). On the 16th of April, 1943 Rosenberg reported that up
to the 7th of April, 92 railway cars with 2,775 cases containing art
objects had been sent to Germany; and that 53 pieces of art had been
shipped to Hitler direct, and 594 to the defendant Goering. The report
mentioned something like 20,000 pieces of seized art and the main
locations where they were stored (_015-PS_).

Moreover, this looting was glorified by Rosenberg. Here we have 39
leather-bound tabulated volumes of his inventory, which in due time we
will offer in evidence. One cannot but admire the artistry of this
Rosenberg report. The Nazi taste was cosmopolitan. Of the 9,455 articles
inventoried, there were included 5,255 paintings, 297 sculptures, 1,372
pieces of antique furniture, 307 textiles, and 2,224 small objects of
art. Rosenberg observed that there were approximately 10,000 more
objects still to be inventoried (_015-PS_). Rosenberg himself estimated
that the values involved would come close to a billion dollars
(_090-PS_).

I shall not go into further details of the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed by the Nazi gangster ring whose leaders are before
you. It is not the purpose in my part of this case to deal with the
individual crimes. I am dealing with the common plan or design for crime
and will not dwell upon individual offenses. My task is only to show the
scale on which these crimes occurred, and to show that these are the men
who were in the responsible positions and who conceived the plan and
design which renders them answerable, regardless of the fact that the
plan was actually executed by others.

At length, this reckless and lawless course outraged the world. It
recovered from the demoralization of surprise attack, assembled its
forces, and stopped these men in their tracks. Once success deserted
their banners, one by one the Nazi satellites fell away. Sawdust Caesar
collapsed. Resistance forces in every occupied country arose to harry
the invader. Even at home, Germans saw that Germany was being led to
ruin by these mad men, and the attempt on July 20, 1944 to assassinate
Hitler, an attempt fostered by men of highest station, was a desperate
effort by internal forces to stop short of ruin. Quarrels broke out
among the failing conspirators, and the decline of the Nazi power was
more swift than its ascendancy. German armed forces surrendered, its
government disintegrated, its leaders committed suicide by the dozen,
and by the fortunes of war these defendants fell into our hands.
Although they are not by any means all the guilty ones, they are
survivors among the most responsible. Their names appear over and over
in the documents and their faces grace the photographic evidence. We
have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers,
diplomats, administrators, and propagandists of the Nazi movement. Who
was responsible for these crimes if they were not?

                          THE LAW OF THE CASE

The end of the war and capture of these prisoners presented the
victorious Allies with the question whether there is any legal
responsibility on high-ranking men for acts which I have described. Must
such wrongs either be ignored or redressed in hot blood? Is there no
standard in the law for a deliberate and reasoned judgment on such
conduct?

The Charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only
to govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord
Chief Justice Coke put it to King James, “under God and the law.” The
United States believed that the law long has afforded standards by which
a juridical hearing could be conducted to make sure that we punish only
the right men and for the right reasons. Following the instructions of
the late President Roosevelt and the decision of the Yalta conference,
President Truman directed representatives of the United States to
formulate a proposed International Agreement, which was submitted during
the San Francisco Conference to Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom,
the Soviet Union, and the Provisional Government of France. With many
modifications, that proposal has become the Charter of this Tribunal.

But the Agreement which sets up the standards by which these prisoners
are to be judged does not express the views of the signatory nations
alone. Other nations with diverse but highly respected systems of
jurisprudence also have signified adherence to it. These are Belgium,
The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Poland,
Greece, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Australia, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, New
Zealand, Venezuela, and India. You judge, therefore, under an organic
act which represents the wisdom, the sense of justice, and the will of
twenty-one governments, representing an overwhelming majority of all
civilized people.

The Charter by which this Tribunal has its being embodies certain legal
concepts which are inseparable from its jurisdiction and which must
govern its decision. These, as I have said, also are conditions attached
to the grant of any hearing to defendants. The validity of the
provisions of the Charter is conclusive upon us all whether we have
accepted the duty of judging or of prosecuting under it, as well as upon
the defendants, who can point to no other law which gives them a right
to be heard at all. My able and experienced colleagues believe, as do I,
that it will contribute to the expedition and clarity of this trial if I
expound briefly the application of the legal philosophy of the Charter
to the facts I have recited.

While this declaration of the law by the Charter is final, it may be
contended that the prisoners on trial are entitled to have it applied to
their conduct only most charitably if at all. It may be said that this
is new law, not authoritatively declared at the time they did the acts
it condemns, and that this declaration of the law has taken them by
surprise.

I cannot, of course, deny that these men are surprised that this is the
law; they really are surprised that there is any such thing as law.
These defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored
and defied all law. That this is so will appear from many acts and
statements, of which I cite but a few. In the Fuehrer’s speech to all
military commanders on November 23, 1939, he reminded them that at the
moment Germany had a pact with Russia, but declared, “Agreements are to
be kept only as long as they serve a certain purpose.” Later on in the
same speech he announced, “A violation of the neutrality of Holland and
Belgium will be of no importance.” (_789-PS_). A Top Secret document,
entitled “Warfare as a Problem of Organization,” dispatched by the Chief
of the High Command to all Commanders on April 19, 1938, declared that
“the normal rules of war toward neutrals may be considered to apply on
the basis whether operation of rules will create greater advantages or
disadvantages for belligerents.” (_L-211_). And from the files of the
German Navy Staff, we have a “Memorandum on Intensified Naval War,”
dated October 15, 1939, which begins by stating a desire to comply with
International Law. “However,” it continues, “if decisive successes are
expected from any measure considered as a war necessity, it must be
carried through even if it is not in agreement with international law.”
(_UK-65_). International Law, natural law, German law, any law at all
was to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped
and to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do. That men
may be protected in relying upon the law at the time they act is the
reason we find laws of retrospective operation unjust. But these men
cannot bring themselves within the reason of the rule which in some
systems of jurisprudence prohibits _ex post facto_ laws. They cannot
show that they ever relied upon International Law in any state or paid
it the slightest regard.

The Third Count of the Indictment is based on the definition of war
crimes contained in the Charter. I have outlined to you the systematic
course of conduct toward civilian populations and combat forces which
violates international conventions to which Germany was a party. Of the
criminal nature of these acts at least, the defendants had, as we shall
show, clear knowledge. Accordingly, they took pains to conceal their
violations. It will appear that the defendants Keitel and Jodl were
informed by official legal advisors that the orders to brand Russian
prisoners of war, to shackle British prisoners of war, and to execute
commando prisoners were clear violations of International Law.
Nevertheless, these orders were put into effect. The same is true of
orders issued for the assassination of General Giraud and General
Weygand, which failed to be executed only because of a ruse on the part
of Admiral Canaris, who was himself later executed for his part in the
plot to take Hitler’s life on July 20, 1944 (_Affidavit A_).

The Fourth Count of the Indictment is based on crimes against humanity.
Chief among these are mass killings of countless human beings in cold
blood. Does it take these men by surprise that murder is treated as a
crime?

The First and Second Counts of the Indictment add to these crimes the
crime of plotting and waging wars of aggression and wars in violation of
nine treaties to which Germany was a party. There was a time, in fact I
think the time of the first World War, when it could not have been said
that war-inciting or war-making was a crime in law, however
reprehensible in morals.

Of course, it was under the law of all civilized peoples a crime for one
man with his bare knuckles to assault another. How did it come that
multiplying this crime by a million, and adding fire arms to bare
knuckles, made a legally innocent act? The doctrine was that one could
not be regarded as criminal for committing the usual violent acts in the
conduct of legitimate warfare. The age of imperialistic expansion during
the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries added the foul doctrine,
contrary to the teachings of early Christian and International Law
scholars such as Grotius, that all wars are to be regarded as legitimate
wars. The sum of these two doctrines was to give war-making a complete
immunity from accountability to law.

This was intolerable for an age that called itself civilized. Plain
people, with their earthly common sense, revolted at such fictions and
legalisms so contrary to ethical principles and demanded checks on war
immunity. Statesmen and international lawyers at first cautiously
responded by adopting rules of warfare designed to make the conduct of
war more civilized. The effort was to set legal limits to the violence
that could be done to civilian populations and to combatants as well.

The common sense of men after the First World War demanded, however,
that the law’s condemnation of war reach deeper, and that the law
condemn not merely uncivilized ways of waging war, but also the waging
in any way of uncivilized wars—wars of aggression. The world’s
statesmen again went only as far as they were forced to go. Their
efforts were timid and cautious and often less explicit than we might
have hoped. But the 1920’s did outlaw aggressive war.

The reestablishment of the principle that there are unjust wars and that
unjust wars are illegal is traceable in many steps. One of the most
significant is the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, by which Germany, Italy,
and Japan, in common with practically all the nations of the world,
renounced war as an instrument of national policy, bound themselves to
seek the settlement of disputes only by pacific means, and condemned
recourse to war for the solution of international controversies. This
pact altered the legal status of a war of aggression. As Mr. Stimson,
the United States Secretary of State put it in 1932, such a war “is no
longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no longer to be the
principle around which the duties, the conduct, and the rights of
nations revolve. It is an illegal thing. * * * By that very act, we have
made obsolete many legal precedents and have given the legal profession
the task of reexamining many of its codes and treaties.”

The Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes, signed by the representatives of forty-eight governments,
declared that “a war of aggression constitutes * * * an international
crime.” The Eighth Assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, on
unanimous resolution of the representatives of forty-eight member
nations, including Germany, declared that a war of aggression
constitutes an international crime. At the Sixth Pan-American Conference
of 1928, the twenty-one American Republics unanimously adopted a
resolution stating that “war of aggression constitutes an international
crime against the human species.”

A failure of these Nazis to heed, or to understand the force and meaning
of this evolution in the legal thought of the world is not a defense or
a mitigation. If anything, it aggravates their offense and makes it the
more mandatory that the law they have flouted be vindicated by juridical
application to their lawless conduct. Indeed, by their own law—had they
heeded any law—these principles were binding on these defendants.
Article 4 of the Weimar Constitution provided that “The generally
accepted rules of international law are to be considered as binding
integral parts of the law of the German Reich.” (_2050-PS_). Can there
be any doubt that the outlawry of aggressive war was one of the
“generally accepted rules of international law” in 1939?

Any resort to war—to any kind of a war—is a resort to means that are
inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults,
deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly
defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting
it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by
showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war
itself is illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties
making aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them
of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave warmakers subject to
judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes.

But if it be thought that the Charter, whose declarations concededly
bind us all, does contain new law I still do not shrink from demanding
its strict application by this Tribunal. The rule of law in the world,
flouted by the lawlessness incited by these defendants, had to be
restored at the cost to my country of over a million casualties, not to
mention those of other nations. I cannot subscribe to the perverted
reasoning that society may advance and strengthen the rule of law by the
expenditure of morally innocent lives but that progress in the law may
never be made at the price of morally guilty lives.

It is true, of course, that we have no judicial precedent for the
Charter. But International Law is more than a scholarly collection of
abstract and immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties and
agreements between nations and of accepted customs. Yet every custom has
its origin in some single act, and every agreement has to be initiated
by the action of some state. Unless we are prepared to abandon every
principle of growth for International Law, we cannot deny that our own
day has the right to institute customs and to conclude agreements that
will themselves become sources of a newer and strengthened International
Law. International Law is not capable of development by the normal
processes of legislation for there is no continuing international
legislative authority. Innovations and revisions in International Law
are brought about by the action of governments designed to meet a change
in circumstances. It grows, as did the Common Law, through decisions
reached from time to time in adapting settled principles to new
situations. The fact is that when the law evolves by the case method, as
did the Common Law and as International Law must do if it is to advance
at all, it advances at the expense of those who wrongly guessed the law
and learned too late their error. The law, so far as International Law
can be decreed, had been clearly pronounced when these acts took place.
Hence, I am not disturbed by the lack of judicial precedent for the
inquiry we propose to conduct.

The events I have earlier recited clearly fall within the standards of
crimes, set out in the Charter, whose perpetrators this Tribunal is
convened to judge and punish fittingly. The standards for war crimes and
crimes against humanity are too familiar to need comment. There are,
however, certain novel problems in applying other precepts of the
Charter which I should call to your attention.

                        THE CRIME AGAINST PEACE

A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or
wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a
common plan to do so is a crime.

It is perhaps a weakness in this Charter that it fails itself to define
a war of aggression. Abstractly, the subject is full of difficulty and
all kinds of troublesome hypothetical cases can be conjured up. It is a
subject which, if the defense should be permitted to go afield beyond
the very narrow charge in the Indictment, would prolong the trial and
involve the Tribunal in insoluble political issues. But so far as the
question can properly be involved in this case, the issue is one of no
novelty and is one on which legal opinion has well crystalized.

One of the most authoritative sources of International Law on this
subject is the Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed at
London on July 3, 1933 by Rumania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, The
Soviet Union, Persia, and Afghanistan. The subject has also been
considered by international committees and by commentators whose views
are entitled to the greatest respect. It had been little discussed prior
to the First World War but has received much attention as International
Law has evolved its outlawry of aggressive war. In the light of these
materials of International Law, and so far as relevant to the evidence
in this case, I suggest that an “aggressor” is generally held to be that
state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

    (1) Declaration of war upon another State;

    (2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration
    war, of the territory of another State;

    (3) Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a
    declaration of war, on the territory, vessels, or aircraft of
    another State;

    (4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory
    of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the
    invaded State, to take in its own territory, all the measures in
    its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or
    protection.

And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political,
military, economic or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or
justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate
self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or
action to assist a State which has been subjected to aggression, shall
not constitute a war of aggression.

It is upon such an understanding of the law that our evidence of a
conspiracy to provoke and wage an aggressive war is prepared and
presented. By this test each of the series of wars begun by these Nazi
leaders was unambiguously aggressive.

It is important to the duration and scope of this trial that we bear in
mind the difference between our charge that this war was one of
aggression and a position that Germany had no grievances. We are not
inquiring into the conditions which contributed to causing this war.
They are for history to unravel. It is no part of our task to vindicate
the European _status quo_ as of 1933, or as of any other date. The
United States does not desire to enter into discussion of the
complicated pre-war currents of European politics, and it hopes this
trial will not be protracted by their consideration. The remote
causations avowed are too insincere and inconsistent, too complicated
and doctrinaire to be the subject of profitable inquiry in this trial. A
familiar example is to be found in the _Lebensraum_ slogan, which
summarized the contention that Germany needed more living space as a
justification for expansion. At the same time that the Nazis were
demanding more space for the German people, they were demanding more
German people to occupy space. Every known means to increase the birth
rate, legitimate and illegitimate, was utilized. _Lebensraum_
represented a vicious circle of demand—from neighbors more space, and
from Germans more progeny. We do not need to investigate the verity of
doctrines which led to constantly expanding circles of aggression. It is
the plot and the act of aggression which we charge to be crimes.

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however
objectionable it finds the _status quo_, aggressive warfare is an
illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those
conditions. It may be that the Germany of the 1920’s and 1930’s faced
desperate problems, problems that would have warranted the boldest
measures short of war. All other methods—persuasion, propaganda,
economic competition, diplomacy—were open to an aggrieved country, but
aggressive warfare was outlawed. These defendants did make aggressive
war, a war in violation of treaties. They did attack and invade their
neighbors in order to effectuate a foreign policy which they knew could
not be accomplished by measures short of war. And that is as far as we
accuse or propose to inquire.

                  THE LAW OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Charter also recognizes individual responsibility on the part of
those who commit acts defined as crimes, or who incite others to do so,
or who join a common plan with other persons, groups or organizations to
bring about their commission. The principle of individual responsibility
for piracy and brigandage, which have long been recognized as crimes
punishable under International Law, is old and well established. That is
what illegal warfare is. This principle of personal liability is a
necessary as well as logical one if International Law is to render real
help to the maintenance of peace. An International Law which operates
only on states can be enforced only by war because the most practicable
method of coercing a state is warfare. Those familiar with American
history know that one of the compelling reasons for adoption of our
Constitution was that the laws of the Confederation, which operated only
on constituent states, were found ineffective to maintain order among
them. The only answer to recalcitrance was impotence or war. Only
sanctions which reach individuals can peacefully and effectively be
enforced. Hence, the principle of the criminality of aggressive war is
implemented by the Charter with the principle of personal
responsibility.

Of course, the idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits
crimes is a fiction. Crimes always are committed only by persons. While
it is quite proper to employ the fiction of responsibility of a state or
corporation for the purpose of imposing a collective liability, it is
quite intolerable to let such a legalism become the basis of personal
immunity.

The Charter recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not
take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were
acts of states. These twin principles working together have heretofore
resulted in immunity for practically everyone concerned in the really
great crimes against peace and mankind. Those in lower ranks were
protected against liability by the orders of their superiors. The
superiors were protected because their orders were called acts of state.
Under the Charter, no defense based on either of these doctrines can be
entertained. Modern civilization puts unlimited weapons of destruction
in the hands of men. It cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal
irresponsibility.

Even the German Military Code provides that:

    “If the execution of a military order in the course of duty
    violates the criminal law, then the superior officer giving the
    order will bear the sole responsibility therefor. However, the
    obeying subordinate will share the punishment of the
    participant: (1) if he has exceeded the order given to him, or
    (2) if it was within his knowledge that the order of his
    superior officer concerned an act by which it was intended to
    commit a civil or military crime or transgression.”
    (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1926, No. 37, p. 278, Art. 47).

Of course, we do not argue that the circumstances under which one
commits an act should be disregarded in judging its legal effect. A
conscripted private on a firing squad cannot expect to hold an inquest
on the validity of the execution. The Charter implies common sense
limits to liability just as it places common sense limits upon immunity.
But none of these men before you acted in minor parts. Each of them was
entrusted with broad discretion and exercised great power. Their
responsibility is correspondingly great and may not be shifted to that
fictional being, “the State”, which can not be produced for trial, can
not testify, and can not be sentenced.

The Charter also recognized a vicarious liability, which responsibility
is recognized by most modern systems of law, for acts committed by
others in carrying out a common plan or conspiracy to which a defendant
has become a party. I need not discuss the familiar principles of such
liability. Every day in the courts of countries associated in this,
prosecution, men are convicted for acts that they did not personally
commit but for which they were held responsible because of membership in
illegal combinations or plans or conspiracies.

           THE POLITICAL, POLICE, AND MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS

Accused before this Tribunal as criminal organizations are certain
political and police organizations which the evidence will show to have
been instruments of cohesion in planning and executing the crimes I have
detailed. Perhaps the worst of the movement were the Leadership Corps of
the NSDAP, the Schutzstaffeln or “SS”, and the Sturmabteilungen or “SA”,
and the subsidiary formations which these include. These were the Nazi
Party leadership, espionage, and policing groups. They were the real
government, above and outside of any law. Also accused as organizations
are the Reich Cabinet and the Secret State Police or Gestapo, which were
fixtures of the Government but animated solely by the Nazi Party.

Except for a late period when some compulsory recruiting was done in the
SS, membership in all these militarized formations was voluntary. The
police organizations were recruited from ardent partisans who enlisted
blindly to do the dirty work the leaders planned. The Reich Cabinet was
the governmental facade for Nazi Party Government and in its members
legal as well as actual responsibility was vested for the entire
program. Collectively they were responsible for the program in general,
individually they were especially responsible for segments of it. The
finding which we ask you to make, that these are criminal organizations,
will subject members to punishment to be hereafter determined by
appropriate tribunals, unless some personal defense—such as becoming a
member under threat to person, to family, or inducement by false
representation, or the like—be established. Every member will have a
chance to be heard in the subsequent forum on his personal relation to
the organization, but your finding in this trial will conclusively
establish the criminal character of the organization as a whole.

We have also accused as criminal organizations the High Command and the
General Staff of the German Armed Forces. We recognize that to plan
warfare is the business of professional soldiers in every country. But
it is one thing to plan strategic moves in the event war comes, and it
is another thing to plot and intrigue to bring on that war. We will
prove the leaders of the German General Staff and of the High Command to
have been guilty of just that. Military men are not before you because
they served their country. They are here because they mastered it, along
with these others, and drove it to war. They are not here because they
lost the war but because they started it. Politicians may have thought
of them as soldiers, but soldiers know they were politicians. We ask
that the General Staff and the High Command, as defined in the
Indictment, be condemned as a criminal group whose existence and
tradition constitute a standing menace to the peace of the world.

These individual defendants did not stand alone in crime and will not
stand alone in punishment. Your verdict of “guilty” against these
organizations will render _prima facie_ guilty, as nearly as we can
learn, thousands upon thousands of members now in custody of United
States forces and of other Armies.

                  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS TRIBUNAL

To apply the sanctions of the law to those whose conduct is found
criminal by the standards I have outlined, is the responsibility
committed to this Tribunal. It is the first court ever to undertake the
difficult task of overcoming the confusion of many tongues and the
conflicting concepts of just procedure among divers systems of law, so
as to reach a common judgment. The tasks of all of us are such as to
make heavy demands on patience and good will. Although the need for
prompt action has admittedly resulted in imperfect work on the part of
the prosecution, four great nations bring you their hurriedly assembled
contributions of evidence. What remains undiscovered we can only guess.
We could, with witnesses’ testimony, prolong the recitals of crime for
years—but to what avail? We shall rest the case when we have offered
what seems convincing and adequate proof of the crimes charged without
unnecessary cumulation of evidence. We doubt very much whether it will
be seriously denied that the crimes I have outlined took place. The
effort will undoubtedly be to mitigate or escape personal
responsibility.

Among the nations which unite in accusing these defendants the United
States is perhaps in a position to be the most dispassionate, for,
having sustained the least injury, it is perhaps the least animated by
vengeance. Our American cities have not been bombed by day and night, by
humans and by robots. It is not our temples that have been laid in
ruins. Our countrymen have not had their homes destroyed over their
heads. The menace of Nazi aggression, except to those in actual service,
has seemed less personal and immediate to us than to European peoples.
But while the United States is not first in rancor, it is not second in
determination that the forces of law and order be made equal to the task
of dealing with such international lawlessness as I have recited here.

Twice in my lifetime, the United States has sent its young manhood
across the Atlantic, drained its resources, and burdened itself with
debt to help defeat Germany. But the real hope and faith that has
sustained the American people in these great efforts was that victory
for ourselves and our Allies would lay the basis for an ordered
international relationship in Europe and would end the centuries of
strife on this embattled continent.

Twice we have held back in the early stages of European conflict in the
belief that it might be confined to a purely European affair. In the
United States, we have tried to build an economy without armament, a
system of government without militarism, and a society where men are not
regimented for war. This purpose, we know now, can never be realized if
the world periodically is to be embroiled in war. The United States
cannot, generation after generation, throw its youth or its resources
onto the battlefields of Europe to redress the lack of balance between
Germany’s strength and that of her enemies, and to keep the battles from
our shores.

The American dream of a peace and plenty economy, as well as the hopes
of other nations, can never be fulfilled if those nations are involved
in a war every generation so vast and devastating as to crush the
generation that fights and burden the generation that follows. But
experience has shown that wars are no longer local. All modern wars
become world wars eventually. And none of the big nations at least can
stay out. If we cannot stay out of wars, our only hope is to prevent
wars.

I am too well aware of the weaknesses of juridical action alone to
contend that in itself your decision under this Charter can prevent
future wars. Judicial action always comes after the event. Wars are
started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won.
Personal punishment, to be suffered only in the event the war is lost,
will probably not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a war where the
warmakers feel the chances of defeat to be negligible.

But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in
a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible
to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied
against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a
useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations,
including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away
with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power
against the rights of their own people only when we make all men
answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort
to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their
powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to
commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors.

The usefulness of this effort to do justice is not to be measured by
considering the law or your judgment in isolation. This trial is part of
the great effort to make the peace more secure. One step in this
direction is the United Nations organization, which may take joint
political action to prevent war if possible, and joint military action
to insure that any nation which starts a war will lose it. This Charter
and this trial, implementing the Kellogg-Briand Pact, constitute another
step in the same direction—juridical action of a kind to ensure that
those who start a war will pay for it personally.

While the defendants and the prosecutors stand before you as
individuals, it is not the triumph of either group alone that is
committed to your judgment. Above all personalities there are anonymous
and impersonal forces whose conflict makes up much of human history. It
is yours to throw the strength of the law back of either the one or the
other of these forces for at least another generation. What are the real
forces that are contending before you?

No charity can disguise the fact that the forces, which these defendants
represent, the forces that would advantage and delight in their
acquittal, are the darkest and most sinister forces in
society—dictatorship and oppression, malevolence and passion,
militarism and lawlessness. By their fruits we best know them. Their
acts have bathed the world in blood and set civilization back a century.
They have subjected their European neighbors to every outrage and
torture, every spoliation and deprivation that insolence, cruelty, and
greed could inflict. They have brought the German people to the lowest
pitch of wretchedness, from which they can entertain no hope of early
deliverance. They have stirred hatreds and incited domestic violence on
every continent. These are the things that stand in the dock shoulder to
shoulder with these prisoners.

The real complaining party at your bar is Civilization. In all our
countries it is still a struggling and imperfect thing. It does not
plead that the United States, or any other country, has been blameless
of the conditions which made the German people easy victims to the
blandishments and intimidations of the Nazi conspirators.

But it points to the dreadful sequence of aggressions and crimes I have
recited, it points to the weariness of flesh, the exhaustion of
resources, and the destruction of all that was beautiful or useful in so
much of the world, and to greater potentialities for destruction in the
days to come. It is not necessary among the ruins of this ancient and
beautiful city, with untold members of its civilian inhabitants still
buried in its rubble, to argue the proposition that to start or wage an
aggressive war has the moral qualities of the worst of crimes. The
refuge of the defendants can be only their hope that International Law
will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is
crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law.

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to
deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of
importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does
expect that your juridical action will put the forces of International
Law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on
the side of peace, so that men and women of good will in all countries
may have “leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the law.”

                 *        *        *        *        *

    [In most instances, documents referred to or quoted from have
    been cited by number, even though some of them have not been
    introduced in evidence as part of the American case. Where they
    were not offered as evidence it was chiefly for the reason that
    documents subsequently discovered covered the point more
    adequately, and because the pressure of time required the
    avoidance of cumulative evidence.

    In some instances, no citations are given of documents quoted
    from or referred to. These are documents which for a variety of
    reasons were not introduced in evidence during the American
    case. The length of some of them was disproportionate to the
    value of their contents, and hence instead of full translations
    only summaries were prepared in English. In some cases a
    translation of the document referred to was made only for use in
    the address and was not included in the evidence which it was
    proposed to offer in court. In other cases the document,
    although translated, was turned over to the French or Russian
    delegations for use in the proof of Counts III and IV, and hence
    forms no part of the American case.]



                               Chapter VI
                ORGANIZATION OF THE NAZI PARTY AND STATE


                           I. THE NAZI PARTY

In the opinion of the prosecution, some preliminary references must be
made to the National Socialist German Labor Party, the NSDAP
(_Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei_) which is not itself
one of the defendant organizations in this proceeding, but which is
represented among the defendant organizations by its most important
formations, viz., the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party (_Das Korps der
Politischen Leiter der NSDAP_), the SS (_Die Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP_),
and the SA (_Die Sturmabteilungen der NSDAP_).

The prosecution has prepared a chart (_Chart No. 1_) showing the
structure and organization of the NSDAP substantially as it existed at
the peak of its development in March 1945. This chart has been prepared
on the basis of information contained in important publications of the
National Socialist Party, with which the defendants must be presumed to
have been well acquainted. Particular reference is made to the
Organization Book of the Party (_Das Organisationsbuch der NSDAP_) and
to the National Socialist Year Book (_Nationalsozialistisches
Jahrbuch_), of both of which Robert Ley was publisher. Both books were
printed in many editions and appeared in hundreds of thousands of
copies, throughout the period when the National Socialist party was in
control of the German Reich and of the German people. This chart has
been certified on its face as correct by a high official of the Nazi
party, viz. Franz Xaver Schwarz, its Treasurer (_Reichsschatzmeister der
NSDAP_), and its official in charge of party administration, whose
affidavit is submitted with the chart.

Certain explanatory remarks concerning the organization of the National
Socialist party may be useful.

The _Leadership Corps of the NSDAP_, named as a defendant organization,
comprised the sum of the officials of the Nazi party. It was divided
into seven categories:

                      1. The Fuehrer
                      2. Reichsleiter
                    { 3. Gauleiter
                    { 4. Kreisleiter
   _Hoheitstraeger_ { 5. Ortsgruppenleiter
                    { 6. Zellenleiter
                    { 7. Blockleiter

The _Fuehrer_ was the supreme and only leader who stood at the top of
the party hierarchy. His successor designate was first, Hermann Goering,
and second, Rudolf Hess.

The _Reichsleiter_, of whom 16 are shown on the chart, made up the Party
Directorate (_Reichsleitung_). Through them, coordination of party and
state machinery was assured. A number of these _Reichsleiter_, each of
whom, at some time, was in charge of at least one office within the
Party Directorate, were also the heads of party formations and of
affiliated or supervised organizations of the party, or of agencies of
the state, or even held ministerial positions. The _Reichsleitung_ may
be said to have represented the horizontal organization of the party
according to functions, within which all threads controlling the varied
life of the German people met. Each office within the _Reichsleitung_ of
the NSDAP executed definite tasks assigned to it by the Fuehrer, or by
the leader of the Party Chancellory (_Chef der Parteikanzlei_), who in
1945 was Martin Bormann and before him, Rudolph Hess.

It was the duty of the _Reichsleitung_ to make certain these tasks were
carried out so that the will of the Fuehrer was quickly communicated to
the lowliest _Zelle_ or _Block_. The individual offices of the
_Reichsleitung_ had the mission to remain in constant and closest
contact with the life of the people through the subdivisions of the
party organization, in the _Gaue_, _Kreisen_, and _Ortsgruppen_. These
leaders had been taught that the right to organize human beings accrued
through appreciation of the fact that a people must be educated
ideologically (_weltanschaulich_), that is to say, according to the
philosophy of National Socialism. Among the former _Reichsleiter_ on
trial in this cause are the following defendants:

    _Alfred Rosenberg_—The delegate to the Fuehrer for Ideological
    Training and Education of the Party. (_Der Beauftragte des
    Fuehrer’s fuer die Ueberwachung der gesammten geistigen und
    weltanschaulichen Schulung und Erziehung der NSDAP_).

    _Hans Frank_—At one time head of the Legal Office of the party
    (_Reichsleiter des Reichsrechtsamtes_).

    _Baldur von Schirach_—Leader of Youth Education (_Leiter fuer
    die Jugenderziehung_).

and the late

    _Robert Ley_—Leader of the Party Organization
    (_Reichsorganisationsleiter der NSDAP_) and Leader of the German
    Labor Front (_Leiter der Deutschen Arbeitsfront_).

The next categories to be considered are the _Hoheitstraeger_, the
“bearers of sovereignty.” To them was assigned political sovereignty
over specially designated subdivisions of the state of which they were
the appointed leaders. The _Hoheitstraeger_ may be said to represent the
vertical organization of the party. These leaders included all:

    _a. Gauleiter_, of which there were 42 within the Reich in 1945.
    A _Gauleiter_ was the political leader of the largest
    subdivision of the State. He was charged by the Fuehrer with
    political, cultural, and economic control over the life of the
    people, which he was to coordinate with the National Socialist
    ideology. A number of the defendants before the bar of the
    Tribunal were former _Gauleiter_ of the NSDAP. Among them are
    Julius Streicher (Franconia) whose seat was in Nurnberg, Baldur
    von Schirach (Vienna), and Fritz Sauckel (Thuringia).

    _b. Kreisleiter_, the political leaders of the largest
    subdivision of a _Gau_.

    _c. Ortsgruppenleiter_, the political leaders of the largest
    subdivision of a _Kreis_ consisting of several towns or
    villages, or of a part of a larger city, and including from 1500
    to 3000 households.

    _d. Zellenleiter_, the political leaders of a group of from 4 to
    8 city blocks or of a corresponding grouping of households in
    the country.

    _e. Blockleiter_, the political leaders of from 40 to 60
    households.

Each of these _Hoheitstraeger_, or “bearers of sovereignty,” was
directly responsible to the next highest leader in the Nazi hierarchy.
The _Gauleiter_ was directly subordinate to the _Fuehrer_ himself, the
_Kreisleiter_ was directly subordinate to the _Gauleiter_, the
_Ortsgruppenleiter_ to the _Kreisleiter_, and so on. The _Fuehrer_
himself appointed all _Gauleiter_ and _Kreisleiter_, all _Reichsleiter_,
and all other political leaders within the Party Directorate
(_Reichsleitung_) down to the grade of _Gauamtsleiter_, the head of a
subdivision of the party organization within a _Gau_.

The _Hoheitstraeger_ and _Reichsleitung_ together constituted the
all-powerful group of leaders by means of which the Nazi party reached
into the lives of the people, consolidated its control over them, and
compelled them to conform to the National Socialist pattern. For this
purpose, broad powers were given them, including the right to call upon
all party machinery to effectuate their plans. They could requisition
the services of the SA and of the SS, as well as of the HJ and the NSKK.

The controlled party organizations (_Gliederungen der NSDAP_) actually
constituted the party itself, and substantially the entire party
membership was contained within these organizations, viz.:

    SA—NS Storm Troops (_Sturmabteilungen_).

    SS—NS Elite Corps (_Schutzstaffeln_).

    NSKK—NS Motor Corps (_Kraftfahrkorps_).

    HJ—Hitler Youth (_Hitlerjugend_).

    NS Women’s Organization (_Frauenschaft_).

    NS German Students’ Bund (_Deutscher Studentenbund_).

    NS University Teachers’ Bund (_Deutscher Dozentenbund_).

There were additional affiliated organizations (_Angeschlossene
Verbaende der NSDAP_). Among these were included the following:

    DAF—German Labor Front (_Deutsche Arbeitsfront_).

    NS Public Welfare Organization (_Volkswohlfahrt_).

    NS War Victims’ Organization (_Kriegsopferversorgung_).

    NS Bund for German Technology (_Bund Deutscher Technik_).

    German Civil Service (_Reichsbund der Deutschen Beamten_).

    NS Physicians’ Bund (_Deutscher Aerztebund_).

    NS Teachers’ Bund (_Lehrerbund_).

    NS League of Legal Officials (_Rechtswahrerbund_).

A third group of organizations was officially known as supervised
organizations (_Betreute Organisationen der NSDAP_). These included the
following:

    German Women’s Work (_Deutsches Frauenwerk_).

    German Students’ Society (_Deutsche Studentenschaft_).

    NS Bund of Former German Students (_Altherrenbund der Deutschen
    Studenten_).

    Reich League “German Family” (_Reichsbund Deutsche Familie_).

    German Communal Congress (_Deutscher Gemeindetag_).

    NS Bund for Physical Exercise (_Reichsbund fuer
    Leibesuebungen_).

According to the official party designations, there was a fourth
classification known as _Weitere Nationalsozialistische Organisationen_,
and in this category the following organizations appeared:

    RAD—Reich Labor Service (_Reichsarbeitsdienst_), at one time
    subordinate to the Reich Labor leader (_Reichsarbeitsfuehrer_).

    NSFK—NS Flying Corps (_NS-Fliegerkorps_), which was subordinate
    to the Reich Minister for Aviation.

                  2. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE THIRD REICH

The prosecution has prepared another chart (_Chart No. 18_) delineating
substantially the organizational structure of the government of the
Third Reich, as it existed in March 1945, and “the chief leadership
personnel of the Reich Government and the Reich Administration during
said years.” This chart has been prepared on the basis of information
contained in two well known official publications: The _Taschenbuch fuer
Verwaltungsbeamte_, and the _Nationalsozialistischer Jahrbuch_,
above-mentioned, of which Robert Ley was publisher. The chart has been
examined, corrected, and certified by Wilhelm Frick, whose affidavit is
submitted with it. It seems plain that Frick, a former Minister of
Interior of the Reich from January 1933 to August 1943, was well
qualified, by reason of his position and long service in public office
during the National Socialist regime, to certify to the substantial
accuracy of the facts disclosed in this chart.

It may be useful to commence with consideration of the
_Reichsregierung_, a word which may not be translated literally as
“government of the Reich.” The word _Reichsregierung_ was a word of art
applied collectively to the ministers who composed the German cabinet.
The _Reichsregierung_, which has been named as a defendant group in this
proceeding, includes the following:

    _a._ Members of the ordinary cabinet after 30 January 1933, i.e.
    Reich ministers with and without portfolio and all other
    officials entitled to participate in the meetings of this
    cabinet.

    _b._ Members of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the
    Reich (_Ministerrat fuer die Reichsverteidigung_).

    _c._ Members of the Secret Cabinet Council (_Geheimer
    Kabinettsrat_).

Unlike the cabinets and ministerial councils in countries not within the
orbit of the former Axis, the _Reichsregierung_, after 30 January 1933
when Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic, did not
remain merely the executive branch of the government. In short order it
also came to possess, and it exercised, legislative and other functions
in the governmental system developed under the domination of the
National Socialist party.

It is proper to observe here that, unlike such NS party organizations as
the SS and the SA, the _Reichsregierung_ before 1933 was not a body
created exclusively or predominantly for the purpose of committing
illegal acts. The _Reichsregierung_ was an instrument of government
provided for by the Weimar Constitution. Under the Nazi regime, however,
the _Reichsregierung_ gradually became a primary agent of the party with
functions formulated in accordance with the objectives and methods of
the party. The party was intended to be a _Fuehrerorden_, an order of
_Fuehrers_, a pool of political leaders; and whole the party was—in the
words of a German law—“the bearer of the concept of the German State,”
it was not identical with the State. Hence, in order to realize its
ideological and political objectives and to reach the German people, the
party had to avail itself of official state channels. The
_Reichsregierung_, and the agencies and offices established by it, were
the chosen instruments by means of which party policies were converted
into legislative and administrative acts binding upon the German people
as a whole.

In order to accomplish this result, the _Reichsregierung_ was thoroughly
remodelled so as to coordinate party and state machinery, in order to
impose the will of the _Fuehrer_ on the German people. On 30 January
1933 the _Reichsregierung_ contained but few National Socialists. But as
the power of the party in the Reich grew, the composition of the cabinet
came to include an ever-increasing number of Nazis until, by January
1937, no non-party member remained in the _Reichsregierung_. New cabinet
posts were created and Nazis appointed to fill them. Many of these
cabinet members were also in the _Reichsleitung_ of the party.

To give a few examples: Rosenberg, the Delegate of the _Fuehrer_ for
Ideological Training and Education of the Party, was a member of the
_Reichsregierung_ as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories
(_Reichsminister f. d. b. Ostgebiete_). Frick, the leader of the
National Socialist faction in the Reichstag, was also Minister of the
Interior (_Reichsinnenminister_). Goebbels, the _Reichsleiter_ for
Propaganda, also sat in the cabinet as Minister for Public Enlightenment
and Propaganda (_Reichsminister fuer Volksaufklaerung und Propaganda_).

After 25 July 1934, party participation in the work of the cabinet was
at all times attained through Rudolf Hess, the Deputy of the _Feuhrer_.
By a decree of the _Fuehrer_, Hess was invested with power to take part
in the editing of bills dealing with all departments of the Reich. Later
this power of the Fuehrer’s Deputy was expanded to include all executive
decisions and orders published in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_. After Hess’
flight to England in 1941, Martin Bormann took over, as his successor,
the same function and, in addition, was given the authority of a Reich
minister and made a member of the cabinet.

On 30 January 1937 Hitler accepted into the party those last few members
of the cabinet who were not then party members. Only one cabinet member
had the strength of character to reject membership in the party; he was
the Minister of Ports and of Transportation, von Eltz-Ruebenach, who
stated at the time that he was unable to reconcile membership in the
NSDAP with his beliefs in Christianity. But such was not the case with
Constantin von Neurath. He did not reject party membership. Nor did
Erich Raeder reject party membership. And if Hjalmar Schacht was not
already a party member at that time, then he too did not reject
membership on 30 January 1937.

The chart shows many other instances where party members on the highest
as well as on subordinate levels occupied corresponding or other
positions in the organization of the state.

_a._ Hitler himself, the _Fuehrer_ of the NSDAP, was also the Chancellor
of the Reich, with which office the office of President of the German
Republic was united after the death of President von Hindenburg in 1934.

_b._ Goering, the successor designate of Hitler as Fuehrer of the NSDAP,
was a member of the cabinet as Minister for Air (_Luftfahrtminister_),
and he also held many other important positions, including that of
Commander in Chief of the _Luftwaffe_, the German air force, and
Delegate for the Four Year Plan (_Beauftragter f. d. Vierjahresplan_).

_c._ Heinrich Himmler, the notorious head of the SS (_Reichsfuehrer
SS_), was also Chief of the German Police, reporting to Frick. He
himself later became Minister of the Interior after the attempted
assassination of Hitler on 20 June 1944, which event also catapulted him
into the position of Commander in Chief of the German Reserve Army.

The _Reichstag_, which was the German parliament, presents an anomaly in
this picture. Under the Republic it had been the supreme law-making body
of the Reich, subject only to a limited check by the _Reichsrat_
(Council of the Reich), the President, and the German people themselves,
by way of initiative and referendum. Putting their opposition to all
forms of parliamentarism at once into effect, the Nazis proceeded to
curtail these legislative powers of the _Reichstag_, the _Reichsrat_,
and the _Reichspraesident_.

By the Act of 24 March 1933 the cabinet was given unlimited legislative
powers, including the right to deviate from the constitution.
Subsequently the _Reichsrat_ was abolished; and later, upon the death of
President von Hindenburg in 1934, the posts of Chancellor and President
were merged.

The development of the _Reichstag_ into an emasculated legislative body
was an intermediate step on the road to rule by Fuehrer decree, the
ultimate goal of the National Socialist party—and one which it
achieved.

The Nazis then proceeded to delegate some of the functions of the
_Reichsregierung_ to various newly-created agencies. Cabinet functions
were delegated:

1. To the _Reichsverteidigungsrat_, the Reich Defense Council, possibly
as early as 4 April 1933 but certainly not later than May 1935. This was
a large war-planning group of which Hitler was chairman and Goering
alternate. The group included many cabinet members, and a working
committee, presided over by Fieldmarshal Wilhelm Keitel, was also
composed of cabinet members and Reich defense officials, the majority of
whom were appointed by cabinet members and subordinate to them.

2. To the Plenipotentiary for War Economy (_Generalbevollmaechtigter f.
d. Kriegswirtschaft_), Hjalmar Schacht (and later Walter Funk), who by
the Secret Reich Defense Law of May 1935 was authorized to “begin his
work already in peacetime.”

3. To the Plenipotentiary for Administration (_Generalbevollmaechtigter
f. d. Reichsverwaltung_), Wilhelm Frick, whose deputy, Himmler, later
succeeded him, and who was appointed by a Secret Reich Defense Law.
Subordinate to Frick as Plenipotentiary were the ministries of the
Interior, Justice, Education, Church Affairs and _Raumordnung_ (Spatial
Planning).

4. To the Delegate for the Four Year Plan (_Beauftragter f. d.
Vierjahresplan_), Goering.

5. To the _Dreierkollegium_, the College of Three, consisting of the two
Plenipotentiaries for War Economy and Administration, and Fieldmarshal
Keitel as chief of the OKW. The duties of this _Dreierkollegium_ appear
to have included the drafting of decrees in preparation of and for use
during the war.

6. To the _Geheime Kabinettsrat_, the Secret Cabinet Council, created by
Fuehrer decree in February 1938, of which von Neurath was president; and

7. To the _Ministerrat f. d. Reichsverteidigung_, the Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, established by _Fuehrer_ decree
on 30 August 1939 and responsible to him alone. Its membership was taken
from the Reich Defense Council. It had broad powers to issue decrees
with force of law insofar as the _Reichsregierung_ itself had not
legislated on the subject.

It should be stressed that this delegation of cabinet functions and
authority to various secret and semi-secret groups composed largely of
its own members, helped to conceal some of the most important policies
of the _Reichsregierung_, particularly those relating to preparation for
war.

Thus, step by step, the National Socialist party succeeded in putting
its policies into effect through the machinery of the state, the
_Reichsregierung_, in its revised form.



                              Chapter VII
             MEANS USED BY THE NAZI CONSPIRATORS IN GAINING
                       CONTROL OF THE GERMAN STATE


            I. COMMON OBJECTIVES, METHODS, AND DOCTRINES OF
                             THE CONSPIRACY

In 1921 Adolf Hitler became the supreme leader or _Fuehrer_ 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 the Indictment. As will be shown, 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 the
conspiracy. And as will also be shown, 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.

A. _Aims, and Purposes._ The aims and purposes of the Nazi conspirators
were:

(1) _To abrogate and overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its
restrictions upon the military armament and activity of Germany._ The
first major public meeting of the NSDAP took place in Munich on 24
February 1920. At that meeting Hitler publicly announced the Program of
the Party. That program, consisting of 25 points (annually reprinted in
the National Socialist Yearbook), was referred to as “The political
foundation of the NSDAP and therewith the fundamental political law of
the state,” and “has remained unaltered” since the date of its
promulgation. Section 2 of the Program provided as follows:

    “We demand equality of rights for the German people with respect
    to other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of
    Versailles and St. Germain.” (_1708-PS_)

In a speech at Munich on 13 April 1923, Hitler said:

    “It was no Peace Treaty which they have signed, but a betrayal
    of Peace. So long as this Treaty stands there can be no
    resurrection of the German people: no social reform of any kind
    is possible. The Treaty was made in order to bring 20 million
    Germans to their deaths and to ruin the German nation. But those
    who made the Treaty cannot set it aside. At its foundation our
    movement formulated three demands:

        1. Setting aside of the Peace Treaty

        2. Unification of all Germans

        3. Land and soil (_Grund und Boden_) to feed our
        nation.” (_2405-PS_)

On August 1, 1923 Hitler declared:

    “The day must come when a German government shall summon up the
    courage to declare to the foreign powers: ‘The Treaty of
    Versailles is founded on a monstrous lie.’ We fulfill nothing
    more. Do what you will! If you want battle, look for it! Then we
    shall see whether you can turn 70 million Germans into serfs and
    slaves!” (_2405-PS_; see also additional statements of Hitler
    contained in _2405-PS_ castigating those Germans who shared
    responsibility for the Treaty of Versailles, viz; the “November
    criminals.”)

In his speech of 30 January 1941 Hitler alluded to the consistency of
his record concerning the aims of National Socialist foreign policy:

    “My foreign policy had identical aims. My program was to abolish
    the Treaty of Versailles. It is futile nonsense for the rest of
    the world to pretend today that I did not reveal this program
    until 1933 or 1935 or 1937. Instead of listening to the foolish
    chatter of emigrés, these gentlemen would have been wiser to
    read what I have written thousands of times.

    “No human being has declared or recorded what he wanted more
    than I. Again and again I wrote these words: ‘The abolition of
    the Treaty of Versailles’. * * *” (_2541-PS_)

Similar views were expressed by other Nazi conspirators. Rosenberg
stated that the lie of Germany’s war guilt was the basis of the Treaties
of Versailles and St. Germain. He rejected the idea of a “revision” of
those Treaties and demanded outright cancellation. (_2433-PS_)

Hess, in advocating rearmament in violation of treaty restrictions,
stated in 1986 that “guns instead of butter” were necessary lest “one
day our last butter be taken from us.” (_2426-PS_)

(2) _To acquire the territories lost by Germany as the result of the
World War of 1914-1918, and other territories in Europe asserted to be
occupied by so-called “racial Germans.”_ Section I of the Nazi Party
Platform gave advance notice of the intentions of the Nazi conspirators
to claim territories occupied by so-called racial Germans. It provided:

    “We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany
    on the basis of the right of self-determination of people.”
    (_1708-PS_)

While Rosenberg pointed out in 1922 that it was not possible at that
time to designate “such European and non European territories which
would be taken into consideration for colonization” he nevertheless
stated that the following could be laid down as a basic objective,
namely that

    “* * * German Foreign Policy must make its most important
    primary goal the consolidation of all Germans living closely
    together in Europe in one state and to secure the territory of
    what today is the Polish-Czech East.” (_2433-PS_)

In his Reichstag speech of 20 February 1928 Hitler said:

    “The claim, therefore, for German colonial possession will be
    voiced from year to year with increasing vigor, possessions
    which Germany did not take away from other countries, and which
    today are virtually of no value to these powers, but appear
    indispensable for our own people.” (_2772-PS_)

Again, in his Reichstag speech of 30 January 1939 Hitler declared:

    “The theft of the German colonies was morally unjustified.
    Economically, it was utter insanity. The political motives
    advanced were so mean that one is tempted to call them silly. In
    1918, after the end of the war, the victorious Powers really
    would have had the authority to bring about a reasonable
    settlement of international problems. * * *

    “The great German colonial possessions, which the Reich once
    acquired peacefully by treaties and by paying for them, have
    been stolen—contrary indeed to the solemn assurance given by
    President Wilson, which was the basic condition on which Germany
    laid down her arms. The objection that these colonial
    possessions are of no importance in any case should only lead to
    their being returned to us with an easy mind.” (_2773-PS_)

(3) _To acquire further territories in colonial Europe and elsewhere
claimed to be required by “racial Germans” as “Lebensraum” or living
space, at the expense of neighboring and other countries._ Hitler made
it clear that the two objectives of the Nazi conspirators set forth
above were only preliminary steps in a more ambitious plan of
territorial aggrandizement. Thus he stated:

    “One must take the point of view, coolly and soberly, that it
    certainly cannot be the intention of Heaven to give one people
    fifty times as much space (_Grund und Boden_) on this earth as
    to another. One should not permit himself to be diverted in this
    case by political boundaries from the boundaries of eternal
    justice.

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “The boundaries of 1914 do not mean anything for the future of
    the German nation. They did not represent either a defense of
    the past nor would they represent a power in the future. The
    German people will not obtain either its inner compactness by
    them, nor will its nutrition be secured by them, nor do these
    boundaries appear from a military standpoint as appropriate or
    even satisfactory. * * *” (_2760-A-PS_)

While the precise limits of German expansion were only vaguely defined
by the Nazi conspirators, they clearly indicated that the _lebensraum_
to which they felt they were entitled would be acquired primarily in the
East. Rosenberg was particularly insistent in his declarations that
Russia would have to “move over” to make way for German living space. He
underlined this demand as follows:

    “The understanding that the German nation, if it is not to
    perish in the truest sense of the word, needs ground and soil
    for itself and its future generations, and the second sober
    perception that this soil can no more be conquered in Africa,
    but in Europe and first of all in the East—these organically
    determine the German foreign policy for centuries. (_2777-PS_)

    “The Russians * * * will have to confine themselves so as to
    remove their center of gravity to Asia.” (_2426-PS_)

A similar view was expressed by Hitler in _Mein Kampf_:

    “If one wanted territory in Europe, this could be done on the
    whole at the expense of Russia, and the new Reich would have to
    set out to march over the road of the former Knights, in order
    to give soil to the German plow by means of the German sword,
    and to give daily bread to the nation.” (_2760-A-PS_)

In _Mein Kampf_ Hitler threatened war as a means of attaining additional
space:

    “If this earth really has space (_Raum_) for all to live in,
    then we should be given the territory necessary. Of course, one
    will not do that gladly. Then, however, the right of
    self-preservation comes into force; that which is denied to
    kindness, the fist will have to take. If our forefathers had
    made their decisions dependent on the same pacifistic nonsense
    as the present, then we would possess only a third of our
    present territory.

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “In contrast, we, National Socialists, have to hold on steadily
    to our foreign political goals, namely, _to secure on this earth
    the territory due to the German people_. And this action is the
    only one which will make bloody sacrifice before God and our
    German posterity appear justified.” (_2760-A-PS_)

B. _Methods. The Nazi conspirators advocated the accomplishment of the
foregoing aims and purposes by any means deemed opportune, including
illegal means and resort to threat of force, force, and aggressive war._
The use of force was distinctly sanctioned, in fact guaranteed, by
official statements and directives of the conspirators which made
activism and aggressiveness a political quality obligatory for Party
members.

Hitler stated in _Mein Kampf_:

    “* * * The lack of a great creative idea means at all times an
    impairment of the fighting spirit. The conviction that it is
    right to use even the most brutal weapons is always connected
    with the existence of a fanatical belief that it is necessary
    that a revolutionary new order of this earth should become
    victorious. A movement which does not fight for these highest
    aims and ideals will therefore never resort to the ultimate
    weapon.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “* * * It is not possible to undertake a task half-heartedly or
    hesitatingly if its execution seems to be feasible only by
    expending the very last ounce of energy . . . One had to become
    clear in one’s mind that this goal [i.e. acquisition of new
    territory in Europe] could be achieved by fight alone and then
    had to face this armed conflict with calmness and composure.”
    (_2760-A-PS_)

In 1934 Hitler set out the duties of Party members in the following
terms:

    “Only a part of the people will be really active fighters. But
    they were the fighters of the National Socialist struggle. They
    were the fighters for the National Socialist revolution, and
    they are the millions of the rest of the population. For them it
    is not sufficient to confess: ‘I believe,’ but to swear: ‘_I
    fight_’.” (_2775-PS_)

This same theme is expressed in the Party Organization Book:

    “The Party includes _only fighters_ who are ready to accept and
    sacrifice everything in order to carry through the National
    Socialist ideology.” (_2774-PS_)

At the trial of _Reichswehr_ officers at Leipzig in September 1930
Hitler testified:

    “Germany is being strangled by Peace Treaties. * * * The
    National Socialists do not regard the Treaty as a law, but as
    something forced upon us. We do not want future generations, who
    are completely innocent, to be burdened by this. When we fight
    this with all means at our disposal, then we are on the way to a
    revolution.”

President of the Court: ‘Even by illegal means?’

    Hitler: “I will declare here and now, that when we have become
    powerful (_gesiegt haben_), then we shall fight against the
    Treaty with all the means at our disposal, even from the point
    of view of the world, with illegal means.” (_2512-PS_)

Moreover, Hitler stated the true reason for rearmament as follows:

    “It is impossible to build up an army and give it a sense of
    worth if the object of its existence is not the preparation for
    war. Armies for the preservation of peace do not exist; they
    exist only for the triumphant exertion of war.” (_2541-PS_)

C. _Doctrines. The Nazi conspirators adopted and published the following
doctrines:_

(1) _That persons of so-called “German blood” were a master race and
were accordingly entitled to subjugate, dominate, or exterminate other
“races” and “peoples.”_ The Nazi doctrine of racial supremacy was
incorporated as Point 4 in the Party Program of 24 February 1920, which
provided as follows:

    “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.” (_1708-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators’ dogma of the racial supremacy of the Germanic
peoples was fully elucidated in the writings of Rosenberg:

    “The meaning of world history has radiated out from the north
    over the whole world, borne by a blue-eyed blond race which in
    several great waves determined the spiritual face of the world *
    * *

    “We stand today before a definitive decision. Either through a
    new experience and cultivation of the old blood, coupled with an
    enhanced fighting will, we will rise to a purificatory action,
    or the last Germanic-western values of morality and
    state-culture shall sink away in the filthy human masses of the
    big cities, become stunted on the sterile burning asphalt of a
    bestialized inhumanity, or trickle away as a morbific agent in
    the form of emigrants bastardizing themselves in South America,
    China, Dutch East India, Africa.

    “A new faith is arising today: the myth of the blood, the faith,
    to defend with the blood the divine essence of man. The faith,
    embodied in clearest knowledge that the Nordic blood represents
    that mysterium which has replaced and overcome the old
    sacraments.” (_2771-PS_)

Thus, the Nazi conspirators acclaimed the “master race” doctrine as a
new religion—the faith of the blood—superseding in individual
allegiance all other religions and institutions. According to Rosenberg:

    “The new thought puts folk and race higher than the state and
    its forms. It declares protection of the folk more important
    than protection of a religious denomination, a class, the
    monarchy, or the republic; it sees in treason against the folk a
    greater crime than treason against the state.” (_2771-PS_; see
    also further excerpts from Rosenberg’s writings contained in
    _2405-PS_.)

Illustrative of the Nazi conspirators’ continued espousal and
exploitation of racial dogmas following their accession to power was the
discriminatory legislation which they caused to be enacted. These laws,
with particular reference to Jews, are set forth in Section 7 of this
Chapter on the Program for Persecution of Jews.

The logical consequence of the “master race” dogma, in its bearing on
the right of Germany to dominate other “inferior” peoples and to acquire
such of their territory as was considered necessary for German living
space, was disclosed by the Nazi conspirators. In a speech concluding
the _Reichsparteitag_ at Nurnberg on 3 September 1933 Hitler said:

    “But long ago man has proceeded in the same way with his
    fellowman. The higher race—at first ‘higher’ in the sense of
    possessing a greater gift for organization—subjects to itself a
    lower race and thus constitutes a relationship which now
    embraces races of unequal value. Thus there results the
    subjection of a number of people under the will often of only a
    few persons, a subjection based simply on the right of the
    stronger, a right which, as we see it in Nature, can be regarded
    as the sole conceivable right because founded on reason. The
    wild mustang does not take upon itself the yoke imposed by man
    either voluntarily or joyfully; neither does one people welcome
    the violence of another.” (_2584-PS_)

(2) _The Fuehrerprinzip (Fuehrer Principle)._

(_a_) _Essential elements._

    _1. Complete and total authority is vested in the Fuehrer._

        “The Fuehrer Principle requires a pyramidal organization
        structure in its details as well as in its entirety.

        “The Fuehrer is at the top.

        “He nominates the necessary leaders for the various
        spheres of work of the Reich’s direction, the Party
        apparatus and the State administration.” (_1814-PS_)

        “He shapes the collective will of the people within
        himself and he enjoys the political unity and entirety
        of the people in opposition to individual interests.

        “The Fuehrer unites in himself all the sovereign
        authority of the Reich; all public authority in the
        state as well as in the movement is derived from the
        authority of the Fuehrer. We must speak not of the
        state’s authority but of the Fuehrer’s authority if we
        wish to designate the character of the political
        authority within the Reich correctly. The state does not
        hold political authority as an impersonal unit but
        receives it from the Fuehrer as the executor of the
        national will. The authority of the Fuehrer is complete
        and all-embracing; it unites in itself all the means of
        political direction; it extends into all fields of
        national life; it embraces the entire people, which is
        bound to the Fuehrer in loyalty and obedience. The
        authority of the Fuehrer is not limited by checks and
        controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual
        rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive
        and unlimited.

        “The Fuehrer-Reich of the (German) people is founded on
        the recognition that the true will of the people cannot
        be disclosed through parliamentary votes and plebiscites
        but that the will of the people in its pure and
        uncorrupted form can only be expressed through the
        Fuehrer.” (_2771-PS_)

        “Thus at the head of the Reich, stands a single Fuehrer,
        who in his personality embodies the idea which sustains
        all and whose spirit and will therefore animate the
        entire community.” (_2780-PS_)

As stated in the Organization Book of the Nazi Party:

        “The will of the Fuehrer is the Party’s law.”
        (_1814-PS_)

    The first commandment for the Party members declares:

        “The Fuehrer is always right.” (_1814-PS_)

        “He (the Fuehrer) is responsible only to his conscience
        and the German people.” (_1814-PS_)

    Hess, in a speech broadcast at Cologne on 25 June 1934,
    characterized the position of the Fuehrer as follows:

        “It is with pride that we see that one man is kept above
        all criticism—that is the Fuehrer.

        “The reason is that everyone feels and knows: he was
        always right and will always be right. The National
        Socialism of us all is anchored in the uncritical
        loyalty, in the devotion to the Fuehrer that does not
        ask for the wherefore in the individual case, in the
        tacit performance of his commands. We believe that the
        Fuehrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German
        destiny! This belief is beyond challenge.” (_2426-PS_;
        see also additional statements of the Nazi conspirators
        designed to condition the German people to blind
        acceptance of the decisions of the Fuehrer and his
        co-conspirators, as translated in _2373-PS_.)

    _2. The Fuehrer’s power descends to sub-leaders in a hierarchial
    order._ In the words of the Organization Book of the NSDAP:

        “The Party is the order of fuehrers.

        “All political directors (_Politische Leiter_) stand as
        appointed by the Fuehrer and are responsible to him.
        They possess full authority towards the lower echelons.
        (_1893-PS_)

        “He (The Fuehrer) nominates the necessary leaders for
        the various spheres of work of the Reichs’ direction,
        the Party apparatus, and the State administration.”
        (_1814-PS_)

    The effect of this was aptly expressed by Hitler in 1933:

        “When our opponents said, ‘It is easy for you: you are a
        dictator’—We answer them, ‘No, gentlemen, you are
        wrong; there is no single dictator, but ten thousand,
        each in his own place.’ And even the highest authority
        in the hierarchy has itself only one wish, never to
        transgress against the supreme authority to which it,
        too, is responsible.” (_2771-PS_)

    _3. Each subleader is bound to unconditional obedience to his
    immediate superior and to the Fuehrer._ As Hitler said,

        “We have in our movement developed this loyalty in
        following the leader, this blind obedience of which all
        the others know nothing and which gave to us the power
        to surmount everything.” (_2771-PS_)

    The duty of obedience is so fundamental that it is incorporated
    as the second of the NSDAP commandments for party members:

        “Never go against discipline!” (_2771-PS_)

    As Ley said:

        “Our conscience is clearly and exactly defined. Only
        what Adolf Hitler, our Fuehrer, commands, allows, or
        does not allow is our conscience.” (_2771-PS_)

    The obedience required was not the loyalty of a soldier to the
    Fatherland, as was the case prior to the Nazi regime. On the
    contrary, the obedience exacted was unconditional and absolute,
    regardless of the legality or illegality of the order. The oath
    taken by political leaders (_Politische Leiter_) yearly was as
    follows:

        “I pledge eternal allegiance to Adolf Hitler. I pledge
        unconditional obedience to him and the Fuehrers
        appointed by him.” (_1893-PS_)

    _4. Each subleader is absolute in his own sphere of
    jurisdiction._ The Nazi Party Organization Book lays down the
    same principle with respect to the successive tiers of its
    leaders:

        “The Fuehrer Principle represented by the Party imposes
        complete responsibility on all party leaders for their
        respective spheres of activity * * * The responsibility
        for all tasks within a major sphere of jurisdiction
        rests with the respective leader of the NSDAP: i.e.,
        with the Fuehrer for the territory of the Reich, the
        Gauleiter for the territory of the Gau, the district
        leader for the territory of the district, the local
        leader for the territory of the local group, etc.

        “The Party leader has responsibility for the entire
        territory under his jurisdiction on the one hand, and on
        the other hand, his own political fields of activity
        appertaining thereto.

        “This responsibility for the complete or partial
        performance of task entails a relationship of
        subordination of the leaders among themselves,
        corresponding to the fuehrer principle.” (_2771-PS_)

(3) _Glorification of War as a noble and necessary activity of Germans._
The Nazi conspirators disseminated dogmas designed to engender in the
masses a deep reverence for the vocation of the warrior and to induce
acceptance of the postulate that the waging of war was good and
desirable _per se_. The motive underlying the concerted program of the
Nazis to glorify war was disclosed by Hitler in _Mein Kampf_:

    “Thus the question of how to regain German power is not: How
    shall we manufacture arms?, but: How do we create the spirit
    which enables a nation to bear arms? If this spirit governs a
    people, the will finds thousands of ways, each of which ends
    with a weapon!”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “* * * Oppressed countries are led back into the lap of a common
    Reich by a mighty sword and not by flaming protests. It is the
    task of the inner political leaders of a people to forge this
    sword; to safeguard the work of the smith and to seek comrades
    in arms in the task of the foreign policy.” (_2760-A-PS_)

Hitler’s writings and public utterances are full of declarations
rationalizing the use of force and glorifying war. The following are
typical:

    “Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to
    carry through his will. History proves it: He who has no might,
    has no use for might. (_2405-PS_)

    “The political testament of the German People for its foreign
    policy should and must always follow this line of thought: Never
    tolerate the rise of two continental powers in Europe. See in
    every attempt to organize a second military power, * * * an
    attack against Germany and take therefrom not only the right but
    the duty to prevent by all means, including the use of arms, the
    rise of such a state, respectively to destroy such a state if it
    has already arisen. Take care that the strength of our people
    should have its foundation not in colonies but in the soil of
    the home country in Europe. Never consider the Reich as secured
    as long as it cannot give to every descendant of our people his
    own bit of soil for centuries to come; never forget that the
    most sacred right on this earth is the right to own the soil
    which one wants to cultivate and the most sacred sacrifice, the
    blood which is shed for this soil.” (_2760-A-PS_)

(4) _The leadership of the Nazi Party._

(_a_) _The Nazi Party leadership was the sole bearer of the doctrines of
the Nazi Party._ The Party Organization Book declares:

    “The Party as an instrument of ideological education, must grow
    to be the Leader Corps (_Fuehrer Korps_) of the German Nation.

    “This Leader Corps is responsible for the complete penetration
    of the German Nation with the National Socialist spirit * * *”
    (_1893-PS_)

    “The Party is the order of fuehrers. It is furthermore
    responsible for the spiritual ideological National Socialist
    direction of the German people.” (_1814-PS_)

Referring to the mission of the _Ortsgruppenleiter_ (local chapter
leader) of the NSDAP, the Party Organization Book states:

    “As Hoeheitstraeger (bearer of sovereignty) all expressions of
    the party will emanate from him; he is responsible for the
    political and ideological leadership and organization within his
    zone of sovereignty.” (_1893-PS_)

Similar statements are made with regard to the _Kreisleiter_ (county
leader) and the _Gauleiter_ (Gau leader) and the Reich Directorate
(1893-PS).

(_b_) _The Nazi Party leadership was entitled to control and dominate
the German state and all related institutions and all individuals
therein._ Hitler said at the 1935 Nurnberg Party Congress:

    “It is not the State which gives orders to us, it is we who give
    orders to the State.” (_2775-PS_)

Frick declared in a similar vein:

    “In National Socialist Germany, leadership is in the hands of an
    organized community, the National Socialist Party; and as the
    latter represents the will of the nation, the policy adopted by
    it in harmony with the vital interests of the nation is at the
    same time the policy adopted by the country. * * *” (_2771-PS_)

Goebbels declared:

    “The Party must always continue to represent the hierarchy of
    National Socialist leadership. This minority must always insist
    upon its prerogative to control the state. * * * It is
    responsible for the leadership of the state and it solemnly
    relieves the people of this responsibility.” (_2771-PS_)

Hess remarked that the Party was a “necessity” in the German state and
constituted the cohesive mechanism with which to “organize and direct
offensively and defensively the spiritual and political strength of the
people.” (_2426-PS_)

Nazi interpreters of constitutional law expressed the same idea:

    “The NSDAP is not a structure which stands under direct state
    control, to which single tasks of public administration are
    entrusted by the state, but it holds and maintains its claim to
    totality as the ‘bearer of the German state-idea’ in all fields
    relating to the community—regardless of how various single
    functions are divided between the organization of the Party and
    the organization of the State.” (_2771-PS_)

This doctrine was incorporated into laws which established the NSDAP as
“the only political party in Germany” and declared the NSDAP “The bearer
of the German state-idea” and “indissolubly linked to the state.”
(_1388-A-PS_; _1395-PS_)

(_c_) _The Nazi Party leadership was entitled to destroy all opponents._
Reference is made generally to Sections2 and 3 on the Acquisition and
Consolidation of Political Control of Germany for proof of this
allegation.

                 *        *        *        *        *

 LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMON OBJECTIVES,
                METHODS, AND DOCTRINES OF THE CONSPIRACY

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Sections IV (B,  │      │
                │  C).                                   │  I   │  16, 17
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 1388-A-PS      │Law against the establishment of        │      │
                │  Parties, 14 July 1933. 1933           │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 479.    │ III  │     962
                │                                        │      │
*1395-PS        │Law to insure the unity of Party and    │      │
                │  State, 1 December 1933. 1933          │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016.   │      │
                │  (GB 252)                              │ III  │     978
                │                                        │      │
*1708-PS        │The Program of the NSDAP. National      │      │
                │  Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153.   │      │
                │  (USA 255; USA 324).                   │  IV  │     208
                │                                        │      │
*1814-PS        │The Organization of the NSDAP and its   │      │
                │  affiliated associations, from         │      │
                │  Organization book of the NSDAP,       │      │
                │  editions of 1936, 1938, 1940 and 1943,│      │
                │  pp. 86-88. (USA 328)                  │  IV  │     411
                │                                        │      │
*1893-PS        │Extracts from Organization Book of the  │      │
                │  NSDAP, 1943 edition. (USA 323)        │  IV  │     529
                │                                        │      │
 2373-PS        │Extracts from German Publications.      │  IV  │    1106
                │                                        │      │
 2405-PS        │Extracts from German Publications.      │  V   │      79
                │                                        │      │
*2426-PS        │Extracts from Speeches, by Hess. (GB    │      │
                │  253)                                  │  V   │      90
                │                                        │      │
*2433-PS        │Extracts from “Nature, Foundation and   │      │
                │  Aims of NSDAP” by Rosenberg, 1934.    │      │
                │  (USA 596)                             │  V   │      93
                │                                        │      │
 2512-PS        │Hitler’s Testimony Before the Court for │      │
                │  High Treason, published in Frankfurter│      │
                │  Zeitung, 26 September 1931.           │  V   │     246
                │                                        │      │
 2541-PS        │Extracts from German Publications.      │  V   │     285
                │                                        │      │
 2584-PS        │Hitler’s speech concluding the          │      │
                │  Reichsparteitag, 3 September 1933. The│      │
                │  First Reichstag of the United German  │      │
                │  Nation, 1933.                         │  V   │     311
                │                                        │      │
 2760-A-PS      │Extract from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler,│      │
                │  41st edition, 1933.                   │  V   │     407
                │                                        │      │
 2771-PS        │U. S. State Department, National        │      │
                │  Socialism, published by U. S.         │      │
                │  Government Printing Office, 1943.     │  V   │     417
                │                                        │      │
 2772-PS        │Speech of Hitler, published in Documents│      │
                │  of German Politics, Vol. IV, Part I,  │      │
                │  p. 37.                                │  V   │     417
                │                                        │      │
 2773-PS        │Speech of Hitler, published in Documents│      │
                │  of German Politics, Vol. VII, 1939,   │      │
                │  pp. 466-7.                            │  V   │     417
                │                                        │      │
 2774-PS        │Extract from Organization Book of the   │      │
                │  NSDAP, 1937, 4th Edition, p. 86.      │  V   │     418
                │                                        │      │
*2775-PS        │Hitler’s speech, published in Nurnberg  │      │
                │  Party Congress, 1934. (USA 330)       │  V   │     418
                │                                        │      │
*2777-PS        │Article: Space Policy by Rosenberg,     │      │
                │  published in National Socialist       │      │
                │  Monthly, May 1932, p. 199. (USA 594). │  V   │     418
                │                                        │      │
 2780-PS        │Extract from Constitution and           │      │
                │  Administration in the Third Reich, by │      │
                │  Paul Schmidt, Berlin, 1937.           │  V   │     419
                │                                        │      │
*3863-PS        │Extracts from Operations in the Third   │      │
                │  Reich by Lammers. (GB 320)            │  VI  │     786


            2. ACQUISITION OF TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL CONTROL

A. _First Steps in Acquiring Control of State Machinery._

(1) _The Nazi conspirators first sought control of State machinery by
force. The Munich Putsch of 1923, aimed at the overthrow of the Weimar
Republic by direct action, failed._ On 8 November 1923 the so-called
Munich Putsch occurred. During the evening, von Kahr, State Commissioner
General of Bavaria, was speaking at the _Buergerbraeukeller_ in Munich.
Hitler and other Nazi leaders appeared, supported by the
_Sturmabteilungen_ (Storm Troops) and other fighting groups. Hitler
fired a shot and announced that a Nationalist Revolution setting up a
dictatorship had taken place. There followed a conference after which
von Kahr, von Lossow, and Colonel of Police von Seisser, announced they
would cooperate with Hitler and that a “Provisional National Government”
was established, as follows:

           Reich Chancellor                       Adolf Hitler
           Leader of the National Army     Gen. von Ludendorff
           Reich Minister of War                    von Lossow
           Reich Minister of Police                von Seisser
           Reich Finance Minister                        Feder

It was also announced that Kahr would be State Administrator for
Bavaria, Poehner would be Bavarian Prime Minister, and Frick would be
Munich Police President. Kahr, Lossow and Seisser then departed. During
the night the latter group alerted the police, brought troops to Munich,
and announced that their consent to the Putsch had been obtained by
force. On the afternoon of the next day, Hitler, Ludendorff, and their
supporters attempted to march into the center of Munich. At the
_Feldherrnhalle_ the procession met a patrol of police, shots were
exchanged, and men on both sides were killed. Hermann Goering was
wounded, the Putsch was broken up, the Party and its organization were
declared illegal, and its leaders, including Hitler, Frick, and
Streicher were arrested. Rosenberg, together with Amann and Drexler,
tried to keep the Party together after it had been forbidden. Hitler and
others later were tried for high treason. At the trial Hitler admitted
his participation in the foregoing attempt to seize control of the State
by force. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. (_2532-PS_;
_2404-PS_)

(2) _The Nazi Conspirators then set out through the Nazi Party to
undermine and capture the German Government by “legal” forms supported
by terrorism._

(_a_) _In 1925, the conspirators reorganized the Nazi Party and began a
campaign to secure support from Germany voters throughout the nation._
On 26 February 1925, the _Voelkischer Beobachter_, the official
newspaper of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP)
appeared for the first time after the Munich Putsch, and on the
following day Hitler made his first speech after his release from
prison. He then began to rebuild the Party organization. The
conspirators, through the Nazi Party, participated in election campaigns
and other political activity throughout Germany and secured the election
of members of the Reichstag. (_2532-PS_)

As a reflection of this activity the Nazi Party in May 1928, received
2.6% of the total vote and obtained 12 out of 491 seats in the
Reichstag. In September 1930, the Nazi Party polled 18.3% of the total
vote and won 107 out of 577 seats in the Reichstag. In July 1932, it
received 37.3% of the total vote east and won 230 out of 608 seats. In
November 1932, it polled 33.1% of the vote and won 196 out of 584 seats
in the Reichstag. (_2514-PS_)

(_b_) _The Nazi conspirators asserted they sought power only by legal
forms._ In November 1934, Hitler, speaking of the Munich Putsch of 1923
said:

    “It gave me the opportunity to lay down the new tactics of the
    Party and to pledge it to legality”. (_2741-PS_)

In September 1931, three officers of the _Reichswehr_ were tried at
Leipzig for high treason. At the request of Hans Frank, Hitler was
invited to testify at this trial that the NSDAP was striving to attain
its goal by purely legal means. He was asked: “How do you imagine the
setting up of a Third Reich?” His reply was, “This term only describes
the basis of the struggle but not the objective. We will enter the legal
organizations and will make our Party a decisive factor in this way. But
when we do possess constitutional rights then we will form the State in
the manner which we consider to be the right one.” The President then
asked: “This too by constitutional means?” Hitler replied: “Yes.”
(_2512-PS_)

(_c_) _The purpose of the Nazi conspirators in participating in
elections and in the Reichstag was to undermine the parliamentary system
of the Republic and to replace it with a dictatorship of their own._
This the Nazi conspirators themselves made clear. Frick wrote in 1927:

    “There is no National Socialist and no racialist who expects any
    kind of manly German deed from that gossip club on the
    Koenigsplatz and who is not convinced of the necessity for
    direct action by the unbroken will of the German people to bring
    about their spiritual and physical liberation. But there is a
    long road ahead. After the failure of November, 1923, there was
    no choice but to begin all over again and to strive to bring
    about a change in the spirit and determination of the most
    valuable of our racial comrades, as the indispensable
    prerequisite for the success of the coming fight for freedom.
    Our activities in parliament must be evaluated as merely part of
    this propaganda work.

    “Our participation in the parliament does not indicate a
    support, but rather an undermining of the parliamentarian
    system. It does not indicate that we renounce our
    anti-parliamentarian attitude, but that we are fighting the
    enemy with his own weapons and that we are fighting for our
    National Socialist goal from the parliamentary platform.”
    (_2742-PS_)

On 30 April 1928, Goebbels wrote in his paper “_Der Angriff_”;

    “We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the
    arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. We become members of
    the Reichstag in order to paralyze the Weimar sentiment with its
    own assistance. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free
    tickets and _per diem_ for the this “blockade” (_Barendienst_),
    that is its own affair.”

Later in the same article he continued:

    “We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as
    enemies: As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.”
    (_2500-PS_)

In a pamphlet published in 1935, Goebbels said:

    “When democracy granted democratic methods for us in the times
    of opposition, this was bound to happen in a democratic system.
    However, we National Socialists never asserted that we
    represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared
    openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the
    power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our
    adversaries without any consideration the means which were
    granted to us in the times of opposition. (_2412-PS_)

A leading Nazi writer on Constitutional Law, Ernst Rudolf Huber, later
wrote of this period:

    “The parliamentary battle of the NSDAP had the single purpose of
    destroying the parliamentary system from within through its own
    methods. It was necessary above all to make formal use of the
    possibilities of the party-state system but to refuse real
    cooperation and thereby to render the parliamentary system,
    which is by nature dependent upon the responsible cooperation of
    the opposition, incapable of action.” (_2633-PS_)

The Nazi members of the Reichstag conducted themselves as a storm troop
unit. Whenever representatives of the government or the democratic
parties spoke, the Nazi members marched out in a body in studied
contempt of the speaker, or entered in a body to interrupt the speaker,
thus making it physically impossible for the Reichstag President to
maintain order. In the case of speakers of opposition parties, the Nazi
members constantly interrupted, often resorting to lengthy and spurious
parliamentary maneuvers, with the result that the schedule of the
session was thrown out of order. The tactics finally culminated in
physical attacks by the Nazis upon members of the house as well as upon
visitors. (_L-83_)

In a letter of 24 August 1931 to Rosenberg, Hitler deplored an article
in “_Voelkischer Beobachter_” the effect of which was to prevent
undermining of support for the then existing form of government, and
said: “I myself am travelling all over Germany to achieve exactly the
opposite. (_047-PS_)

(_d_) _The Nazi conspirators supported their “legal” activities by
terrorism._

    _1. The Nazi conspirators created and utilized as a Party
    formation the 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._ The SA was organized in 1921. As indicated by its
    name, it was a voluntary organization of young men trained for
    and committed to the use of violence. To quote from a pamphlet
    compiled on order of the Supreme SA Headquarters:

        “The SA was not founded as one forms just any sort of
        club. It was born in midst of strife and received from
        the Fuehrer himself the name “Storm Troops” after that
        memorable hall battle in Hofbraeuhaus at Munich on the
        4th of November 1921. * * * Blood and sacrifice were the
        most faithful companions of the young SA on its hard
        path to power. The Storm Troops were and still are today
        the fist and propaganda arm of the movement”.
        (_2168-PS_)

    It was organized along semi-military lines from the beginning.
    To quote again from the same official pamphlet:

        “It is one of the greatest historical services of the SA
        that at the time when the German People’s Army had to
        undergo a dissolution, it held high those virtues which
        marked the German soldier: personal courage, idealism,
        willingness to sacrifice, consciousness of
        responsibility, power to decide, and leadership. Thus,
        the SA became among the people the messenger and bearer
        of German armed strength and German armed spirit.

        “The 4th of November 1921 was not only the birth hour of
        the SA by itself, but was the day from which the young
        fighting troop of the Movement took its stand at the
        focal point of political events. With the clear
        recognition that now the unity (_Geschlossenheit_) of a
        troop led to victory, the SA was systematically
        reorganized and so-called “Centuries”
        (_Hundertschaften_) were established * * *” (_2168-PS_)

    In March 1928, Goering took command of the entire SA. In
    November 1923, SA units were used in the Munich Putsch. When the
    Party was reorganized in 1925, the SA continued to be the
    fighting organization of the Party. Again to quote the official
    pamphlet on the SA:

        “And now a fight for Germany began of such a sort as was
        never before fought. What are names, what are words or
        figures which are not indeed able to express the
        magnitude of belief and of idealism on one side and the
        magnitude of hate on the other side. 1925: the Party
        lives again, and its iron spearhead is the SA. With it
        the power and meaning of the National Socialist movement
        grows. Around the central events of the whole Movement,
        the Reich Party Days, dates, decisions, fights and
        victory roll themselves into a long list of German men
        of undenying willingness to sacrifice.” (_2168-PS_)

    Mastery of the streets was at all times the mission of the SA.
    While discussing his ideas as to the part which this
    organization should play in the political activity of his Party,
    Hitler stated:

        “What we needed and still need were and are not a
        hundred or two hundred reckless conspirators, but a
        hundred thousand and a second hundred thousand fighters
        for our philosophy of life. We should not work in secret
        conventicles, but in mighty mass demonstrations, and it
        is not by dagger and poison or pistol that the road can
        be cleared for the movement but by the conquest of the
        streets. We must teach the Marxists that the future
        master of the streets is National Socialism, just as it
        will some day be the master of the state.” (_404-PS_)

    To quote again from the official SA pamphlet:

        “Possession of the streets is the key to power in the
        state—for this reason the SA marched and fought. The
        public would have never received knowledge from the
        agitative speeches of the little Reichstag faction and
        its propaganda or from the desires and aims of the
        Party, if the martial tread and battle song of the SA
        companies had not beat the measure for the truth of a
        relentless criticism of the state of affairs in the
        governmental system. * * *

        “The SA conquered for itself a place in public opinion
        and the leadership of the National Socialist Movement
        dictated to its opponents the law for quarrels. The SA
        was already a state within a state; a part of the future
        in a sad present.” (_2168-PS_; for further material
        concerning the SA, see Section 4 of Chapter XV.)

    _2. The Nazi conspirators constantly used physical violence and
    terror to break up meetings of political opponents, and to
    suppress opposition in their own meetings._ The following facts
    are indicative of the methods constantly used by the Nazi
    conspirators during this period: On numerous occasions meetings
    of the _Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft_ (Peace Society) were
    broken up and terrorized by shock troops and SA units. Groups of
    National Socialists invaded meetings of the society, interrupted
    the speaker, attempted to attack him, and endeavored to make
    sufficient disturbance so that the meetings would have to be
    cancelled. (_L-83_)

    To quote once again from the official SA pamphlet:

        “* * * As an example of a seemingly impossible deed, the
        11th of February 1927 should be firmly preserved. It is
        the day on which the SA broke the Red Terror, with heavy
        sacrifice, in the hall battle at the Pharoah’s Hall
        (_Pharussaelen_) in Berlin, the stronghold of the
        Communists, and thereby established itself decisively in
        the capitol city of the Reich. In considering the badly
        wounded SA men, Dr. Goebbels coined the phrase “unknown
        SA Man”, who silently fights and bleeds, obeying only
        his duty.” (_2168-PS_)

    In Berlin, under the leadership of Goebbels, so-called
    _Rollkommandos_, were organized for the purpose of disrupting
    political meetings of all non-Nazi groups. These _Rollkommandos_
    were charged with interrupting, making noise, and unnerving the
    speaker. Finally the Nazis broke up meetings by _Rollkommando_
    raids. In many cases, fights resulted, during which furniture
    was destroyed and a number of persons hurt. The Nazis armed
    themselves with blackjacks, brass knuckles, rubber truncheons,
    walking sticks, and beer bottles. After the Reichstag election
    of 1930, Nazi terrorism became more overt, and from then on
    scarcely a day went by when the Chief of the Security Police in
    Berlin did not receive a minimum of five to ten reports, and
    often more, of riots instigated by Nazis. (_2955-PS_)

    During the campaign for the Reichstag election of 14 September
    1930, Nazi conspirators made it a practice to send speakers
    accompanied by many Storm Troopers to meetings of other
    political parties, often physically taking over the meetings. On
    one such occasion a large detachment of Storm Troopers, some of
    whom were armed with pistols and clubs, attended a meeting
    called by the Social Democratic Party, succeeded in forcibly
    excluding everybody not in sympathy with their views, and
    concluded the meeting as their own. Such violent tactics,
    repeated many times, were an integral part of the political
    creed of the Nazi. (_L-83_)

    Ultimately, in Berlin, just before the Nazis seized power, it
    was necessary to devote the entire Police Force to the job of
    fighting the Nazis, thus leaving little time for other Police
    duties. (_2955-PS_)

    _3. The Nazi conspirators constantly threatened their opponents
    with organized reprisals and terror._ During the course of the
    trial of three officers of the _Reichswehr_ for high treason in
    Leipzig in September 1931, Hitler said:

        “But I may assure you that if the Nazi movement’s
        struggle is successful, then there will be a Nazi Court
        of Law too, the November 1918 revolution will be atoned,
        and there’ll be some heads chopped off.” (_2512-PS_)

    Frick wrote in the National Socialist Yearbook for 1930:

        “No wonder that as the situation of the entire German
        people, as well as that of the individual racial
        comrade, grows rapidly worse, increased numbers are
        realizing the incompetence of the parliamentarian
        system, and no wonder that even some who are responsible
        for the present system desperately cry for a
        dictatorship. This however, will not save them from
        their fate of one day being called to account before a
        German State Tribunal.” (_2743-PS_)

    On 7 October 1929, the National Socialist District leader
    Terboven said in a meeting in Essen:

        “This weakness is especially known to Severing, who
        symbolizes the present State, and he intends to render a
        service to the State, which is breathing its last; but
        this too will no longer save the present corrupt
        parliamentarian system. * * * But I give such a
        dictatorship only four weeks. Then the people will
        awaken, then the National Socialists will come to power,
        and then there will not be enough lamp posts in Germany.

        “The National Socialists will march into the new
        Reichstag with thirty members; then there will be black
        eyes every day in this Reichstag; thus this corrupt
        parliamentarian system will be further discredited;
        disorder and chaos will set in, and then the National
        Socialists will judge the moment to have arrived in
        which they are to seize the political power.”
        (_2513-PS_)

    On 18 October 1929, Frick, while discussing the Young Plan in a
    meeting in Pyritz said:

        “This fateful struggle will first be taken up with the
        ballot, but this cannot continue indefinitely, for
        history has taught us that in a battle, blood must be
        shed, and iron broken. The ballot is the beginning of
        this fateful struggle. We are determined to promulgate
        by force that which we preach. Just as Mussolini
        exterminated the Marxists in Italy, so must we also
        succeed in accomplishing the same through dictatorship
        and terror.” (_2513-PS_)

    In December 1932, Frick, at that time Chairman of the Foreign
    Affairs Committee of the Reichstag, stated to a fellow member of
    that committee:

        “Don’t worry, when we are in power we shall put all of
        you guys into concentration camps.” (_L-83_)

    _4. The Nazi conspirators openly approved acts of terrorist
    committed by their subordinates._ On 22 August 1932, five
    National Socialists were condemned to death for a murder in the
    town of Potempa. Hitler wired to the condemned men:

        “My Comrades! Faced with this terrible blood sentence, I
        feel myself bound to you in unlimited faithfulness. Your
        liberty is from this moment a question of our honor. To
        fight against a Government under which such a thing
        could happen is our duty.” (_2532-PS_; _2511-PS_)

    Goering, two days later sent the following telegram to the
    condemned men:

        “In nameless embitterment and rage against the terror
        sentence which has struck you, I promise you, My
        Comrades, that our whole fight from now on will be for
        your freedom. You are no murderers. You have defended
        the life and the honor of your Comrades. I send to your
        families today 1,000 Marks which I have received from
        your friends. Be courageous. More than 14,000,000 of the
        best Germans have made your interest their own.”
        (_2634-PS_)

    On 2 September 1932, the death sentences were commuted to
    imprisonment for life. In 1933, after the Nazis came into power,
    the five were set free. (_2532-PS_)

    Soon after coming to power the Nazi conspirators took steps to
    grant a general amnesty for all unlawful acts, including acts of
    violence, committed by their adherents in the course of their
    struggle for power. On 21 March 1933 a decree was promulgated,
    signed by von Hindenburg, Hitler, Frick, and von Papen granting
    amnesty “For penal acts committed in the national revolution of
    the German People, in its preparation or in the fight for the
    German soil”. (_2059-PS_)

B. _Control Acquired_

(1) _On 30 January 1933, Hitler became Chancellor of the German
Republic._

(2) _After the Reichstag fire of 28 February 1933, clauses of the Weimar
Constitution guaranteeing personal liberty and freedom of speech, of the
press, of association and assembly, were suspended._ The Weimar
Constitution contained certain guarantees as to personal freedom
(Article 114), as to inviolability of the home (Article 115), and as to
the secrecy of letters and other communications (Article 117). It also
had provisions safeguarding freedom of speech and of the press (Article
118), and of assembly (Article 123), and of association (Article 124).
The Reich President was authorized, “if public safety and order in the
German Reich are considerably disturbed or endangered,” to take steps to
suspend “the Fundamental Rights” established in Articles 114, 115, 117,
118, 123, 124, and 153. (Article 48 (2)). (_2050-PS_)

On 28 February 1933, the Nazi conspirators, taking as their excuse a
fire which had just destroyed the Reichstag building, caused to be
promulgated a Decree of the Reich President suspending the
constitutional guarantees of freedom. This decree, which purported to be
an exercise of the powers of the Reich President under Article 48 (2) of
the Constitution, and which was signed by the Reich President,
Hindenburg, the Reich Chancellor, Hitler, the Reich Minister of the
Interior, Frick, and the Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, provided
in part:

    “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the
    Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further
    notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of
    free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on
    the right of assembly and the right of association, and
    violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic
    communications, and warrants for house-searchers, orders for
    confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also
    permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
    (_1390-PS_)

(3) _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._ At the
first meeting of Hitler’s Cabinet on 30 January 1933, passage of an
Enabling Law (_Ermaechtigungsgesetz_) was discussed, and suppression of
the Communist Party was considered as a means for securing the majority
requisite for this and other purposes. (_351-PS_) Since such a law
involved a change in the Constitution it was governed by Article 76 of
the Weimar Constitution which provided: “The Constitution may be amended
by law. The acts of the Reichstag amending the Constitution can only
take effect if two-thirds of the regular number of members are present
and at least two-thirds of those present consent.” (_2050-PS_) At the
first meeting of the Hitler Cabinet on 30 January 1933, both Hitler and
Goering favored early dissolution of the Reichstag and new elections in
an effort to achieve a majority for the new Cabinet. (_351-PS_) This
course was followed and new elections for the Reichstag were held on 5
March 1933, at which 288 Nazi were elected out of 647 members
(_2514-PS_).

Taking advantage of the Presidential decree of 28 February 1933
suspending constitutional guarantees of freedom, Goering and other Nazi
conspirators immediately caused a large number of Communists, including
party officials and Reichstag deputies, and a smaller number of Social
Democratic officials and deputies to be placed in “protective custody”.
(_2324-PS_; _2573-PS_; _L-83_) Thus all Communist deputies and a number
of Social Democratic deputies were prevented from attending the new
session of the Reichstag. On 9 March 1933, Frick announced that the
Communists would be prevented from participating in the first session of
the Reichstag on March 21st, because of their being more usefully
occupied. (_2403-PS_) As Frick cynically stated:

    “When the Reichstag meets the 21st of March, the Communists will
    be prevented by urgent labor elsewhere from participating in the
    session. In concentration camps they will be re-educated for
    productive work. We will know how to render harmless permanently
    sub-humans who do not want to be re-educated.” (_2651-PS_)

At a meeting of the Reich Cabinet on 15 March 1933, the problem of
securing the necessary two-thirds majority in favor of an Enabling Act
was again considered. Frick stated his belief that the Act would have to
be broadly-conceived, in a manner to allow for any deviation from the
clauses of the Constitution of the Reich. Goering thought the two-thirds
majority would be forthcoming and that if necessary some of the Social
Democrats could be excluded from the room during the voting. (_2962-PS_)

At a meeting of the Cabinet on 20 March 1933, there was further
discussion of means for securing the majority and quorum necessary to
secure passage of the Act (_2963-PS_). On 23 March, Hitler spoke in
favor of an Enabling Law proposed by the Nazi conspirators and in the
course of the debate said:

    “The Government insists on the passage of this law. It expects a
    clear decision in any case. It offers to all the Parties in the
    Reichstag the possibility of a peaceful development and a
    possible conciliation in the future. But it is also determined
    to consider a disapproval of this law as a declaration of
    resistance. It is up to you, gentlemen, to make the decision
    now. It will be either peace or war.” (_2652-PS_)

Thus subject to the full weight of Nazi pressure and terror, the
Reichstag passed the proposed law, 441 deputies voting in its favor, and
94 Social Democrats being opposed (_2579-PS_). The following day, the
law was promulgated. It provided:

    “The Reichstag has resolved the following law, which is, with
    the approval of the Reichsrat, herewith promulgated, after it
    has been established that the requirements have been satisfied
    for legislation altering the Constitution.

    “SECTION 1. Reich laws can be enacted by the Reich Cabinet as
    well as in accordance with the Procedure established in the
    Constitution. This applies also to the laws referred to in
    article 85, paragraph 2, and in article 87 of the Constitution.

    “SECTION 2. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may
    deviate from the Constitution so far as they do not affect the
    position of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The powers of the
    President remain undisturbed.

    “SECTION 3. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet are
    prepared by the Chancellor and published in the
    Reichsgesetzblatt. They come into effect, unless otherwise
    specified, upon the day following their publication. Articles 68
    to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to the laws enacted by
    the Reich Cabinet.

    “SECTION 4. Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which
    concern matters of national legislation do not require the
    consent of the bodies participating in legislation. The Reich
    Cabinet is empowered to issue the necessary provisions for the
    execution of these treaties.

    “SECTION 5. This law becomes effective on the day of its
    publication. It becomes invalid on April 1, 1937; it further
    becomes invalid when the present Reich Cabinet is replaced by
    another.” (_2001-PS_)

The time limit stated in the law was twice extended by action of the
Reichstag and once by decree of Hitler. (_2047-PS_; _2048-PS_;
_2103-PS_)

On 29 June 1933, Dr. Hugenberg resigned as Reich Minister of Economy and
as Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture (_351-PS_). Thereafter, other
members of the Cabinet resigned from time to time, and new members were
added. The Reich Cabinet continued to exercise, on numerous occasions
the plenary powers conferred on it by the law of 24 March 1933. (See
Section 3 of Chapter XV for further material on the Reich Cabinet.)

(4) _The Nazi conspirators caused all political parties, except the Nazi
Party, to be prohibited._ After the Reichstag fire of 27 February 1933,
the organization of the Communist Party was destroyed. On 9 March 1933,
the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, announced that the Communists
would be prevented from taking part in the opening of the Reichstag on
21 March 1933, because of their seditious activity. On 26 May 1933, a
law was promulgated, signed by Hitler and Frick, providing for the
confiscation of Communist property. (_2403-PS_; _1396-PS_)

After suspension of the Constitutional guarantees of freedom on 28
February 1933, numerous restraints were imposed on the Social Democratic
Party, including the arrest of a number of its leaders and Reichstag
deputies. The backbone of this Party was broken by the occupation of the
trade union buildings and the smashing of free trade unions in May 1933.
On 22 June 1933, the Social Democratic Party was suppressed in Prussia
(_2403-PS_). On 7 July 1933 a Reich decree eliminated Social Democrats
from the Reichstag and from the governing bodies of Provinces and
Municipalities. (_2058-PS_)

On 14 July 1933, provisions of the Law of 26 May 1933 confiscating
Communist property were made applicable to assets and interests of the
Social Democratic Party and its affiliated organizations, “and also to
assets and interests which are used or destined to promote Marxist or
other activities found by the Reich Minister of the Interior to be
subversive to people and state.” (_1388-PS_) Faced with similar
pressure, the other German Parties either dissolved or combined with the
Nazis (_2403-PS_).

The Nazi conspirators then promulgated a law declaring the Nazi Party to
be the only political party in Germany and making it criminal to
maintain any other political party or to form a new political party.
This law, which was signed by Hitler, Frick, and Guertner, provided in
part:

    “Art. 1

    The National Socialist German Worker’s Party
    (_National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei_) constitutes
    the only political party in Germany.

    “Art. 2

    Whoever undertakes to maintain the organizational structure of
    another political party or to form a new political party will be
    punished with penal servitude up to three years or with
    imprisonment of from six months to three years, if the deed is
    not subject to a greater penalty according to other
    regulations.” (_1388-PS_)

In a speech on 6 July 1933 Hitler stated:

    “The political parties have finally been abolished. This is a
    historical occurrence, the meaning and implication of which one
    cannot yet be fully conscious of. Now, we must set aside the
    last vestige of democracy, particularly the methods of voting
    and making majority decisions which today are used in local
    governments, in economic organizations and in labor boards; in
    its place we must validate the responsibility of the individual.
    The achievement of external power must be followed by the
    inner-education of the people * * *”

Later in the same speech, Hitler said:

    “The Party has become the State. All power lies with the Reich
    Authorities.” (_2632-PS_)

(5) _The Nazi conspirators caused the Nazi Party to be established as a
para-governmental organization with extensive and extraordinary
privileges._ On 1 December 1933 the Reich Cabinet promulgated a law
designed for “Securing the Unity of Party and State”. It was signed by
Hitler and Frick, and provided:

    “Art. 1

    1. After the victory of the National Socialistic Revolution, the
    National Socialistic German Labor Party is the bearer of the
    concept of the German State and is inseparably the state.

    2. It will be a part of the public law. Its organization will be
    determined by the Fuehrer.

    “Art. 2

    The deputy of the Fuehrer and the Chief of Staff of the SA will
    become members of the Reichs government in order to insure close
    cooperation of the offices of the party and SA with the public
    authorities.

    “Art. 3

    1. The members of the National Socialistic German Labor Party
    and the SA (including their subordinate organizations) as the
    leading and driving force of the National Socialist State will
    bear greater responsibility toward Fuehrer, people and state.

    2. In case they violate these duties, they will be subject to
    special jurisdiction by party and state.

    3. The Fuehrer may extend these regulations in order to include
    members of other organizations.

    “Art. 4

    Every action or neglect on the part of members of the SA
    (including their subordinate organizations) attacking or
    endangering the existence, organization, activity or reputation
    of the National Socialistic German Labor Party, in particular
    any infraction against discipline and order, will be regarded as
    a violation of duty.

    “Art. 5

    Custody and arrest may be inflicted in addition to the usual
    penalties.

    “Art. 6

    The public authorities have to grant legal and administrative
    assistance to the offices of the Party and the SA which are
    entrusted with the execution of the jurisdiction of the Party
    and SA.

    “Art. 7

    The law regarding the authority to inflict penalties on members
    of the SA and SS, of the 28 April 1933 (RGBl, p. 230), will be
    invalidated.

    “Art. 8

    The Reichs Chancellor, as Fuehrer of the National Socialistic
    German Labor Party and as the supreme commander of SA will issue
    the regulation necessary for the execution and augmentation of
    this law, particularly with respect to the organization and
    procedure of the Jurisdiction of the Party and SA. He will
    determine the time at which the regulations concerning this
    jurisdiction will be effective.” (_1395-PS_)

Thus the Nazi Party became a para-governmental organization in Germany.

The Nazi conspirators granted the Nazi Party and its components
extensive and extraordinary privileges. On 19 May 1933, they passed a
law to protect and insure respect for Party symbols (_2759-PS_). On 20
December 1934 the Nazi conspirators caused a law to be promulgated,
signed by Hitler, Guertner, Hess, and Frick, making it a crime to make
false or grievous statements to injure the prestige of the Government of
the Reich, the NSDAP, or its agencies. This law also declared it to be a
crime to wear the uniform or the insignia of the NSDAP without authority
to do so, and controlled the manufacture and sale of Party uniforms,
flags, and insignia (_1393-PS_). A decree of 29 March 1935, defining the
legal status of the NSDAP and of its components and affiliated
organizations, is a further indication of the extraordinary privileges
enjoyed by the Nazi Party. (_1725-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

   LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF
                     TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL CONTROL

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Sections IV (D)  │      │
                │  1, 2.                                 │  I   │  17, 18
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *047-PS        │Letter to Rosenberg signed by Hitler, 24│      │
                │  August 1931. (USA 725)                │ III  │      82
                │                                        │      │
 *351-PS        │Minutes of First Meeting of Cabinet of  │      │
                │  Hitler, 30 January 1933. (USA 389)    │ III  │     270
                │                                        │      │
 *404-PS        │Excerpts from Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.   │      │
                │  456, 475. (USA 256)                   │ III  │     385
                │                                        │      │
 1388-PS        │Law concerning confiscation of Property │      │
                │  subversive to People and State, 14    │      │
                │  July 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,    │      │
                │  Part I, p. 479.                       │ III  │     962
                │                                        │      │
 1388-A-PS      │Law against the establishment of        │      │
                │  Parties, 14 July 1933. 1933           │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 479.    │ III  │     962
                │                                        │      │
 1390-PS        │Decree of the Reich President for the   │      │
                │  Protection of the People and State, 28│      │
                │  February 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,│      │
                │  Part I, p. 83.                        │ III  │     968
                │                                        │      │
 1393-PS        │Law on treacherous attacks against State│      │
                │  and Party, and for the Protection of  │      │
                │  Party Uniforms, 20 December 1934. 1934│      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1269.   │ III  │     973
                │                                        │      │
*1395-PS        │Law to insure the unity of Party and    │      │
                │  State, 1 December 1933. 1933          │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016.   │      │
                │  (GB 252)                              │ III  │     978
                │                                        │      │
 1396-PS        │Law concerning the confiscation of      │      │
                │  Communist property, 26 May 1933. 1933 │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 293.    │ III  │     979
                │                                        │      │
 1725-PS        │Decree enforcing law for securing the   │      │
                │  unity of Party and State, 29 March    │      │
                │  1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │      │
                │  p. 502.                               │  IV  │     224
                │                                        │      │
 2001-PS        │Law to Remove the Distress of People and│      │
                │  State, 24 March 1933. 1933            │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 141.    │  IV  │     638
                │                                        │      │
 2047-PS        │Law for the extension of the law        │      │
                │  concerning the removal of the distress│      │
                │  of People and Reich, 30 January 1937. │      │
                │  1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.    │      │
                │  105.                                  │  IV  │     660
                │                                        │      │
 2048-PS        │Law for the extension of the law        │      │
                │  concerning the removal of the distress│      │
                │  of the People and Reich, 30 January   │      │
                │  1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │      │
                │  p. 95.                                │  IV  │     660
                │                                        │      │
 2050-PS        │The Constitution of the German Reich, 11│      │
                │  August 1919. 1919 Reichsgesetzblatt,  │      │
                │  Part I, p. 1383.                      │  IV  │     662
                │                                        │      │
 2058-PS        │Decree for the securing of the State    │      │
                │  Leadership, 7 July 1933. 1933         │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 462.    │  IV  │     699
                │                                        │      │
 2059-PS        │Decree of the Reich President relating  │      │
                │  to the granting of Amnesty, 21 March  │      │
                │  1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, │      │
                │  p. 134.                               │  IV  │     701
                │                                        │      │
 2103-PS        │Decree of Fuehrer on Cabinet            │      │
                │  Legislation, 10 May 1943. 1943        │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 295.    │  IV  │     729
                │                                        │      │
*2168-PS        │Book by SA Sturmfuehrer Dr. Ernst Bayer,│      │
                │  entitled “The SA”, depicting the      │      │
                │  history, work, aim and organization of│      │
                │  the SA. (USA 411)                     │  IV  │     772
                │                                        │      │
*2324-PS        │Extracts from Reconstruction of a       │      │
                │  Nation, by Hermann Goering, 1934. (USA│      │
                │  233)                                  │  IV  │    1033
                │                                        │      │
 2403-PS        │The End of the Party State, from        │      │
                │  Documents of German Politics, Vol. I, │      │
                │  pp. 55-56.                            │  V   │      71
                │                                        │      │
 2404-PS        │Report of Hitler’s speech in his own    │      │
                │  defense, published in The Hitler Trial│      │
                │  (1934).                               │  V   │      73
                │                                        │      │
 2405-PS        │Extracts from German Publications.      │  V   │      79
                │                                        │      │
 2412-PS        │Extracts from Nature and Form of        │      │
                │  National Socialism pamphlet by Dr.    │      │
                │  Joseph Goebbels, Berlin, 1935.        │  V   │      88
                │                                        │      │
 2500-PS        │“What do we want in the Reichstag?” one │      │
                │  of Goebbels newspaper articles.       │  V   │     237
                │                                        │      │
 2511-PS        │Statement by Hitler from Voelkischer    │      │
                │  Beobachter, 24 August 1932.           │  V   │     246
                │                                        │      │
 2512-PS        │Hitler’s Testimony Before the Court for │      │
                │  High Treason, published in Frankfurter│      │
                │  Zeitung, 26 September 1931.           │  V   │     246
                │                                        │      │
*2513-PS        │Extract from The National Socialist     │      │
                │  Workers’ Party as an Association      │      │
                │  Hostile to State and to Republican    │      │
                │  Form of Government and Guilty of      │      │
                │  Treasonable Activity. (USA 235)       │  V   │     252
                │                                        │      │
 2514-PS        │Extract from Statistical Yearbook of the│      │
                │  German Reich 1933, concerning         │      │
                │  elections in the Reichstag.           │  V   │     253
                │                                        │      │
 2532-PS        │Extract from The Third Reich, by Gerd   │      │
                │  Ruehle.                               │  V   │     268
                │                                        │      │
 2573-PS        │Announcement of Official Prussian Press │      │
                │  Office, in Frankfurter Zeitung, 1     │      │
                │  March 1933.                           │  V   │     303
                │                                        │      │
 2579-PS        │Extracts from the Frankfurter Zeitung,  │      │
                │  24 March 1933, concerning happenings  │      │
                │  23 March.                             │  V   │     303
                │                                        │      │
 2632-PS        │Extracts from The National Socialist    │      │
                │  Revolution 1933, published in Berlin  │      │
                │  1935.                                 │  V   │     343
                │                                        │      │
 2633-PS        │Extracts from Constitutional Law of the │      │
                │  Greater German Reich, 1939.           │  V   │     344
                │                                        │      │
 2634-PS        │Goering to the Condemned, published in  │      │
                │  Voelkischer Beobachter, 26 August     │      │
                │  1932.                                 │  V   │     344
                │                                        │      │
 2651-PS        │Statement by Frick from Voelkischer     │      │
                │  Beobachter, 14 March 1933.            │  V   │     359
                │                                        │      │
 2652-PS        │Speech of Hitler to Reichstag, 23 March │      │
                │  1933, from Voelkischer Beobachter, 24 │      │
                │  March 1933.                           │  V   │     359
                │                                        │      │
 2741-PS        │Speech by Hitler on 9 November 1934,    │      │
                │  published in Voelkischer Beobachter,  │      │
                │  10 November 1934.                     │  V   │     382
                │                                        │      │
 2742-PS        │Passage written by Frick in National    │      │
                │  Socialist Yearbook, 1927, p. 124.     │  V   │     383
                │                                        │      │
 2743-PS        │Passage written by Frick in National    │      │
                │  Socialist Yearbook, 1930, p. 178.     │  V   │     383
                │                                        │      │
 2759-PS        │Law for the protection of Nationalist   │      │
                │  Symbols, 19 May 1933. 1933            │      │
                │  Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 285.    │  V   │     394
                │                                        │      │
*2955-PS        │Affidavit of Magnus Heimannsberg, 14    │      │
                │  November 1945, referring to SA and    │      │
                │  other Nazi groups posted at polling   │      │
                │  places. (USA 755)                     │  V   │     659
                │                                        │      │
*2962-PS        │Minutes of meeting of Reich Cabinet, 15 │      │
                │  March 1933. (USA 578)                 │  V   │     669
                │                                        │      │
*2963-PS        │Minutes of meeting of Reich Cabinet, 20 │      │
                │  March 1933. (USA 656)                 │  V   │     670
                │                                        │      │
*3054-PS        │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion     │      │
                │  picture composed of captured German   │      │
                │  film. (USA 167)                       │  V   │     801
                │                                        │      │
*3740-PS        │Affidavit of Franz Halder, 6 March 1946.│      │
                │  (USA 779)                             │  VI  │     635
                │                                        │      │
*L-83           │Affidavit of Gerhart H. Seger, 21 July  │      │
                │  1945. (USA 234).                      │ VII  │     859


           3. CONSOLIDATION OF TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL CONTROL

_Between the Accession to Power (early 1933) and the Outbreak of the War
(late 1939) the Nazi Conspirators Consolidated Their Control of Germany
by Utilizing and Molding Its Political Machinery to Their Own Ends._

A. _The Nazi conspirators reduced the Reichstag to an impotent body of
their own appointees._ Under the Weimar Constitution of the German
Reich, adopted by the German people on 11 August 1919, the Reichstag was
a representative parliamentary body with broad legislative powers.
Article 20 provided that the Reichstag should be “composed of the
delegates of the German people.” Article 68 of the Chapter on
Legislation provided that:

    “Bills are introduced by the government of the Reich or by
    members of the Reichstag. Reich laws shall be enacted by the
    Reichstag.” (_2050-PS_)

In _Mein Kampf_ Hitler stated the conspirators’ purpose to undermine the
Reichstag:

    “Our young movement in essence and structure is
    anti-parliamentarian, i.e., it rejects majority voting as a
    matter of principle as well as in its own organization * * * Its
    participation in the activities of a parliament has only the
    purpose to contribute to its destruction, to the elimination of
    an institution which we consider as one of the gravest symptoms
    of decay of mankind * * *” (_2883-PS_).

With the passage of the Law for the Protection of the People and the
Reich (also known as the Enabling Act) the Nazi succeeded, in effect, in
depriving the Reichstag of its legislative functions. The legislative as
well as the executive powers of the government were concentrated in
Hitler and the Cabinet (_2001-PS_; the legislative activities of the
Cabinet (_Reichsregierung_) and its power to contravene constitutional
limitations are treated in Section 3 of Chapter XV).

During the period from March 1933 until the beginning of 1937, the
Reichstag enacted only four laws: The Reconstruction Law of 30 January
1934 and the three Nurnberg laws of 15 September 1935. The Reichstag was
retained chiefly as a sounding board for Hitler’s speeches. All other
legislation was enacted by the Cabinet, by the Cabinet ministers, or by
decree of the Fuehrer (_2481-PS_). Hess has admitted the lack of
importance of the Reichstag in the legislative process after 1933.
(_2426-PS_)

Hitler indicated in a 1939 decree that the Reichstag would be permitted
to enact only such laws as he, in his own judgment, might deem
appropriate for Reichstag legislation. (_2018-PS_)

Immediately after the Nazis acquired the control of the central
government they proceeded systematically to eliminate their opponents.
First they forced all other political parties to dissolve, and on 14
July 1933 issued a decree making illegal the existence of any political
party except the Nazi Party. (_1388-PS_)

In early 1935 there were 661 delegates in the Reichstag. Of this number
641 were officially registered as Nazi party members and the remaining
20 were classified as “guests” (_Gaeste_). (_2384-PS_; _2380-PS_)

B. _The Nazi conspirators curtailed the freedom of popular elections
throughout Germany._ Under the Weimar Republic there existed
constitutional and legislative guarantees of free popular elections. The
Weimar Constitution guaranteed the universal, equal and secret ballot
and proportional representation. (_2050-PS_) These general principles
were implemented by the provisions of the Reich Election Law of 1924,
particularly with respect to the multiple party system and the
functioning of proportional representation. (_2382-PS_)

In _Mein Kampf_ Hitler stated the conspirators’ purpose to subvert the
system of popular election:

    “Majority can never replace men. * * * The political
    understanding of the masses is not sufficiently developed to
    produce independently specific political convictions and to
    select persons to represent them.” (_2883-PS_)

The occasional national elections after 1933 were formalities devoid of
freedom of choice. Bona fide elections could not take place under the
Nazi system. The basic ideological doctrine of the _Fuehrerprinzip_
(Leadership Principle) dictated that all subordinates must be appointed
by their superiors in the governmental hierarchy. In order to insure the
practical application of this principle the Nazis immediately liquidated
all other political parties and provided criminal sanctions against the
formation of new parties. (For further discussion see Section 2 on the
Acquisition of Totalitarian Political Control.)

Although the Reichstag, unlike all other elective assemblies in Germany,
was allowed to continue in existence, elections no longer involved a
free choice between lists or candidates. At these elections there were
usually large bands of uniformed Nazis surrounding the polls and
intimidating the voters. (_2955-PS_)

The surreptitious marking of ballots (e.g. with skimmed milk) was also
customary, to ascertain the identity of the persons who cast “No” or
invalid votes. (_R-142_)

Although it had already become practically impossible to have more than
one list of candidates, it was specifically provided by law in 1938 that
only one list was to be submitted to the electorate. (_2355-PS_)

By the end of this period, little of substance remained in the election
law. In an official volume published during the war there are reprinted
the still effective provisions of the law of 1924. The majority of the
substantive provisions have been marked “obsolete” (_gegenstandslos_)
(_2381-PS_).

The comprehensive Nazi program for the centralization of German
government included in its scope the whole system of regional and local
elections, which soon ceased to exist. Article 17 of the Weimar
Constitution had required a representative form of government and
universal, secret elections in all Laender and municipalities
(_2050-PS_). Yet in early 1934, the sovereign powers (_Hoheitsrechte_)
of the Laender were transferred by law to the Reich and the Land
governments were placed under the Reich control:

    “The popular assemblies (_Volksvertretungen_) of the Laender
    shall be abolished.” (_2006-PS_)

Pursuant to the German Communal Ordinance of 30 January 1935, the mayors
and executive officers of all municipalities received their appointments
“through the confidence of Party and State” (Article 6 (2)).
Appointments were made by Reich authorities from lists prepared by the
Party delegates (Article 41). City councillors were selected by the
Party delegates in agreement with the mayors (Article 51 (1)).
(_2008-PS_)

C. _The Nazi conspirators transformed the states, provinces, and
municipalities into what were, in effect, mere administrative organs of
the central government._ Under the Weimar Constitution of the pre-Nazi
regime, the states, provinces, and municipalities enjoyed considerable
autonomy in the exercise of governmental functions—legislative,
executive and judicial. (_2050-PS_)

Hitler, in _Mein Kampf_, stated the conspirators’ purpose to establish
totalitarian control of local government:

    “National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must claim the
    right to enforce its doctrines, without regard to present
    federal boundaries, upon the entire German nation and to educate
    it in its ideas and its thinking. * * * The National Socialist
    doctrine is not the servant of political interests of individual
    federal states but shall become the ruler of the German nation.”
    (_2883-PS_)

These views were echoed by Rosenberg:

    “In the midst of the great power constellations of the globe
    there must be, for foreign as well as for internal political
    reasons, only one strong central national authority, if one
    wants Germany to regain a position which makes it fit for
    alliance with other countries.” (_2882-PS_)

By a series of laws and decrees, the Nazi conspirators reduced the
powers of the regional and local governments and substantially
transformed them into territorial subdivisions of the Reich government.
The program of centralization began almost immediately after the Nazis
acquired the chief executive posts of the government. On 31 March 1933,
they promulgated the Provisional Law integrating the Laender with the
Reich (_2004-PS_). This law called for the dissolution of all state and
local self governing bodies and for their reconstitution according to
the number of votes cast for each party in the Reichstag election of 5
March 1933. The Communists and their affiliates were expressly denied
representation.

A week later there followed the Second Law Integrating the Laender with
the Reich (_2005-PS_). This Act established the position of Reich
Governor. He was to be appointed by the President upon the proposal of
the Chancellor, and was given power to appoint the members of the Land
governments and the higher Land officials and judges, the authority to
reconstruct the Land legislature according to the law of 31 March 1933
(_2004-PS_, _supra_), and the power of pardon.

On 31 January 1934, most of the remaining vestiges of Land independence
were destroyed by the Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich:

    “The popular referendum and the Reichstag election of November
    12, 1933, have proved that the German people have attained an
    indestructible internal unity (_unloesliche innere Einheit_)
    superior to all internal subdivisions of political character.
    Consequently, the Reichstag has enacted the following law which
    is hereby promulgated with the unanimous vote of the Reichstag
    after ascertaining that the requirements of the Reich
    Constitution have been met:

    Article I. Popular assemblies of the Laender shall be abolished.

    Article II. (1) The sovereign powers (_Hoheitsrechte_) of the
    Laender are transferred to the Reich.

    (2) The Laender governments are placed under the Reich
    government.

    Article III. The Reich governors are placed under the
    administrative supervision of the Reich Minister of Interior.

    Article IV. The Reich Government may issue new constitutional
    laws.”

This law was implemented by a regulation, issued by Frick, providing
that all Land laws must have the assent of the competent Minister of the
Reich, that the highest echelons of the Land Government were to obey the
orders of the competent Reich Minister, and that the employees of the
Laender might be transferred into the Reich Civil Service. (_1653-PS_)

The _Reichsrat_ (Reich Council) was abolished by law on 14 February
1934, and all official representation on the part of the Laender in the
administration of the central government was at an end (_2647-PS_). The
legislative pattern was complete with the enactment of the Reich
Governor Law on 30 January 1935, which solidified the system of
centralized control. The Reich Governor was declared to be the official
representative of the Reich government, who was to receive orders
directly from Hitler (_Reichstatthaltergesetz_ (Reich Governor Law), 30
January 1935, 1935 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, p. 65). The same
development was apparent in the provinces, the territorial subdivisions
of Prussia. All local powers were concentrated in the Provincial
Presidents, who acted solely as representatives of the national
administration (_2049-PS_). Similarly, in the case of the municipalities
local self-government was quickly reduced to a minimum and communal
affairs were placed under central Reich control. The Nazi Party Delegate
was given special functions:

    “* * * in order to insure harmony between the communal
    administration and the Party.” (Art. 6 (2)).

The Reich was given supervision over the municipalities:

    “* * * in order to insure that their activities conform with the
    laws and the aims of national leadership.” (_2008-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators frequently boasted of their comprehensive program
of government centralization. Frick, Minister of the Interior throughout
this period, wrote:

    “The reconstruction law abolished the sovereign rights and the
    executive powers of the Laender and made the Reich the sole
    bearer of the rights of sovereignty. The supreme powers of the
    Laender do not exist any longer. The natural result of this was
    the subordination of the Land governments to the Reich
    government and the Land Ministers to the corresponding Reich
    Ministers. On 30 January 1934, the German Reich became one
    state. (_2481-PS_)

In another article Frick indicated even more clearly the purposes which
underlay this program of centralization:

    “In the National Socialist revolution of 1933, it was stipulated
    for the first time in the history of the German nation that the
    erection of a unified state (_Einheitsstaat_) would be
    accomplished. From the early days of his political activity,
    Adolf Hitler never left a doubt in the mind of anyone that he
    considered it the first duty of National Socialism to create a
    German Reich in which the will of the people would be led in a
    single direction and that the whole strength of the nation, _at
    home and abroad_, would be placed on the balance scale.”
    (_2380-PS_; _2378-PS_.)

D. _The Nazi conspirators united the offices of President and Chancellor
in the person of Hitler._ The merger of the two offices was accomplished
by the law of 1 August 1934, signed by the entire cabinet (_2003-PS_).
The official Nazi statement concerning the effect of this statute
contains this observation:

    “Through this law, the conduct of Party and State has been
    combined in one hand. * * * He is responsible only to his own
    conscience and to the German nation.” (_1893-PS_)

One of the significant consequences of this law was to give to Hitler
the supreme command of the German armed forces, always a prerequisite of
the Presidency (_2050-PS_). Accordingly, every soldier was immediately
required to take an oath of loyalty and obedience to Hitler. (_2061-PS_)

E. _The Nazi conspirators removed great numbers of civil servants on
racial and political grounds and replaced them with party members and
supporters._

Hitler publicly announced the conspirators’ purpose:

    “We know that two things alone will save us: the end of internal
    corruption and the cleaning out of all those who owe their
    existence simply to the protection of members of the same
    political parties. Through the most brutal ruthlessness towards
    all officials installed by those political parties we must
    restore our finances. * * * The body of German officials must
    once more become what it was.” (_2881-PS_)

The Nazi legislative machine turned to the task of purging the civil
service soon after the accession to power. On 7 April 1933, the Law for
the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was promulgated
(_1397-PS_). Article 3 of this law applies the Nazi blood theories:

    “(1) Officials who are not of Aryan descent are to be retired
    (See Section 8); where honorary officials are concerned, they
    are to be discharged from office.

    (2)  (1) Does not apply to officials who have been in service
    since August 1, 1914, or who fought in the World War at the
    front for the German Reich or for its allies or whose fathers or
    sons were killed in the World War. The Reich Minister of the
    Interior after consultation with the competent Minister or with
    the highest state authorities may permit further exceptions in
    the case of officials who are in foreign countries.”

Article 8 provides that retirement does not carry a pension unless the
official has served at least ten years. The political purge provision of
this law is contained in Article 4:

    “Officials who because of their previous political activity do
    not offer security that they will exert themselves for the
    national state without reservations, may be discharged. For
    three months after dismissal, they will be paid their former
    salary. From this time on they receive three-quarters of their
    pensions (see 8) and corresponding annuities for their heirs.”

The provisions of the Act apply to all Reich, Land, and Communal
officials (Art. 1 (2)). Civil Servants may be placed on the retired list
without any reason, “for the purpose of simplifying the administration”
(Art. 6). Discharges and transfers, once decided on by the appropriate
administrative chief, are final and are not subject to appeal (Art. 7
(1)).

This basic enactment was followed by a series of decrees, regulations,
and amendments. For example, on 11 April 1933, the term “non-Aryan” was
defined to include persons with only one non-Aryan grandparent
(_2012-PS_). An amendatory law of 30 June ruled out all civil servants
married to non-Aryans. (_1400-PS_)

The political standards of the “Purge Law” were made more explicit by
the supplementary law of 20 July 1933. Officials who belonged to any
party or organization which, in the opinion of the Nazis, furthered the
aims of Communism, Marxism, or Social Democracy were summarily to be
discharged (_1398-PS_). In the later years, these earlier provisions
were enlarged and codified, no longer solely for the purposes of
affecting the existing civil service, but rather to set out the
qualifications for the appointment of new applicants and for their
promotion. Proof of devotion to National Socialism and documentary proof
of acceptable “blood” were prescribed as conditions to promotion.
(_2326-PS_)

The comprehensive German Civil Service Law of 26 January 1937 included
the discriminatory provisions of the earlier legislation, and prevented
the appointment of any applicants opposed or suspected of being opposed
to the Nazi program and policy (_2340-PS_). The legislation dealing with
the training and education of civil servants provided that no person can
be accepted for an official position unless he is a member of the Nazi
Party or one of its formations (_Gliederungen_). (_2341-PS_)

The total subjugation of the German civil servant was ultimately
accomplished by the following resolution passed by the Reichstag at the
request of the Fuehrer.

    “* * * without being bound by existing legal provisions, the
    Fuehrer must therefore in his capacity as Fuehrer of the nation,
    as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, as Head of the
    Government and as the highest bearer of all power, as highest
    Law Lord and as Fuehrer of the Party, always be in a position to
    require every German—whether a simple soldier or officer,
    subordinate or higher official, or judge, supervisory or
    operating functionary of the Party, laborer or employer—to
    carry out his duties with all the means available to him and to
    discharge these duties according to a conscientious examination
    without reference to so-called vested rights, especially without
    the preambles of pre-existing procedure, by removal of any man
    from his office, rank or position.” (_2755-PS_)

F. _The Nazi conspirators restricted the independence of the judiciary
and rendered it subservient to their ends._

The independence of judges, before the Nazi regime, was guaranteed by
the Weimar Constitution. The fundamental principle was stated briefly in
Article 102:

    “Judges are independent and subject only to the law.”
    (_2050-PS_)

Article 104 contained a safeguard against the arbitrary removal or
suspension of judges, while Article 105 prohibited “exceptional courts”.
The fundamental rights of the individual are set out in Article 109 and
include equality before the law. (_2050-PS_)

Like all other public officials, German judges who failed to meet Nazi
racial and political requirements became the subject of a wide-spread
purge. Non-Aryans, political opponents of the Nazis, and all persons
suspected of antagonism to the aims of the Party were summarily removed
(_2967-PS_). The provisions of the Law for the Restoration of
Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933 applied to all judges. This
was declared expressly in the third regulation for the administration of
the law. (_2867-PS_)

To make certain that cases with political ramifications would be dealt
with acceptably and in conformity with Party principles, the Nazis
granted designated areas of criminal jurisdiction to the so-called
Special Courts (_Sondergerichte_). These constituted a new system of
special criminal courts, independent of the regular judiciary and
directly subservient to the Party (_2076-PS_). A later decree
considerably broadened the jurisdiction of these courts. (_2056-PS_)

In 1934, the People’s Court was set up as a trial court “in cases of
high treason and treason” (_2014-PS_). This action was a direct, result
of the dissatisfaction of the Nazi rulers with the decision of the
Supreme Court (_Reichsgericht_) in the Reichstag fire trial. Three of
the four defendants were acquitted although the Nazi conspirators had
expected convictions in all cases (_2967-PS_). The law which created
this new tribunal contained a wide definition of treason which would
include most of what were regarded by the Nazis as “political” crimes
(Art. 3 (1)). The express denial of any appeal from the decisions of the
People’s Court (Art. 5 (2)) was a further indication of the intention of
the Nazis to set up a criminal law system totally outside of accepted
judicial pattern. The substantive organization of the People’s Court was
later established by law in 1936. (_2342-PS_)

These new tribunals were staffed almost exclusively with Nazis and were
used to tighten the Party’s grip on Germany. This control became
progressively stronger, due first, to the power of the prosecutor to
pick the appropriate court; second, to the restriction of defense
counsel in these courts to specially admitted attorneys; and finally, to
the absence of appeal from the decisions of these judges. Moreover,
there developed along side of the entire judicial system the
increasingly powerful police administration, under which persons opposed
to the regime were regularly imprisoned in concentration camps without
any type of hearing, even after acquittal by the courts. (_2967-PS_)

Still another group of courts was established within the Party itself.
These Party Courts heard cases involving internal party discipline and
infractions of the rules of conduct prescribed for members of formations
and affiliated organizations. The published rules for the Party judges
emphasized the complete dependence of these judges upon the directions
and supervision of their Party superiors. (_2402-PS_)

The Nazi legal theorists freely admitted that there was no place in
their scheme of things for the truly independent judge. They controlled
all judges through special directives and orders from the central
government. Frank underscored the role of the judge as a political
functionary and as an administrator in the National Socialist state
(_2378-PS_). Two case histories of this period serve to illustrate the
manner in which criminal proceedings were directly suppressed or
otherwise affected by order of the Reich government.

In 1935, the Reich Governor of Saxony, Mutschmann, attempted to quash
criminal proceedings which, in this exceptional instance, had been
brought against officials of the Hohnstein concentration camp for a
series of extremely brutal attacks upon inmates. The trial was held and
the defendants convicted, but during the trial the governor inquired of
the presiding judge whether he did not think the penalty proposed by the
prosecutor too severe and whether an acquittal was not indicated. After
the conviction, two jurymen were ousted from the NSDAP and the
prosecutor was advised by his superior to withdraw from the SA. Although
Guertner, the then Minister of Justice, strongly recommended against
taking any action to alter the decision, Hitler pardoned all the
accused. (_783-PS_; _784-PS_; _785-PS_; _786-PS_)

In another similar case, Guertner wrote directly to Hitler narrating the
horrible details of maltreatment and advising that the case be regularly
prosecuted. Nevertheless, Hitler ordered complete suppression of the
proceedings. (_787-PS_; _788-PS_)

Under the Nazi regime, it was part of the official duty of many Party
functionaries to supervise the administration of justice. The official
papers of Hess contain detailed statements concerning his own functions
and those of the Gauleiter in deciding criminal cases. (_2639-PS_)

Another type of governmental interference in judicial matters is
evidenced by the confidential letter which the Ministry of Justice sent
in early 1938 to the Chief Justices of the Regional Supreme Courts
(_Oberlandesgerichtspraesidenten_). The judges were instructed to submit
lists of lawyers who would be sufficiently able and trustworthy to
represent in court persons who had been taken into “protective custody”.
The main requirement was absolute political reliability. Simple Party
membership was not enough; to be selected, the lawyer had to enjoy the
confidence of the “Gestapo”. (_651-PS_)

After the war began, Thierack, Minister of Justice, revealed the low
state to which the judiciary had fallen under Nazi rule. He argued that
the judge was not the “supervisor” but the “assistant” of the
government. He said that the word “independent”, as applied to the
judge, was to be eliminated from the vocabulary and that although the
judge should retain a certain freedom of decision in particular cases,
the government “can and must” give him the “general line” to follow. For
this purpose, Thierack decided in 1942 to send confidential Judge’s
Letters (_Richterbriefe_) to all German judges and prosecutors, setting
forth the political principles and directives with which all judicial
personnel were obligated to comply (_2482-PS_). The first of these
Judge’s Letters clearly expresses the complete subordination of the
judges to the Fuehrer and his government. (_D-229_)

G. _The Nazi conspirators greatly enlarged existing State and Party
organizations and established an elaborate network of new formations and
agencies._

The totalitarian character of the Nazi regime led to the establishment
of a great number of new official and semi-official agencies and
organizations in the various fields of life which were permeated by Nazi
doctrine and practice, including culture, trade, industry, and
agriculture.

New agencies had to be created to handle the large number of additional
administrative tasks taken over from the Laender and the municipalities.
Moreover, the mobilization of the political, economic, and military
resources of Germany required the formation of such coordinating
“super-agencies” as the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary for
Economics, the Plenipotentiary for Administration, and the Ministerial
Council for the Defense of the Reich. At the time of the launching of
war, the central Reich government was an extremely complicated structure
held together under strict Nazi dictatorship. (See _Chart Number 18_;
also _2261-PS_; _2194-PS_; _2018-PS_.)

Simultaneously, in the Party, the growth of agencies and organizations
proceeded rapidly. The Party spread, octopus-like, throughout all
Germany and into many foreign lands. (See _Chart Number 1_; also
_1725-PS_.)

This process of growth was summed up late in 1937 in an official
statement of the Party Chancellery:

“In order to control the whole German nation in all spheres of life, the
NSDAP, after assuming power, set up under its leadership the new Party
formations and affiliated organizations.” (_2383-PS_)

H. _The Nazi conspirators created a dual system of government controls,
set up Party agencies to correspond with State agencies, and coordinated
their activities, often by uniting corresponding State and Party offices
in a single person._

In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler announced the conspirators’ purpose:

    “Such a revolution can and will only be achieved by a movement
    which itself is already organized in the spirit of such ideas
    and thus in itself already bears the coming state. Therefore,
    the National Socialist movement may today become imbued with
    these ideas and put them into practice in its own organization
    so that it not only may direct the state according to the same
    principles, but also may be in a position to put at the state’s
    disposal the finished organizational structure of its own
    state.” (_2883-PS_)

The Nazis attempted to achieve a certain degree of identity between the
Party and the State and, at the same time, to maintain two separate
organizational structures. After the rise to power, the fundamental
principle of unity was translated into “law”:

    “Article 1. After the victory of the National Socialistic
    Revolution, the National Socialistic German Labor Party is the
    bearer of the concept of the German State and is inseparably the
    state.” (_1395-PS_)

The manner in which the Nazis retained a duality of organization despite
the theory of unity is graphically portrayed in the charts of the Party
and the State (_Charts Number 1 and 18_). These visual exhibits
demonstrate the comprehensive character of the Party organization, which
was established on parallel lines with the corresponding government
structure. The Party structure remained at all times technically
separate and could be used for non-governmental purposes whenever such
use best served the needs of the conspirators. In innumerable instances,
the corresponding Party and State offices were, in fact, held by the
same person. For example, the Gauleiter of the Party in most instances
also held the post of Reich Governor (or, in Prussia, that of Provincial
President). (_2880-PS_)

The coordination of the Party and State functions started at the top.
The Chief of the Party Chancellery was designated a Reich Minister and
endowed with plenary powers in the preparation and approval of
legislation. He acted as liaison officer at the highest level between
Party officials and cabinet ministers. He was given also the duty of
passing on the appointment of all the more important civil servants.
(_2787-PS_)

Many of the same powers were bestowed upon the other _Reichsleiter_
(Leaders composing the Party Directorate). The official Nazi exposition
of their position is as follows:

    “It is in the Reich Directorate where the strings of the
    organization of the German people and the State meet. By
    endowment of the Chief of the Party Chancellery with the powers
    of a Reich Minister, and by special administrative directives,
    the penetration of the State apparatus with the political will
    of the Party is guaranteed. It is the task of the separate
    organs of the Reich Directorate to maintain as close a contact
    as possible with the life of the nation through their
    sub-offices in the Gaus. Observations at the front are to be
    collected and exploited by the offices of the Reich
    Directorate.” (_1893-PS_)

On the regional and local levels, the _Gauleiter_, _Kreisleiter_, etc.,
were also empowered to control the purely governmental authorities on
political matters. Hess issued the following order shortly after the war
began:

    “I, therefore order that the bearer of sovereignty
    (_Hoheitstraeger_) of the NSDAP (_Gauleiter_, _Kreisleiter_,
    _Ortsgruppenleiter_) in the scope of his authority is
    responsible for the political leadership and the frame of mind
    (_Stimmung_) of the population. It is his right and his duty to
    take or to cause to be taken any measures necessary for the
    expeditious fulfillment of his political duties and for the
    elimination of wrong within the Party. He is exclusively
    responsible to his superior bearers of sovereignty
    (_Hoheitstraeger_).” (_2383-PS_)

In the later years, the functional coordination of Party and State
offices became much more common. The appointment of Himmler as
Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police is a typical example of
the way in which State and Party functions became inextricably merged so
as to render any clean lines of demarcation impossible. (_2073-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

  LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CONSOLIDATION OF
                     TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL CONTROL

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (a).                                  │  I   │      18
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *651-PS        │Confidential circular signed by         │      │
                │Schlegeberger, 31 January 1938,         │      │
                │concerning representation by Counsel of │      │
                │Inmates of concentration camps. (USA    │      │
                │730).                                   │ III  │     466
                │                                        │      │
 *783-PS        │Letter from Guertner to Mutschmann, 18  │      │
                │January 1935, concerning charges against│      │
                │members of camp personnel of protective │      │
                │custody Camp Hohnstein. (USA 731).      │ III  │     558
                │                                        │      │
 *784-PS        │Letters from Minister of Justice to Hess│      │
                │and SA Chief of Staff, 5 June 1935,     │      │
                │concerning penal proceedings against    │      │
                │merchant and SA leader and 22 companions│      │
                │because of inflicting bodily injury on  │ (USA │
                │duty.                                   │ 732) │     III
                │                                        │      │
 *785-PS        │Memorandum of Guertner concerning legal │      │
                │proceedings against the camp personnel  │      │
                │of concentration camp Hohnstein. (USA   │      │
                │733)                                    │ III  │     564
                │                                        │      │
 *786-PS        │Minister of Justice memorandum, 29      │      │
                │November 1935, concerning pardon of     │      │
                │those sentenced in connection with      │      │
                │mistreatment in Hohnstein concentration │      │
                │camp. (USA 734)                         │ III  │     568
                │                                        │      │
 *787-PS        │Memorandum to Hitler from Public        │      │
                │Prosecutor of Dresden, 18 June 1935,    │      │
                │concerning criminal procedure against   │      │
                │Vogel on account of bodily injury while │      │
                │in office. (USA 421)                    │ III  │     568
                │                                        │      │
 *788-PS        │Letters from Secretary of State to the  │      │
                │Minister of Justice, 25 June 1935 and 9 │      │
                │September 1935, concerning criminal     │      │
                │procedure against Vogel. (USA 735)      │ III  │     571
                │                                        │      │
 1388-PS        │Law concerning confiscation of Property │      │
                │subversive to People and State, 14 July │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │479.                                    │ III  │     962
                │                                        │      │
*1395-PS        │Law to insure the unity of Party and    │      │
                │State, 1 December 1933. 1933            │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1016. (GB │      │
                │252)                                    │ III  │     978
                │                                        │      │
 1397-PS        │Law for the reestablishment of the      │      │
                │Professional Civil Service, 7 April     │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │175.                                    │ III  │     981
                │                                        │      │
 1398-PS        │Law to supplement the Law for the       │      │
                │restoration of the Professional Civil   │      │
                │Service, 20 July 1933. 1933             │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 518.      │ III  │     986
                │                                        │      │
 1400-PS        │Law changing the regulations in regard  │      │
                │to public officer, 30 June 1933. 1933   │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 433.      │ III  │     987
                │                                        │      │
 1653-PS        │First regulation concerning the         │      │
                │reconstruction of the Reich, 2 February │      │
                │1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │81.                                     │  IV  │     162
                │                                        │      │
 1725-PS        │Decree enforcing law for securing the   │      │
                │unity of Party and State, 29 March 1935.│      │
                │1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 502. │  IV  │     224
                │                                        │      │
*1893-PS        │Extracts from Organization Book of the  │      │
                │NSDAP, 1943 edition. (USA 323)          │  IV  │     529
                │                                        │      │
 2001-PS        │Law to Remove the Distress of People and│      │
                │State, 24 March 1933. 1933              │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 141.      │  IV  │     638
                │                                        │      │
 2003-PS        │Law concerning the Sovereign Head of the│      │
                │German Reich, 1 August 1934. 1934       │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 747.      │  IV  │     639
                │                                        │      │
 2004-PS        │Preliminary law for the coordination of │      │
                │Federal States under the Reich, 31 March│      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │153.                                    │  IV  │     640
                │                                        │      │
 2005-PS        │Second law integrating the “Laender”    │      │
                │with the Reich, 7 April 1933. 1933      │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 173.      │  IV  │     641
                │                                        │      │
 2006-PS        │Law for the reconstruction of the Reich,│      │
                │30 January 1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt,│      │
                │Part I, p. 75.                          │  IV  │     642
                │                                        │      │
 2008-PS        │German Communal Ordinance, 30 January   │      │
                │1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │49.                                     │  IV  │     643
                │                                        │      │
 2012-PS        │First regulation for administration of  │      │
                │the law for the restoration of          │      │
                │professional Civil Service, 11 April    │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │195.                                    │  IV  │     647
                │                                        │      │
 2014-PS        │Law amending regulations of criminal law│      │
                │and criminal procedure, 24 April 1934.  │      │
                │1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 341. │  IV  │     648
                │                                        │      │
*2018-PS        │Fuehrer’s decree establishing a         │      │
                │Ministerial Council for Reich Defense,  │      │
                │30 August 1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, │ (GB  │
                │Part I, p. 1539.                        │ 250) │      IV
                │                                        │      │
 2049-PS        │Second Decree concerning the            │      │
                │reconstruction of the Reich, 27 November│      │
                │1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │1189.                                   │  IV  │     661
                │                                        │      │
 2050-PS        │The Constitution of the German Reich, 11│      │
                │August 1919. 1919 Reichsgesetzblatt,    │      │
                │Part I, p. 1383.                        │  IV  │     662
                │                                        │      │
 2056-PS        │Decree concerning the extension of the  │      │
                │Jurisdiction of Special Courts, 20      │      │
                │November 1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt,  │      │
                │Part I, p. 1632.                        │  IV  │     698
                │                                        │      │
 2061-PS        │Oath of Reich Officials and of German   │      │
                │Soldiers, 20 August 1934. 1934          │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 785.      │  IV  │     702
                │                                        │      │
 2073-PS        │Decree concerning the appointment of a  │      │
                │Chief of German Police in the Ministry  │      │
                │of the Interior, 17 June 1936. 1936     │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 487.      │  IV  │     703
                │                                        │      │
 2076-PS        │Decree of the Government concerning     │      │
                │formation of Special Courts, 21 March   │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I,   │      │
                │pp. 136-137.                            │  IV  │     705
                │                                        │      │
*2194-PS        │Top secret letter from Ministry for     │      │
                │Economy and Labor, Saxony, to Reich     │      │
                │Protector in Bohemia and Moravia,       │      │
                │enclosing copy of 1938 Secret Defense   │      │
                │Law of 4 September 1938. (USA 36)       │  IV  │     843
                │                                        │      │
*2261-PS        │Directive from Blomberg to Supreme      │      │
                │Commanders of Army, Navy and Air Forces,│      │
                │24 June 1935; accompanied by copy of    │      │
                │Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935 and    │      │
                │copy of Decision of Reich Cabinet of 12 │      │
                │May 1935 on the Council for defense of  │      │
                │the Reich. (USA 24)                     │  IV  │     934
                │                                        │      │
 2326-PS        │Reich Principles Regarding recruiting   │      │
                │appointment and promotion of Reich and  │      │
                │Provincial Officials, 14 October 1936.  │      │
                │1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 893. │  IV  │    1034
                │                                        │      │
 2340-PS        │German public officials law of 27       │      │
                │January 1937. 1937 Reichsgesetzblatt,   │      │
                │Part I, p. 41.                          │  IV  │    1058
                │                                        │      │
 2341-PS        │Decree on Education and Training of     │      │
                │German officials, 28 February 1939. 1939│      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 371.      │  IV  │    1062
                │                                        │      │
 2342-PS        │Law on People’s Court and on 25th       │      │
                │Amendment, to Salary Law of 18 April    │      │
                │1936. 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │369.                                    │  IV  │    1062
                │                                        │      │
 2355-PS        │Second Law relating to right to vote for│      │
                │Reichstag, 18 March 1938. 1938          │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 258.      │  IV  │    1098
                │                                        │      │
 2378-PS        │Extracts from Documents of German       │      │
                │Politics, Vol. 4, pp. 207, 337.         │  V   │       4
                │                                        │      │
*2380-PS        │Articles from National Socialist        │      │
                │Yearbook, 1935. (USA 396)               │  V   │       6
                │                                        │      │
*2381-PS        │Extracts from The Greater German Diet,  │      │
                │1943. (USA 476)                         │  V   │       7
                │                                        │      │
 2382-PS        │Law relating to the Reich Election, 8   │      │
                │March 1924. 1924 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│      │
                │I, pp. 159-162.                         │  V   │       8
                │                                        │      │
*2383-PS        │Ordinance for execution of decree of    │      │
                │Fuehrer concerning position of the Head │      │
                │of Party Chancellery of 16 January 1942,│      │
                │published in Decrees, Regulations,      │      │
                │Announcements. (USA 410)                │  V   │       9
                │                                        │      │
 2384-PS        │The Delegates of the German People,     │      │
                │published in Movement, State and People │      │
                │in their Organizations, 1935, p. 161.   │  V   │      23
                │                                        │      │
 2402-PS        │Guide for Party Courts, 17 February     │      │
                │1934.                                   │  V   │      70
                │                                        │      │
*2426-PS        │Extracts from Speeches, by Hess. (GB    │      │
                │253)                                    │  V   │      90
                │                                        │      │
 2481-PS        │Extracts from Four Years of the Third   │      │
                │Reich, by Frick, published in Magazine  │      │
                │of the Academy for German Law, 1937.    │  V   │     231
                │                                        │      │
 2482-PS        │Extract from German Justice, a legal    │      │
                │periodical, 10th Year, Edition A, No.   │      │
                │42, 16 October 1942.                    │  V   │     233
                │                                        │      │
 2639-PS        │Ordinances of the Deputy of the Fuehrer,│      │
                │published in Munich 1937.               │  V   │     345
                │                                        │      │
 2647-PS        │Law relating to the abolition of the    │      │
                │Reichsrat, 14 February 1934. 1934       │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 89.       │  V   │     358
                │                                        │      │
 2755-PS        │Resolution of the Greater German        │      │
                │Reichstag, 26 April 1942. 1942          │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 247.      │  V   │     393
                │                                        │      │
 2787-PS        │Excerpt from Order of the Deputy of the │      │
                │Fuehrer.                                │  V   │     420
                │                                        │      │
 2867-PS        │Third Decree relating to Implementation │      │
                │of Law for restoration of Professional  │      │
                │Civil Service, 6 May 1933. 1933         │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 245.      │  V   │     527
                │                                        │      │
 2880-PS        │Extracts from Handbook for              │      │
                │Administrative Officials, 1942.         │  V   │     547
                │                                        │      │
 2881-PS        │Hitler’s speech of 12 April 1922, quoted│      │
                │in Adolf Hitler’s Speeches, published by│      │
                │Dr. Ernst Boepple, Munich, 1934, pp.    │      │
                │20-21, 72.                              │  V   │     548
                │                                        │      │
 2882-PS        │The Party Program of 1922, by Rosenberg,│      │
                │25th edition, 1942, p. 60.              │  V   │     548
                │                                        │      │
 2883-PS        │Extracts from Mein Kampf by Adolf       │      │
                │Hitler, 41st edition, 1933.             │  V   │     549
                │                                        │      │
*2955-PS        │Affidavit of Magnus Heimannsberg, 14    │      │
                │November 1945, referring to SA and other│      │
                │Nazi groups posted at polling places.   │      │
                │(USA 755)                               │  V   │     659
                │                                        │      │
 2957-PS        │Extract from German Civil Servants      │      │
                │Calendar, 1940, p. 111.                 │  V   │     663
                │                                        │      │
*2967-PS        │Affidavit of Dr. Hans Anschuetz, 17     │      │
                │November 1945. (USA 756)                │  V   │     673
                │                                        │      │
*3054-PS        │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion     │      │
                │picture composed of captured German     │      │
                │film. (USA 167)                         │  V   │     801
                │                                        │      │
 D-229          │Extract from pamphlet “Judges Letters”  │      │
                │concerning judgment of Lower Court, 24  │      │
                │April 1942, on concealment of Jewish    │      │
                │identification.                         │  VI  │    1091
                │                                        │      │
*R-142          │Memoranda to Koblenz District           │      │
                │Headquarters, 22 April 1938 and 7 May   │      │
                │1938, relating to the plebiscite of 10  │      │
                │April 1938. (USA 481)                   │ VIII │     243
                │                                        │      │
Statement X     │The Relationship of Party and State, As │      │
                │It Existed in Reality, by Wilhelm       │      │
                │Stuckhart, Nurnberg, 1 December 1945.   │ VIII │     736
                │                                        │      │
*Chart No. 1    │National Socialist German Workers’      │      │
                │Party. (2903-PS; USA 2)                 │ VIII │     770
                │                                        │      │
*Chart No. 18   │Organization of the Reich Government.   │ End of Volume
                │(2905-PS; USA 3)                        │     VIII


           4. PURGE OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND TERRORIZATION

A. _The Nazi conspirators ruthlessly purged their political opponents._
Soon after the Nazi conspirators had acquired political control, the
defendant Goering, 3 March 1933, stated:

    “Fellow Germans, my measures will not be crippled by any
    judicial thinking. My measures will not be crippled by any
    bureaucracy. Here, I don’t have to give justice, my mission is
    only to destroy and exterminate, nothing more! This struggle,
    fellow Germans, will be a struggle against chaos and such a
    struggle, I shall not conduct with the power of any police. A
    bourgeoise state might have done that. Certainly, I shall use
    the power of the State and the police to the utmost, my dear
    Communists! So you won’t draw any false conclusions; but the
    struggle to the death, in which my fist will grasp your necks, I
    shall lead with those down there—those are the Brown Shirts.”
    (_1856-PS_)

In 1934 Heinrich Himmler, the Deputy Leader of the Prussian Secret State
Police, stated:

    “We are confronted with a very pressing duty—both the open and
    secret enemies of the Fuehrer and of the National Socialist
    movement and of our National Revolution must be discovered,
    combatted and exterminated. In this duty we are agreed to spare
    neither our own blood nor the blood of anyone else when it is
    required by our country.” (_2543-PS_)

Raymond H. Geist, former American Counsel and First Secretary of the
Embassy in Berlin, Germany 1929-1939, has stated:

    “Immediately in 1933, the concentration camps were established
    and put under charge of the Gestapo. Only ‘political’ prisoners
    were held in concentration camps * * *.

    “The first wave of terroristic acts began in March 6-13, 1933,
    accompanied by unusual mob violence. When the Nazi Party won the
    elections in March 1933—on the morning of the 6th—the
    accumulated passion blew off in wholesale attacks on the
    Communists, Jews, and others suspected of being either. Mobs of
    SA men roamed the streets, beating up, looting, and even killing
    persons * * *.

    “For Germans taken into custody by the Gestapo * * * there was a
    regular pattern of brutality and terror. Victims numbered in the
    hundreds of thousands all over Germany.” (_1759-PS_)

The Sturmabteilung (SA) had plans for the murder of former Prime
Minister Bruening, but his life was spared through the negotiations and
activities of the defendant Hess and Dr. Haushofer, President of the
Geopolitic Institute of Munich, because they feared his death might
result in serious repercussions abroad. (_1669-PS_)

From March until October 1933 the Nazi conspirators arrested, mistreated
and killed numerous politicians, Reichstag members, authors, physicians,
and lawyers. Among the persons killed were the Social Democrat Stolling;
Ernst Heilman, Social Democrat and member of the Prussian Parliament;
Otto Eggerstadt, the former Police President of Altona; and various
other persons. The people killed by the Nazis belonged to various
political parties and religious faiths, such as Democrats, Catholics,
Communists, Jews, and pacifists. The killings were usually camouflaged
by such utterances as “killed in attempting to escape” or “resisting
arrest.” It is estimated that during this first wave of terror conducted
by the Nazi conspirators, between 500 and 700 persons died. (_2544-PS_;
see also _2460-PS_ and _2472-PS_.)

On 30 June, and 1, 2 July 1934, the Nazi conspirators proceeded to
destroy opposition within their own ranks by wholesale murder
(_2545-PS_). In making a formal report of these murders to the Reichstag
on 13 July 1934, Hitler stated:

    “The punishment for these crimes was hard and severe. There were
    shot 19 higher SA leaders, 31 SA leaders and SA members and also
    3 SS leaders as participants in the plot. Also 13 SA leaders and
    civilians who tried to resist arrest and were killed in the
    attempt. 3 others committed suicide. 5 members of the Party who
    were not members of the SA were shot because of their
    participation. Finally, 3 SS members were at the same time
    exterminated because they had maltreated concentration camp
    inmates.” (_2572-PS_)

In this same speech, Hitler proudly boasted that he gave the order to
shoot the principal traitors and that he had prosecuted thousands of his
former enemies on account of their corruption. He justified this action
by saying,

    “In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German
    people.” (_Voelkischer Beobachter (People’s Observer), Berlin
    ed., issue 195, 14 July 1934, Beiblatt, p. 2._)

The conspirators took advantage of this occasion to eliminate many
opponents indiscriminately.

In discussing the Roehm purge, the defendant Frick stated:

    “On account of this order, many, many people were arrested * * *
    something like a hundred, even more, were even killed who were
    accused of high treason. All of this was done without resort to
    legal proceedings. They were just killed on the spot. Many
    people were killed—I don’t know how many—who actually did not
    have anything to do with the putsch. People who just weren’t
    liked very well, as, for instance, SCHLEICHER, the former Reich
    Chancellor, were killed. SCHLEICHER’s wife was also killed as
    was GREGOR STRASSER, who had been the Reich organization leader
    and second man in the Party after Hitler. STRASSER, at the time
    he was murdered, was not active in political affairs anymore.
    However, he had separated himself from the Fuehrer in November
    or December of 1932.” (_2950-PS_)

Such a large scale of extermination could not be carried out without
errors. Shortly after the event, the Nazi conspirators arranged for a
Government pension to be paid to one of its citizens, because “by
mistake” the political police had murdered her husband, Willi Schmidt,
who had never engaged in any kind of political activity. It was believed
at the time that the man intended was Willi Schmidt, an SA leader in
Munich, who was later shot on the same day. (_L-135_)

The Nazi conspirators formally endorsed their murderous purge within
their own ranks by causing the Reichstag to pass a law declaring that
all measures taken in carrying out the purge on 30 June and 1-2 July
1934 were legal as a measure of State necessity (_2057-PS_). Referring
to this act of approval on the part of the Nazi-controlled Reichstag,
Goering stated:

    “The action of the Government in the days of the Roehm revolt
    was the highest realization of the legal consciousness of the
    people. Later the action which itself was justified, now has
    been made legal by the passage of a law.” (_2496-PS_)

Furthermore, the leader of the Nazi conspiracy on 25 July 1934 issued a
decree which stated that because of the meritorious service of the SS,
especially in connection with the events of 30 June 1934, the
organization was elevated to the standing of an independent organization
within the NSDAP. (_1857-PS_)

B. _The Nazi conspirators used the legislative and judicial powers of
the German Reich to terrorize all political opponents._

(1) _They created a great number of new political crimes._ The decree of
28 February 1933 punished the inciting of disobedience to orders given
out by State or Reich Government authorities or the provocation of acts
“contrary to public welfare.” (_1390-PS_) A month later, in order to
give themselves legal justification for murdering by judicial process
their political enemies, the Nazi conspirators passed a law making the
provisions of the above decree applicable retroactively to acts
committed during the period from 31 January to 28 February 1933.
(_2554-PS_)

Referring to these laws, the defendant Goering stated:

    “Whoever in the future raises a hand against a representative of
    the National Socialist movement or of the State, must know that
    he will lose his life in a very short while. Furthermore, it
    will be entirely sufficient, if he is proven to have intended
    the act, or, if the act results not in a death, but only in an
    injury.” (_2494-PS_)

On 21 March 1933 a decree was issued which provided for penitentiary
imprisonment up to two years for possessing a uniform of an organization
supporting the government of the Nationalist movement without being
entitled thereto, or circulating a statement which was untrue or greatly
exaggerated, or which was apt to seriously harm the welfare of the Reich
or the reputation of the Government, or of the Party or organizations
supporting the Government. (_1652-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators caused a law to be enacted punishing whoever
undertook to maintain or form a political party other than the NSDAP.
(_1388-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators enacted a law which made it a crime deliberately
to make false or grave statements calculated to injure the welfare or
the prestige of the Reich, or to circulate a statement manifesting a
malicious or low-minded attitude toward leading personalities of the
State or the Party. The law also applied to statements of this kind
which were not made in public, provided the offender counted on his
statements being eventually circulated in public. (_1393-PS_)

In commenting on the above law, one of the leading Nazi conspirators,
Martin Bormann, stated:

    “Although it must absolutely be prevented that martyrs are
    created, one must take merciless action against such people, in
    whose attacks a bad character or attitude, decisively inimical
    to the State, can be recognized. For this purpose, I request the
    Gauleiters to report here briefly all crimes, which must
    absolutely be punished, and which have become known to the
    districts, regardless of the report to be made to the district
    attorney’s office * * *.

    “The district and local leaderships are to be notified
    accordingly. However, if it should be decided from wherein this
    or that punishable case, that the miscreant is to be given a
    simple or strong reprimand by the court, I shall give the
    directive for the future, that the Districts are informed of the
    names of the persons.

    “I therefore request, to see to it, that these compatriots be
    especially watched by the Ortsgruppen, and that it be attempted,
    to influence them in the National Socialist sense. Otherwise, it
    will be necessary to place the activities of such persons, who
    do not want to be taught, under exact control. In these cases,
    it will eventually be necessary, to notify the Secret State
    Police.” (_2639-PS_)

On 24 April 1934 the Nazi conspirators passed a law imposing the death
penalty for “any treasonable act.” Included in the law was a declaration
to the effect that the creating or organizing of a political party, or
continuing of an existing one was a treasonable act. (_2548-PS_)

(2) _By their interpretation and changes of the penal law, the Nazi
conspirators enlarged their terroristic methods._ After the enactment of
these new political crimes, the Nazi conspirators introduced into the
penal law the theory of punishment by analogy. This enabled them legally
to punish any act injurious to their political interests even if no
existing statute forbade it. The culpability of the act and the
punishment was determined by the law most closely relating to or
covering the act which was in force at the time. (_1962-PS_)

In interpreting this law, Dr. Guertner, Reich Minister of Justice,
stated:

    “National Socialism substitutes for the idea of formal wrong,
    the idea of factual wrong. * * * Even without the threat of
    punishment, every violation of the goals toward which the
    community is striving is a wrong per se. As a result, the law
    ceases to be an exclusive source for the determination of right
    or wrong.” (_2549-PS_)

Referring to the penal code of Nazi Germany, the defendant Frank stated
in 1935:

    “The National Socialist State is a totalitarian State, it makes
    no concessions to criminals, it does not negotiate with them; it
    stamps them out.” (_2552-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators also revised the criminal law so that the State
could, within one year after a decree in a criminal case had become
final, apply for a new trial, and the application would be decided by
members of a Special Penal Chamber appointed by Hitler personally. Thus,
if a defendant should be acquitted in a lower court, the Nazi
conspirators could rectify the situation by another trial. (_2550-PS_)

In direct contrast to the severity of the criminal law as it affected
the general population of Germany, the Nazi conspirators adopted and
endorsed a large body of unwritten laws exempting the police from
criminal liability for illegal acts done under higher authority. This
principle was described by Dr. Werner Best, outstanding Nazi lawyer, in
the following terms:

    “The police never act in a lawless or illegal manner as long as
    they act according to the rules laid down by their superiors up
    to the highest governing body. According to its nature, the
    police must only deal with what the Government wants to know is
    being dealt with. What the Government wants to know is being
    dealt with by the police is the essence of the police law and is
    that which guides and restricts the actions of the police. As
    long as the police carry out the will of the Government, it is
    acting legally.” (_1852-PS_)

C. _The Nazi conspirators created a vast system of espionage into the
daily lives of all parts of the population._

(1) _They destroyed the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic
communications._ They enacted a law in February of 1933 providing that
violations of privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic
communications were permissible beyond legal limitations. (_1390-PS_)

Dr. Hans Anschuetz, the present District Court Director
(_Landgerichtsdirektor_) at Heidelberg, Germany, recently stated:

    “Subsequently, the system of spying upon and supervising the
    political opinions of each citizen which permeated the entire
    people and private life of Germany, was, of course, also
    extended to judges.” (_2967-PS_)

(2) _They used the Secret State Police (Gestapo) and the Security
Service (SD) for the purpose of maintaining close surveillance over the
daily activities of all people in Germany._ The Gestapo had as its
primary preventive activity the thorough observation of all enemies of
the State, in the territory of the Reich. (_1956-PS_)

The SD was an intelligence organization which operated out of various
regional offices. It consisted of many hundreds of professional SD
members who were assisted by thousands of honorary members and
informers. These people were placed in all fields of business,
education, State and Party administration, and frequently performed
their duties secretly in their own organization. This information
service reported on the activities of the people. (_2614-PS_)

D. _Without judicial process, the Nazi conspirators imprisoned, held in
protective custody and sent to concentration camps opponents and
suspected opponents._

_They authorized the Gestapo to arrest and detain without recourse to
any legal proceeding._ Officially, this power was described as follows:

    “The Secret State Police takes the necessary police preventive
    measures against the enemies of the State on the basis of the
    results of the observation. The most effective preventive
    measure is without doubt the withdrawal of freedom which is
    covered in the form of protective custody. * * * While
    protective arrests of short duration are carried out in police
    and court prisons, the concentration camps under the Secret
    State Police admit those taken into protective custody who have
    to be withdrawn from public life for a longer time.” (_1956-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators issued their own orders for the taking of people
into protective custody and these orders set forth no further details
concerning the reasons therefor, except a statement such as “Suspicion
of activities inimical toward the State.” (_2499-PS_)

The defendant Frank stated:

    “To the world we are blamed again and again because of the
    concentration camps. We are asked, ‘Why do you arrest without a
    warrant of arrest?’ I say, put yourselves into the position of
    our nation. Don’t forget that the very great and still untouched
    world of Bolshevism cannot forget that we have made final
    victory for them impossible in Europe, right here on German
    soil.” (_2533-PS_)

The defendant Goering said in 1934:

    “Against the enemies of the State, we must proceed ruthlessly.
    It cannot be forgotten that at the moment of our rise to power,
    according to the official election figures of March 1933, six
    million people still confess their sympathy for Communism and
    eight million for Marxism. * * * _Therefore, the concentration
    camps have been created, where we have first confined thousands
    of Communists and Social Democrat functionaries._ * * *”
    (_2344-PS_)

U. S. Ambassador George S. Messersmith, former Counsel General in
Berlin, Germany, 1930-34, and Raymond H. Geist, former American Counsel
and First Secretary of the Embassy in Berlin, Germany, 1929-1939, have
recently stated:

    “Independent of individual criminal acts committed by high
    functionaries of the German government or the Nazi Party, such
    as the murders ordered by Hitler, Himmler and Goering, all high
    functionaries of the German government and of the Nazi Party * *
    * are guilty in the highest degree of complicity in and
    furtherance of the cardinal crimes of oppression against the
    German people, persecution and destruction of the Jews and all
    of their political opponents.” (_2386-PS_)

Commenting further on the Nazi conspirators’ use of concentration camps
to destroy political opposition, Raymond H. Geist stated:

    “The German people were well acquainted with the goings on in
    concentration camps and it was well known that the fate of
    anyone too actively opposed to any part of the Nazi program was
    liable to be one of great suffering. Indeed, before the Hitler
    regime was many months old, almost every family in Germany had
    had first-hand accounts of the brutalities inflicted in the
    concentration camps from someone either in the relationship or
    in the circle of friends who had served a sentence there;
    consequently the fear of such camps was a very effective brake
    on any possible opposition.” (_1759-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators confined, under the guise of “protective custody”
Reichstag members, Social Democrats, Communists, and other opponents or
suspected opponents. (_2544-PS_; _L-73_; _L-83_; _1430-PS_.)

E. _The Nazi conspirators created and utilized special agencies for
carrying out their system of terror._

(See Chapter XV, Sections 5 and 6, on the Gestapo, SS, and SD)

F. _The Nazi conspirators permitted organizations and individuals to
carry out this system of terror without restraint of law._

(1) _Acts of the Gestapo were not subject to review by the courts._ In
1935 the Prussian Supreme Court of Administration held that the orders
of the Gestapo were not subject to judicial review; and that the accused
person could appeal only to the next higher authority within the State
Police itself. (_2347-PS_)

In 1936 a law was passed concerning The Gestapo in Prussia which
provided that orders in matters of the Gestapo were not subject to
review of the Administrative Courts. (_2107-PS_)

On the same subject, the following article appeared in the official
German Lawyer’s Journal, 1935.

    “Once again the court had to decide on the question of whether
    political measures could be subjected to the review of the
    ordinary courts. * * * The case in question concerned the
    official performance of his duty by an official of the NSDAP. *
    * * The principle of the importance and the mission of the Party
    and its ‘Sovereign Functionaires’ cannot be overlooked.
    Therefore, the plaintiff should have been denied the right to be
    in court.” (_2491-PS_)

(2) _Where no definite law protected terroristic acts of Nazi
conspirators and their accomplices, proceedings against them were in the
first instance suppressed or thereafter their acts were pardoned._ In
1935, proceedings against an employee of the Gestapo accused of
torturing, beating, and killing of inmates of a concentration camp were
suppressed (_787-PS_; _788-PS_). In June 1935 twenty-three SA members
and policemen convicted of the beating and murder of inmates of the
Hohnstein concentration camp were pardoned (_786-PS_). The prosecutor
was forced to resign from the SA. (_784-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

 LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PURGE OF POLITICAL
                      OPPONENTS AND TERRORIZATION

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (b).                                  │  I   │      19
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document as referred to during the trial│      │
                │but was not formally received in        │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *784-PS        │Letters from Minister of Justice to Hess│      │
                │and SA Chief of Staff, 5 June 1935,     │      │
                │concerning penal proceedings against    │      │
                │merchant and SA leader and 22 companions│      │
                │because of inflicting bodily injury on  │      │
                │duty. (USA 732)                         │ III  │     559
                │                                        │      │
 *786-PS        │Minister of Justice memorandum, 29      │      │
                │November 1935, concerning pardon of     │      │
                │those sentenced in connection with      │      │
                │mistreatment in Hohnstein concentration │      │
                │camp. (USA 734)                         │ III  │     568
                │                                        │      │
 *787-PS        │Memorandum to Hitler from Public        │      │
                │Prosecutor of Dresden, 18 June 1935,    │      │
                │concerning criminal procedure against   │      │
                │Vogel on account of bodily injury while │      │
                │in office. (USA 421)                    │ III  │     568
                │                                        │      │
 *788-PS        │Letters from Secretary of State to the  │      │
                │Minister of Justice, 25 June 1935 and 9 │      │
                │September 1935, concerning criminal     │      │
                │procedure against Vogel. (USA 735)      │ III  │     571
                │                                        │      │
 1388-PS        │Law concerning confiscation of Property │      │
                │subversive to People and State, 14 July │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │479.                                    │ III  │     962
                │                                        │      │
 1390-PS        │Decree of the Reich President for the   │      │
                │Protection of the People and State, 28  │      │
                │February 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,  │      │
                │Part I, p. 83.                          │ III  │     968
                │                                        │      │
 1393-PS        │Law on treacherous attacks against State│      │
                │and Party, and for the Protection of    │      │
                │Party Uniforms, 20 December 1934. 1934  │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1269.     │ III  │     973
                │                                        │      │
 1430-PS        │Compilation of Leading Men of the System│      │
                │Era, June 1939.                         │  IV  │      15
                │                                        │      │
 1652-PS        │Decree of the Reich President for       │      │
                │protection against treacherous attacks  │      │
                │on the government of the Nationalist    │      │
                │movement, 21 March 1933. 1933           │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 135.      │  IV  │     160
                │                                        │      │
*1669-PS        │Correspondence between Dr. Haushofer and│      │
                │Hess, 24 and 28 August 1933. (USA 741)  │  IV  │     184
                │                                        │      │
*1759-PS        │Affidavit of Raymond H. Geist. (USA 420)│  IV  │     288
                │                                        │      │
*1852-PS        │“Law” from The German Police, 1941, by  │      │
                │Dr. Werner Best. (USA 449). (See Chart  │      │
                │No. 16)                                 │  IV  │     490
                │                                        │      │
*1856-PS        │Extract from book entitled “Hermann     │      │
                │Goering—Speeches and Essays”, 3rd       │      │
                │edition 1939, p. 27. (USA 437)          │  IV  │     496
                │                                        │      │
*1857-PS        │Announcement of creation of SS as       │      │
                │independent formation of NSDAP.         │      │
                │Voelkischer Beobachter, 26 July 1934, p.│      │
                │1. (USA 412)                            │  IV  │     496
                │                                        │      │
 1956-PS        │Meaning and Tasks of the Secret State   │      │
                │Police, published in The Archives,      │      │
                │January 1936, Vol. 22-24, p. 1342.      │  IV  │     598
                │                                        │      │
 1962-PS        │Law to change the Penal Code of 28 June │      │
                │1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │839.                                    │  IV  │     600
                │                                        │      │
 2057-PS        │Law relating to National Emergency      │      │
                │Defense Measures of 3 July 1934. 1934   │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 529.      │  IV  │     699
                │                                        │      │
 2107-PS        │Law on Secret State Police of 10        │      │
                │February 1936. 1936 Preussiche          │      │
                │Gesetzsammlung, pp. 21-22.              │  IV  │     732
                │                                        │      │
 2344-PS        │Reconstruction of a Nation by Goering,  │      │
                │1934, p. 89.                            │  IV  │    1065
                │                                        │      │
 2347-PS        │Court decisions from 1935               │      │
                │Reichsverwaltungsblatt, Vol. 56, pp.    │      │
                │577-578, 20 July 1935.                  │  IV  │    1066
                │                                        │      │
*2386-PS        │Joint affidavit of George S. Messersmith│      │
                │and Raymond H. Geist, 29 August 1945.   │      │
                │(USA 750)                               │  V   │      39
                │                                        │      │
*2460-PS        │Affidavit of Rudolf Diels. (USA 751)    │  V   │     205
                │                                        │      │
*2472-PS        │Affidavit of Rudolf Diels, 31 October   │      │
                │1945. (USA 752)                         │  V   │     224
                │                                        │      │
 2491-PS        │Extract from Legal Review, published    │      │
                │Lawyers’ Journal, 1935.                 │  V   │     235
                │                                        │      │
 2494-PS        │Prime Minister Goering’s Press          │      │
                │Conference, published in Voelkischer    │      │
                │Beobachter, Berlin edition, 23-24 July  │      │
                │1933, p. 1.                             │  V   │     236
                │                                        │      │
 2496-PS        │Extract from Goering’s address to Public│      │
                │Prosecutors of Prussia on 12 July 1934  │      │
                │from the Archive, 1934, Vols. IV-VI, p. │      │
                │495.                                    │  V   │     236
                │                                        │      │
*2499-PS        │Original Protective Custody Order served│      │
                │on Dr. R. Kempner, 15 March 1935. (USA  │      │
                │232)                                    │  V   │     236
                │                                        │      │
 2533-PS        │Extract from article “Legislation and   │      │
                │Judiciary in the Third Reich”, from     │      │
                │Journal of the Academy for German Law,  │      │
                │1936, pp. 141-142.                      │  V   │     277
                │                                        │      │
 2543-PS        │Extract from The Mission of the SS,     │      │
                │published in The National Socialist     │      │
                │Magazine, Issue 46, January 1934.       │  V   │     288
                │                                        │      │
*2544-PS        │Affidavit of Rudolf Diels, former       │      │
                │Superior Government Counsellor of the   │      │
                │Police Division of the Prussian Ministry│      │
                │of the Interior. (USA 753)              │  V   │     288
                │                                        │      │
 2545-PS        │Extract from Hitler’s cleaning up act in│      │
                │Reich, published in Voelkischer         │      │
                │Beobachter, Berlin edition, No. 182-183,│      │
                │1-2 July 1934, p. 1.                    │  V   │     290
                │                                        │      │
 2548-PS        │Law about changing rules of Criminal Law│      │
                │and Criminal Procedure of 24 April 1934.│      │
                │1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 34.  │  V   │     291
                │                                        │      │
 2549-PS        │Extract from “Germany’s Road to Freedom”│      │
                │as published in Documents of German     │      │
                │Politics, Vol. 3.                       │  V   │     292
                │                                        │      │
 2550-PS        │Law on modification of rules of general │      │
                │criminal procedure, 16 September 1939.  │      │
                │1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1841.│  V   │     293
                │                                        │      │
 2552-PS        │Excerpt concerning criminals, published │      │
                │in Journal of the Academy for German    │      │
                │Law. No. 3. March 1935.                 │  V   │     293
                │                                        │      │
 2554-PS        │Law concerning adjudication and         │      │
                │execution of the death penalties of 29  │      │
                │March 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│      │
                │I, p. 151.                              │  V   │     294
                │                                        │      │
 2572-PS        │Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag on 13  │      │
                │July 1934, printed in The Third Reich,  │      │
                │Vol. II, p. 247.                        │  V   │     302
                │                                        │      │
*2614-PS        │Affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, 5      │      │
                │November 1945. (USA 918)                │  V   │     337
                │                                        │      │
 2639-PS        │Ordinances of the Deputy of the Fuehrer,│      │
                │published in Munich 1937.               │  V   │     345
                │                                        │      │
*2950-PS        │Affidavit of Frick, 19 November 1945.   │      │
                │(USA 448)                               │  V   │     654
                │                                        │      │
*2967-PS        │Affidavit of Dr. Hans Anschuetz, 17     │      │
                │November 1945. (USA 756)                │  V   │     673
                │                                        │      │
*L-73           │Affidavit of Bruno Bettelheim, 10 July  │      │
                │1945. (USA 746)                         │ VII  │     818
                │                                        │      │
*L-83           │Affidavit of Gerhart H. Seger, 21 July  │      │
                │1945. (USA 234)                         │ VII  │     859
                │                                        │      │
*L-135          │Affidavit of Kate Eva Hoerlin, 9 July   │      │
                │1945. (USA 747)                         │ VII  │     883


              5. DESTRUCTION OF THE FREE TRADE UNIONS AND
                     ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OVER THE
                        PRODUCTIVE LABOR CAPACITY

A. _They destroyed the independent organization of German labor._

(1) _Before the Nazis took control, organized labor held a well
established and influential position in Germany._ Most of the trade
unions of Germany were joined together in two large congresses or
federations, the Free Trade Unions (_Freie Gewerkschaften_) and
Christian Trade Unions (_Christlichen Gewerkschaften_). Unions outside
these two large groupings contained only 15 per cent of the total union
membership. The Free Trade Unions were a congress of two federations of
affiliated unions: (1) the General German Trade Union Federation
(_Allgemeinen Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbund_, or the “ADGB”) with 28
affiliated unions of industrial workers; (2) the General Independent
Employees Federation (_Allgemeinen Freien Angestelltenbund_, or the
“AFA”) with 13 affiliated unions of white collar workers. (_392-PS_)

The membership of the Free Trade Unions, the affiliated organizations of
the Christian Trade Unions, and all other unions at the end of 1931 (the
last year for which the official government yearbook gives statistics)
was as follows (_2411-PS_):

               Union Group          │   Number of   │ Percentage of
                                    │    members    │     total
                                    │               │
      Free Trade Unions             │      4,569,876│           65.9
      Christian Trade Unions        │      1,283,272│           18.5
      Others Unions                 │      1,081,371│           15.6
                                    │           ————│             ——
            Total                   │      6,934,519│          100.0

Under the Weimar Constitution, workers were “called upon to take part on
equal terms” with employers in regulating conditions of employment. “It
was provided that organizations on both sides and agreements between
them shall be recognized.” Factory Representative Councils (otherwise
known as Workmens or Factory Works Councils) had the right, in
conjunction with employers’ representatives, to take an official part in
the initiation and administration of social and economic legislation.
(_2050-PS_)

(2) _The Nazi conspirators conceived that the free trade unions were
incompatible with their objectives._

Hitler stated in _Mein Kampf_:

    “It (the trade union) created the economic weapon which the
    international world Jew uses for the ruination of the economic
    basis of free, independent states, for the annihilation of their
    national industry and of their national commerce, and thereby
    for the enslavement of free people in the service of the
    above-the-state-standing, world finance Jewry (_ueberstaatlichen
    Weltfinanz-Judentums_).” (_404-PS_)

In announcing to Germany the seizure of the Free Trade Unions, Dr.
Robert Ley, speaking as chairman of the Nazi Committee for the
Protection of German Labor, stated:

    “You may say, what else do you want, you have the absolute
    power, but we do not have the whole people, we do not have you
    workers 100 percent, and it is you whom we want; we will not let
    you be until you stand with us in complete, genuine
    acknowledgement.” (_614-PS_; see also _2224-PS_ and _2283-PS_.)

(3) _Soon after coming to power the Nazi conspirators took drastic
action to convert the Factory Representative Councils into
Nazi-controlled organizations._ The Nazi conspirators eliminated the
independence of the Factory Representative Councils by giving the
Governors of the Laender authority to cancel the membership of labor
representatives in the councils; by abrogating the right of the councils
to oppose the dismissal of a worker when he was “suspected of an
unfriendly attitude toward the state” (_1770-PS_); and finally by
limiting membership in all Factory Representative Councils to Nazis
(_2336-PS_). (After 7 April 1933, the Governors of the Laender were
appointed by the Reich President “upon the proposal of the Reich
Chancellor,” Hitler, _2005-PS_).

(4) _Soon after coming to power the Nazi conspirators proceeded to
destroy the independent unions._ In mid-April 1933, Hitler directed Dr.
Robert Ley, then staff director of the PO (Political Organization) of
the NSDAP, to take over the trade unions. (_2283-PS_)

Ley issued an NSDAP circular directive on 21 April 1933 detailing a
“coordination action” (_Gleichschaltunsaktion_) to be taken on 2 May
1933 against the General German Trade Union Federation (ADGB) and the
General Independent Employees Federation (AFA), the so-called “Free
Trade Unions” (_392-PS_). This directive created a special “Action
Committee” to direct the entire action and declared that the supporters
of the action were to be drawn from the National Socialist Factory Cells
Organization or NSBO (_Nationalsozialistiche
Betriebszellen-Organisation_), the NSDAP political leaders (_Politische
Leiter_) in the factories; it named NSDAP commissars for the
administration of the larger ADGB unions to be seized in the action; it
made the Gauleaders (_Gauleiter_) of the NSDAP responsible for the
disciplined execution of the action in their respective areas and
authorized them to nominate additional commissars to administer the
unions subjected to the action. The directive ordered that SA and SS
were to be used in occupying union offices and the Bank of Workers,
Employees and Officials, Inc., and for taking into protective custody
the higher union leaders.

The order of seizure was carried out as planned and ordered. On 2 May
the official NSDAP press service reported that the NSBO had “eliminated
the old leadership” of Free Trade Unions and taken over their
leadership. (_2224-PS_)

On 3 May 1933 the NSDAP press service announced that the Central League
of Christian Trade Unions (_Gesamtverband der Christlichen
Gewerkschaften_) and several smaller unions “have unconditionally
subordinated themselves to the leadership of Adolf Hitler” (_2225-PS_).
The next day the NSDAP press stated that the German Nationalist Clerks
League (DHV) had also “recognized the leadership of the NSDAP in German
trade union affairs * * * after a detailed conversation” between Dr. Ley
and the leader of the DHV (_2226-PS_). In late June 1933, as a final
measure against the Christian Trade Unions, Ley directed that all their
offices were to be occupied by National Socialists. (_392-PS_)

The duress practiced by the Nazi conspirators in their assumption of
absolute control over the unions is shown by a proclamation of Muchow,
leader of the organizational office of the German Labor Front, in late
June 1933. By this Party proclamation, all associations of workers not
yet “concentrated” in the German Labor Front had to report within eight
days. Thereafter they were to be notified of the branch of the German
Labor Front which “they will have to join”. (_2228-PS_)

(5) _The Nazi Conspirators eliminated the right of collective bargaining
generally._ During the same months in which the unions were abolished, a
decree eliminated collective bargaining on conditions of employment and
substituted regulation by “trustees of labor” (_Treuhaender der Arbeit_)
appointed by Hitler. (_405-PS_)

(6) _The Nazi conspirators confiscated all union funds and property._
The NSDAP circular ordering the seizure of the Free Trade Unions on 2
May 1933 directed that the SA and SS were to be used to occupy the
branches and paying offices of the Bank for Workers, Employees and
Officials and appointed a Nazi commissar, Mueller, for the bank’s
subsequent direction. The stock of this bank was held entirely by the
General German Trade Union Association and its affiliated member unions.
The NSDAP circular also directed that all union funds were to be blocked
until re-opened under the authority and control of NSDAP-appointed
commissars (_392-PS_; _2895-PS_). The Fuehrer’s basic order on the
German Labor Front of the NSDAP in October 1934 declared that all the
property of the trade unions and their dependent organizations
constituted (_bildet_) property of the German Labor Front (_2271-PS_).
Referring to the seizure of the property of the unions in a speech at
the 1937 Party Congress, Ley mockingly declared that he would have to be
convicted if the former trade union leaders were ever to demand the
return of their property. (_1678-PS_)

(7) _The Nazi conspirators persecuted union leaders._ The NSDAP order on
the seizure of the “Free Trade Unions” directed that the chairmen of the
unions were to be taken into “protective custody”. Lesser leaders could
be arrested with the permission of the appropriate Gau leader of the
NSDAP (_392-PS_). In late June 1933 the German Labor Front published a
“List of Outlaws” who were to be denied employment in the factories. The
List named union leaders who had been active in combatting National
Socialism and who allegedly continued to carry on their resistance
secretly. (_2336-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators subjected union leaders to maltreatment ranging
from assaults to murder. Among the offenses committed against union
leaders are the following: assault and battery; degrading work and work
beyond their physical capacity; incarceration in concentration camps;
solitary confinement; denial of adequate food; surveillance; arrest and
maltreatment of members of their families; murder. (_2330-PS_;
_2331-PS_; _2335-PS_; _2334-PS_; _2928-PS_; _2277-PS_; _2332-PS_; and
_2333-PS_)

B. _The Nazi conspirators introduced the Leadership Principle into
industrial relations._ In January 1934, a decree introduced the
Leadership Principle (_Fuehrerprinzip_) into industrial relations, the
entrepreneur becoming the leader and the workers becoming his followers.
(_1861-PS_)

C. _The Nazi conspirators supplanted independent unions by an affiliated
Party organization, the German Labor Front (DAF)._

(1) _They created the German Labor Front._ On the day the Nazis seized
the Free Trade Unions, 2 May 1933, they publicly announced that a
“united front of German workers” with Hitler as honorary patron would be
formed at a Workers’ Congress on 10 May 1933. (_2224-PS_)

Ley was appointed “leader of the German Labor Front” (_Deutsche
Arbeitsfront_, or “DAF”) on 10 May 1933 (_1940-PS_). The German Labor
Front succeeded to the confiscated property of the suppressed trade
union. It was an affiliated organization of the NSDAP, subject to the
Leadership Principle; Ley was concurrently Reich Organization Leader
(_Reichsorganisationsleiter_) and leader of the German Labor Front
(_1814-PS_). The National Socialist Factory Cells Organization or NSBO
contained the political leaders (_Politische Leiter_) of the NSDAP in
the German Labor Front and those political leaders were given first
preference in the filling of jobs in the DAF (_2271-PS_). The German
Labor Front became the largest of the Party’s organizations. At the
outbreak of the war it had 23 million individual members and about 10
million corporative members who were members of organizations affiliated
with it. (_2275-PS_)

(2) _They utilized the German Labor Front as an instrument to impose
their ideology on the masses, to frustrate potential resistance, and to
insure effective control of the productive labor capacity of Germany._
The DAF was charged with the ideological orientation of the broad masses
of Germans working in the factories. Its leaders were charged with
weeding out potential opponents to National Socialism from the ranks of
the DAF and from employment in industry. In its surveillance functions,
the German Labor Front relied on Gestapo reports and on its own
intelligence service (_2336-PS_). The German Labor Front took over the
leadership of the German Cooperatives with the view to their subsequent
liquidation (_2270-PS_). The Nazi conspirators established Factory
Troops (_Werkscharen_) within the Strength Through Joy branch of the
German Labor Front as an “ideological shock squad (_Weltanschaulicher
Stosstrupp_) within the factory” (_1817-PS_). These shock squads were
formed only of voluntary members ready “to fight” for Nazi conceptions.
Among their objects were the speeding up of labor effort and the forging
of a “single-willed community” (_1818-PS_). The SA was charged with the
promotion and building up of Factory Troops by all means. When a factory
worker joined the Factory Troops, he automatically became an SA
candidate. Factory Troops were given a special uniform and their
physical training took place within SA cadre units. (_2230-PS_)

During the war, the German Labor Front was made responsible for the care
of foreign labor employed within the Reich (_1913-PS_). Barely two years
after the suppression of the independent unions and the creation of the
German Labor Front, the Nazi conspirators decreed compulsory labor
service (_Reichsarbeitsdienst_) under which young men and women between
18 and 25 years of age were conscripted for labor service under the
administration of the Reich Minister of Interior, Frick. (_1389-PS_)

After war had been declared, the Nazi conspirators openly admitted the
objectives of the Nazis’ control over labor. A publication of the
Scientific Institute of the German Labor Front declared that it had been
difficult to make the German people understand continuous renunciations
in social conditions because all the nation’s strength had been
channeled into armaments (_Wehrhaftigkeit_) for “the anticipated clash
with an envious surrounding world” (_2276-PS_). Addressing workers five
days after the launching of war on Poland, Ley admitted that the Nazis
had mobilized all the resources and energies of Germany for seven years
“so as to be equipped for the supreme effort of battle” and that the
First World War had not been lost because of cowardice of German
soldiers, “but because dissension and discord tore the people asunder”
(_1939-PS_). Ley’s confidence in the Nazis’ effective control over the
productive labor capacity of Germany in peace or war was declared as
early as 1936 to the Nurnberg Party Congress:

    “The idea of the Factory Troops is making good progress in the
    plants, and I am able to report to you, my Fuehrer, that
    security and peace in the factories has been guaranteed, not
    only in normal times, but also in times of the most serious
    crisis. Disturbances such as the munitions strikes of the
    traitors Ebert and confederates, are out of the question.
    _National Socialism has conquered the factories. Factory Troops
    are the National Socialist shock troops within the factory, and
    their motto is: THE FUEHRER IS ALWAYS RIGHT._” (_2283-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

 LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DESTRUCTION OF THE
 FREE TRADE UNIONS AND ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OVER THE PRODUCTIVE LABOR
                                CAPACITY

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (c) (1).                              │  I   │      19
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *392-PS        │Official NSDAP circular entitled “The   │      │
                │Social Life of New Germany with Special │      │
                │Consideration of the German Labor       │      │
                │Front”, by Prof. Willy Mueller (Berlin, │      │
                │1938). (USA 326)                        │ III  │     380
                │                                        │      │
 *404-PS        │Excerpts from Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.   │      │
                │456, 475. (USA 256)                     │ III  │     385
                │                                        │      │
  405-PS        │Law Concerning Trustees of Labor, 19 May│      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │285.                                    │ III  │     387
                │                                        │      │
  614-PS        │Proclamation of the Action Committee for│      │
                │the Protection of German Labor, 2 May   │      │
                │1933. Documents of German Politics, Vol.│      │
                │I, p. 151-3.                            │ III  │     447
                │                                        │      │
 1389-PS        │Law creating Reich Labor Service, 26    │      │
                │June 1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part │      │
                │I, p. 769.                              │ III  │     963
                │                                        │      │
*1678-PS        │Speech of Dr. Robert Ley. Documents of  │      │
                │German Politics, Vol. V, pp. 373, 376.  │      │
                │(USA 365)                               │  IV  │     190
                │                                        │      │
 1770-PS        │Law concerning factory representative   │      │
                │councils and economic organizations, 4  │      │
                │April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│      │
                │I, p. 161.                              │  IV  │     343
                │                                        │      │
*1814-PS        │The Organization of the NSDAP and its   │      │
                │affiliated associations, from           │      │
                │Organization book of the NSDAP, editions│      │
                │of 1936, 1938, 1940 and 1943, pp. 86-88.│      │
                │(USA 328)                               │  IV  │     411
                │                                        │      │
 1817-PS        │Bureau for factory troops, from         │      │
                │Organization Book of the NSDAP, 1936    │      │
                │edition, p. 211.                        │  IV  │     457
                │                                        │      │
 1818-PS        │Bureau for Factory troops and training, │      │
                │from Organization Book of the NSDAP,    │      │
                │1940 edition, pp. 195-196b.             │  IV  │     457
                │                                        │      │
 1861-PS        │Law on the regulation of National labor,│      │
                │20 January 1934. 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt,│      │
                │Part I, p. 45.                          │  IV  │     497
                │                                        │      │
*1913-PS        │Agreement between Plenipotentiary       │      │
                │General for Arbeitseinsatz and German   │      │
                │Labor Front concerning care of          │      │
                │non-German workers. 1943                │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 588. (USA │      │
                │227)                                    │  IV  │     547
                │                                        │      │
 1939-PS        │Speech by Ley published in Forge of the │      │
                │Sword, with an introduction by Marshal  │      │
                │Goering, pp. 14-17.                     │  IV  │     581
                │                                        │      │
 1940-PS        │Fuehrer edict appointing Ley leader of  │      │
                │German Labor Front. Voelkischer         │      │
                │Beobachter, Munich (Southern German)    │      │
                │edition, p. 1.                          │  IV  │     584
                │                                        │      │
 1947-PS        │Letter from von Fritsch, 11 December    │      │
                │1938, concerning need of Germany to be  │      │
                │victorious over working class, Catholic │      │
                │Church and Jews.                        │  IV  │     585
                │                                        │      │
 2005-PS        │Second law integrating the “Laender”    │      │
                │with the Reich, 7 April 1933. 1933      │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 173.      │  IV  │     641
                │                                        │      │
 2050-PS        │The Constitution of the German Reich, 11│      │
                │August 1919. 1919 Reichsgesetzblatt,    │      │
                │Part I, p. 1383.                        │  IV  │     662
                │                                        │      │
*2224-PS        │The End of the Marxist Class Struggle,  │      │
                │published in National Socialist Party   │      │
                │Press Agency, 2 May 1933, pp. 1-2. (USA │      │
                │364)                                    │  IV  │     864
                │                                        │      │
 2225-PS        │The Front of German Workers has been    │      │
                │Erected, published in National Socialist│      │
                │Party Press Agency, 3 May 1933, p. 1.   │  IV  │     868
                │                                        │      │
 2226-PS        │The Labor Front Stands, published in    │      │
                │National Socialist Party Press Agency, 4│      │
                │May 1933, p. 2.                         │  IV  │     869
                │                                        │      │
 2228-PS        │Order issued by German Labor Front,     │      │
                │published in National Socialist Party   │      │
                │Press Agency, 26 June 1933, p. 5.       │  IV  │     869
                │                                        │      │
 2230-PS        │Agreement between Ley and Lutze, chief  │      │
                │of staff of SA, published in            │      │
                │Organization Book of NSDAP, 1938, pp.   │      │
                │484-485b, 486c.                         │  IV  │     871
                │                                        │      │
 2270-PS        │Coordination of Cooperatives, published │      │
                │in National Socialist Party Press Agency│      │
                │release of 16 May 1933.                 │  IV  │     938
                │                                        │      │
 2271-PS        │The National Socialist Factory Cells    │      │
                │Organization, published in Organization │      │
                │Book of NSDAP, pp. 185-187.             │  IV  │     940
                │                                        │      │
 2275-PS        │The German Labor Front, published in    │      │
                │Nature-Aim-Means. Footnote on p. 11.    │  IV  │     949
                │                                        │      │
 2276-PS        │The German Labor Front, published in    │      │
                │Nature-Aim-Means. p. 55.                │  IV  │     950
                │                                        │      │
*2277-PS        │Affidavit, 17 October 1945, of Gustav   │      │
                │Schiefer, Chairman of General German    │      │
                │Trade Union Association, Local          │      │
                │Committee, Munich, in 1933. (USA 748)   │  IV  │     951
                │                                        │      │
*2283-PS        │The Fifth Day of the Party Congress,    │      │
                │from Voelkischer Beobachter, Munich     │      │
                │(Southern German) Edition, Issue 258, 14│      │
                │September 1936. (USA 337)               │  IV  │     971
                │                                        │      │
*2330-PS        │Order of Protective Custody, Police     │      │
                │Directorate of Nurnberg-Fuerth of Josef │      │
                │Simon, Chairman of German Shoemaker’s   │      │
                │Union, 29 August 1935. (USA 237)        │  IV  │    1038
                │                                        │      │
*2331-PS        │Declaration required of union leader    │      │
                │Josef Simon upon his release from       │      │
                │Protective Custody by Bavarian Political│      │
                │Police, 20 December 1935. (USA 743)     │  IV  │    1039
                │                                        │      │
 2332-PS        │Death certificate, Flossenburg          │      │
                │Concentration Camp, concerning union    │      │
                │leader Staimer and official letter to   │      │
                │his wife, 22 December 1941.             │  IV  │    1040
                │                                        │      │
*2333-PS        │Death certificate, Flossenburg          │      │
                │Concentration Camp, concerning union    │      │
                │leader Herrmann, and official letter to │      │
                │his wife, 29 December 1941. (USA 744)   │  IV  │    1040
                │                                        │      │
*2334-PS        │Affidavits of Lorenz Hagen, Chairman of │      │
                │Local Committee, German Trade Unions,   │      │
                │Nurnberg. (USA 238)                     │  IV  │    1041
                │                                        │      │
*2335-PS        │Affidavits of Josef Simon, Chairman of  │      │
                │German Shoemakers’ Union in 1933. (USA  │      │
                │749)                                    │  IV  │    1046
                │                                        │      │
 2336-PS        │Special Circular on Securing of         │      │
                │association of German Labor Front       │      │
                │against hidden Marxist sabotage, 27 June│      │
                │1933.                                   │  IV  │    1052
                │                                        │      │
 2411-PS        │Chart of unions of workers and          │      │
                │employees, from Statistical Yearbook for│      │
                │German Reich, 1932, p. 555.             │  V   │      87
                │                                        │      │
*2895-PS        │Joint affidavit of union leaders Simon, │      │
                │Hagen, and Lex, 13 November 1945. (USA  │      │
                │754)                                    │  V   │     563
                │                                        │      │
*2928-PS        │Affidavit of Mathias Lex, deputy        │      │
                │president of the German Shoemakers      │      │
                │Union. (USA 239)                        │  V   │     594
                │                                        │      │
Statement XII   │Political Testament of Robert Ley,      │      │
                │written in Nurnberg prison, October     │      │
                │1945.                                   │ VIII │     742
                │                                        │      │
Statement XIII  │Outline of Defense of Dr. Robert Ley,   │      │
                │written in Nurnberg prison, 24 October  │      │
                │1945.                                   │ VIII │     749


                6. SUPPRESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

A. _The Nazi conspirators sought to subvert the influence of the
churches over the people of Germany._

(1) _They sought to eliminate the Christian Churches in Germany._

(_a_) _Statements of this aim._ Martin Bormann stated in a secret decree
of the Party Chancellery signed by him and distributed to all Gauleiters
7 June 1941:

    “Our National Socialist ideology is far loftier than the
    concepts of Christianity, which in their essential points have
    been taken over from Jewry * * *. A differentiation between the
    various Christian confessions is not to be made here * * * the
    Evangelical Church is just as inimical to us as the Catholic
    Church. * * * All influences which might impair or damage the
    leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer with the help
    of the NSDAP must be eliminated. More and more the people must
    be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors. * *
    * Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and
    other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must
    the possibility of church influence also be totally removed. * *
    * Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have
    influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the
    people and Reich secure in their existence for all time.”
    (_D-75_)

Hans Kerrl, Reich Minister for Church Affairs, in a letter dated 6
September 1939 to a Herr Stapel, which indicated that it would be
brought to the attention of the Confidential Council and of the
defendant Hess, made the following statements:

    “The Fuehrer considers his efforts to bring the Evangelical
    Church to reason, unsuccessful and the Evangelical Church with
    respect to its condition rightfully a useless pile of sects. As
    you emphasize the Party has previously carried on not only a
    fight against the political element of the Christianity of the
    Church, but also a fight against membership of Party Members in
    a Christian confession. * * *

    “The Catholic Church will and must, according to the law under
    which it is set up, remain a thorn in the flesh of a Racial
    State * * *.” (_129-PS_)

Gauleiter Florian, in a letter dated 23 September 1940 to the defendant
Hess, stated:

    “The churches with their Christianity are the danger against
    which to fight is absolutely necessary.” (_064-PS_)

Regierungsrat Roth, in a lecture 22 September 1941, to a group of
Security Police, in the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) concluded his
address on Security Police (_Sipo_) measures for combatting church
politics and sects with the following remarks:

    “The immediate aim: the church must not regain one inch of the
    ground it has lost. The ultimate aim: Destruction of the
    Confessional Churches to be brought about by the collection of
    all material obtained through the intelligence service
    (_Nachrichtendienst_) activities which will at a given time be
    produced as evidence for the charge of treasonable activities
    during the German fight for existence.” (_1815-PS_)

The Party Organization Book states:

    “Bravery is valued by the SS man as the highest virtue of men in
    a struggle for his ideology.

    “He openly and unrelentingly fights the most dangerous enemies
    of the State; Jews, Free Masons, Jesuits, and political
    clergymen.

    “However, he recruits and convinces the weak and inconstant by
    his example, who have not been able to bring themselves to the
    National Socialistic ideology.” (_1855-PS_)

(_b_) _The Nazi conspirators promoted beliefs and practices incompatible
with Christian teachings._ The 24th point of the Program of the NSDAP,
unchanged since its adoption in 1920, is as follows:

    “We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations
    within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence
    or oppose the moral senses of the germanic race. The Party as
    such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without
    binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It
    combats the Jewish materialistic spirit within and around us,
    and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only
    succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes
    individual utility.” (_1708-PS_)

In official correspondence with the defendant Rosenberg in 1940, Bormann
stated:

    “Christian religion and National Socialist doctrines are not
    compatible. * * * The churches cannot be subjugated through
    compromise, only through a new philosophy as prophesied in
    Rosenberg’s works.”

He then proposed creation of a National Socialist Catechism to provide a
“moral foundation” for a National Socialist religion which is gradually
to supplant the Christian churches. He stated the matter was so
important it should be discussed with members of the Reich Cabinet as
soon as possible and requested Rosenberg’s opinion before the meeting.
(_098-PS_)

In a secret decree of the Party Chancellery, signed by Bormann and
distributed to all _Gauleiters_ on 7 June 1941, the following statements
appeared:

    “When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not
    understand by God, like naive Christians and their spiritual
    opportunists, a human-type being, who sits around somewhere in
    the sphere * * *. The force of natural law, with which all these
    innumerable planets move in the universe, we call the Almighty,
    or God. The claim that this world force * * * can be influenced
    by so-called prayers or other astonishing things is based upon a
    proper dose of naiveté or on a business shamelessness.

    “As opposed to that we National Socialists impose on ourselves
    the demand to live naturally as much as possible, i.e.,
    biologically. The more accurately we recognize and observe the
    laws of nature and of life, the more we adhere to them, so much
    the more do we conform to the will of the Almighty. The more
    insight we have into the will of the Almighty, the greater will
    be our successes.” (_D-75_)

Rosenberg in his book “The Myth of the 20th Century” advocated a new
National Socialist faith or religion to replace the Christian
confessions in Germany. He stated that the Catholic and Protestant
churches represent “negative Christianity” and do not correspond to the
soul of the “Nordic racially determined peoples”; that a German
religious movement would have to declare that the idea of neighborly
love is unconditionally subordinated to national honor; that national
honor is the highest human value and does not admit of any equal valued
force such as Christian love. He predicted:

    “A German religion will, bit by bit, present in the churches
    transferred to it, in place of the crucifixion the spirit of
    fire—the heroic—in the highest sense.” (_2349-PS_)

The Reich Labor Service (_Reichsarbeitsdienst_), a National Socialist
youth organization, was prohibited from participating in religious
celebrations of any kind, and its members were instructed to attend only
the parts of such ceremonies as weddings and funerals which took place
before or after the church celebration. (_107-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators considered religious literature undesirable for
the Wehrmacht. National Socialist publications were prepared for the
Wehrmacht for the expressed purpose of replacing and counteracting the
influence of religious literature dissimulated to the troops. (_101-PS_;
_100-PS_; _064-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators through Rosenberg’s Office for Supervision of the
Ideological Training and Education of the NSDAP and the Office of the
Deputy of the Fuehrer “induced” the substitution of National Socialist
mottoes and services for religious prayers and services in the schools
of Germany. (_070-PS_)

On 14 July 1939, Bormann, as Deputy of the Fuehrer, issued a Party
regulation excluding clergymen, persons closely connected with the
church, and Theology students from membership in the Party. It was
further decreed that in the future Party Members who entered the clergy
or turned to the study of Theology must leave the Party. (_840-PS_)

(_c_) _The Nazi conspirators persecuted priests, clergy and members of
monastic orders._ The priests and clergy of Germany were subjected by
the police to systematic espionage into their daily lives. The Nazi
conspirators through the Chief of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA)
maintained a special branch of the Security Police and Security Service
(Sipo/SD) whose duties were to investigate the churches and maintain
constant surveillance upon the public and private lives of the clergy.
(_1815-PS_)

At a conference of these police “church specialists” called by Heydrich,
who was then SS Gruppenfuehrer and Chief of the Reich Main Security
Office (RSHA), in Berlin, 23 September 1941, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Hartl,
acting for Heydrich, stated that the greatest importance was to be
attached to church political activity. The intelligence network in this
field, he continued, was to be fostered with the greatest of care and
enlarged with the recruitment of informants, particular value being
attached to contacts with church circles. He closed his lecture with the
following words:

    “Each of you must go to work with your whole heart and a true
    fanaticism. Should a mistake or two be made in the execution of
    this work, this should in no way discourage you, since mistakes
    are made everywhere. The main thing is that the enemy should be
    constantly tackled with determination, will, and effective
    initiative.” (_1815-PS_)

In a letter of 22 October 1941, Heydrich, as Chief of the Reich Main
Security Office (RSHA) issued detailed instructions to all State Police
Offices outlining the organization of the Catholic Church and directing
close surveillance of the activities, writings, and reports of the
Catholic clergy in Germany. In this connection he directed:

    “Reports are also to be submitted on those Theological students
    destined for Papal Institutes, and Priests returning from such
    institutes to Germany. Should the opportunity arise of placing
    someone for intelligence (_Nachrichtendienst_) purposes in one
    of these Institutes, in the guise of a Theological student, we
    should receive immediate notification.” (_1815-PS_)

Priests and other members of the clergy were arrested, fined,
imprisoned, and otherwise punished by executive measures of the police
without judicial process. In his lecture before a conference at the
Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) in Berlin, for “church specialists,”
of the Security Police, 22 November 1941, _Regierungsrat_ Roth stated
(_1815-PS_):

    “It has been demonstrated that it is impracticable to deal with
    political offenses (malicious) under normal legal procedure.
    Owing to the lack of political perception which still prevails
    among the legal authorities, suspension of this procedure must
    be reckoned with. The so-called “Agitator-Priests” must
    therefore be dealt with in future by Stapo measures, and, if the
    occasion arises, be removed to a Concentration Camp, if agreed
    upon by the RSHA.

    “The necessary executive measures are to be decided upon
    according to local conditions, the status of the person accused,
    and the seriousness of the case—as follows:

        1. Warning

        2. Fine

        3. Forbidden to preach

        4. Forbidden to remain in parish

        5. Forbidden all activity as a priest

        6. Short-term arrest

        7. Protective custody.”

Members of monastic orders were forced by the seizure and confiscation
of their properties to give up their established place of abode and seek
homes elsewhere (_R-101-A_; _R-101-D_). A secret order of the SS
Economic Administration Office to all Concentration Camp Commanders,
dated 21 April 1942, concerning labor mobilization of clergy, reveals
that clergymen were at that time, and had previously been, incarcerated
in Concentration Camps. (_1164-PS_)

On the death of von Hindenburg, the Reich Government ordered the ringing
of all church bells on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th August 1934. In Bavaria,
there were many instances of failure to comply with this order. The
Bavarian police submitted a report outlining the above situation and
stating that in three cases the taking into protective custody of
recalcitrant clergy could not be avoided.

    “The Parish priest, Father Johann Quinger of Altenkunstadt BA
    Lichtenfels. He was taken into protective custody on 3 August on
    the express order of the State Ministry of the Interior, because
    he assaulted SA leaders and SA men who were ringing the bells
    against his wishes. He was released from custody on 10 August
    1934.

    “The Parish priest, Father Ludwig Obholzer of Kiefersfelden, BA
    Rosenheim. For his personal safety he was in police custody from
    2400 hours on the 2 August 1934, till 1000 hours on 3 August
    1934. On 5 August 1934, he said sarcastically in his sermon,
    referring to the SA men who had carried out the ringing of the
    funeral knell on their own account, ‘Lord forgive them, for they
    know not what they do’! “The Parish priest, Father Johann
    Nepomuk Kleber of Wiefelsdorf, BA Burglengenfeld, refused to
    ring the church bells on the 2nd and 3rd. He is badly tainted
    politically and had to be taken into protective custody from the
    5th to the 8th of August 34 in the interests of his own safety.”
    (_1521-PS_)

After Hitler’s rise to power, Bishop Sproll of Rottenburg delivered a
series of sermons regarded by the Nazis as damaging, and on 10 April
1938 he refrained from voting in the plebiscite. For this, the Reich
Governor of Wuertemberg declared he would no longer regard Bishop Sproll
as head of the Diocese of Rottenburg; made an official request that he
leave the Gau; and declared he would see to it that all personal and
official intercourse between the Bishop and the State and Party offices
as well as the Armed Forces would be denied (_849-PS_). For his alleged
failure to vote in the plebiscite, of 10 April 1938, the Party caused
three demonstrations to be staged against the Bishop and his household
in Rottenburg. The third demonstration was described as follows in a
teletype message from Gestapo Office Stuttgart to Gestapo Office Berlin:

    “The Party on 23 July 1938 from 2100 on carried out the third
    demonstration against Bishop Sproll. Participants about
    2,500-3,000 were brought in from outside by bus, etc. The
    Rottenburg populace again did not participate in the
    demonstration. The town took rather a hostile attitude to the
    demonstrations. The action got completely out of hand of the
    Party Member responsible for it. The demonstrators stormed the
    palace, beat in the gates and doors. About 150 to 200 people
    forced their way into the palace, searched the rooms, threw
    files out of the windows and rummaged through the beds in the
    rooms of the palace. One bed was ignited. Before the fire got to
    the other objects of equipment in the rooms and the palace, the
    flaming bed could be thrown from the window and the fire
    extinguished. The Bishop was with Archbishop Groeber of Freiburg
    and the ladies and gentlemen of his menage in the chapel at
    prayer. About 25 to 30 people pressed into this chapel and
    molested those present. Bishop Groeber was taken for Bishop
    Sproll. He was grabbed by the robe and dragged back and forth.
    Finally the intruders realized that Bishop Groeber is not the
    one they are seeking. They could then be persuaded to leave the
    building. After the evacuation of the palace by the
    demonstrators I had an interview with Archbishop Groeber, who
    left Rottenburg in the night. Groeber wants to turn to the
    Fuehrer and Reich Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick anew. On
    the course of the action, the damage done as well as the homage
    of the Rottenburg populace beginning today for the Bishop I
    shall immediately hand in a full report, after I am in the act
    of suppressing counter mass meetings.” (_848-PS_)

Reich Minister for Church Affairs Kerrl and other Party officials
alleged that these demonstrations were spontaneously staged by indignant
citizens of Rottenburg and caused representations to be made to the Holy
See in an effort to effect the Bishop’s removal from office. (_849-PS_)

On or about 3 December 1941, a copy of a secret decree of the Party
Chancellery on the subject of Relationship of National Socialism to
Christianity was found by the Security Police in the possession of
Protestant Priest Eichholz at Aix-la-Chapelle. For this he was arrested
and held for questioning for an unknown period of time. (_D-75_)

(_d_) _The Nazi conspirators confiscated church property._ On 20 January
1938, the Gestapo District Office at Munich issued a decree dissolving
the Guild of the Virgin Mary of the Bavarian Diocese, together with its
branches and associations. The decree also stated:

    “The property belonging to the dissolved Guild is to be
    confiscated by the police. Not only is property in cash to be
    confiscated, but also any stock on hand and other objects of
    value. All further activity is forbidden the dissolved Guilds,
    particularly the foundation of any organization intended as a
    successor or as a cover. Incorporation as a body into other
    women’s societies is also to be looked on as a forbidden
    continuation of activity. Infringements against the above
    prohibition will be punished according to par. 4 of the order of
    28.2.1933.”

The reasons for the dissolution and confiscation were that the Guild of
the Virgin Mary had occupied itself for years “to a most far-reaching
degree” with arrangements of a “worldly and popular sporting character”
such as community games and “social evenings”; and further that the
president of the society supplied the members with “seditious materials”
which served for “seditious discussions”; and that the members of the
Guild were trained and mobilized for “political and seditious tasks.”
(_1481-PS_)

In a lecture delivered to a conference of police investigators of Church
Affairs assembled in the lecture hall of the Reich Main Security Office
(RSHA) in Berlin, 22 September 1941, _Regierungsrat_ Roth stated that
about 100 monasteries in the Reich had been dissolved and pointed out
that the proper procedure called for seizure of the churches at the same
time the monasteries were dissolved. (_1815-PS_)

In February 1940, SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich suggested to Himmler the
seizure of monasteries for the accommodation of Racial Germans. He
proposed that the authorities of the monastic orders be instructed to
make the monasteries concerned available and move their own members to
less populous monasteries. He pointed out that the final expropriation
of properties thus placed at their disposal could be carried out step by
step in the course of time. Himmler agreed to this proposal and ordered
the measure to be carried out by the Security Police and Security
Service (_Sipo_ and SD) in collaboration with the Reich Commissioner for
Consolidation of German Folkdom. (_R-101-A_)

These orders for confiscation were carried out, as revealed in a letter
dated 30 March 1942 from the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) Chief of
Staff to Himmler mentioning claims for compensation pending in a number
of confiscation cases. In this letter he stated that all rental payments
to those monasteries and ecclesiastical institutions whose premises had
been put to use as camps for resettlers had been stopped on receipt of
Himmler’s order. Concerning current developments, he stated:

    “After further preparations in which the Party Chancellery
    participated prominently, the Reich Minister of the Interior
    found a way which makes it possible to seize ecclesiastical
    premises practically without compensation and yet avoids the
    impression of being a measure directed against the Church. * *
    *” (_R-101-D_)

In a letter of 19 April 1941, Bormann advised Rosenberg that libraries
and art objects of the monasteries confiscated in the Reich were to
remain for the time being in these monasteries and that the Fuehrer had
repeatedly rejected the suggestion that centralization of all such
libraries be undertaken. (_072-PS_)

(_e_) _The Nazi conspirators suppressed religious publications._ On 6
November 1934, Frick, as Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior,
issued an order forbidding until further notice publication of all
announcements in the daily press, in pamphlets and other publications,
which dealt with the Evangelical Church; with the exception of official
announcements of the Church Government of the Reich. (_1498-PS_)

By order of the State Police for the District of Duesseldorf, the Police
Regulation which is quoted in part below was promulgated 28 May 1934:

    “The distribution and sale of published items of any sort in
    connection with worship or religious instructions in public
    streets or squares near churches is forbidden. In the same sense
    the distribution and sale of published items on the occasions of
    processions, pilgrimages and similar church institutions in the
    streets or squares they pass through or in their vicinity is
    prohibited.” (_R-145_)

In January 1940, Bormann informed Rosenberg that he had sought to
restrict production of religious publications by means of having their
rations of printing paper cut down through the control exercised by
Reichsleiter Amann, but that the result of these efforts remained
unsatisfactory. (_101-PS_)

In March 1940, Bormann instructed Reichsleiter Amann, Director of the
NSDAP Publications Office, that in any future redistribution of paper,
confessional writings should receive still sharper restrictions in favor
of literature politically and ideologically more valuable. He went on to
point out:

    “* * * according to a report I have received, only 10% of the
    over 3000 Protestant periodicals appearing in Germany, such as
    Sunday papers, etc. have ceased publication for reasons of paper
    saving.” (_089-PS_)

In April 1940, Bormann informed the High Command of the Navy that use of
the term “Divine Service” to refer exclusively to the services arranged
by Christian Confessions was no longer to be used, even in National
Socialist daily papers. In the alternative he suggested:

    “In the opinion of the Party the term ‘Church Service’ cannot be
    objected to. I consider it fitting since it properly implies
    meetings arranged and organized by the _Churches_.” (_068-PS_)

(_f_) _The Nazi conspirators suppressed religious organizations._ On 28
May 1934, the State Police Office for the District of Duesseldorf issued
an order concerning denominational youth and professional organizations
which stated in part as follows:

    “Denominational youth and professional organizations as well as
    those created for special occasions only are prohibited from
    every public activity outside the church and religious sphere.

    “Especially forbidden is: Any public appearance in groups, all
    sorts of political activity. Any public sport function including
    public hikes and establishment of holiday or outdoor camps. The
    public display or showing of flags, banners, pennants or the
    open wearing of uniforms or insignia.” (_R-145_)

On 20 July 1935, Frick, as Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior,
issued secret instructions to the provincial governments and to the
Prussian Gestapo that Confessional youth organizations were to be
forbidden to wear uniforms, or uniform-like clothing, to assemble
publicly with pennants and flags, to wear insignia as a substitute for
uniforms, or to engage in any outdoor sport activity. (_1482-PS_)

On 20 January 1938 the Gestapo District Office at Munich, issued a
decree which stated in part as follows:

    “The Guild of the Virgin Mary (_die Marianisch
    Jungfrauenkongregation_) of the Bavarian dioceses, including the
    diocese of Speyere, together with its branches and associations
    and the Societies of Our Lady (_Jungfrauenvereinen_) attached to
    it, is by police order to be dissolved and forbidden with
    immediate effect.”

Among the reasons cited for this action were the following:

    “The whole behavior of the Guild of the Virgin Mary had
    therefore to be objected to from various points of view. It
    could be repeatedly observed that the Guild engaged in purely
    worldly affairs, such as community games, and then in the
    holding of ‘Social Evenings’.

    “This proves incontestably that the Guild of the Virgin Mary was
    active to a very great degree in a manner unecclesiastical and
    therefore worldly. By so doing it has left the sphere of its
    proper religious task and entered a sphere of activity to which
    it has no statutory right. The organization has therefore to be
    dissolved and forbidden.” (_1481-PS_)

According to the report of a Security Police “church specialist”
attached to the State Police Office at Aachen, the following points were
made by a lecturer at a conference of Security Police and Security
Service church intelligence investigators in Berlin, on 22 September
1941:

    “Retreats, recreational organizations, etc., may now be
    forbidden on ground of industrial war-needs, whereas formerly
    only a worldly activity could be given as a basis.

    “Youth camps, recreational camps are to be forbidden on
    principle, church organizations in the evening may be prevented
    on grounds of the blackout regulations.

    “Processions, pilgrimages abroad are to be forbidden by reason
    of the over-burdened transport conditions. For local events too
    technical traffic troubles and the danger of air-attack may
    serve as grounds for their prohibition. (One Referent forbade a
    procession, on the grounds of it wearing out shoe leather).”
    (_1815-PS_)

(_g_) _The Nazi conspirators suppressed religious education._ In a
speech on 7 March 1937, Rosenberg stated:

    “The education of youth can only be carried out by those who
    have rescued Germany from disaster. It is therefore impossible
    to demand one Fuehrer, one Reich and one firmly united people as
    long as education is carried out by forces which are mutually
    exclusive to each other.” (_2351-PS_)

In a speech at Fulda, 27 November 1937 Reich Minister for Church Affairs
Hans Kerrl stated:

    “We cannot recognize that the Church has a right to insure that
    the individual should be educated in all respects in the way in
    which it holds to be right; but we must leave it to the National
    Socialist State to educate the child in the way it regards as
    right.” (_2352-PS_)

In January 1939, Bormann, acting as Deputy of the Fuehrer, informed the
Minister of Education, that the Party was taking the position that
theological inquiry was not as valuable as the general fields of
knowledge in the universities and that suppression of Theological
Faculties in the universities was to be undertaken at once. He pointed
out that the Concordat with the Vatican placed certain limitations on
such a program, but that in the light of the general change of
circumstances, particularly the compulsory military service and the
execution of the four-year plan, the question of manpower made certain
reorganizations, economies and simplification necessary. Therefore,
Theological Faculties were to be restricted insofar as they could not be
wholly suppressed. He instructed that the churches were not to be
informed of this development and no public announcement was to be made.
Any complaints, if they were to be replied to at all, should be answered
with a statement that these measures are being executed in a general
plan of reorganization and that similar things are happening to other
faculties. He concludes with the statement that the professorial chairs
vacated by the above program are to be turned over to the newly-created
fields of inquiry, such as Racial Research. (_116-PS_)

A plan for the reduction of Theological Faculties was submitted by the
Reich Minister for Science, Education and Training in April 1939 to
Bormann, who forwarded it to Rosenberg for consideration and action. The
plan called for shifting, combining and eliminating Theological
Faculties in various schools and universities throughout the Reich, with
the following results:

    “To recapitulate this plan would include the complete closing of
    Theological Faculties at Innsbruck, Salzburg and Munich, the
    transfer of the faculty of Graz to Vienna and the vanishing of
    four Catholic faculties.

    “_a._ Closing of three Catholic Theological Faculties or Higher
    Schools and of four Evangelic Faculties in the winter semester
    1939/40.

    “_b._ Closing of one further Catholic and of three further
    Evangelic Faculties in the near future.” (_122-PS_)

In a secret decree of the Party Chancellery, signed by Bormann, and
distributed to all Gauleiters on 7 June 1941, the following statement
concerning religious education was made:

    “No human being would know anything of Christianity if it had
    not been drilled into him in his childhood by pastors. The
    so-called dear God in no wise gives knowledge of his existence
    to young people in advance, but in an astonishing manner in
    spite of his omnipotence leaves this to the efforts of the
    pastors. If therefore in the future our youth learns nothing
    more of this Christianity, whose doctrines are far below ours,
    Christianity will disappear by itself.” (_D-75_)

(2) _Supplementary evidence of acts of suppression within Germany._ In
laying the groundwork for their attempted subversion of the Church, the
Nazi conspirators resorted to assurances of peaceful intentions. Thus
Hitler, in his address to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 declared:

    “While the government is determined to carry through the
    political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating
    and insuring prerequisites for a truly religious life. The
    government sees in both Christian confessions the factors most
    important for the maintenance of our Folkdom. It will respect
    agreements concluded between them and the states. However, it
    expects that its work will meet with a similar appreciation. The
    government will treat all other denominations with equal
    objective justice. However, it can never condone that belonging
    to a certain denomination or to a certain race might be regarded
    as a license to commit or tolerate crimes. The Government will
    devote its care to the sincere living together of Church and
    State.” (_3387-PS_)

(_a_) _Against the Evangelical Churches._ The Nazi conspirators, upon
their accession to power, passed a number of laws, under
innocent-sounding titles, designed to reduce the Evangelical Churches to
the status of an obedient instrument of Nazi policy. The following are
illustrative:

  Document │   Date   │Reichsge│    Title and Gist of Law     │Signed by
   Number  │          │setzblat│                              │
           │          │ t—Page │                              │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3433-PS_ │   14.7.33│I.471   │_Gesetz ueber die Verfassung  │Hitler
           │          │        │  der Deutschen Evangelischen │Frick
           │          │        │  Kirche_ (Law concerning the │
           │          │        │  Constitution of the German  │
           │          │        │  Evangelical Church),        │
           │          │        │  establishing among other    │
           │          │        │  things the new post of Reich│
           │          │        │  Bishop.                     │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3434-PS_ │   26.6.35│I.774   │_Gesetz ueber das             │Hitler
           │          │        │  Beschlussverfahren in       │Frick
           │          │        │  Rechtsangelegenheiten der   │
           │          │        │  Evangelisschen Kirche_ (Law │
           │          │        │  concerning procedure for    │
           │          │        │  decisions in legal affairs  │
           │          │        │  of the Evangelical Church), │
           │          │        │  giving the Reich Ministry of│
           │          │        │  the Interior sole authority │
           │          │        │  to determine the validity of│
           │          │        │  measures taken in the       │
           │          │        │  Churches since 1 May 1933,  │
           │          │        │  when raised in a civil      │
           │          │        │  lawsuit.                    │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3435-PS_ │    3.7.35│I.851   │_Erste Verordnung zur         │Frick
           │          │        │  Durchfuehrung des Gesetzes  │
           │          │        │  ueber das Beschlussverfahren│
           │          │        │  in Rechtsangelegenheiten der│
           │          │        │  Evangelischen Kirche_ (First│
           │          │        │  Ordinance for Execution of  │
           │          │        │  the Law concerning procedure│
           │          │        │  for decisions in legal      │
           │          │        │  affairs of the Evangelical  │
           │          │        │  Church), setting up detailed│
           │          │        │  organization and procedures │
           │          │        │  under the law of 26 June    │
           │          │        │  1935.                       │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3466-PS_ │   16.7.35│I.1029  │_Erlass ueber die             │Hitler
           │          │        │  Zusammenfassung der         │Rust
           │          │        │  Zustaendigkeiten des Reichs │Koerner
           │          │        │  und Preussens in            │
           │          │        │  Kirchenangelegenheiten_     │
           │          │        │  (Decree to unite the        │
           │          │        │  competences of Reich and    │
           │          │        │  Prussia in Church affairs)  │
           │          │        │  transferring to Kerrl,      │
           │          │        │  Minister without Portfolio, │
           │          │        │  the church affairs          │
           │          │        │  previously handled by Reich │
           │          │        │  and Prussian Ministers of   │
           │          │        │  the Interior and of Science,│
           │          │        │  Education, and Training.    │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3436-PS_ │   24.9.35│I.1178  │_Gesetz zur Sicherung der     │Hitler
           │          │        │  Deutschen Evangelischen     │Kerrl
           │          │        │  Kirche_ (Law for the        │
           │          │        │  Safe-guarding of the German │
           │          │        │  Evangelical Church)         │
           │          │        │  empowering the Reich        │
           │          │        │  Minister of Church Affairs  │
           │          │        │  (Kerrl) to issue Ordinances │
           │          │        │  with binding legal force.   │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3437-PS_ │   2.12.85│I.1370  │_Fuenfte Verordnung Zur       │Kerrl
           │          │        │  Durchfuehrung des Gesetzes  │
           │          │        │  zur Sicherung der Deutschen │
           │          │        │  Evangelischen Kirche_ (Fifth│
           │          │        │  decree for execution of the │
           │          │        │  law for the Safe-guarding of│
           │          │        │  the German Evangelical      │
           │          │        │  Church) prohibiting the     │
           │          │        │  churches from filling their │
           │          │        │  pastorates, ordaining       │
           │          │        │  ministers, visitation,      │
           │          │        │  publishing of banns, and    │
           │          │        │  collecting dues and         │
           │          │        │  assessments.                │
           │          │        │                              │
 _3439-PS_ │   25.6.37│I.697   │_Fuenfzehnte Verordnung zur   │Kerrl
           │          │        │  Durchfuehrung des Gesetzes  │
           │          │        │  zur Sicherung der Deutschen │
           │          │        │  Evangelischen Kirche_       │
           │          │        │  (Fifteenth decree for the   │
           │          │        │  Execution of the Law for    │
           │          │        │  Security of the German      │
           │          │        │  Evangelical Church)         │
           │          │        │  establishing in the Reich   │
           │          │        │  Ministry for Church Affairs │
           │          │        │  a Finance Department, to    │
           │          │        │  supervise administration of │
           │          │        │  the church property budget, │
           │          │        │  tax assessment, and use of  │
           │          │        │  budget funds.               │

With the help of their Reich Bishop, Bishop Mueller, they manoeuvered
the Evangelical Youth Association into the Hitler Jugend under Von
Schirach in December 1933. (_1458-PS_)

They arrested prominent Protestant leaders such as Pastor Niemoeller. By
1937, the result of all these measures was complete administrative
control by the Nazi conspirators over the Evangelical churches.

(_b_) _Against the Catholic Church._ Just as in their program against
the Evangelical Churches, so in their attack on the Catholic Church, the
Nazi conspirators concealed their real intentions under a cloak of
apparent respect for its rights and protection of its activities. On 20
July 1933, a Concordat was concluded between the Holy See and the German
Reich, signed for the Reich by Von Papen (_3280-A-PS_). It was the Nazi
Government, not the Church, which initiated the negotiations.

    “The German Government asked the Holy See to conclude a
    Concordat with the Reich.” (_3268-PS_)

By Article I of the Concordat,

    “The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public
    practice of the Catholic religion.

    “It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the
    limit of those laws which are applicable to all, to manage and
    regulate her own affairs independently, and, within the
    framework of her own competence, to publish laws and ordinances
    binding on her members.” (_3280-A-PS_)

Other articles formulated agreements on basic principles such as free
communication between Rome and the local ecclesiastical authorities,
freedom of the Catholic press, of Catholic education and of Catholic
action in charitable, professional, and youth organizations. In return,
the Vatican pledged loyalty by the clergy to the Reich Government and
emphasis in religious instruction on the patriotic duties of the
Christian citizen. (_3280-A-PS_)

In reliance upon assurances by the Nazi conspirators, the Catholic
hierarchy had already revoked their previous prohibition against
Catholics becoming members of the Nazi Party (_3389-PS_). The Catholic
Center Party, under a combination of Nazi pressure and assurances,
published on 29 December 1933, an announcement of its dissolution
(_2403-PS_). Thus the Catholics went a long way to disarm themselves and
cooperate with the Nazis. Nevertheless, the Nazi conspirators continued
to develop their policy of slow strangulation of religion, first in
covert, and then in open, violation of their assurances and agreements.

In the Encyclical “_Mit Brennender Sorge_”, on 14 March 1937, Pope Pius
XI described the program:

    “It discloses intrigues which from the beginning had no other
    aim than a war of extermination. In the furrows in which we had
    labored to sow the seeds of true peace, others—like the enemy
    in Holy Scripture (Matt. xiii, 25)—sowed the tares of
    suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny of secret and open
    fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church, fed from a
    thousand different sources and making use of every available
    means. On them and on them alone and on their silent and vocal
    protectors rests the responsibility that now on the horizon of
    Germany there is to be seen not the rainbow of peace but the
    threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars. * * *
    Anyone who has any sense of truth left in his mind and even a
    shadow of the feeling of justice left in his heart will have to
    admit that, in the difficult and eventful years which followed
    the Concordat, every word and every action of Ours was ruled by
    loyalty to the terms of the agreement; but also he will have to
    recognize with surprise and deep disgust that the unwritten law
    of the other party has been arbitrary misinterpretation of
    agreements, evasion of agreements, evacuation of the meaning of
    agreements, and finally more or less open violation of
    agreements.” (_3280-PS_)

The Nazis suppressed the Catholic Youth League, beginning ten days after
the concordat was signed. (See Section 8, infra.)

On 18 January 1942, in declining to accede to a demand made by the
German Government that no further appointment of Archbishops, Bishops,
and other high administrative dignitaries be made in the new territories
of the Reich, or of certain of them within the old Reich, without
previous consultation with the German Government (_3261-PS_), the
Secretary of State of Pope Pius XII pointed to measures taken by the
German Government,

    “Contrary not only to the existing Concordats and to the
    principles of international law ratified by the Second Hague
    conference, but often—and this is much more grave—to the very
    fundamental principles of divine law, both natural and
    positive.”

The Papal Secretary of State continued:

    “Let it suffice to recall in this connection, among other
    things, the changing of the Catholic State elementary schools
    into undenominational schools; the permanent or temporary
    closing of many minor seminaries, of not a few major seminaries
    and of some theological faculties; the suppression of almost all
    the private schools and of numerous Catholic boarding schools
    and colleges; the repudiation, decided unilaterally, of
    financial obligations which the State, Municipalities, etc. had
    towards the Church; the increasing difficulties put in the way
    of the activity of the religious Orders and Congregations in the
    spiritual, cultural and social field and above all the
    suppression of Abbeys, monasteries, convents and religious
    houses in such great numbers that one is led to infer a
    deliberate intention of rendering impossible the very existence
    of the Orders and Congregations in Germany.

    “Similar and even graver acts must be deplored in the annexed
    and occupied territories, especially in the Polish territories
    and particularly in the _Reichsgau Wartheland_, for which the
    Reich Superintendent has issued, under date of September 13th
    last, a ‘Decree concerning Religious Associations and Religious
    Societies’ (_Verordnung ueber Religioese Vereinigungen und
    Religion-gesellschaften_) in clear opposition to the fundamental
    principles of the divine constitution of the Church.”
    (_3261-PS_)

Illustrative of the numerous other cases and specific incidents which
might be adduced as the program of suppression was carried into action
within Germany proper, are the measures adopted beginning in 1936 to
eliminate the priest Rupert Mayer of Munich. Because of his sermons, he
was confined in various prisons, arrested and rearrested, interned in
Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and the Ettal Monastery,
from which he was released by Allied troops in May 1945, and later died.
(_3272-PS_)

(_c_) _Against other religious groups._

Members of the sect known as “_Bibelforscher_”—meaning “Members of a
Biblical Society” or “Bible-Researchers”—were as early as 1937 sent as
a routine matter to concentration camps by the Gestapo, even after
serving of a sentence imposed by a court or after the cancellation of an
arrest order (_D-84_). At one camp alone—Dachau—there were over 150
“_Bibelforscher_” in protective custody in 1937. (_2928-PS_)

B. _Acts of suppression of the Christian Churches in Annexed and
Occupied Territories._

(1) _In Austria._ The methods of suppression of churches followed in
Austria by the occupying power began with measures to exclude the Church
from public activities, such as processions, printing of newspapers and
Reviews which could spread Christian doctrines; from forming Youth
organizations, such as Boy Scouts; from directing educational or
charitable activities; and even from extending help in the form of food
to foreigners. Unable in conscience to obey the public prescription,
ministers of religions were arrested and sent to concentration camps,
and some were executed. Churches were closed, convents and monastries
suppressed, and educational property confiscated. The total number of
confiscations, suppressions, or alienations of religious institutions
exceeded 100 cases in one diocese alone. (_3278-PS_)

The Lutheran Church in Austria, though comprising a small minority of
the population, was subjected to organized oppression. Its educational
efforts were obstructed or banned. Believers were encouraged, and
sometimes intimidated, to repudiate their faith. Lutheran pastors were
given to understand that a government position would be awarded to each
one who would renounce his ministry and if possible withdraw from the
Lutheran Church. (_3273-PS_)

In summation of the period of Nazi domination and in review of the
attempted suppression of the Christian Church, the Archbishops and
Bishops of Austria in their first joint Pastoral after liberation
declared:

    “At an end also is an intellectual battle, the goal of which was
    the destruction of Christianity and the Church among our people;
    a campaign of lies and treachery against truth and love, against
    divine and human rights and against international law.”
    (_3274-PS_)

(2) _In Czechoslovakia._ The Czechoslovak Official Report for the
prosecution and trial of the German Major War Criminals by the
International Military Tribunal established according to the Agreement
of the Four Great Powers of 8 August, 1945 describes in summary form the
measures taken by the Nazi conspirators to suppress religious liberties
and persecute the churches. The following excerpts are quoted from this
report (_998-PS_):

    “(_a_) _Catholic Church._

    “* * * At the outbreak of war, 487 Catholic priests were among
    the thousands of Czech patriots arrested and sent to
    concentration camps as hostages. Venerable high ecclesiastical
    dignitaries were dragged to concentration camps in Germany. * *
    * Religious orders were dissolved and liquidated, their
    charitable institutions closed down and their members expelled
    or else forced to compulsory labor in Germany. All religious
    instruction in Czech schools was suppressed. Most of the
    weeklies and monthlies which the Catholics had published in
    Czechoslovakia, had been suppressed from the very beginning of
    the occupation. The Catholic gymnastic organization “Orel” with
    800,000 members was dissolved and its property was confiscated.
    To a great extent Catholic church property was seized for the
    benefit of the Reich.

    “(_b_) _Czechoslovak National Church._

    “* * * The Czechoslovak Church in Slovakia was entirely
    prohibited and its property confiscated under German compulsion
    in 1940. It has been allowed to exist in Bohemia and Moravia but
    in a crippled form under the name of the Czecho-Moravian Church.

    “(_c_) _Protestant Churches._

    “The Protestant Churches were deprived of the freedom to preach
    the gospel. German secret state police watched closely whether
    the clergy observed the restrictions imposed on it. * * * Some
    passages from the Bible were not allowed to be read in public at
    all. * * *

    “* * * Church leaders were especially persecuted, scores of
    ministers were imprisoned in concentration camps, among them the
    General Secretary of the Students’ Christian Movement in
    Czechoslovakia. One of the Vice-Presidents was executed.

    “Protestant Institutions such as the YMCA and YWCA were
    suppressed throughout the country.

    “The leading Theological School for all Evangelical
    denominations, HUS Faculty in Prague and all other Protestant
    training schools for the ministry were closed down in November
    1939, with the other Czech universities and colleges.

    “(_d_) _Czech Orthodox Church._

    “The hardest blow was directed against the Czech Orthodox
    Church. The Orthodox churches in Czechoslovakia were ordered by
    the Berlin Ministry of Church Affairs to leave the Pontificat of
    Belgrade and Constantinople respectively and to become
    subordinate to the Berlin Bishop. The Czech Bishop Gorazd was
    executed together with two other priests of the Orthodox Church.
    By a special order of the Protector Daluege, issued in September
    1942, the Orthodox Church of Serbian Constantinople jurisdiction
    was completely dissolved in the Czech lands, its religious
    activity forbidden and its property confiscated.

    “All Evangelical education was handed over to the civil
    authorities and many Evangelical teachers lost their employment;
    moreover the State grant to salaries of many Evangelical priests
    was taken away.” (_998-PS_)

(3) _In Poland._ The repressive measures levelled against the Christian
Church in Poland where Hans Frank was Governor-General from 1939 to
1945, were even more drastic and sweeping. In protest against the
systematic strangulation of religion, the Vatican, on 8 October 1942,
addressed a memorandum to the German Embassy accredited to the Holy See
in which the Secretariat of State emphasized the fact that despite
previous protests to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Reich, von
Ribbentrop, the religious condition of the Catholics in the _Warthegau_
“has become even sadder and more tragic.” This memorandum states:

    “For quite a long time the religious situation in the
    _Warthegau_ gives cause for very grave and ever-increasing
    anxiety. There, in fact, the Episcopate has been little by
    little almost completely eliminated; the secular and regular
    clergy have been reduced to proportions that are absolutely
    inadequate, because they have been in large part deported and
    exiled; the education of clerics has been forbidden; the
    Catholic education of youth is meeting with the greatest
    opposition; the nuns have been dispersed; insurmountable
    obstacles have been put in the way of affording people the helps
    of religions; very many churches have been closed; Catholic
    intellectual and charitable institutions have been destroyed;
    ecclesiastical property has been seized.” (_3263-PS_)

On 18 November 1942 the Papal Secretary of State requested the
Archbishop of Breslau, Cardinal Bertram, to use every effort to assist
Polish Catholic workers transferred to Germany, who were being deprived
of the consolations of religion. In addition, he again appealed for help
for the Polish priests detained in various concentration camps, whose
death rate was “still on the increase.” (_3265-PS_). On 7 December 1942
the Cardinal Archbishop of Breslau replied that all possible efforts
were being put forward by the German Bishops without success on behalf
of the victims of concentration camps and labor battalions, and deplored
“the intolerable decrees” against religious ministration to Poles.
(_3266-PS_)

On 2 March 1943, the Cardinal Secretary of State addressed a note to von
Ribbentrop, Reichsminister for Foreign Affairs, in which the violations
of religious rights and conscience among the civilian population of
Poland were set out in detail, and the time, locality, and character of
the persecutions were specified. Priests and Ecclesiastics were still
being arrested, thrust into concentration camps, and treated with scorn
and derision, while many had been summarily executed. Religious
instruction was hampered; Catholic schools were closed; the use of the
Polish language in sacred functions and even in the Sacrament of Penance
was forbidden. Even the natural right of marriage was denied to men of
Polish nationality under 28 years of age to women under 25. In the
territory called “General Government” similar conditions existed and
against these the Holy See vigorously protested. To save the harassed
and persecuted leaders of the Catholic Church, the Vatican had
petitioned that they be allowed to emigrate to neutral countries of
Europe or America. The only concession made was that they would all be
collected in one concentration camp—Dachau. (_3264-PS_)

The Nazi conspirators adopted a dilatory and obstructionist policy
toward complaints as to religious affairs in the overrun territories,
and a decision was “taken by those competent to do so. * * * that no
further consideration will be taken of proposals or requests concerning
the territories which do not belong to the Old Reich.” (_3262-PS_)

“Those competent” to make decisions on complaints as to religious
affairs in the overrun territories—especially the Party Chancery,
headed by Bormann—the methods they used, and the reasons for their
attitude are outlined by the Cardinal Archbishop of Breslau, a German
living in Germany, in a letter to the Papal Secretary of State on 7
December 1942 as follows:

    “Your Eminence knows very well the greatest difficulty in the
    way of opening negotiations comes from the overruling authority
    which the “National Socialist Party Chancery” (_Kanzlei der
    National-Sozialistischen Partei_, known as the _Partei-Kanzlei_)
    exercises in relation to the Chancery of the Reich
    (_Reichskanzlei_) and to the single Reich Ministries. This
    ‘_Parteikanzlei_’ directs the course to be followed by the
    State, whereas the Ministries and the Chancery of the Reich are
    obliged and compelled to adjust their decrees to these
    directions. Besides, there is the fact that the “Supreme Office
    for the Security of the Reich” called the
    ‘_Reichssicherheitshauptamt_’ enjoys an authority which
    precludes all legal action and all appeals. Under it are the
    ‘Secret Offices for Public Security’ called ‘_Geheime
    Staatspolizei_’ (a title shortened usually to _Gestapo_) of
    which there is one for each Province. Against the decrees of
    this Central Office (_Reichssicherheitshauptamt_) and of the
    Secret Offices (_Geheime Staatspolizei_) there is no appeal
    through the Courts, and no complaint made to the Ministries has
    any effect. Not infrequently the Councillors of the Ministries
    suggest that they have not been able to do as they would wish
    to, because of the opposition of these Party offices. As far as
    the executive power is concerned, the organization called the
    SS, that is _Schutzstaffeln der Partei_, is in practice supreme.

    “This hastily sketched interrelation of authorities is the
    reason why many of the petitions and protests made by the
    Bishops to the Ministries have been foiled. Even if we present
    our complaints to the so-called Supreme Security Office, there
    is rarely any reply; and when there is, it is negative.

    “On a number of very grave and fundamental issues we have also
    presented our complaints to the Supreme Leader of the Reich
    (_Fuehrer_). Either no answer is given, or it is apparently
    edited by the above-mentioned Party Chancery, which does not
    consider itself bound by the Concordat made with the Holy See.”
    (_3266-PS_)

The interchange of correspondence following the transmission of the
above-described note of 2 March 1943 on the religious situation in the
overrun Polish Provinces illustrates the same evasive tactics.
(_3269-PS_)

In his Allocution to the Sacred College, on 2 June 1945, His Holiness
Pope Pius XII recalled, by way of example, “some details from the
abundant accounts which have reached us from priests and laymen who were
interned in the concentration camp at Dachau”:

    “In the forefront, for the number and harshness of the treatment
    meted out to them, are the Polish priests. From 1940 to 1945,
    2,800 Polish ecclesiastics and religious were imprisoned in that
    camp; among them was the Auxiliary bishop of Wloclawek, who died
    there of typhus. In April last there were left only 816, all the
    others being dead except for two or three transferred to another
    camp. In the summer of 1942, 480 German-speaking ministers of
    religion were known to be gathered there; of these, 45 were
    Protestants, all the others Catholic priests. In spite of the
    continuous inflow of new internees, especially from some
    dioceses of Bavaria, Rhenania and Westphalia, their number, as a
    result of the high rate of mortality, at the beginning of this
    year, did not surpass 350. Nor should we pass over in silence
    those belonging to occupied territories, Holland, Belgium,
    France (among whom the Bishop of Clermont), Luxembourg,
    Slovenia, Italy. Many Of those priests and laymen endured
    indescribable sufferings for their faith and for their vocation.
    In one case the hatred of the impious against Christ reached the
    point of parodying on the person of an interned priest, with
    barbed wire, the scourging and the crowning with thorns of our
    Redeemer.” (_3268-PS_)

Further revealing figures on the persecution of Polish priests are
contained in the following extract from Charge No. 17 against Hans
Frank, Governor-General of Poland, submitted by the Polish Government,
entitled “Maltreatment and Persecution of the Catholic Clergy in the
Western Provinces”:

    “IV. _GENERAL CONDITIONS AND RESULTS OF THE PERSECUTION_

        11. The general situation of the clergy in the
        Archdiocese of Poznan in the beginning of April 1940 is
        summarized in the following words of Cardinal Hlond’s
        second report:

            ‘5 priests shot

            27 priests confined in harsh concentration camps
            at Stutthof and in other camps

            190 priests in prison or in concentration camps
            at Bruczkow, Chludowo, Goruszki, Kazimierz,
            Biskupi, Lad, Lubin and Puszczykowo,

            35 priests expelled into the Government General,

            11 priests seriously ill in consequence of
            ill-treatment,

            122 parishes entirely left without priests.’

        12. In the diocese of Chelmno, where about 650 priests
        were installed before the war only 3% were allowed to
        stay, the 97% of them were imprisoned, executed or put
        into concentration camps.

        13. By January 1941 about 7000 priests were killed, 3000
        were in prison or concentration camps.” (_3279-PS_)

The Allocution of Pope Pius XII on 2 June 1945 described National
Socialism as “the arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, the denial of His
doctrine and of His work of redemption, the cult of violence, the
idolatry of race and blood, the overthrow of human liberty and dignity.”
It summarized the attacks of “National Socialism” on the Catholic Church
in these terms:

    “The struggle against the Church did, in fact, become even more
    bitter: there was the dissolution of Catholic organizations; the
    gradual suppression of the flourishing Catholic schools, both
    public and private; the enforced weaning of youth from family
    and Church; the pressure brought to bear on the conscience of
    citizens, and especially of civil servants; the systematic
    defamation, by means of a clever, closely-organized propaganda,
    of the Church, the clergy, the faithful, the Church’s
    institutions, teaching and history; the closing, dissolution,
    confiscation of religious houses and other ecclesiastical
    institutions; the complete suppression of the Catholic press and
    publishing houses.” (_3268-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

 LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SUPPRESSION OF THE
                           CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a, │      │
                │  c).                                   │  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Sections IV (D) 3│      │
                │  (_c_) (2, 3); X (B).                  │  I   │  20, 55
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *064-PS        │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 27       │      │
                │September 1940, enclosing letter from   │      │
                │Gauleiter Florian criticizing Churches  │      │
                │and publications for soldiers. (USA 359)│ III  │     109
                │                                        │      │
 *068-PS        │Letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, 5     │      │
                │April 1940, enclosing copy of Bormann’s │      │
                │letter to the High Command of Navy, and │      │
                │copy of Navy High Command letter to     │      │
                │Bormann of 9 February 1940. (USA 726)   │ III  │     114
                │                                        │      │
 *070-PS        │Letter of Deputy Fuehrer to Rosenberg,  │      │
                │25 April 1941, on substitution of       │      │
                │National Socialist mottos for morning   │      │
                │prayers in schools. (USA 349)           │ III  │     118
                │                                        │      │
 *072-PS        │Bormann letter to Rosenberg, 19 April   │      │
                │1941, concerning confiscation of        │      │
                │property, especially of art treasures in│      │
                │the East. (USA 357)                     │ III  │     122
                │                                        │      │
 *089-PS        │Letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, 8     │      │
                │March 1940, instructing Amann not to    │      │
                │issue further newsprint to confessional │      │
                │newspapers. (USA 360)                   │ III  │     147
                │                                        │      │
 *098-PS        │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 22       │      │
                │February 1940, urging creation of       │      │
                │National Socialist Catechism, etc. to   │      │
                │provide moral foundation for NS         │      │
                │religion. (USA 350)                     │ III  │     152
                │                                        │      │
 *100-PS        │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 18       │      │
                │January 1940, urging preparation of     │      │
                │National Socialist reading material to  │      │
                │replace Christian literature for        │      │
                │soldiers. (USA 691)                     │ III  │     160
                │                                        │      │
 *101-PS        │Letter from Hess’ office signed Bormann │      │
                │to Rosenberg, 17 January 1940,          │      │
                │concerning undesirability of religious  │      │
                │literature for members of the Wehrmacht.│      │
                │(USA 361)                               │ III  │     160
 *107-PS        │Circular letter signed Bormann, 17 June │      │
                │1938, enclosing directions prohibiting  │      │
                │participation of Reichsarbeitsdienst in │      │
                │religious celebrations. (USA 351)       │ III  │     162
                │                                        │      │
 *116-PS        │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, enclosing│      │
                │copy of letter, 24 January 1939, to     │      │
                │Minister of Education requesting        │      │
                │restriction or elimination of           │      │
                │theological faculties. (USA 685)        │ III  │     165
                │                                        │      │
 *122-PS        │Bormann’s letter to Rosenberg, 17 April │      │
                │1939, enclosing copy of Minister of     │      │
                │Education letter, 6 April 1939, on      │      │
                │elimination of theological faculties in │      │
                │various universities. (USA 362)         │ III  │     173
                │                                        │      │
 *129-PS        │Letter from Kerrl to Herr Stapol, 6     │      │
                │September 1939, found in Rosenberg      │      │
                │files. (USA 727)                        │ III  │     179
                │                                        │      │
 *840-PS        │Party Directive, 14 July 1939, making   │      │
                │clergy and theology students ineligible │      │
                │for Party membership. (USA 355)         │ III  │     606
                │                                        │      │
 *848-PS        │Gestapo telegram from Berlin to         │      │
                │Nurnberg, 24 July 1938, dealing with    │      │
                │demonstrations against Bishop Sproll in │      │
                │Rottenburg. (USA 353)                   │ III  │     613
                │                                        │      │
 *849-PS        │Letter from Kerrl to Minister of State, │      │
                │23 July 1938, with enclosures dealing   │      │
                │with persecution of Bishop Sproll. (USA │      │
                │354)                                    │ III  │     614
                │                                        │      │
 *998-PS        │“German Crimes Against Czechoslovakia”. │      │
                │Excerpts from Czechoslovak Official     │      │
                │Report for the prosecution and trial of │      │
                │the German Major War Criminals by the   │      │
                │International Military Tribunal         │      │
                │established according to Agreement of   │      │
                │four Great Powers of 8 August 1945. (USA│      │
                │91)                                     │ III  │     656
                │                                        │      │
*1164-PS        │Secret letter, 21 April 1942, from SS to│      │
                │all concentration camp commanders       │      │
                │concerning treatment of priests. (USA   │      │
                │736)                                    │ III  │     820
                │                                        │      │
*1458-PS        │The Hitler Youth by Baldur von Schirach,│      │
                │Leipzig, 1934. (USA 667)                │  IV  │      22
                │                                        │      │
*1481-PS        │Gestapo order, 20 January 1938,         │      │
                │dissolving and confiscating property of │      │
                │Catholic Youth Women’s Organization in  │      │
                │Bavaria. (USA 737)                      │  IV  │      50
                │                                        │      │
*1482-PS        │Secret letter, 20 July 1933 to          │      │
                │provincial governments and the Prussian │      │
                │Gestapo from Frick, concerning          │      │
                │Confessional Youth Organizations. (USA  │      │
                │738)                                    │  IV  │      51
                │                                        │      │
*1498-PS        │Order of Frick, 6 November 1934,        │      │
                │addressed inter alios to Prussian       │      │
                │Gestapo prohibiting publication of      │      │
                │Protestant Church announcements. (USA   │      │
                │739)                                    │  IV  │      52
                │                                        │      │
*1521-PS        │Report from the Bavarian Political      │      │
                │Police to the Gestapo, Berlin, 24 August│      │
                │1934, concerning National mourning on   │      │
                │occasion of death of von Hindenburg.    │      │
                │(USA 740)                               │  IV  │      75
                │                                        │      │
*1708-PS        │The Program of the NSDAP. National      │      │
                │Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153. (USA│      │
                │255; USA 324)                           │  IV  │     208
                │                                        │      │
*1815-PS        │Documents on RSHA meeting concerning the│      │
                │study and treatment of church politics. │      │
                │(USA 510)                               │  IV  │     415
                │                                        │      │
 1855-PS        │Extract from Organization Book of the   │      │
                │NSDAP, 1937, p. 418.                    │  IV  │     495
                │                                        │      │
*1997-PS        │Decree of the Fuehrer, 17 July 1941,    │      │
                │concerning administration of Newly      │      │
                │Occupied Eastern Territories. (USA 319) │  IV  │     634
                │                                        │      │
*2349-PS        │Extracts from “The Myth of 20th Century”│      │
                │by Alfred Rosenberg, 1941. (USA 352)    │  IV  │    1069
                │                                        │      │
 2351-PS        │Speech of Rosenberg, 7 March 1937, from │      │
                │The Archive, Vol. 34-36, p. 1716,       │      │
                │published in Berlin, March 1937.        │  IV  │    1070
                │                                        │      │
 2352-PS        │Speech of Kerrl, 27 November 1937, from │      │
                │The Archive, Vol. 43-45, p. 1029,       │      │
                │published in Berlin, November 1937.     │  IV  │    1071
                │                                        │      │
 2403-PS        │The End of the Party State, from        │      │
                │Documents of German Politics, Vol. I,   │      │
                │pp. 55-56.                              │  V   │      71
                │                                        │      │
 2456-PS        │Youth and the Church, from Complete     │      │
                │Handbook of Youth Laws.                 │  V   │     198
                │                                        │      │
*2851-PS        │Statement by Rosenberg of positions     │      │
                │held, 9 November 1945. (USA 6)          │  V   │     512
                │                                        │      │
*2910-PS        │Certificate of defendant Seyss-Inquart, │      │
                │10 November 1945. (USA 17)              │  V   │     579
                │                                        │      │
*2928-PS        │Affidavit of Mathias Lex, deputy        │      │
                │president of the German Shoemakers      │      │
                │Union. (USA 239)                        │  V   │     594
                │                                        │      │
*2972-PS        │List of appointments held by von        │      │
                │Neurath, 17 November 1945. (USA 19)     │  V   │     679
                │                                        │      │
*2973-PS        │Statement by von Schirach concerning    │      │
                │positions held. (USA 14)                │  V   │     679
                │                                        │      │
*2978-PS        │Frick’s statement of offices and        │      │
                │positions, 14 November 1945. (USA 8)    │  V   │     683
                │                                        │      │
*2979-PS        │Affidavit by Hans Frank, 15 November    │      │
                │1945, concerning positions held. (USA 7)│  V   │     684
                │                                        │      │
*3261-PS        │Verbal note of the Secretariate of State│      │
                │of His Holiness, to the German Embassy, │      │
                │18 January 1942. (USA 568)              │  V   │    1009
                │                                        │      │
 3262-PS        │Report of His Excellency, the Most      │      │
                │Reverend Cesare Orsenigo, Papal Nuncio  │      │
                │in Germany to His Eminence the Cardinal │      │
                │Secretary of State to His Holiness, 27  │      │
                │June 1942.                              │  V   │    1015
                │                                        │      │
*3263-PS        │Memorandum of Secretariate of State to  │      │
                │German Embassy regarding the situation  │      │
                │in the Warthegau, 8 October 1942. (USA  │      │
                │571)                                    │  V   │    1017
                │                                        │      │
*3264-PS        │Note of His Eminence the Cardinal       │      │
                │Secretary of State to Foreign Minister  │      │
                │of Reich about religious situation in   │      │
                │Warthegau and in other Polish provinces │      │
                │subject to Germany, 2 March 1943. (USA  │      │
                │572)                                    │  V   │    1018
                │                                        │      │
 3265-PS        │Letter to His Eminence the Cardinal     │      │
                │Secretary of State to the Cardinal      │      │
                │Archbishop of Breslau, 18 November 1942.│  V   │    1029
                │                                        │      │
*3266-PS        │Letter of Cardinal Bertram, Archbishop  │      │
                │of Breslau to the Papal Secretary of    │      │
                │State, 7 December 1942. (USA 573)       │  V   │    1031
                │                                        │      │
 3267-PS        │Verbal note of German Embassy to Holy   │      │
                │See to the Secretariate of State of His │      │
                │Holiness, 29 August 1941.               │  V   │    1037
                │                                        │      │
*3268-PS        │Allocution of His Holiness Pope Pius    │      │
                │XII, to the Sacred College, 2 June 1945.│      │
                │(USA 356)                               │  V   │    1038
                │                                        │      │
 3269-PS        │Correspondence between the Holy See, the│      │
                │Apostolic Nuncio in Berlin, and the     │      │
                │defendant von Ribbentrop, Reich Minister│      │
                │of Foreign Affairs.                     │  V   │    1041
                │                                        │      │
 3272-PS        │Statement of Rupert Mayer, 13 October   │      │
                │1945.                                   │  V   │    1061
                │                                        │      │
 3273-PS        │Statement of Lutheran Pastor, Friedrich │      │
                │Kaufmann, Salzburg, 23 October 1945.    │  V   │    1064
                │                                        │      │
*3274-PS        │Pastoral letter of Austrian Bishops read│      │
                │in all churches, 14 October 1945. (USA  │      │
                │570)                                    │  V   │    1067
                │                                        │      │
*3278-PS        │Report on fighting of National Socialism│      │
                │in Apostolic Administration of          │      │
                │Innsbruck-Feldkirch of Tyrol and        │      │
                │Vorarlberg by Bishop Paulus Rusch, 27   │      │
                │June 1945 and attached list of church   │      │
                │institutions there which were closed,   │      │
                │confiscated or suppressed. (USA 569)    │  V   │    1070
                │                                        │      │
*3279-PS        │Extract from Charge No. 17 against Hans │      │
                │Frank submitted by Polish Government to │      │
                │International Military Tribunal. (USA   │      │
                │574)                                    │  V   │    1078
                │                                        │      │
*3280-PS        │Extract from Papal Encyclical “Mit      │      │
                │Brennender Sorge”, set forth in Appendix│      │
                │II, p. 524, of “The Persecution of the  │      │
                │Catholic Church in the Third Reich”.    │      │
                │(USA 567)                               │  V   │    1079
                │                                        │      │
 3280-A-PS      │Concordat between the Holy See and the  │      │
                │German Reich. Reichsgesetzblatt, Part   │      │
                │II, p. 679.                             │  V   │    1080
                │                                        │      │
*3387-PS        │Hitler Reichstag speech, 23 March 1933, │      │
                │asking for adoption of Enabling Act,    │      │
                │from Voelkischer Beobachter, 24 March   │      │
                │1933, p. 1. (USA 566)                   │  VI  │     104
                │                                        │      │
*3389-PS        │Fulda Declaration of 28 March 1933, from│      │
                │Voelkischer Beobachter, 29 March 1933,  │      │
                │p. 2. (USA 566)                         │  VI  │     105
                │                                        │      │
 3433-PS        │Law concerning the Constitution of the  │      │
                │German Protestant Church, 14 July 1933. │      │
                │1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 471. │  VI  │     136
                │                                        │      │
 3434-PS        │Law concerning procedure for decisions  │      │
                │in legal affairs of the Protestant      │      │
                │Church, 26 June 1935. 1935              │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 774.      │  VI  │     143
                │                                        │      │
 3435-PS        │First Ordinance for Execution of Law    │      │
                │concerning procedure for decisions in   │      │
                │legal affairs of the Protestant Church, │      │
                │3 July 1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt,    │      │
                │Part I, p. 851.                         │  VI  │     144
                │                                        │      │
 3436-PS        │Law for Safeguarding of German          │      │
                │Protestant Church, 24 September 1935.   │      │
                │1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1178.│  VI  │     145
                │                                        │      │
 3437-PS        │Fifth Decree for execution of law for   │      │
                │safeguarding of the German Protestant   │      │
                │Church, 2 December 1935. 1935           │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1370.     │  VI  │     146
                │                                        │      │
 3439-PS        │Fifteenth decree for the Execution of   │      │
                │law for Security of German Protestant   │      │
                │Church, 25 June 1937. 1937              │      │
                │Reiehsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 697.      │  VI  │     147
                │                                        │      │
 3466-PS        │Decree to unite the competences of Reich│      │
                │and Prussia in Church Affairs, 16 July  │      │
                │1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │1029.                                   │  VI  │     168
                │                                        │      │
 3560-PS        │Decree concerning organization and      │      │
                │administration of Eastern Territories, 8│      │
                │October 1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt,   │      │
                │Part I, p. 2042.                        │  VI  │     244
                │                                        │      │
 3561-PS        │Decree concerning the Administration of │      │
                │Occupied Polish Territories, 12 October │      │
                │1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │2077.                                   │  VI  │     246
                │                                        │      │
 3701-PS        │Proposal for Reichsleiter Bormann       │      │
                │concerning speech of Bishop of Muenster │      │
                │on 3 August 1941.                       │  VI  │     405
                │                                        │      │
*3751-PS        │Diary of the German Minister of Justice,│      │
                │1935 concerning prosecution of church   │      │
                │officials and punishment in             │      │
                │concentration camps. (USA 828; USA 858) │  VI  │     636
                │                                        │      │
*D-75           │SD Inspector Bierkamp’s letter, 12      │      │
                │December 1941, to RSHA enclosing copy of│      │
                │secret decree signed by Bormann,        │      │
                │entitled Relationship of National       │      │
                │Socialism and Christianity. (USA 348)   │  VI  │    1035
                │                                        │      │
*D-84           │Gestapo instructions to State Police    │      │
                │Departments, 5 August 1937, regarding   │      │
                │protective custody for Bible students.  │      │
                │(USA 236)                               │  VI  │    1040
                │                                        │      │
*EC-68          │Confidential letter from Minister of    │      │
                │Finance and Economy, Baden, containing  │      │
                │directives on treatment of Polish       │      │
                │Farmworkers, 6 March 1941. (USA 205)    │ VII  │     260
                │                                        │      │
*R-101-A        │Letter from Chief of the Security Police│      │
                │and Security Service to the Reich       │      │
                │Commissioner for the Consolidation of   │      │
                │German Folkdom, 5 April 1940, with      │      │
                │enclosures concerning confiscation of   │      │
                │church property. (USA 358)              │ VIII │      87
                │                                        │      │
 R-101-B        │Letter from Himmler to Dr. Winkler, 31  │      │
                │October 1940, concerning treatment of   │      │
                │church property in incorporated Eastern │      │
                │countries.                              │ VIII │      89
                │                                        │      │
*R-101-C        │Letter to Reich Leader SS, 30 July 1941,│      │
                │concerning treatment of church property │      │
                │in incorporated Eastern areas. (USA 358)│ VIII │      91
                │                                        │      │
*R-101-D        │Letter from Chief of Staff of the Reich │      │
                │Main Security Office (RSHA) to Reich    │      │
                │Leader SS, 30 March 1942, concerning    │      │
                │confiscation of church property. (USA   │      │
                │358)                                    │ VIII │      92
                │                                        │      │
*R-103          │Letter from Polish Main Committee to    │      │
                │General Government of Poland on         │      │
                │situation of Polish workers in the      │      │
                │Reich, 17 May 1944. (USA 204)           │ VIII │     104
                │                                        │      │
*R-145          │State Police Order, 28 May 1934, at     │      │
                │Duesseldorf, signed Schmid, concerning  │      │
                │sanction of denominational youth and    │      │
                │professional associations and           │      │
                │distribution of publications in         │      │
                │churches. (USA 745)                     │ VIII │     248


             7. ADOPTION AND PUBLICATION OF THE PROGRAM FOR
                           PERSECUTION OF JEWS

A. _The official program of the NSDAP, proclaimed 24 February 1920 by
Adolf Hitler at a public gathering in Munich._

    Point 4: “None but members of the nation (_Volksgenosse_) may be
    citizens. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed,
    may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member
    of the nation.”

    Point 5: “Anyone who is not a citizen may live in Germany only
    as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to legislation
    for foreigners.”

    Point 6: “The right to determine matters concerning government
    and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen alone. We demand
    therefore that all appointments to public office, of whatever
    kind, whether in the Reich, Land, or municipality, be filled
    only by citizens. * * *”

    Point 7: “We demand that the state make it its first duty to
    promote the industry and livelihood of citizens. If it is not
    possible to nourish the entire population of the State, the
    members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled
    from the Reich.”

    Point 8: “Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be
    prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany
    subsequent to 2 August 1914, shall be forced immediately to
    leave the Reich.”

    Point 23: “We demand legal warfare against conscious political
    lies and their dissemination through the press. In order to make
    possible the creation of a German press we demand:

    (_a_) that all editors and collaborators of newspapers published
    in the German language be members of the nation.

    (_b_) non-German newspapers be requested to have express
    permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed
    in the German language.

    (_c_) non-Germans be prohibited by law from financial
    participation in or influence on German newspapers, and that as
    penalty for contravention of the law such newspapers be
    suppressed and all non-Germans participating in it expelled from
    the Reich. * * *” (_1708-PS_)

B. _Development of ideological basis for anti-Semitic measures._

Among the innumerable statements made by the leaders of the NSDAP are
the following:

Rosenberg advocated in 1920 the adoption of the following program
concerning the Jews:

    “(1) The Jews are to be recognized as a (separate) nation living
    in Germany, irrespective of the religion they belong to.

    (2) A Jew is he whose parents on either side are nationally
    Jews. Anyone who has a Jewish husband or wife is henceforth a
    Jew.

    (3) Jews have no right to speak and write on or be active in
    German politics.

    (4) Jews have no right to hold public offices, or to serve in
    the Army either as soldiers or as officers. However, their
    contribution of work may be considered.

    (5) Jews have no right to be leaders of cultural institutions of
    the state and community (theaters, galleries, etc.) or to be
    professors and teachers in German schools and universities.

    (6) Jews have no right to be active in state or municipal
    commissions for examinations, control, censorship, etc. Jews
    have no right to represent the German Reich in economic
    treaties; they have no right to be represented in the
    directorate of state banks or communal credit establishments.

    (7) Foreign Jews have no right to settle in Germany permanently.
    Their admission into the German political community is to be
    forbidden under all circumstances.

    (8) Zionism should be energetically supported in order to
    promote the departure of German Jews—in numbers to be
    determined annually—to Palestine or generally across the
    border.” (_2842-PS_)

Rosenberg’s “Zionism” was neither sincere nor consistent, for in 1921 he
advocated breaking up Zionism, “which is involved in English-Jewish
politics.” (_2432-PS_). He advocated in 1921 the adoption by “all
Germans” of the following slogans: “Get the Jews out of all parties.
Institute measures for the repudiation of all citizenship rights of all
Jews and half-Jews: banish all the Eastern Jews; exercise strictest
vigilance over the native ones. * * *” (_2432-PS_)

Frick and other Nazis introduced a motion in the Reichstag on 27 May
1924, “to place all members of the Jewish race under special laws.”
(_2840-PS_). Frick also asked in the Reichstag, on 25 August 1924, for
the realization of the Nazi program by “exclusion of all Jews from
public office.” (_2893-PS_)

C. _Anti-Semitism was seized upon by the Nazi conspirators as a
convenient instrument to unite groups and classes of divergent views and
interests under one banner._

Adolf Hitler described racial anti-Semitism as “a new creed for the
masses” and its spreading among the German people as “the most
formidable task to be accomplished by our movement.” (_2881-PS_).
Rosenberg called for the “_Zusammenraffen aller Deutschen zu einer
stahlharten, voelkischen Einheitsfront_” (gathering of all Germans into
a steel-hard racial united front) on the basis of anti-Semitic slogans
(_2432-PS_). Gotfried Feder, official commentator of the Nazi Party
program, stated: “Anti-Semitism is in a way the emotional foundation of
our movement.” (_2844-PS_)

There are innumerable admissions on the part of the Nazi leaders as to
the part which their anti-Semitic propaganda played in their acquisition
of control. The following statement concerning the purpose of racial
propaganda was made by Dr. Walter Gross, director of the Office of
Racial Policy of the Nazi Party:

    “In the years of fight, the aim was to employ all means of
    propaganda which promised success in order to gather people who
    were ready to overthrow, together with the Party, the harmful
    post-war regime and put the power into the hand of the Fuehrer
    and his collaborators. * * * In these years of fight the aim was
    purely political: I meant the overthrow of the regime and
    acquisition of power. * * * Within this great general task the
    education in racial thinking necessarily played a decisive part,
    because herein lies basically the deepest revolutionary nature
    of the new spirit.” (_2845-PS_)

In another official Nazi publication, recommended for circulation in all
Party units and establishments, it is stated:

    “The whole treatment of the Jewish problem in the years prior to
    our seizure of power is to be regarded essentially from the
    point of view of the political education of the German people.”
    (To disregard this angle of the use made of anti-Semitism means)
    “to disregard the success and aim of the work toward racial
    education.” (_2427-PS_)

D. _After the acquisition of power the Nazi conspirators initiated a
state policy of persecution of the Jews._

(1) _The first organized act was the boycott of Jewish enterprises on 1
April 1933._ The boycott action was approved by all the defendants who
were members of the _Reichsregierung_ (Reich Cabinet), and Streicher was
charged with its execution. Presented as an alleged act of “self
defense”, the boycott action was intended to frighten Jewish public
opinion abroad and force it, by the threat of collective responsibility
to all Jews in Germany, to desist from warning against the Nazi danger.
(_2409-PS_; _2410-PS_)

The boycott was devised as a demonstration of the extent to which the
Nazi Party controlled its members and the German masses; consequently,
spontaneous action and physical violence were discouraged. Goebbels
stated:

    “The national socialist leadership had declared: ‘The boycott is
    legal’, and the government demands that the people permit that
    the boycott be carried out legally. We expect iron discipline.
    This must be for the whole world a wonderful show of unity and
    manly training. To those abroad who believe that we could not
    manage it, we want to show that we have the people in our hand.”
    (_2431-PS_)

(2) _Laws eliminating Jews from various offices and functions._ The Nazi
conspirators legislative program was gradual and, in the beginning,
relatively “moderate.” In the first period, which dates from 7 April
1933 until September 1935, the laws eliminated Jews from public office
and limited their participation in schools, certain professions, and
cultural establishments. The following are the major laws issued in this
period:

  Document │   Date   │Reichsge│    Title and gist of law     │Signed by
    No.    │          │setzblat│                              │
           │          │ t page │                              │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1397-PS_ │    7.4.33│I.175   │_Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung │Hitler
           │          │        │  des Berufsbeamtentums_ (Law │Frick
           │          │        │  for the reestablishment of  │Schwerin
           │          │        │  the professional civil      │V. Krosigk
           │          │        │  service), removing Jews from│
           │          │        │  Civil Service.              │
           │          │        │                              │
           │    7.4.33│I.188   │_Gesetz uber die Zulassung zur│Guertner
           │          │        │  Rechtsanwaltschaft_ (Law    │
           │          │        │  relating to admission to the│
           │          │        │  Bar) removing Jews from the │
           │          │        │  Bar.                        │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2868-PS_ │   22.4.33│I.217   │_Gesetz betreffend die        │Hitler
           │          │        │  Zulassung zur               │Guertner
           │          │        │  Patentanwaltschaft_ (Law    │
           │          │        │  relating to the admission to│
           │          │        │  the profession of patent    │
           │          │        │  agent and lawyer) excluding │
           │          │        │  Jews from acting as patent  │
           │          │        │  attorneys.                  │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2869-PS_ │    6.5.33│I.257   │_Gesetz uber die Zulassung von│Hitler
           │          │        │  Steuerberatern_ (Law        │Schwerin
           │          │        │  relating to the admission of│V. Krosigk
           │          │        │  Tax Advisors) eliminating   │
           │          │        │  “non-Aryans” from the       │
           │          │        │  profession of tax           │
           │          │        │  consultants.                │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2084-PS_ │   22.4.33│I.215   │_Gesetz uber die uberfullung  │Hitler
           │          │        │  deutscher Schullen_ (Law    │Frick
           │          │        │  against the overcrowding of │
           │          │        │  German schools and higher   │
           │          │        │  institutions) limiting      │
           │          │        │  drastically the number of   │
           │          │        │  Jewish students.            │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2870-PS_ │   26.7.33│I.538   │_Verordnung zur Durchfuehrung │Pfundtner
           │          │        │  des Gesetzes uber den       │(Asst. to
           │          │        │  Widerruf von                │Frick)
           │          │        │  Einbuergerungen_ (Executing │
           │          │        │  decree for the law about the│
           │          │        │  Repeal of Naturalizations   │
           │          │        │  and the adjudication of     │
           │          │        │  German citizenship) defining│
           │          │        │  Jews from Eastern Europe as │
           │          │        │  “undesirable” and subject to│
           │          │        │  denationalization.          │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2083-PS_ │   4.10.33│I.713   │_Schriftleitergesetz_         │Hitler
           │          │        │  (Editorial Law) barring     │Goebbels
           │          │        │  “non-Aryans” and persons    │
           │          │        │  married to“"non-Aryans” from│
           │          │        │  the newspaper profession.   │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2984-PS_ │   21.5.35│I.608   │_Wehrgesetz_ (Law concerning  │V.
           │          │        │  Armed Forces) barring       │Blomberg
           │          │        │  “non-Aryans” from military  │
           │          │        │  service.                    │

On 10 September 1935, Minister of Education Rust issued a circular
ordering the complete elimination of Jewish pupils from “Aryan” schools
(_2894-PS_). This legislative activity, in addition to being the first
step towards the elimination of the Jews, served an “educational”
purpose and was a further test of the extent of control exerted by the
Nazi Party and regime over the German masses.

Dr. Achim Gercke, racial expert of the Ministry of the Interior, stated:

    “The laws are mainly educational and give direction. The aspect
    of the laws should not be underestimated. The entire nation is
    enlightened on the Jewish problem; it learns to understand that
    the national community is a blood community; it understands for
    the first time the racial idea, and is diverted from a too
    theoretical treatment of the Jewish problem and faced with the
    actual solution.” (_2904-PS_)

It was clear, however, that the Nazi conspirators had a far more
ambitious program in the Jewish problem and put off its realization for
reasons of expediency. In the words of Dr. Gercke:

    “Nevertheless the laws published thus far cannot bring a final
    solution of the Jewish problem, because the time has not yet
    come for it, although the decrees give the general direction and
    leave open the possibility of further developments.

    “It would be in every respect premature now to work out and
    publicly discuss plans to achieve more than can be achieved for
    the time being. However, one must point out a few basic
    principles so that the ideas which one desires and must have
    ripened will contain no mistakes. * * *

    “All suggestions aiming at a permanent situation, at a
    stabilization of, the status of the Jews in Germany do not solve
    the Jewish problem, because they do not detach the Jews from
    Germany. * * *

    “_Plans and programs must contain an aim pointing to the future
    and not merely consisting of the regulation of a momentarily
    uncomfortable situation._” (_2904-PS_)

(3) _Deprivation of Jews of their rights as citizens._ After a
propaganda barrage, in which the speeches and writings of Streicher were
most prominent, the Nazi conspirators initiated the second period of
anti-Jewish legislation (15 September 1935 to September 1938). In this
period the Jews were deprived of their full rights as citizens (First
Nurnberg Law) and forbidden to marry “Aryans” (Second Nurnberg Law).
Further steps were taken to eliminate Jews from certain professions, and
the groundwork was laid for the subsequent expropriation of Jewish
property. These laws were hailed as the fulfillment of the Nazi Party
program.

The major laws issued in this period are listed below:

  Document │   Date   │Reichsge│    Title and gist of law     │Signed by
    No.    │          │setzblat│                              │
           │          │ t page │                              │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1416-PS_ │   15.9.35│I 1145  │_Reichsbuergergesetz_ (Reich  │Hitler
           │          │        │  Citizenship Law), first     │Frick
           │          │        │  Nurnberg Law, reserving     │
           │          │        │  citizenship for subjects of │
           │          │        │  German blood.               │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2000-PS_ │   15.9.35│I 1146  │_Gesetz zum Schutze des       │Hitler
           │          │        │  deutschen Blutes_, (Law for │Frick
           │          │        │  _protection of German_ blood│Guertner
           │          │        │  and German honor),          │Hess
           │          │        │  forbidding marriages and    │
           │          │        │  extra-marital relations     │
           │          │        │  between Jews and “Aryans”.  │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1417-PS_ │  14.11.35│I 1333  │_Erste Verordnung zum         │Hitler
           │          │        │  Reichsbuergergesetz_ (First │Frick Hess
           │          │        │  regulation to Reich         │
           │          │        │  citizenship law), defining  │
           │          │        │  the terms “Jew” and         │
           │          │        │  “part-Jew”. Jewish officials│
           │          │        │  to be dismissed.            │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2871-PS_ │    7.3.36│I 133   │_Gesetz ueber das             │Hitler
           │          │        │  Reichstagwahlrecht_ (Law    │Frick
           │          │        │  governing elections to the  │
           │          │        │  Reichstag) barring Jews from│
           │          │        │  Reichstag vote.             │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1406-PS_ │   26.4.38│I 414   │_Verordnung ueber die         │Goering
           │          │        │  Ammeldung des Vermogens von │Frick
           │          │        │  Juden_ (Decree for reporting│
           │          │        │  Jewish-owned property),     │
           │          │        │  basis for subsequent        │
           │          │        │  expropriation.              │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2872-PS_ │   25.7.38│I 969   │_Vierte Verordnung zum        │Frick
           │          │        │  Reichsbuergergesetz._ Fourth│
           │          │        │  decree on the Citizenship   │
           │          │        │  Law, revoking licenses of   │
           │          │        │  Jewish physicians.          │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2873-PS_ │   17.8.38│I 1044  │_Zweite Verordnung zur        │Frick
           │          │        │  Durchfuhrung des Gesetzes   │
           │          │        │  ueber die Aenderung von     │
           │          │        │  Familiennamen und Vornamen_ │
           │          │        │  (Second decree on law       │
           │          │        │  concerning change of first  │
           │          │        │  and last names), forcing    │
           │          │        │  Jews to adopt the names     │
           │          │        │  “Israel” and “Sara”.        │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2874-PS_ │   27.9.38│I 1403  │_Fuenfte Verordnung zum       │
           │          │        │  Reichsbuergergesetz._ (Fifth│
           │          │        │  decree to law relating to   │
           │          │        │  the Reich citizenship),     │
           │          │        │  revoking admission of Jewish│
           │          │        │  lawyers.                    │

(4) _Program of 9 November 1938 and elimination of Jews from economic
life._

In the autumn of 1938, within the framework of economic preparation for
aggressive war and as an act of defiance to world opinion, the Nazi
conspirators began to put into effect a program of complete elimination
of the Jews. The measures taken were partly presented as retaliation
against “world Jewry” in connection with the killing of a German embassy
official in Paris. Unlike the boycott action in April, 1933, when care
was taken to avoid violence, an allegedly “spontaneous” pogrom was
staged and carried out all over Germany on orders of Heydrich.

The organized character of the pogrom is also obvious from the admission
of Heydrich and others at a meeting presided over by Goering at the Air
Ministry in Berlin. (_1816-PS_)

The legislative measures which followed were discussed and approved in
their final form at a meeting on 12 November 1938 under the chairmanship
of Goering, with the participation of Frick, Funk and others. The
meeting was called following Hitler’s orders “requesting that the Jewish
questions be now, once and for all, coordinated and solved one way or
another.” The participants agreed on measures to be taken “for the
elimination of the Jew from German economy.” Other possibilities, such
as the establishment of ghettos, stigmatization through special
insignia, and “the main problem, namely to kick the Jew out of Germany”,
were also discussed. All these measures were later enacted as soon as
conditions permitted. (_1816-PS_)

The laws issued in this period were signed mostly by Goering, in his
capacity as Deputy for the Four Year Plan, and were thus connected with
the consolidation of control over German economy in preparation for
aggressive war.

The major laws issued in this period are listed below:

  Document │   Date   │Reichsge│    Title and gist of law     │Signed by
    No.    │          │setzblat│                              │
           │          │ t page │                              │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1412-PS_ │  12.11.38│I 1579  │_Verordnung ueber eine        │Goering
           │          │        │  Suhneleistung der Juden_    │
           │          │        │  (Order concerning expiation │
           │          │        │  contribution of Jews of     │
           │          │        │  German nationality),        │
           │          │        │  obligating all German Jews  │
           │          │        │  to pay a collective fine of │
           │          │        │  1.000.000.000 Reichsmark.   │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2875-PS_ │  12.11.38│I 1580  │_Verordnung zur Ausschaltung  │Goering
           │          │        │  der Juden aus dem deutschen │
           │          │        │  Wirtschaftsleben_ (Decree on│
           │          │        │  elimination of Jews from    │
           │          │        │  German economic life),      │
           │          │        │  barring Jews from trade and │
           │          │        │  crafts.                     │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1415-PS_ │  28.11.38│I 1676  │_Polizeiverordnung ueber das  │Heydrich
           │          │        │  Auftreten der Juden in der  │(assistant
           │          │        │  Queffentlichkeit_ (Police   │to Frick)
           │          │        │  regulation of the appearance│
           │          │        │  of Jews in public), limiting│
           │          │        │  movement of Jews to certain │
           │          │        │  localities and hours.       │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1409-PS_ │   3.12.38│I 1709  │_Verordnung ueber den Einsatz │Funk Frick
           │          │        │  des Juedischen Vermoegens_  │
           │          │        │  (Order concerning the       │
           │          │        │  Utilization of Jewish       │
           │          │        │  property), setting time     │
           │          │        │  limit for the sale or       │
           │          │        │  liquidation of Jewish       │
           │          │        │  enterprises; forcing Jews to│
           │          │        │  deposit shares and          │
           │          │        │  securities held by them;    │
           │          │        │  forbidding sale or          │
           │          │        │  acquisition of gold and     │
           │          │        │  precious stones by Jews.    │
           │          │        │                              │
 _1419-PS_ │   30.4.39│I 864   │_Gesetz ueber                 │Hitler
           │          │        │  Mietverhaeltnisse mit Juden_│Guertner
           │          │        │  (Law concerning Jewish      │Krohn
           │          │        │  tenants) granting to        │Frick Hess
           │          │        │  landlords the right to give │
           │          │        │  notice to Jewish tenants    │
           │          │        │  before legal expiration of  │
           │          │        │  lease.                      │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2876-PS_ │    4.7.39│I 1097  │_Zehnte Verordnung zum        │Frick Rust
           │          │        │  Reichsbuergergesetz_ (Tenth │Kerrl Hess
           │          │        │  decree relating to the Reich│
           │          │        │  Citizenship Law), forcible  │
           │          │        │  congregation of Jews in the │
           │          │        │  “Reichsvereinigung der Juden│
           │          │        │  in Deutschland”.            │
           │          │        │                              │
 _2877-PS_ │    1.9.41│I 547   │_Polizeiverordnung ueber die  │Heydrich
           │          │        │  Konnzeichnung der Juden_    │
           │          │        │  (Police order concerning    │
           │          │        │  identification of Jews)     │
           │          │        │  forcing all Jews over 6     │
           │          │        │  years of age to wear the    │
           │          │        │  Star of David.              │

(5) _Extermination of German Jews._ Early in 1939 Hitler and the other
Nazi conspirators decided to arrive at a “final solution of the Jewish
problem.” In connection with preparations for aggressive war, further
consolidation of controls and removal of elements not belonging to the
_Volksgemeinschaft_ (racial community) were deemed necessary. The
conspirators also anticipated the conquest of territories in Eastern
Europe inhabitated by large numbers of Jews and the impossibility of
forcing large-scale emigration in wartime. Hence, other and more drastic
measures became necessary. The emphasis in this period shifted from
legislative acts to police measures.

On 24 January 1939 Heydrich was charged with the mission of “arriving at
a solution of the Jewish problem.” (_710-PS_)

On 15 January 1939 Rosenberg stated in a speech at Detmold:

    “For Germany the Jewish problem will be solved only when the
    last Jew has left Germany.”

On 7 February 1939, Rosenberg appealed to foreign nations to forget
“ideological differences” and unite against the “real enemy,” the Jew.
He advocated the creation of a “reservation” where the Jews of all
countries should be concentrated (_2843-PS_). In his Reichstag speech on
30 January 1939, Hitler made the following prophecy:

    “The result [of war] will be * * * the annihilation of the
    Jewish race in Europe.” (_2663-PS_)

Thus the direction was given for a policy which was carried out as soon
as the conquest of foreign territories created the material conditions.
(For the carrying out and results of the program of the Nazi
conspirators against Jewry, see Chapter XII.)

In the final period of the anti-Jewish crusade very few legislative
measures were passed. The Jews were delivered to the SS and various
extermination staffs. The last law dealing with the Jews in Germany,
signed by Frick, Bormann, Schwerin V. Krosigk, and Thierach, put them
entirely outside the law and ordered the confiscation by the State of
the property of dead Jews (_1422-PS_). This law was a weak reflection of
a factual situation already in existence. Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart,
assistant to Frick, stated at that time:

    “The aim of the racial legislation may be regarded as already
    achieved and consequently the racial legislation as essentially
    closed. It led to the temporary solution of the Jewish problem
    and at the same time prepared the final solution. Many
    regulations will lose their practical importance as Germany
    approaches the achievement of the final goal in the Jewish
    problem.” (_Stuckart and Schiedermair: Rassen und Erbpflege in
    der Gesetzgebung des Reiches_ (The care for Race and Heredity in
    the Legislation of the Reich), Leipzig, 1943, p. 14.)

                 *        *        *        *        *

    LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ADOPTION AND
           PUBLICATION OF THE PROGRAM FOR PERSECUTION OF JEWS

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (d).                                  │  I   │      20
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
  *710-PS       │Letter from Goering to Heydrich, 31 July│      │
                │1941, concerning solution of Jewish     │      │
                │question. (USA 509)                     │ III  │     525
                │                                        │      │
  1397-PS       │Law for the reestablishment of the      │      │
                │Professional Civil Service, 7 April     │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │175.                                    │ III  │     981
                │                                        │      │
  1401-PS       │Law regarding admission to the Bar, 7   │      │
                │April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│      │
                │I, p. 188.                              │ III  │     989
                │                                        │      │
  1406-PS       │Decree for reporting of Jewish-owned    │      │
                │property, 26 April 1938. 1938           │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 414.      │ III  │    1001
                │                                        │      │
  1409-PS       │Order concerning utilization of Jewish  │      │
                │property, 3 December 1938. 1938         │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1709.     │  IV  │       1
                │                                        │      │
  1412-PS       │Decree relating to payment of fine by   │      │
                │Jews of German nationality, 12 November │      │
                │1938. 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │1579.                                   │  IV  │       6
                │                                        │      │
  1415-PS       │Police regulation concerning appearance │      │
                │of Jews in public, 28 November 1938.    │      │
                │1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1676.│  IV  │       6
                │                                        │      │
  1416-PS       │Reich Citizen Law of 15 September 1935. │      │
                │1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1146.│  IV  │       7
                │                                        │      │
 *1417-PS       │First regulation to the Reichs          │      │
                │Citizenship Law, 14 November 1935. 1935 │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1333. (GB │      │
                │258)                                    │  IV  │       8
                │                                        │      │
  1419-PS       │Law concerning Jewish tenants, 30 April │      │
                │1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │864.                                    │  IV  │      10
                │                                        │      │
  1422-PS       │Thirteenth regulation under Reich       │      │
                │Citizenship Law, 1 July 1943. 1943      │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 372.      │  IV  │      14
                │                                        │      │
 *1708-PS       │The Program of the NSDAP. National      │      │
                │Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153. (USA│      │
                │255; USA 324)                           │  IV  │     208
                │                                        │      │
 *1816-PS       │Stenographic report of the meeting on   │      │
                │The Jewish Question, under the          │      │
                │Chairmanship of Fieldmarshal Goering, 12│      │
                │November 1938. (USA 261)                │  IV  │     425
                │                                        │      │
  2000-PS       │Law for protection of German blood and  │      │
                │German honor, 15 September 1935. 1935   │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, No. 100, p.  │      │
                │1146.                                   │  IV  │     636
                │                                        │      │
  2022-PS       │Law against overcrowding of German      │      │
                │schools and Higher Institutions, 25     │      │
                │April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part│      │
                │I, p. 225.                              │  IV  │     651
                │                                        │      │
  2083-PS       │Editorial control law, 4 October 1933.  │      │
                │1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 713. │  IV  │     709
                │                                        │      │
  2084-PS       │Law on formation of the Student         │      │
                │Organization at Scientific Univesities, │      │
                │22 April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,  │      │
                │Part I, p. 215.                         │  IV  │     718
                │                                        │      │
 *2409-PS       │Extracts from The Imperial House to the │      │
                │Reich Chancellery by Dr. Joseph         │      │
                │Goebbels. (USA 262)                     │  V   │      83
                │                                        │      │
  2410-PS       │Article by Julius Streicher on the      │      │
                │“coming popular action” under banner    │      │
                │headline “Beat the World Enemy”, from   │      │
                │Voelkischer Beobachter, South German    │      │
                │Edition, 31 March 1933.                 │  V   │      85
                │                                        │      │
  2427-PS       │The Racial Awakening of German Nation by│      │
                │Dr. Rudolf Frercks, in National         │      │
                │Political Enlightenment Pamphlets.      │  V   │      92
                │                                        │      │
  2431-PS       │The Revolution of the Germans; 14 years │      │
                │of National Socialism, by Dr. Joseph    │      │
                │Goebbels.                               │  V   │      92
                │                                        │      │
  2432-PS       │Extracts from Rosenberg’s, Writings From│      │
                │The Years, 1921-1923.                   │  V   │      93
                │                                        │      │
 *2663-PS       │Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag, 30    │      │
                │January 1939, quoted from Voelkischer   │      │
                │Beobachter, Munich edition, 1 February  │      │
                │1939. (USA 268)                         │  V   │     367
                │                                        │      │
  2840-PS       │Dr. Wilhelm Frick and his Ministry,     │      │
                │1937, p. 180-181.                       │  V   │     503
                │                                        │      │
  2841-PS       │Extract from the Care for Race and      │      │
                │Heredity in the Legislation of the      │      │
                │Reich, Leipzig, 1943, p. 14.            │  V   │     504
                │                                        │      │
  2842-PS       │Extract from Writings of the years,     │      │
                │1917-21, by Alfred Rosenberg, published │      │
                │in Munich 1943, pp. 320-321.            │  V   │     504
                │                                        │      │
  2843-PS       │Race Politics from Documents of German  │      │
                │Politics, Vol. VII, pp. 728-729.        │  V   │     505
                │                                        │      │
  2844-PS       │The Program of the Nazi Party, by       │      │
                │Gottfried Feder, August 1927, Munich, p.│      │
                │17.                                     │  V   │     506
                │                                        │      │
  2845-PS       │One Year of Racial Political Education  │      │
                │by Dr. Gross in National Socialist      │      │
                │Monthly No. 54, September 1934, pp.     │      │
                │833-834.                                │  V   │     506
                │                                        │      │
  2868-PS       │Law relating to admission of profession │      │
                │of Patent-Agent and Lawyer, 22 April    │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part II,  │      │
                │No. 41, pp. 217-8.                      │  V   │     529
                │                                        │      │
  2869-PS       │Law relating to admission of Tax        │      │
                │Advisors, 6 May 1933. 1933              │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, No. 49, p.   │      │
                │257.                                    │  V   │     530
                │                                        │      │
  2870-PS       │Executory decree for law about repeal of│      │
                │Naturalization and Adjudication of      │      │
                │German Citizenship, 26 July 1933. 1933  │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 538.      │  V   │     530
                │                                        │      │
  2871-PS       │Law governing elections to Reichstag, 7 │      │
                │March 1936. 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, No. │      │
                │19, p. 133.                             │  V   │     532
                │                                        │      │
  2872-PS       │Fourth decree relative to Reich Citizen │      │
                │Law of 25 July 1938. 1938               │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 969.      │  V   │     533
                │                                        │      │
  2873-PS       │Second decree allotting to              │      │
                │Implementation of Law on change of first│      │
                │and family names, 17 August 1938. 1938  │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1044.     │  V   │     534
                │                                        │      │
  2874-PS       │Fifth decree to law relating to Reich   │      │
                │Citizenship, 27 September 1938. 1938    │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, No. 165, p.  │      │
                │1403.                                   │  V   │     535
                │                                        │      │
  2875-PS       │Decree on exclusion of Jews from German │      │
                │economic life, 12 November 1938.        │  V   │     536
                │                                        │      │
  2876-PS       │Tenth decree relating to Reich          │      │
                │Citizenship Law, 4 July 1939. 1939      │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 1097.     │  V   │     537
                │                                        │      │
  2877-PS       │Police decree concerning “marking” of   │      │
                │Jews, 1 September 1941. 1941            │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, No. 100, p.  │      │
                │547.                                    │  V   │     539
                │                                        │      │
  2881-PS       │Hitler’s speech of 12 April 1922, quoted│      │
                │in Adolf Hitler’s Speeches, published by│      │
                │Dr. Ernst Boepple, Munich, 1934, pp.    │      │
                │20-21, 72.                              │  V   │     548
                │                                        │      │
  2893-PS       │Article: “Dr. Frick and the Unity of the│      │
                │Reich” by Walter Koerber, published in  │      │
                │Our Reich Cabinet, Berlin, 1936, p. 87. │  V   │     562
                │                                        │      │
  2894-PS       │General Decree of September 10, 1935 on │      │
                │establishment of separate Jewish        │      │
                │schools, published in Documents of      │      │
                │German Politics, 1937, p. 152.          │  V   │     562
                │                                        │      │
  2904-PS       │The Racial Problem and the New Reich,   │      │
                │published in The National Socialist     │      │
                │Monthly, No. 38, May 1933, pp.196-7.    │  V   │     570
                │                                        │      │
  2984-PS       │Law concerning armed forces, 21 May     │      │
                │1935. 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I.   │  V   │     686
                │                                        │      │
 *3054-PS       │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion     │      │
                │picture composed of captured German     │      │
                │film. (USA 167)                         │  V   │     801


            8. RESHAPING OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF YOUTH

A. _The Nazi conspirators reshaped the educational system._

(1) _The Nazi conspirators publicly announced the purposes of their
educational and training program._ Hitler stated at Elbing, Germany:

    “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,
    and you will not get me on your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child
    belongs to me already. A people lives forever. What are you? You
    will pass on. Your descendants however now stand in the new
    camp. _In a short time they will know nothing else but this new
    community.’_” (_2455-PS_)

Hitler said on 1 May 1937:

    “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this
    reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our
    youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very
    early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and
    therefore unspoiled. * * * This Reich stands, and it is building
    itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich
    will give its youth to no one, _but will itself take youth and
    give to youth its own education and its own upbringing_.”
    (_2454-PS_)

The first sentence in the official instructors manual for high schools
reads:

    “The German school is a part of the National Socialist
    Educational order. It is its obligation to form the national
    socialistic personality in cooperation with the other
    educational powers of the nation, but by its distinctive
    educational means.” (_2453-PS_)

Hitler stated in _Mein Kampf_:

    “On this basis the whole education by the National State must
    aim primarily not at the stuffing with mere knowledge, but at
    the building up of bodies which are physically healthy to the
    core. The development of intellectual faculties comes only after
    this.” (_2392-PS_)

(2) _They transferred responsibility for education from the states to
the Reich._ The Reich Ministry of Education was established, and control
of all schools, public and private, including universities and adult
educational activities, was transferred to this Reichsministry
(_2078-PS_; _2088-PS_). The control of education by the local
authorities was replaced by the absolute authority of the Reich in all
educational matters. (_2393-PS_)

(3) _They changed the curricula and textbooks._

_Kindergarten_: Children from two to six years were trained in more than
15,000 Kindergartens operated by the Party and State. The teachers in
charge were trained in special schools that emphasized the ideological
views of the Nazi Party. The children were given a systematic training
in Nazi ideology. (_2443-PS_; _2441-PS_)

_Elementary schools_: Primary emphasis was placed on physical training.
History, German race culture and mathematics were the other subjects
emphasized. These subjects were taught in such a way as to emphasize the
cultural superiority of the German people, the importance of race, the
Fuehrer principle, glorification of German war heroes, the subversive
elements that caused the defeat of Germany in World War I, the shame of
the Versailles Treaty, and the rebirth of Germany under the Nazis.
(_2392-PS_; _2397-PS_; _2441-PS_; _2394-PS_)

In addition to education in the schools all children from six to ten
years were registered in the _Kindergruppen_ (Children’s Groups)
conducted by the National Socialist _Frauenschaft_ (National Socialist
Women’s Organization). All children were required to obtain an
efficiency record card and uniform and were instructed in Nazi ideology
by the members of the Women’s Organization. (_2441-PS_; _2452-PS_)

_High Schools_ (Hoeheren Schule): The curricula and organization of the
_Hoeheren_ School was modified by a series of decrees of the Minister of
Education in order to make these schools effective instruments for the
teaching of the Nazi doctrines. A new curricula emphasizing physical
training, German war history, and race culture was introduced.
(_2453-PS_)

_Universities_: The schools of politics and physical education became
the largest colleges at the universities. Beginning in 1933 the Nazis
introduced courses in heredity and race culture, ancient and modern
German history, biology and geopolitics. (_2443-PS_; _2441-PS_)

Textbooks in the schools were changed to accord with the expressed
objectives of the Nazi conspirators. (_2446-PS_; _2442-PS_; _2444-PS_;
_2445-PS_)

(4) _The Nazi conspirators acquired domination and control over all
teachers._ The law for the reestablishing of the professional civil
service made it possible for the Nazi conspirators thoroughly to
reexamine all German teachers and to remove all “harmful and
untrustworthy” elements (_1397-PS_; _2392-PS_). Many teachers and
professors (mostly Jewish) were dismissed and were replaced with “State
spirited” teachers (_2392-PS_). All teachers were required to take an
oath of loyalty and obedience to Hitler. (_2061-PS_). All teachers were
required to belong to the National Socialist _Lehrerbund_ (National
Socialist Teachers League), which organization was charged with the
training of all teachers in the theories and doctrines of the NSDAP.
(_2452-PS_)

In 1934 the National Socialist Teachers League was declared to be the
official organ of German education. (_2393-PS_)

The Civil Service Act of 1937 required the teachers to be “the executors
of the will of the party-supported State.” It required them to be ready
at “any time to defend without reservation the National Socialist
State.” The law required the teachers to participate strenuously in
elections, have thorough knowledge of Party principles and literature,
render the Hitler Salute, send their children to the Hitler Youth, and
educate them in the Nazi spirit (_2340-PS_). Before taking their second
examination (required for permanent appointment), teachers in Prussia
were required to show service in the SA and in the _Arbeitsdienst_
(Labor Service) (_2392-PS_). Candidates for teaching and other public
positions were required to have “proved themselves” in the Hitler Jugend
(_2451-PS_; _2900-PS_). Teachers’ academies were judged by the Minister
of Education on their ability to turn out men and women with new ideas
“based on blood and soil”. (_2394-PS_)

The leadership principle replaced the democratic school principle. A
decree of the Reich Minister of Education made the head of any school
fully responsible for the conduct of the institution in line with the
official party ideology. Teachers committees and Student Committees were
abolished (_2393-PS_; _2392-PS_). A “confidential instructor,” the
school youth warden of the Hitler Jugend, appointed by the Hitler Youth
authorities, was assigned to each school (_2396-PS_). The “Parents
Advisory Committees” in the public schools were dissolved, and replaced
by the “School Communities,” (_Schulgemeinde_). The headmaster was the
leader. He appointed, after consultation with the local party leader,
two to five teachers or parents, known as “_Jugendwalter_,” (Youth
Advisors) and one Hitler Youth leader, who was appointed after
consultation with the Hitler Youth officials in the district
(_2399-PS_). The duties of the “School Community” were to bring to the
attention of the public the educational objectives of the Nazi Party,
including race questions, heredity indoctrination, physical training,
and the Youth League activities. The function of advising the school
authorities, formerly performed by the “Parents Advisory Committees,”
was eliminated by the decree. (_2399-PS_)

_Universities_: The Leadership Principle was introduced into the
universities. The _Rektor_ (head of the university) was appointed by the
Reich Minister of Education for an unspecified period of time and was
responsible only to the Reichs Minister. The University was divided into
the _Dozentenschaft_ (Lecturers Corps) and the _Studentenschaft_
(Student Corps). The leaders of these two bodies were also appointed by
the Reichsminister of Education (_2394-PS_). The teaching staff of the
university was subject to the control of the National Socialist
_Dozentenbund_ (NSDoB) (Nazi Association of University Lecturers). The
purposes of the NSDoB were:

(_a_) to take a decisive part in the selection of lecturers and to
produce candidates for the teaching staff who were wholly Nazi in their
outlook.

(_b_) to train all university lecturers in Nazi ideology,

(_c_) to see that the entire university life was run in accordance with
the philosophy of the Party. (_2452-PS_; _318-PS_)

All German students at the universities were required to belong to the
_Studentenschaft_ (Student Corps) (_2084-PS_). The Student Corps was
responsible for making the students conscious of their duties to the
Nazis, and was obliged to promote enrollment in the SA and labor
service. Physical training of students was the responsibility of the SA.
Political education was the responsibility of the
_National-Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund_ (NSDStB), (National
Socialist German Student Bund) (_2458-PS_). The National Socialist
Student Bund (NSDStB) was the Nazi “elite” of the student body and was
responsible for the leadership of the university students, and all
leaders of the Student Corps were appointed from its membership. The
Nazi Student Bund was solely responsible for the entire ideological and
political education of the students. (_2395-PS_; _2399-PS_; _2441-PS_;
_2392-PS_; _2393-PS_)

B. _The Nazi conspirators supplemented the school system by training the
youth through the Hitler Jugend._

(1) _The Nazi conspirators from their early days expressed their belief
in the fundamental importance of controlling the education and training
of youth._ Hitler stated in _Mein Kampf_:

    “It is precisely our German people, that today broken down, lies
    defenseless against the kicks of the rest of the world who need
    that suggestive force that lies in self-confidence. But this
    _self-confidence has to be instilled_ into the young
    fellow-citizen from childhood on. His entire education and
    development has to be directed at giving him _the conviction_
    _of being absolutely superior to others_. With this physical
    force and skill he has again to win the belief in the
    invincibility of his entire nationality. For what once led the
    German army to victory was the sum of the confidence which the
    individual and all in common had in their leaders. The
    confidence in _the possibility of regaining its freedom_ is what
    will restore the German people. But this conviction must be the
    final product of the same feeling of millions of individuals.”
    (_404-PS_; see also _2901-PS_)

Again in _Mein Kampf_ Hitler said:

    “The racial State will have to see to it that there will be a
    generation which by a suitable education will be ready for the
    final and ultimate decision on this globe. The nation which
    enters first on this course will be the victorious one.”
    (_404-PS_)

The law of the Hitler Youth provides in part as follows:

    “The future of the German nation depends on its youth, and the
    German youth shall have to be prepared for its future duties. *
    * *

    “The German youth besides being reared within the family and
    school, shall be educated physically, intellectually and morally
    in the spirit of National Socialism to serve the people and
    community, through the Hitler Youth.” (_1392-PS_)

On May 1, 1938 Hitler said in a speech to the youth:

    “Since the victory of the Movement, under whose banner you
    stand, there has been completed within our people the
    unification of heart (innere Einigung) of the Germans. And as
    wages for this work of ours Providence has given us Greater
    Germany (Grossdeutschland). _This unification is no gift of
    chance, it is the result of a systematic education of our people
    by the National Socialist Movement._ . . . . And this education
    begins with the individual at an age when he is not already
    burdened with preconceived ideas. The youth is the stone which
    is to go to the building of our new Reich! You are Greater
    Germany! In you is being formed the community of the German
    people. Before the single leader there stands a Reich, before
    the single Reich stands a people, and before the single people
    stands German youth! When I see you my faith in the future of
    Germany has no bounds, nothing can shake it. For I know that you
    will fulfill all that we hope of you. So I greet you today on
    this 1st of May in our new great Germany: for you are our
    spring. In you will and shall be completed that for which
    generations and centuries have striven, Germany!” (_2454-PS_)

(2) _The Nazi conspirators destroyed or took over all other youth
organizations._ The first Nazi youth League (_Nationalsocialistischen
Jugendbund_) was organized in 1922. In 1925 the Hitler Youth was
officially recognized by the Nazi Party and became a Junior Branch of
the SA. In 1931 Baldur von Schirach was appointed Reichs Youth Leader of
the NSDAP with the rank of SA _Gruppenfuehrer_. (_1458-PS_)

When the Nazi conspirators came to power the Hitler Jugend was a minor
organization among many youth associations in Germany. At the end of
1932 it had only 107,956 members—less than 5 percent of the total youth
population of Germany (_2435-PS_). Schirach was appointed
“_Jugendfuehrer des Deutschen Reichs_” (Youth Leader of the German
Reich), in June 1933. In this position he was directly responsible to
Hitler for the education and training of the German youth outside of the
home and school in accordance with the ideology of the Nazi Party.
(_1458-PS_)

In June of 1933 on orders of Schirach, an armed band of Hitler youths
occupied by force the headquarters of the Reich Committee of The German
Youth Associations and took over all files and personnel records of the
youth leagues represented by the Committee. By the same method the
offices and property (including all youth hostels in Germany) of the
Reich Association for German Youth Hostels was seized, and a Nazi
representative of Schirach put in charge (_1458-PS_). By decree dated 22
June 1933 Schirach dissolved the Grossdeutsches Bund and all of its
affiliated organizations and took over their property; he dissolved The
Reich Committee of The German Youth Associations, and required all other
youth organizations to make a complete report of all organizational
information, including names of all officers and members and inventory
of all funds and property (_2229-PS_). The Youth Associations of all
political parties and of all labor organizations were dissolved by
decree of Schirach. By virtue of these decrees all youth organizations
except those sponsored by the Catholic and Protestant Churches were
abolished or incorporated in the Hitler Jugend (_1458-PS_; _2260-PS_).
The Nazi-appointed Reichsbishop Mueller entered into an agreement with
Schirach which transferred all members of the Evangelical Youth to the
Hitler Jugend and provided that the Hitler Jugend alone would provide
the state political and physical education of the Protestant youth. By
the end of 1933 only the Catholic Youth organization remained untouched.
(_1458-PS_)

The Concordat entered into with the Holy See on July 20, 1933 provided
for the continuance of the Catholic Youth Association (_2655-PS_).
Contrary to the provisions of the Concordat, the Nazi conspirators
immediately set out to smash the Catholic Youth organization and to
force all young people into the Hitler Youth. Ten days after the signing
of the Concordat, Schirach issued an order forbidding simultaneous
membership in the Hitler Jugend and the Catholic Youth League
(_2456-PS_). In 1934 Schirach wrote, “The denominational youth league
(Catholic Youth Association) has no right to exist in our time.”
(_1458-PS_). A year later Catholic youth associations were forbidden to
wear uniforms, to assemble publicly, to wear insignia, or to engage in
outdoor sport activity (_1482-PS_). Additional pressure was exerted on
the Catholic Youth by the requirement of membership in the Hitler Youth
as a prerequisite of public employment (_2451-PS_; _2900-PS_). Finally,
in 1937, Schirach announced:

    “_The struggle for the unification of the German Youth is
    finished._ I considered it as my duty to conduct it in a hard
    and uncompromising manner. Many might not have realized why we
    went through so much trouble for the sake of the youth. And yet
    the National Socialist German Workers Party, whose trustee I
    felt I always was and always will be, this party considered _the
    struggle for the youth as the decisive element_ for the future
    of the German nation.” (_2306-PS_)

(3) _The Nazi conspirators made membership in the Hitler Jugend
compulsory._ The Hitler Youth Law of 1936 provided that “All of the
German Youth in the Reich is organized within the Hitler Youth.”
(_1392-PS_). Executive decrees later implemented this law by the
establishment of severe penalties against anyone who deterred a youth
from service in the Hitler Jugend, and confirmed the policy of excluding
Jews from membership.

The Hitler Jugend had been from its inception a formation of the Nazi
Party. By virtue of the 1936 Youth Law it became an agency of the Reich
Government while still retaining its position as a formation of the Nazi
Party. (_1392-PS_).

The membership statistics of the Hitler Jugend to 1940 were:

                End 1932                          107,956
                End 1933                        2,292,041
                End 1934                        3,577,565
                End 1935                        3,943,303
                End 1936                        5,437,601
                End 1937                        5,879,955
                End 1938                        7,031,226
                End 1939                        7,728,259

And BDM (League of German Girls)—440,789. (_2435-PS_)

(4) _Through the Hitler Jugend the Nazi conspirators imbued the youth
with Nazi ideology and prepared them for membership in the Party and its
formations._ Schirach said:

    “I am responsible to the Reich that the entire youth of Germany
    will be educated physically, morally and spiritually in the
    spirit of the National Socialist Idea of the State.” (_2306-PS_)

_Mein Kampf_ was regarded as the “Bible” of the Hitler Jugend
(_1458-PS_). On entering the _Jungvolk_ at the age of 10, children took
the following oath:

    “In the presence of this blood-banner which represents our
    Fuehrer I swear to devote all my energies, and my strength to
    the Savior of our Country, Adolf Hitler. I am willing and ready
    to give up my life for him, so help me God. One People, one
    Reich, one Fuehrer.” (_2441-PS_)

The Hitler Jugend organization operated solely on the Leadership
Principle. The leader was always appointed from above and the leader’s
will was absolute. (_1458-PS_; _2306-PS_; _2436-PS_; _2438-PS_)

The Master Race doctrine and anti-semitism, including physical attacks
on the Jews, was taught systematically in the Hitler Jugend training
program. (_2436-PS_; _L-360-H_; _2441-PS_)

The Hitler Jugend indoctrinated the youth with the idea that war is a
noble activity. (_1458-PS_; _2436-PS_)

The Hitler Jugend, in accordance with the policy of the Nazi Party,
emphasized the importance and demanded the return of the colonies which
had been taken from Germany by the “Versailles Shame Dictate.”
(_1458-PS_; _2436-PS_; _2440-PS_; _2441-PS_)

The Hitler Jugend taught that the guiding principle of German policy was
the utilization of the space to the East (_1458-PS_; _2439-PS_). All
activities carried on in support of the demands for modification of the
Versailles Treaty, the restoration of colonies, and the acquisition of
additional living space were closely coordinated with the (VDA) _Verein
fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland_ (Office of Germans in foreign
countries). (_L-360-H_)

In order to carry out the program of indoctrination of the youth, more
than 765,000 were actively engaged as Hitler Youth leaders by May 1939.
Youth leaders were thoroughly trained, many of them in special “Youth
Leaders” schools (_2435-PS_). More than 200,000 political indoctrination
meetings (_Heimabend_) were held weekly. Each community was required by
law to provide a suitable meeting house for the Hitler Jugend. Training
and propaganda films were produced on an elaborate scale. In the winter
of 1937-38 more than three million youths attended showings of these
films. The Hitler Jugend press and propaganda office published at least
thirteen magazines and large numbers of other publications and yearbooks
appealing to all age groups and to the various interest groups of the
youth. (_2435-PS_)

One of the most important functions of the Hitler Jugend was to prepare
the youth for membership in the Party and its formations. Hitler said at
the Reichsparteitag, 1935:

    “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! Practical
    consequences of this doctrine: The boy will enter the _Jungvolk_
    (boy 10-14) and the _Pimpf_ (members of the _Jungvolk_) will
    come to the Hitler Youth, and the boy of the Hitler Youth will
    join the SA, the SS and the other formations, and the SA man and
    the SS man will one day join the Labor Service, and from there
    he will go to the Armed Forces, and the soldiers of the people
    will return again to the organization of Movement, the Party,
    the SA, the SS, and never again will our people be so depraved
    as they were at one time.” (_2656-PS_; _2401-PS_)

The _Streifendienst_, a special formation of the Hitler Jugend, was
organized by virtue of an agreement between Himmler and Schirach for the
purpose of securing and training recruits for the SS, with special
emphasis on securing recruits for the Deaths Head Troops of the SS
(concentration camp guards). (_2396-PS_)

The farm service section of the Hitler Jugend also became a cadet corps
of the SS by reason of the agreement entered into between Himmler and
Schirach in 1938. This formation was to train for SS membership youths
especially suited to become _Wehrbauer_ (militant peasants), who were to
be settled in places where the Nazis needed especially trained farmers.
(_2567-PS_)

In 1937 the Adolf Hitler Schools were established in order to
indoctrinate boys selected by the Party to be the future leaders of the
Nazi state. The schools were operated by the Hitler Jugend for the
Party. Boys entered at the age of 12 and remained in the school until 18
years of age. (_2653-PS_)

(5) _The Nazi conspirators used the Hitler Jugend for extensive
pre-military training of youth._ In 1933 the Hitler Youth, in
cooperation with the SA and the Wehrmacht, entered into a secret program
of extensive pre-military training of the youth (_1850-PS_). Extensive
pre-military training was carried on in all age groups of the Hitler
Youth in close cooperation with the Wehrmacht. (_2438-PS_; _2441-PS_;
_1992-PS_)

In addition to general military training, specialized training was given
in special formations. These included:

    Hitler Jugend Flying Units

    Hitler Jugend Naval Units

    Hitler Jugend Motorized Units

    Hitler Jugend Signal Units

    Hitler Jugend Medical Units

    Hitler Jugend Musical Units. (_2654-PS_).

The extent of the military training in 1937 was set out by Hitler in a
speech at Berlin.

    “The Naval Hitler Youth comprises 45,000 boys, the Motor Hitler
    Youth 60,000 boys. As part of the campaign for the encouragement
    of aviation 55,000 members of the Jungvolk were trained in
    gliding for group activities; 74,000 boys of the Hitler Youth
    are organized in its flying units; 15,000 boys passed their
    gliding test in the year 1937 alone.

    “Today 1,200,000 boys of the Hitler Youth receive regular
    instructions in small-bore rifle shooting from 7,000
    instructors.” (_2454-PS_; see also _2441-PS_.)

A formal agreement between the Wehrmacht and the Hitler Jugend was
published 11 August 1939. It recites that whereas 30,000 Hitler Jugend
leaders had been trained annually in shooting and field exercises, the
number would be doubled; that 60,000,000 shots had been fired in Hitler
Youth training courses in 1938 and that a considerable increase in the
figure was expected. The agreement recognized the close cooperation that
existed between the Hitler Jugend and the Wehrmacht in the military
training of youth and provided for a far more extensive program.
(_2398-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

    LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RESHAPING OF
                    EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF YOUTH

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (e).                                  │  I   │      21
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
  200-PS        │Confidential telegram from Berger to    │      │
                │Reich Ministry for Occupied Eastern     │      │
                │Territories, 8 July 1944 concerning     │      │
                │forced labor of children.               │ III  │     214
                │                                        │      │
 *318-PS        │Agreement between Rosenberg and Leader  │      │
                │of the National Socialist University    │      │
                │Professors League (NSDoB), 2 December   │      │
                │1941. (USA 728)                         │ III  │     255
                │                                        │      │
 *404-PS        │Excerpts from Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.   │      │
                │456, 475. (USA 256)                     │ III  │     385
                │                                        │      │
 1392-PS        │Law on the Hitler Youth, 1 December     │      │
                │1936. 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │993.                                    │ III  │     972
                │                                        │      │
 1397-PS        │Law for the reestablishment of the      │      │
                │Professional Civil Service, 7 April     │      │
                │1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p.│      │
                │175.                                    │ III  │     981
                │                                        │      │
*1458-PS        │The Hitler Youth by Baldur von Schirach,│      │
                │Leipzig, 1934. (USA 667)                │  IV  │      22
                │                                        │      │
 1462-PS        │First Execution Order to the Law of the │      │
                │Hitler Youth, 25 March 1939. 1939       │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 709.      │  IV  │      44
                │                                        │      │
*1482-PS        │Secret letter, 20 July 1933 to          │      │
                │provincial governments and the Prussian │      │
                │Gestapo from Frick, concerning          │      │
                │Confessional Youth Organizations. (USA  │      │
                │738)                                    │  IV  │      51
                │                                        │      │
*1850-PS        │Conferences, 1933, calling for financing│      │
                │of military training of SA from Ministry│      │
                │of Interior Funds. (USA 742)            │  IV  │     478
                │                                        │      │
*1992-A-PS      │Organization and Obligations of the SS  │      │
                │and the Police from “National Political │      │
                │Education of the Army, January 1937”.   │      │
                │(USA 439).                              │  IV  │     616
                │                                        │      │
 2061-PS        │Oath of Reich Officials and of German   │      │
                │Soldiers, 20 August 1934. 1934          │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 785.      │  IV  │     702
                │                                        │      │
 2078-PS        │Decree concerning establishment of      │      │
                │Ministry for Science, Education and     │      │
                │Popular Culture, 1 May 1934. 1934       │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 365.      │  IV  │     706
                │                                        │      │
 2084-PS        │Law on formation of the Student         │      │
                │Organization at Scientific Universities,│      │
                │22 April 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,  │      │
                │Part I, p. 215.                         │  IV  │     718
                │                                        │      │
 2088-PS        │Decree relating to tasks of Reichs      │      │
                │Ministry for Education, 11 May 1934.    │      │
                │1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 375. │  IV  │     718
                │                                        │      │
 2115-PS        │Second Executive Order to the Law for   │      │
                │the Hitler Youth, 25 March 1939. 1939   │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 710.      │  IV  │     745
                │                                        │      │
*2229-PS        │The Reich Youth Leader at Work,         │      │
                │published in National Socialist Party   │      │
                │Press Service Release, 22 June 1933, pp.│      │
                │2-3. (USA 668)                          │  IV  │     870
                │                                        │      │
 2260-PS        │Settlement of Relationship between NSDAP│      │
                │and Stahlhelm (Steel Helmets) published │      │
                │in National Socialist Party Press       │      │
                │Service release, 21 June 1933.          │  IV  │     933
                │                                        │      │
*2306-PS        │Revolution of Education, by Baldur von  │      │
                │Schirach, 1938, pp. 51-52, 63. (USA 860)│  IV  │     997
                │                                        │      │
 2340-PS        │German public officials law of 27       │      │
                │January 1937. 1937 Reichsgesetzblatt,   │      │
                │Part I, p. 41.                          │  IV  │    1058
                │                                        │      │
 2392-PS        │Extracts from The Third Reich, 1933,    │      │
                │Vol. I, pp. 144-154.                    │  V   │      54
                │                                        │      │
 2393-PS        │Extracts from The Third Reich, 1934,    │      │
                │[Vol. II], pp. 218-224.                 │  V   │      58
                │                                        │      │
 2394-PS        │Extracts from The Third Reich, 1935,    │      │
                │Vol. III, pp. 208-212.                  │  V   │      60
                │                                        │      │
 2395-PS        │Extracts from The Third Reich, 1936,    │      │
                │Vol. IV, pp. 360-362.                   │  V   │      62
                │                                        │      │
*2396-PS        │Handbook of Collected Youth Laws, Vol.  │      │
                │I, Group 1, pp. 19a, 19b, 20. (USA 673) │  V   │      63
                │                                        │      │
 2397-PS        │National Socialist Handbook for Law and │      │
                │Legislation by Dr. Hans Frank, p. 566.  │  V   │      65
                │                                        │      │
*2398-PS        │Cooperation of Hitler Jugend with       │      │
                │Wehrmacht, 11 August 1939, published in │      │
                │The Archive, No. 65, August 1939, pp.   │      │
                │601-602. (USA 677)                      │  V   │      66
                │                                        │      │
 2399-PS        │Articles “School Community to replace   │      │
                │parents’ advisory committee” and “NSDAP │      │
                │takes over education of university      │      │
                │students”, published in The Archive,    │      │
                │1934, pp. 1039, 1147-1148.              │  V   │      67
                │                                        │      │
*2401-PS        │The Hitler Youth as recruits for future │      │
                │leaders, from Organization Book of      │      │
                │NSDAP, 1938, pp. 80-81. (USA 430)       │  V   │      69
                │                                        │      │
 2435-PS        │Extracts from The Coming Germany, The   │      │
                │Education of the Youth in the Reich of  │      │
                │Adolf Hitler, by Kaufmann.              │  V   │     113
                │                                        │      │
*2436-PS        │Extracts from Enjoyment, Discipline,    │      │
                │Belief, Official handbook for cultural  │      │
                │work in camp. (USA 859)                 │  V   │     119
                │                                        │      │
 2438-PS        │Extracts from Boys in Service, handbook │      │
                │for boys 10 to 14 years of age.         │  V   │     132
                │                                        │      │
 2439-PS        │Extracts from Girl in Vacation Camp,    │      │
                │official publication of Reichs Youth    │      │
                │Headquarters.                           │  V   │     136
                │                                        │      │
 2440-PS        │Extracts from Boys, Your World, the     │      │
                │yearbook of the Hitler Youth.           │  V   │     139
                │                                        │      │
*2441-PS        │Affidavit of Gregor Ziemer, 4 October   │      │
                │1945, from his book “Education for      │      │
                │Death”. (USA 679)                       │  V   │     141
                │                                        │      │
 2442-PS        │Guide of racial science and science of  │      │
                │heredity of fostering congenitally sound│      │
                │progeny of family science.              │  V   │     176
                │                                        │      │
 2443-PS        │Extracts from Education in the Greater  │      │
                │German Reich.                           │  V   │     178
                │                                        │      │
 2444-PS        │Extracts from German Reading Book for   │      │
                │Elementary Schools, second volume.      │  V   │     181
                │                                        │      │
 2445-PS        │Extracts from German Reading Book for   │      │
                │Elementary Schools, fourth volume.      │  V   │     183
                │                                        │      │
 2446-PS        │Extracts from History Book for the      │      │
                │German Youth.                           │  V   │     184
                │                                        │      │
 2451-PS        │Decree of Reichsminister of Education   │      │
                │Candidates for Teacher’s Positions to   │      │
                │Prove themselves in Hitler Youth,       │      │
                │published in Voelkischer Beobachter,    │      │
                │Berlin edition, 22 October 1935.        │  V   │     187
                │                                        │      │
 2452-PS        │Extracts from Organization Book of      │      │
                │NSDAP, 1943.                            │  V   │     187
                │                                        │      │
 2453-PS        │Education and Instruction in the        │      │
                │Upper Schools, official publication of  │      │
                │the Reich and Prussian Minister of      │      │
                │Education, 1938.                        │  V   │     189
                │                                        │      │
*2454-PS        │Quotations from speeches of Hitler,     │      │
                │published in Voelkischer Beobachter,    │      │
                │Munich edition. (USA 676)               │  V   │     196
                │                                        │      │
 2455-PS        │Statement by Hitler at Elbing, Germany, │      │
                │quoted in Voelkischer Beobachter, Berlin│      │
                │edition, 6 November 1933.               │  V   │     198
                │                                        │      │
 2456-PS        │Youth and the Church, from Complete     │      │
                │Handbook of Youth Laws.                 │  V   │     198
                │                                        │      │
 2458-PS        │Constitution of the German Student      │      │
                │Corps, 1934 Reichs Ministerialblatt, pp.│      │
                │76-79.                                  │  V   │     199
                │                                        │      │
*2567-PS        │Decree signed by Himmler and von        │      │
                │Schirach, concerning cooperation of HJ  │      │
                │and SS, printed in The Young Germany,   │      │
                │Berlin, February 1939. (USA 674)        │  V   │     301
                │                                        │      │
*2653-PS        │The Way of German Youth, from The Third │      │
                │Reich, 5th Year, 1937, pp. 117-118. (USA│      │
                │669)                                    │  V   │     359
                │                                        │      │
*2654-PS        │Organization and Insignia of the Hitler │      │
                │Youth, edited by Reich Youth            │      │
                │Headquarters of NSDAP. (USA 675)        │  V   │     361
                │                                        │      │
 2655-PS        │Concordat between the Holy See and the  │      │
                │German Reich, Article 31. 1933          │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part II, p. 679,     │      │
                │687-8.                                  │  V   │     364
                │                                        │      │
 2656-PS        │The Bearer of Sovereignty, from speech  │      │
                │of the Fuehrer at the Reichsparteitag,  │      │
                │1935.                                   │  V   │     365
                │                                        │      │
 2900-PS        │Speech by Frick at Anniversary meeting  │      │
                │of Hitler Youth, published in The       │      │
                │Archive, January 1936, p. 1339.         │  V   │     567
                │                                        │      │
 2901-PS        │Extract from The Book of the NSDAP, p.  │      │
                │95.                                     │  V   │     568
                │                                        │      │
*3054-PS        │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion     │      │
                │picture composed of captured German     │      │
                │film. (USA 167)                         │  V   │     801
                │                                        │      │
*3751-PS        │Diary of the German Minister of Justice,│      │
                │1935 concerning prosecution of church   │      │
                │officials and punishment in             │      │
                │concentration camps. (USA 828; USA 858) │  VI  │     636
                │                                        │      │
*L-360-H        │Agreement between the League for        │      │
                │Germandom in Foreign Countries and the  │      │
                │Hitler Youth, 6 May 1933. (USA 671)     │ VII  │    1108
                │                                        │      │
*Chart No. 2    │Totalitarian Control of Propaganda and  │      │
                │Education. (USA 21)                     │ VIII │     771


               9. PROPAGANDA, CENSORSHIP AND SUPERVISION
                         OF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

A. _The party organization._

(1) _The Reichspropagandaleitung_ (Party Propaganda Department) (RPL).
This office was founded in 1932, as the central propaganda control
office headed by Goebbels. Its functions were:

(_a_) To direct, supervise and synchronize propaganda within the Nazi
movement.

    “Propaganda of the NSDAP, its formations and affiliated
    associations is the responsibility of the
    _Reichspropagandaleiter_.

    “He determines all manifestations of the Movement, including its
    formations and affiliated associations, with regard to
    propaganda.

    “He issues the directives for the Party, including its
    formations and affiliated associations, for the realization of
    the cultural wishes of the Fuehrer.” (_2319-PS_)

These functions were organized vertically through a close network of
_Gauleiters_, _Kreisleiters_, and _Ortsgruppenleiters_ which reached
even the smallest communities. In addition, synchronization of
propaganda within the Movement was guaranteed through the _Reichsring
fuer National-Sozialistische Propaganda und Volksaufklaerung_, (National
Socialist Organization for Propaganda and People’s Enlightenment), an
office within the _Reichspropagandaleitung_. The _Reichsring_
constituted the center of control responsible for the complete
coordination of Party and Movement in the field of propaganda.

    “The _Reichsring_ * * * had the task to ensure the uniform
    direction of propaganda of all formations and affiliated
    associations through the Party.” (_2319-PS_)

(_b_) To imbue the Nazi Movement and the people with Nazi ideology.

    “(The _Reichspropagandaleiter_) upon his initiative, is
    concerned with the permeation of German people with the National
    Socialist ideology.

    “He enlightens the people about the achievements of Party and
    State.

    “He controls the entire German wireless system with regard to
    its internal organizational, cultural and economic
    possibilities;

    “Press, radio and film are in the service of propaganda.”
    (_2319-PS_)

(c) To coordinate Party propaganda with that of the Reich Government.

    “The liaison officer has the task of centralizing all contacts
    with the Reich Ministries, public authorities, and corporations
    and to establish all such contacts with same * * *”. (_2319-PS_)

(_d_) To investigate the effectiveness of Nazi propaganda. This function
was assigned to the lower grades of the Party leadership, and to
regional and local officials, who assembled and analyzed information on
public reaction to the current content of propaganda.

(_e_) Other activities of the _Reichspropagandaleitung_ were discharged
by numerous functional departments which included, _inter alia_,
“_Hauptstellen_” (Main Bureaus) or offices for the following:

_1._ _Press_—preparation of all propaganda material issued by
       _Reichspropagandaleitung_ for dissemination to newspapers.
_2._ _Exhibits and fairs_—supervision of propaganda aspects of exhibits
       and fairs in which the Party participated.
_3._ _Mass or “Aktive” propaganda_—organization of propaganda campaigns
       within the movement; training and supplying speakers with
       propaganda materials.
_4._ _Films_—Popularization of Nazi-inspired films; photographing official
       rallies.
_5._ _Radio_—radio propaganda.
_6._ _Culture_—making all forms of art conform to Nazi standards.

Other Bureaus included Architecture, Style and Design, Works of Art,
Formulation of Programs, and Training of Speakers. (_2319-PS_)

The _Reichspropagandaleitung_ was regionally organized into _Gau-_,
_Kreis-_, and _Ortsgruppenpropagandaaemter_ (_Gau_, district, and local
propaganda offices). The _Gaupropagandaleiter_ (leader of the _Gau_
propaganda office) was at the same time the _Gau_ representative of the
Chamber of Culture (_Landeskulturwalter_) and in most cases also
represented the regional office of the Propaganda Ministry, so that on
the lower levels, Party and State propaganda were completely unified.
(_2315-PS_)

(2) _The office of Reichspressechef_ (Reich Press Chief).

The office of Reich Press Chief of the NSDAP was created in 1934 by
decree of the Fuehrer (_2319-PS_). The functions of this office were
exclusive:

    “The Reich Press Office of the NSDAP is the central office for
    the entire political publishing activity of the Party. It
    represents the press interests of the Reich leadership of the
    NSDAP _vis a vis_ both the German and the foreign press. It
    alone has the authority to issue directives to the press of
    Reich policies concerning the treatment of Party affairs. It
    alone has the authority to issue press directives to all offices
    of Reich leadership. It is responsible for the political and
    editorial preparations, execution and utilization of all
    important Party activities in the Reich. It supplies the
    domestic and foreign press with information, news and
    commentaries about the Party. It keeps a record of press
    reaction to the Party work in publications of the domestic and
    foreign press.” (_2319-PS_)

The Reich Press Chief exercised control over all press offices,
including the chief editors of the National Socialist newspapers, as
well as the _Gau_ press wardens of the Party. He also served as liaison
officer between the Party press and the “Independent” press, and between
Party and Government. (_2319-PS_)

The executive functions of the Reich Press Chief were carried out by two
offices:

(_a_) _The Pressepolitisches Amt_ (Press Political Office).

(_b_) _The Pressepersonalamt_ (Press Personnel Office), which was in
charge of training journalists and keeping files on German and foreign
journalists.

The vertical organization of press controls, corresponding to that of
the _Reichspropagandaleitung_, included _Gau-_, _Kreis-_ and
_Ortsgruppen_ departments. Each was headed by an _Amtsleiter_, or press
warden, who was responsible for the entire Party press within his sphere
of jurisdiction. He supervised the editorial policy of the Party press,
issued information bulletins about the activities of the Movement, and
served as liaison officer between the Party and non-Party press. He also
transmitted local information to headquarters for distribution and made
recommendations concerning the appointments of local party editors. The
_Gau-_ and _Kreis-_ press wardens, at the same time, served as regional
and local representatives of the Home Press Division of the Propaganda
Ministry and of the Reich Press Chamber. (_2319-PS_; _2315-PS_)

(3) _The Reichsleiter fuer die Presse_ (Reich Press Leader).

The Reich Press Leader, Max Amann, was charged with supervising all
matters concerning the German publishing business. The
_Organisationsbuch der NSDAP_ (1937) described his function as follows:

    “He is charged with the creation of a press for the German
    people, which is responsible and answerable to him, and which
    reflects the life and experiences of the German people’s
    community. In addition, the Reichsleiter for Press has the
    function of issuing regulations necessary to carry out the
    demands concerning publication policies established in Article
    23 of the Party Program and to supervise their execution.”
    (_2319-PS_)

Article 23 of the Party Platform referred to above, provided, _inter
alia_, that (a) all editors and newspaper personnel must be “members of
the nation”; (b) non-Germans are prohibited from financial participation
in, or influence of, newspapers; (c) the publication of papers “which do
not conduce to the national welfare” is prohibited; (d) tendencies in
art or literature “of a kind likely to disintegrate our life as a
nation” will be prosecuted; and (e) “institutions which militate against
the requirements mentioned above” will be suppressed. (_1708-PS_)

Thus the Reich Press Leader was not only empowered to control all
publishing houses of the Party, but was assigned the task of bringing
the entire German press into line with National Socialist ideology. To
this end he was given wide and specific powers.

His sphere of jurisdiction included specifically:

(_a_) The administration, publishing, and financing of the Party press;

(_b_) The establishment of newspapers by Party members or affiliated
associations;

(_c_) The incorporation of newspapers into the Party press combine;

(_d_) The appointment of publishers and of their deputies;

(_e_) The termination or alteration of contracts with newspapers;

(_f_) The appointment of Commissars to supervise publishing houses.
(_2319-PS_)

In addition to controlling the administration and finance of the
National Socialist publishing houses in the _Gau_, the Press Leader
headed the _Zentralverlag_, which was the central publishing house and
holding company of the entire Party publishing machine and all its
official organs, such as _Der Voelkischer Beobachter_, _Der Angriff_,
_Der SA Mann_, _Das Schwarze Korps_, _Die HJ_, etc. (_3016-PS_)

It was one of the Reich Press Leader’s duties to turn all publishing by
Party officials into a lucrative undertaking, and to set up an absolute
monopoly in the publication of all political literature. To effectuate
that objective, a decree was passed which made it mandatory for all
“manuscripts which have National Socialist problems and subject matter
as themes” to be offered first to _Eher Verlag_ publication. (_2383-PS_)

The _Reichsleiter fuer die Press_, who was also president of the Reich
Press Chamber, exercised economic controls over the entire German press.
He made use of his position to expand the Party publishing machine at
the expense of non-party newspapers. As president of the Reich Press
Chamber, he was authorized to issue directives with the force of law. In
that capacity he issued certain regulations which had the effect of
prohibiting the ownership of newspapers by corporations of any kind,
except the NSDAP or such groups as were approved by the Party.
(_2315-PS_)

These decrees enabled Amann to close down one or more papers in a
particular locality “to safeguard reasonable standards of competition.”
They thus provided, along with racial and other discriminatory
legislation, the “legal” basis for the pressure which was brought to
bear on such publishing firms as Ullstein and other opposition
publications, in order to force them to sell out to the Party. These
sales were in no sense voluntary; the alternative in each case was total
suppression. The authorizing decree provided:

    “The President of the Reich Chamber of the Press will therefore
    endeavor at first in every individual case to effect agreements
    which will relieve him of the necessity of issuing orders for
    the closing of establishments.” (_2315-PS_)

Max Amann has admitted in an affidavit that he discharged his duties as
Reich Press Leader consistently with the statement of his functions
contained in the Party Organization Book and with Article 23 of the
Party Program. He has further stated that racial and other
discriminatory legislation made it expedient for firms “owned or
controlled by Jewish interests, or by political or religious interests
hostile to the NSDAP * * * to sell their newspapers or assets to the
Eher concern”; and that there was “no free market for the sale of such
properties and the Franz Eher Verlag was generally the only bidder.” His
affidavit concludes as follows:

    “It is a true statement to say that the basic purpose of the
    Nazi press program was to eliminate all press in opposition to
    the Party.” (_3016-PS_)

(4) _Parteiamliche Prufungskommission zum Schutz des NS-Christums_
(Office of Party Examining Commission for the Protection of National
Socialist Publications) (PPK).

The PPK was charged with the censorship and supervision of all
literature with cultural or political implications. According to the
Party Manual:

    “The functional scope of the official Party Examining Commission
    is not confined to any one group of publications but includes
    the entire publishing field. Thus the work of the Official Party
    Examining Commission is sub-divided into departments for books,
    magazines and newspapers. Out of these main departments a group
    of important special fields have emerged as more or less
    independent fields. They are specifically the editing of
    speeches, scientific books, textbooks, scientific periodicals
    and the calendar as a special type of magazine.” (_2319-PS_)

The Examining Commission’s function was to protect National Socialist
literature from attempts to destroy its propagandistic effect or to
pervert its political and social content. The Party Manual stated:

    “It is the function of the Examining Commission to protect the
    National Socialist literature from abuse, corruption, and
    attempts at dissolution. Thus it forestalls the infiltration of
    elements within the National Socialist literature which are
    irreconcilable with it.” (_2319-PS_)

In addition, the PPK concerned itself with the actual suppression of
literature incompatible with Party tenets, and with the approval of
those works which it deemed beneficial to the extension of the National
Socialist ideology. The Party Manual specified as follows:

    “Particularly it is the function of the official Party Examining
    Commission to determine whether or not a work can be considered
    National Socialist literature.” (_2319-PS_)

This office worked in close collaboration with the Delegate of the
Fuehrer for the Total Supervision of the Intellectual and Ideological
Training and Education of the People (Rosenberg). (_2319-PS_; _2383-PS_)

(5) _The Beauftragte des Fuehrers fuer die Ueberwachung der gesamten
geistigen und weltansschaulichen Schulung und Erziehung der NSDAP_
(Delegate of the Fuehrer for the Total Supervision of the Intellectual
and Ideological Training and Education of the Party) (BdF).

The delegate of the Fuehrer was _Reichsleiter_ Alfred Rosenberg. The
Office of the BdF was placed in charge of the Party’s intellectual and
ideological training and education. Its declared objective was the
uniform ideological orientation of the Party, Party formations, and
affiliated associations. Its main functions, in furtherance of this
objective, were the preparation of suitable training materials and the
issuance of directives thereon; the preparation, editing, and
establishment of curricula; the training of qualified teaching staffs;
the counseling of Party agencies, formations, and affiliates on content
and methods of indoctrination; and the elimination of such reading and
teaching materials as were deemed inappropriate from a National
Socialist point of view. To perform these tasks, Rosenberg had the
assistance of a large organization with numerous functional divisions
(_2319-PS_). The BdF took a major part in the work of Party
organizations, affiliated associations, and schools and training
institutes which were instrumental in the indoctrination of the German
people and youth. (_2383-PS_)

B. _The Reich government organization._

The state organ of control was the _Reichsministerium fuer
Volksaufklaerung und Propaganda_ (Reich Ministry for Popular
Enlightenment and Propaganda). The Minister was Josef Goebbels. The
Ministry was founded by decree dated 13 March 1933, which defined its
duties as the “enlightenment of, and propaganda among, the people on the
subject of the policy of the Reich government and on the national
reconstruction of the homeland.” (_2029-PS_). By decree dated 30 June
1933 the functions of the Minister were extended to include
“jurisdiction over the whole field of spiritual indoctrination of the
nation, of propagandizing the State, of cultural and economic
propaganda, of enlightenment of the public at home and abroad;
furthermore he is in charge of all institutions serving these purposes.”
(_2030-PS_). In the words of Mueller, an authority on the Propaganda
Ministry, these decrees formed the basis for the creation of a central
agency for propaganda “the like of which heretofore existed nowhere in
the world.” (_2434-PS_). The influence which this agency exerted on the
everyday life and activities of the German citizen was illustrated by
the multitude of civic and cultural affairs, including public
entertainment, which fell under the sweep of its direction and control.
(_2434-PS_)

A few of the more important departments of the Propaganda Ministry,
together with a brief description of their respective functions,
follows:

(1) _Personnel._ This department issued directives for unified personnel
policy, and exercised general supervision over the personnel of public
art instituted within the entire Reich.

(2) _Law._ “The nuclear task of the law department is the publication
and execution of national socialist cultural laws. The professions and
institutions of literature and art had to be transformed from carriers
of a liberal individualistic intellectual movement to the carriers of
the tasks of public propaganda and leadership. To reach this goal
required the enactment of governmental decrees for creating new
organizations or the making of new laws.”

(3) _Propaganda._ This department coordinated propaganda policies and
issued over-all directives to the various functional departments (press,
radio, etc.) which then carried out the directives. A special function
was “enlightenment of the people as to Jewish question” and as to
“racial policies.”

(4) _Foreign._ This department was the Ministry’s listening post for
political and economic developments abroad “to counteract the worldwide
publicity activities of the enemy against our philosophy and our
political objectives by exposing and rectifying the lies of the press”
and to exploit the information in German propaganda. It also cooperated
closely with the _Auslandsorganization der NSDAP_.

(5) _Radio._ Hans Fritzsche headed this department. It supervised the
political content of German broadcasting, issued directives as to the
arrangement of programs and treatment of material, and cooperated with
the Party in the technical organization of German radio.

(6) The _Film Department_ was in charge of directing and guiding the
German film industry, censoring of films, and developing the German
weekly newsreel.

(7) _Literature._ This agency, in close collaboration with BdF and PPK,
controlled all German literary activities, censored new books, provided
for the publication of German books abroad, and arranged for the
translation and censorship of foreign books.

(8) _Abteilung Deutsche Presse_ (German or Home Press Department). This
department was headed by Fritzsche until he was relieved in 1942 to take
charge of the Radio Division. It was responsible for political control
over the entire German press; it controlled the editorial policy of the
press and its personnel (through the Reich Press Chamber), and
supervised the dissemination of news through the official German News
Agency (DNB). The Home Press Division outlined the editorial policy of
all newspapers and the comment of editors and journalists in its daily
directives. (_Tendenz berichte_). These dealt with the daily contents of
the paper, the methods of treatment of news material, the writing of
headlines, the preference for or omission of certain items, and the
modification or cessation of current campaigns. The directives were
issued to the representatives of the press in person or sent through the
facilities of the DNB to the local papers. (_2434-PS_; _2529-PS_)

The Home Press Department of the Propaganda Ministry had an important
participation in administering the provisions of the Editorial Control
Law, which made the profession of editor “a public task, which is
regulated as to its professional duties and rights by the state.” That
law also included requirements for admission to the profession and other
elaborate controls. (_2083-PS_)

(9) _Periodical Literature._ This department supervised German
periodical literature in the same manner as the _Abteilung Deutsche
Presse_ controlled the daily press.

Other divisions exercised supervision over the Theatre (selection and
supervision of the entire dramatic production and influencing the
programs of all German Theatres); the Arts; Music (“the entire cultural
and political leadership of German musical life”); Special Cultural
Tasks (“This department serves mainly to eliminate all Jews from German
Cultural life”); and Foreign Tourists. (_2434-PS_)

A large organization of faithful Party followers was recruited to
discharge the manifold functions of the Propaganda Ministry. The staff
numbered 1000 persons in 1939-1940. In the words of Mueller:

    “It is no accident; therefore, that the great majority of the
    official workers and other personnel of the Ministry consist of
    reliable National Socialists of which almost 100 are bearers of
    the Gold Party Pin.” (_2434-PS_)

C. _The semi-autonomous professional organizations Reichskulturkammer_
(Reich Chamber of Culture).

The Reich Chamber of Culture was set up in September 1933 to control
(under the supervision of the Propaganda Ministry and within the
framework of general policy directives issued by that activity)
personnel engaged in all fields of propaganda (_2082-PS_). Its tasks as
described in the First Executive Decree of the above law, dated 1
November 1933, were:

    “To promote German culture as responsible to the people and the
    Reich, to regulate the social and economic relations of the
    different groups in the cultural professions and to coordinate
    their aims.” (_2415-PS_)

The _Reichskulturkammer_ was a so-called “_Nachgeordnete Dienststelle_”
(Subordinate office) of the Propaganda Ministry. Together with its
subordinate Chambers it was charged with supervising all personnel
active in any field under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda Ministry.
All persons employed in the cultural professions were obligated to
register with one of the subordinate Chambers. The Chambers were also
responsible for investigating the activities and political reliability
of their members. Moreover, power was given to Chambers to prosecute
members offending against Nazi standards or persons pursuing their
occupation without being duly registered. The punitive powers included,
expulsion from membership, which was tantamount to the loss of
livelihood. The Chambers were also given power to issue directives,
which had the validity of law, regulating the cultural activities under
their control (_2529-PS_). The President of the Chamber of Culture was
the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, who nominated the
Vice-Presidents. In 1937, the latter consisted of Walter Funk, Max Amann
(Reich Leader of the Press) and Leopold Gutterer (Secretary of State in
the Propaganda Ministry).

The Chamber of Culture was divided into seven functional chambers:

(1) _Reichspressekammer_ (Reich Press Chamber). Max Amann was president
of this chamber, which was, to a greater extent than the other chambers,
a loose association of technical bodies and organizations, such as the
Reich Association of German Newspaper Publishers. It integrated the
activities of these groups and, through the composition of its governing
body, ensured close coordination with Party and State propaganda
machinery. (_2529-PS_; _3016-PS_)

(2) _Reichskammer der bildenden Kunste_ (Reich Chamber of Fine Arts).
This chamber supervised the activities of all architects, interior
decorators, landscape gardeners, sculptors, painters, draftsmen, art
publishers, etc. By 1937, all other art groups and associations had been
dissolved, and all their members “obligated by profession” to join this
chamber. (_2529-PS_)

(3) _Reichsmusikkammer_ (Reich Music Chamber). This Chamber was
organized to “oversee the practice and activity of musicians in their
cultural, economic, and legal relationships with the world. * * * in
order that music will still remain a prized possession of the German
people.” (_2529-PS_)

(4) _Reichstheaterkammer_ (Reich Theater Chamber). The Theater Chamber
was the professional organization for the entire field of the
professional theater. Its purpose was to supervise and promote the
“cultural, social and economic conditions of the professions which it
includes”. Actual censorship of stage production was the responsibility
of the _Reichsdramaturg_. (_2529-PS_)

(5) _Reichsfilmkammer_ (Reich Film Chamber). The primary function of
this Chamber was to lift the film industry “out of the sphere of liberal
economic thoughts” by giving it a sound economic foundation and thus
enable it to “receive those tasks which it has to fulfill in the
National Socialist State”. (_2529-PS_)

(6) _Reichsschrifttumskammer_ (Reich Chamber of Literature). The Chamber
of Literature had jurisdiction over all persons concerned with the
“basic production” (writing and publishing) of literature. Its task was
to protect writers “from undesirable elements” and to keep out of the
book market everything “unGerman.” It had the further function of
bringing literature to the people and making the writer more “aware of
his duty to the nation.” Primary responsibility for critical evaluation
and censorship of literature however, was left to the Propaganda
Ministry. (_2529-PS_)

(7) _Reichsrundfunkkammer_ (Reich Radio Chamber). The official gazette
of the Reich Culture Chamber stated that the radio was the most
immediate propaganda instrument of the National Socialist leadership;
that the ideal and cultural life of the nation could be shown “totally”
in and through the radio; and that since the radio constituted the most
important technical means of influencing the masses it was necessary to
establish a close tie between the radio and the Party.

Functions of the Radio Chamber included: mobilizing of all technical
possibilities of broadcasting, bringing the people closer to radio,
planning the manufacture of cheap receiving sets, and propaganda in
connection with the drive for new listeners. (_2529-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

     LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PROPAGANDA,
           CENSORSHIP, AND SUPERVISION OF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (e).                                  │  I   │      21
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
*1708-PS        │The Program of the NSDAP. National      │      │
                │Socialistic Yearbook, 1941, p. 153. (USA│      │
                │255; USA 324)                           │  IV  │     208
                │                                        │      │
 2029-PS        │Decree establishing the Reich Ministry  │      │
                │of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, │      │
                │13 March 1933. 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt,  │      │
                │Part I, p. 104.                         │  IV  │     652
                │                                        │      │
 2030-PS        │Decree concerning the Duties of the     │      │
                │Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment │      │
                │and Propaganda, 30 June 1933. 1933      │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 449.      │  IV  │     653
                │                                        │      │
 2082-PS        │Law relating to the Reich Chamber of    │      │
                │Culture of 22 September 1933. 1933      │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 661.      │  IV  │     708
                │                                        │      │
 2083-PS        │Editorial control law, 4 October 1933.  │      │
                │1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 713. │  IV  │     709
                │                                        │      │
 2315-PS        │Order concerning the Supervision of     │      │
                │District Leaders of Work of Reich       │      │
                │Chamber of Culture, published in The Law│      │
                │of the Reich Chamber of Culture, Vol. 2,│      │
                │1 January to 30 June 1935.              │  IV  │    1007
                │                                        │      │
*2319-PS        │Extracts from Organization Book of      │      │
                │NSDAP, 4th edition, 1937. (USA 602)     │  IV  │    1009
                │                                        │      │
*2383-PS        │Ordinance for execution of decree of    │      │
                │Fuehrer concerning position of the Head │      │
                │of Party Chancellery of 16 January 1942,│      │
                │published in Decrees, Regulations,      │      │
                │Announcements. (USA 410)                │  V   │       9
                │                                        │      │
 2415-PS        │First decree for the implementation of  │      │
                │law relating to The Reich Chamber of    │      │
                │Culture, 1 November 1933. 1933          │      │
                │Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I.              │  V   │      89
                │                                        │      │
*2434-PS        │The Reich Ministry for Enlightenment of │      │
                │the People and for Propaganda, Berlin   │      │
                │1940, by Georg Mueller. (USA 722)       │  V   │     102
                │                                        │      │
 2529-PS        │Extracts from Handbook of Reich Chamber │      │
                │of Culture for 1937.                    │  V   │     262
                │                                        │      │
*3016-PS        │Affidavit of Max Amann, 19 November     │      │
                │1945. (USA 757)                         │  V   │     735
                │                                        │      │
*3469-PS        │Affidavit of Hans Fritzsche, 7 January  │      │
                │1946. (USA 721)                         │  VI  │     174
                │                                        │      │
*Chart No. 2    │Totalitarian Control of Propaganda and  │      │
                │Education. (USA 21)                     │ VIII │     771


               10. MILITARIZATION OF NAZI ORGANIZATIONS.

A. _The Nazi conspirators placed many of their organizations on a
progressively militarized footing with a view to the rapid
transformation and use of such organizations as instruments of war._

(1) _The Schutzstaffeln (SS)._ The SS was militarized beginning in March
1933, when special, volunteer, armed units were created consisting of
full-time garrisoned troops. These units, which rapidly grew in
strength, were a part neither of the Wehrmacht, nor of the police, but
were exclusively at the disposal of the Fuehrer. This militarization of
the SS was in accordance with Nazi policy. (For documentation and
further discussion see Chapter XV, Section 5.)

(2) _The Sturmabteilung (SA)._ The SA was founded in 1921 as a
para-military organization to fight political enemies of the Nazis.
After the accession of the Nazis to power, the SA was used to provide
pre-military training at a time when the Reichswehr was legally limited
to a strength of 100,000 men. Thus the SA, from its inception, had a
military purpose, which was carried out and gradually increased in
scope. (For documentation and further discussion see Chapter XV, Section
4.)

(3) _The Hitler Jugend (HJ)._ One of the chief purposes of the Hitler
Jugend was to provide for military training of German youth at a very
early age. As early as 1933, the HJ entered into a secret program of
extensive pre-military training for German youth in conjunction with the
SA and the Wehrmacht. In addition to general military training, members
of the HJ were given specialized training in various types of military
units, such as flying units, naval units, motorized units, signal units,
etc. (For documentation and further discussion, see Section 8, _supra_.)

(4) _The National Socialist Motor Corps (NSKK)._ The original NSKK was
founded under the name of NSAK (National Socialist Automobile Corps) on
1 April 1930 by Hitler, who joined as its first member. By the end of
1931 it had a membership of approximately 10,000, as compared to 300 at
the beginning of that year (_2804-PS_). In 1934 the motorized Hitler
Jugend and the motorized SA were placed under the NSKK. Hitler, on 23
August of that year, decreed that:

    “the NSAK and the motorized SA are from now on welded together
    into a unit called NSKK. The NSKK is directly subordinate to
    me”. (_2804-PS_)

Thus the NSKK was elevated to the position of an independent affiliated
unit of the NSDAP, similar to the SA and the SS. The membership of the
enlarged NSKK grew rapidly.

The military purpose of the NSKK is evident from the following statement
from The _Organizationbuch der NSDAP_ (1940):

    “The young driver who has received his training in the six-week
    courses of the NSKK will be well prepared in body and spirit
    when the time comes for his military service, and will wear with
    pride the dress of the Armed Forces of the Nation.”
    (_2320-B-PS_)

The program of militarization proceeded rapidly:

    “More than one-third of all leaders and men of the NSKK, which
    had in the meantime grown to a membership of 350,000, were
    already active in the fight for power * * * Thus, the NSKK had
    in its ranks, in addition to the proud tradition of the period
    of our fight, also that of the World War. This front spirit and
    experience of a generation matured to manhood in the barrages,
    in the battles of attrition, in the battles of the Freikorps,
    and in the heroic fight of National Socialism for Germany’s
    rebirth, is passed on to our youth as a sacred heritage.”
    (_2804-PS_)

The training given to NSKK members was intended to furnish seasoned
recruits for the Nazi military forces.

    “Military motorized training of our youth is the cardinal task
    of the educational work of the NSKK. Here it collaborates most
    closely with the bearer of the arms of the Reich, the Wehrmacht,
    and it has done so already throughout the years before the
    seizure of power. The demands and needs of the Army, which
    continuously grew in scope after the awakening of our Nation and
    after our regained military freedom also caused the tasks and
    the work of the NSKK in the field of military motorized training
    to grow correspondingly * * * By order of the Fuehrer and
    Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, the NSKK has been given
    charge of the pre-military training of the entire young reserve
    of the motorized troop units of our Army in addition to
    post-military training.” (_2804-PS_)

NSKK-trained men were intended to be assimilated into Reich Panzer
units.

    “Well prepared physically and spiritually, the young German man
    who has now become a motorized soldier, can serve with a
    motorized or partially-motorized unit of the Army. To become a
    tank soldier is his only ambition.” (_2804-PS_)

The NSKK was actually used for military purposes.

    “The men of the NSKK have considerably contributed to the
    liberation of the Sudetenland by the Fuehrer and have thus
    gained undying merit, not only for the Germans in the
    Sudetenland, but for the entire German people as a whole.”
    (_2804-PS_)

Further evidence of actual military use of the NSKK is given in the
following passage from “_Deutschland im Kampf_” written by
_Ministerialdirigent_ A. J. Berndt of the Reich Propaganda Ministry and
Lt. Col. von Wedel of the German Army High Command, in the issue of June
1940:

    “The NSKK is playing a decisive part in the carrying out of
    considerable war-important tasks on the Inner Front, one of
    which is traffic. * * * Among the tasks of the NSKK are
    pre-military training, education, and schooling and motorized
    transport. Thus, for instance, the conducting of the entire
    transport system of the TODT Organization on the West Wall and
    the traffic in the Western War Theater are in the hands of the
    NSKK.” (_2810-PS_)

(5) _The National Socialist Aviation Corps (NSFK)._ The NSFK was another
organization affiliated with the NSDAP used by the Nazi conspirators for
military purposes. It was the great training school for the Luftwaffe.

    “In the endeavor to assure for the German Luftwaffe a
    numerically strong and well prepared reserve, and to strengthen
    in the German people the conviction that Germany must retain its
    head-start in all spheres of aviation, the NSFK was founded by
    the Fuehrer on 17 April 1937 * * *.

    “The NSFK at the time of its creation, was given the following
    tasks by the Reichsmarshal:

    “1. Pre-military aviation training of the new blood for the
    Luftwaffe.

    “2. The keeping in training of the reservists of the aviation
    troops.

    “3. The combining and directing of all German air sports.

    “4. Promotion and extension of the aviation idea among the
    German people.

    “These tasks are so great that the cooperation of tens of
    thousands of active members is necessary to make carrying them
    out possible, so that the Luftwaffe may be able at any time to
    count on their fulfillment according to plan.” (_2811-PS_)

The paramount military purpose of the NSFK is clearly indicated in the
following admission by _Generalleutnant_ Friedrich Christiansen,
_Korpsfuehrer_ of the NSFK:

    “Schooled in character, trained physically as a flier, and as a
    soldier, the member-to-be of the Luftwaffe leaves the NSFK.”
    (_2813-PS_)

(6) _The Reichsarbeitdienst (RAD)_ (The Reich Labor Service). The Reich
Labor Service was also subverted to military purposes by the Nazi
conspirators.

Membership in the RAD was made compulsory for both young men and women
on 26 June 1935.

    “All young Germans of either sex between 18-25 years of age are
    obligated to serve their people in the Reich Labor Service. As
    the schooling of the Nation, it has as its object this education
    of the German Youth to National Socialist Ideology.

    “The Reich Labor Service for men is, thanks to its military
    nature, closely-knit units, and its particular education and
    training an ever-ready, powerful tool of the National Socialist
    Reich.” (_2805-PS_)

The tens of thousands of members of the RAD were militarily trained and
ready for action when Germany launched her campaigns of aggression.
Actual military use of the men of the RAD is clearly shown in the 1 June
1943 edition of “_Fuehren und Erziehen_” (Leadership and Education), the
official magazine of the Reich Labor Service. A photograph depicts a
Labor Service man repairing a bridge at the front, across which four
infantrymen are proceeding, and is titled as follows:

    “The young crews who have gone through the educational
    institutions of the Reich Labor Service today represent the most
    active nucleus of our Army. * * * Our photograph shows labor men
    who in the East are preparing the way for infantry shock troops
    by repairing a bridge. Thus also the men of the Reich Labor
    Service are today one of the examples of eternal German
    soldierdom.” (_2806-PS_)

The military uses of the RAD are further described in the following
letter written by Goering to Reich Labor Service Leader Konstantin
Hierl:

    “After the victorious termination of the campaign in Poland, I
    cannot but convey to you my sincere thanks for and unreserved
    recognition of the help rendered by the Reich Labor Service in
    the carrying out of the operations of the Luftwaffe. In guarding
    Army airfields, in clearing and quickly repairing former enemy
    airports, in road construction and in bringing up supplies,
    everywhere your men have done a real job and have thus
    contributed considerably to the successes of the German
    Luftwaffe.” (_2807-PS_)

(7) _The TODT Organization (OT)._ The TODT Organization, or OT, was
another NSDAP affiliate used to further the militaristic aims of the
Nazi conspirators. The OT, originally an offshoot of the RAD, was
created as a separate entity in June 1938 when Dr. Fritz Todt was
charged with the construction of the Siegfried Line or West Wall. The
military employment of the OT is clearly shown in the following passage
from “_Maenner der OT_”, which was published by the Photographic Office
of the Reich Propaganda Office:

    “No sooner had the greatest and most modern fortifications of
    the world, the West Wall, been completed by the workers of the
    OT, when these very same workers were called upon by the Fuehrer
    to prove their worth also in direct front service * * * and they
    thus helped * * * to achieve the greatest victory in history.
    When the great offensive in the west began, the brown workers’
    columns of the TODT organization followed immediately behind
    them. After the armistice with France had been signed, an
    entirely new situation developed for the TODT organization. Its
    columns had pushed deep into enemy country. Not seldom did they
    have direct contact with the enemy—their losses in dead and
    wounded and the Iron Cross awards are heroic proof of that.
    While, as the foremost construction workers of the German Reich,
    they had already proved their worth when building the West Wall,
    they were now able to perfect what they had learned in the fight
    against the British world enemy. From the Channel coast to the
    Atlantic Ocean, the front technicians and front workers of the
    OT now proceeded to create the prerequisites for a successful
    fight against England.” (_2808-PS_)

Though the OT was in its origin technically a civilian organization, it
subsequently became a para-military body which, before and during the
war, cooperated fully with the German Army. On 2 July 1940, a directive
was issued from the German High Command appointing a liaison officer.

    “* * * to establish the closest liaison and cooperation of the
    respective military offices with the main construction work of
    the TODT Organization.” (_2812-PS_)

This militarization of the OT is further shown in the following passage
from “_Nationalsozialistische Monatschefte_” for 1942:

    “From the Autobahn workers was developed the ‘Organization TODT’
    a body of hundreds of thousands of workers who help the
    Wehrmacht everywhere in eliminating obstacles, building bridges
    and erecting fortifications and shelters. The front soldier and
    the front worker stand side by side. Together they have shed
    their blood in this war and together they have won victories.
    Long-range guns on the Channel coast, U-boat bases on the
    Atlantic, and now the East will render the ‘OT’ immortal for all
    times to come.” (_2809-PS_)

A letter from Fritz Sauckel to Hitler, dated 17 May 1943, states that
the OT had supplied 248,200 workers by March 1943 for the completion of
the Atlantic Wall, and praises the OT for its excellent work in this
regard. (_407-VIII-PS_)

By 1938, all phases of German life _had been_ mobilized for the
accomplishment of militant aims.

Hitler declared to the Reichstag on 20 February 1938:

    “Only now we have succeeded in setting before us the great tasks
    and in possessing the material things which are the
    prerequisites for the realization of great creative plans in all
    fields of our national existence. Thus, National Socialism has
    made up within a few years for what centuries before it had
    omitted. * * *

    “National Socialism has given the German people that leadership
    which as party not only mobilizes the nation but also organizes
    it, so that on the basis of the natural principle of selection,
    the continuance of a stable political leadership is safeguarded
    forever * * * National Socialism * * * possesses Germany
    entirely and completely since the day when, five years ago, I
    left the house in Wilhelmplatz as Reich Chancellor. There is no
    institution in this state which is not National Socialist. Above
    all, however, the National Socialist Party in these five years
    not only has made the nation National Socialist, but also has
    given itself that perfect organizational structure which
    guarantees its permanence for all future. _The greatest
    guarantee of the National Socialist revolution lies in the
    complete domination of the Reich and all its institutions and
    organizations, internally and externally, by the National
    Socialist Party. Its protection against the world abroad,
    however, lies in its new National Socialist armed forces._ * * *

    “In this Reich, anybody who has a responsible position is a
    National Socialist. * * * Every institution of this Reich is
    under the orders of the supreme political leadership. * * * The
    party leads the Reich politically, the armed forces defend it
    militarily. * * * There is nobody in any responsible position in
    this state who doubts that I am the authorized leader of this
    Reich.” (_2715-PS_)

                 *        *        *        *        *

  LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO MILITARIZATION OF
                           NAZI ORGANIZATIONS

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (D) 3 │      │
                │  (f).                                  │  I   │      21
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *407-VIII-PS   │Telegram from Sauckel to Hitler, 17 May │      │
                │1943, concerning foreign labor. (USA    │      │
                │210)                                    │ III  │     394
                │                                        │      │
 2320-B-PS      │Extracts from Organization Book of      │      │
                │NSDAP, 1940, p. 394.                    │  IV  │    1026
                │                                        │      │
*2715-PS        │Speech by Hitler to the Reichstag on 20 │      │
                │February 1938, published in The Archive,│      │
                │February 1938, Vol. 47, pp. 1441-1442.  │      │
                │(USA 331).                              │  V   │     376
                │                                        │      │
 2804-PS        │Extracts from “Das NSKK” by Hans Helmut │      │
                │Krenzlein, NSKK Gruppenfuehrer, with    │      │
                │foreword by Leader of NSKK, Korpsfuehrer│      │
                │A. Huehnlein.                           │  V   │     446
                │                                        │      │
 2805-PS        │Extract from Organization Book of NSDAP,│      │
                │1943, p. 465.                           │  V   │     447
                │                                        │      │
 2806-PS        │Extract from Leadership and Education,  │      │
                │official magazine of Dutch Labor        │      │
                │Service, 1 June 1943, p. 19.            │  V   │     448
                │                                        │      │
 2807-PS        │Letter by Goering to Reich Labor Service│      │
                │Leader Konstantin Hierl, published by   │      │
                │National Socialist Monthly, 1940, Vol.  │      │
                │I, p. 155.                              │  V   │     448
                │                                        │      │
 2808-PS        │Men of the OT, published by Photographic│      │
                │Office of Reich Propaganda Office.      │  V   │     448
                │                                        │      │
 2809-PS        │Extract from National Socialist Monthly,│      │
                │February-March, 1942, p. 167.           │  V   │     449
                │                                        │      │
 2810-PS        │Extract from Germany in Battle, by      │      │
                │Berndt of Reich Propaganda Ministry and │      │
                │von Wedel of German Army High Command,  │      │
                │1940, p. 107.                           │  V   │     449
                │                                        │      │
 2811-PS        │Extracts from Organization Book of the  │      │
                │NSDAP, 1938, pp. 470, 470(c).           │  V   │     450
                │                                        │      │
 2812-PS        │Directive from German Army High Command,│      │
                │published in General Army Bulletin,     │      │
                │1940, Vol. VII, p. 96.                  │  V   │     450
                │                                        │      │
 2813-PS        │Extract from The National Socialist Air │      │
                │Corps, p. 14.                           │  V   │     451
                │                                        │      │
*3054-PS        │“The Nazi Plan”, script of a motion     │      │
                │picture composed of captured German     │      │
                │film. (USA 167)                         │  V   │     801



                              Chapter VIII
                   ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY


It is well known that the Nazi conspirators rearmed Germany on a vast
scale. The purpose of that rearmament is revealed in the secret records
of the plans and deliberations of the inner councils of the Nazis. These
records show that the reorganization of the German government, the
financial wizardry of Hjalmar Schacht, and the total mobilization of the
German economy largely under Hjalmar Schacht, Hermann Goering, and
Walter Funk, were directed at a single goal: aggressive war.

                    I. ECONOMIC MOBILIZATION FOR WAR

The significance of the economic measures adopted and applied by the
conspirators can be properly appraised only if they are placed in the
larger social and political context of Nazi Germany. These economic
measures were adopted while the conspirators were directing their vast
propaganda apparatus to the glorification of war. They were adopted
while the conspirators were perverting physical training into training
for war. They were adopted while these conspirators were threatening to
use force and were planning to use force to achieve their material and
political objects. In short, these measures constitute in the field of
economics and government administration the same preparation for
aggressive war which dominated every aspect of the Nazi state.

In 1939 and 1940, after the Nazi aggression upon Poland, Holland,
Belgium, and France, it became clear to the world that the Nazi
conspirators had created probably the greatest instrument of aggression
in history. That machine was built up almost in its entirety in a period
of less than one decade. In May of 1939 Major General George Thomas,
former Chief of the Military-Economic Staff in the Reich War Ministry,
reported that the German Army had grown from seven Infantry divisions in
1933 to thirty-nine Infantry divisions, among them four fully motorized
and three mountain divisions; eighteen Corps Headquarters; five Panzer
divisions; twenty-two machine gun battalions. Moreover, General Thomas
stated that the German Navy had greatly expanded by the launching, among
other vessels, of two battleships of thirty-five thousand tons, four
heavy cruisers of ten thousand tons, and other warships; further, that
the Luftwaffe had grown to a point where it had a strength of two
hundred sixty thousand men, twenty-one squadrons, consisting of two
hundred forty echelons, and thirty-three Anti-Aircraft Batteries.
(_EC-28_) General Thomas further reported, in a lecture delivered on 24
May 1939 in the Nazi Foreign Office, that out of the few factories
permitted by the Versailles Treaty there had arisen * * *

    “The mightiest armament industry now existing in the world. It
    has attained the performances which in part equal the German
    wartime performances and in part even surpasses them. Germany’s
    crude steel production is today the largest in the world after
    the Americans. The aluminum production exceeds that of America
    and of the other countries of the world very considerably. The
    output of our rifle, machine gun, and artillery factories is at
    present larger than that of any other state.” (_EC-28_)

These results—about which General Thomas spoke in his book entitled
_Basic Facts for a History of German War and Armaments Economy_—were
achieved only by making preparation for war the dominating objective of
German economy. As General Thomas stated on page 479 of his book:

    “History will know only a few examples of cases where a country
    has directed, even in peace time, all its economic forces
    deliberately and systematically towards the requirements of war,
    as Germany was compelled to do in the period between the two
    World Wars.” (_2353-PS_)

The task of mobilizing the German economy for aggressive war began
promptly after the Nazi conspirators’ seizure of power. It was entrusted
principally to Schacht, Goering, and Funk.

Schacht was appointed President of the Reichsbank in March 1933, and
Minister of Economics in August 1934. The world did not know, however,
that the responsibility for the execution of this program was entrusted
to the office of the Four Year Plan under Goering (_EC-408_). Nor did
the world know that Schacht was designated Plenipotentiary for the War
Economy on 21 May 1935, with complete control over the German civilian
economy for war production in the Reich Defense Council, established by
a top secret Hitler decree.

A letter dated 24 June 1935, at Berlin, and signed by von Blomberg,
reads in part:

    “* * * The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor has nominated the
    President of the directorate of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht, to
    be Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy. * * *

    “* * * I point out the necessity of strictest secrecy once more
    * * *.” (_2261-PS_)

Through Schacht’s financial genius monetary measures were devised to
restore German industry to full production; and through the control of
imports and exports, which he devised under his new plan of 1934, German
production was channeled in accordance with the requirements of the
German war machine.

In 1936, with an eye to the experience in the First World War, the Nazi
conspirators embarked on an ambitious plan to make Germany completely
self-sufficient in strategic war materials such as rubber, gasoline, and
steel, in a period of four years, so that Germany would be fully
prepared for aggressive war. The responsibility for the execution of
this program was entrusted to the office of the Four Year Plan under
Goering. A “memorandum on the Four Year Plan and Preparation of the War
Economy,” dated 30 December 1936, and marked “Secret Command Matter”,
sets out that the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor has conferred powers in
regard to mobilization preparations in the economic field that need
further definition. The third paragraph refers specifically to
Minister-President, Generaloberst Goering as Commissioner of the Four
Year Plan, by authority of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor granted 18
October 1936. The existence of this program involved the reorganization
and control of the whole German economy for war. (_EC-408_)

The military objectives of the German economy were clearly stated by
General Thomas in a lecture on 28 February 1939, delivered at the Staff
Instructor’s course. He stated:

    “The National Socialist State, soon after taking over the power,
    has reorganized the German economy in all sections and directed
    it towards a military viewpoint, which had been requested by the
    Army for years. Due to the reorganization, agriculture, commerce
    and professions became those powerful instruments the Fuehrer
    needs for his extensive plans, and we can say today that
    Hitler’s mobile politics, as well as the powerful efforts of the
    Army and economy, would not have been possible without the
    necessary reorganization by the National Socialist Government.
    We can now say that the economic organization as a whole
    corresponds with the needs, although slight adjustments will
    have to be made yet. Those reorganizations made a new system of
    economics possible which was necessary in view of our internal
    and foreign political situation as well as our financial
    problems. The directed economy, as we have it today, concerning
    agriculture, commerce and industry, is not only the expression
    of the present State principles, but at the same time also the
    economy of the country’s defense.” (_EC-27_)

This program was not undertaken in a vacuum; it was deliberately
designed and executed to provide the necessary instrument of the Nazi
conspirators’ plans for aggressive war. In September 1934 Schacht
admitted to the American Ambassador in Berlin that the Hitler Party was
absolutely committed to war, and that the people too were ready and
willing. (_EC-461_) At the same time Schacht promulgated his new plan
for the control of imports and exports in the interest of rearmament. A
year later he was appointed Plenipotentiary for War Economy by top
secret decree. (_2261-PS_)

On 4 September 1936 Goering announced, at a Cabinet meeting attended by
von Blomberg, Schacht, and others, that Hitler had issued instructions
to the Reich War Minister on the basis that “the show-down with Russia
is inevitable,” and added that “all measures have to be taken just as if
we were actually in the stage of imminent danger of war.” (_EC-416_)

In the same month the office of the Four Year Plan was created with the
mission of making Germany self-sufficient for war in four years. Goering
regarded it as his task, within four years, to put the entire economy in
a state of readiness for war. (_EC-408_)

          2. COLLABORATION OF THE INDUSTRIALISTS IN REARMAMENT

Although the Nazi government officials provided the leadership in
preparing Germany for war, they received also the enthusiastic and
invaluable cooperation of the German industrialists.

On the invitation of Goering, approximately 25 of the leading
industrialists of Germany, together with Schacht, attended a meeting in
Berlin on 20 February 1933. This was shortly before the German election
of 5 March 1933. At this meeting Hitler announced the conspirators’ aim
to seize totalitarian control over Germany, to destroy the parliamentary
system, to crush all opposition by force, and to restore the power of
the _Wehrmacht_. Among those present at that meeting were Gustav Krupp,
head of the munitions firm, Alfried Krupp, A.G.; four leading officials
of the I. G. Farben Works, one of the world’s largest chemical concerns;
Albert Vogler, head of United Steel Works of Germany; and other leading
industrialists. This meeting is described in the following affidavit of
George von Schnitzler:

    “I, George von Schnitzler, a member of the Vorstand of I. G.
    Farben, make the following deposition under oath:

    “At the end of February 1933, four members of the Vorstand of I.
    G. Farben, including Dr. Bosch, the head of the Vorstand, and
    myself were asked by the office of the President of the
    Reichstag to attend a meeting in his house, the purpose of which
    was not given. I do not remember the two other colleagues of
    mine who were also invited. I believe the invitation reached me
    during one of my business trips to Berlin. I went to the meeting
    which was attended by about 20 persons, who I believe were
    mostly leading industrialists from the Ruhr.

    “Among those present I remember:

    “Dr. Schacht, who at that time was not yet head of the
    _Reichsbank_ again and not yet Minister of Economics.

    “Krupp von Bohlen, who in the beginning of 1933 presided over
    the _Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie_, which later on was
    changed into the semi-official organization ‘_Reichsgruppe
    Industrie_.’

    “Dr. Albert Vogler, the leading man of the _Vereinigte
    Stahlwerke_.

    “Von Lowenfeld from an industrial work in Essen.

    “Dr. Stein, head of the _Gewerkschaft Auguste Victoria_, a mine
    which belongs to the I. G. Dr. Stein was an active member of the
    _Deutsche Volkspartei_.

    “I remember that Dr. Schacht acted as a kind of host.

    “While I had expected the appearance of Goering, Hitler entered
    the room, shook hands with everybody and took a seat at the top
    of the table. In a long speech, he talked mainly about the
    danger of communism over which he pretended that he just had won
    a decisive victory.

    “He then talked about the _Bundnis_—alliance—into which his
    party and the _Deutsch Nationale Volkspartei_ had entered. This
    latter party, in the meantime, had been reorganized by Herr von
    Papen. At the end he came to the point which seemed to me the
    purpose of the meeting. Hitler stressed the importance that the
    two aforementioned parties should gain the majority in the
    coming Reichstag election. Krupp von Bohlen thanked Hitler for
    his speech. After Hitler had left the room, Dr. Schacht proposed
    to the meeting the raising of an election fund of, as far as I
    remember, RM 3,000,000. The fund should be distributed between
    the two ‘allies’ according to their relative strength at the
    time being. Dr. Stein suggested that the _Deutsche Volkspartei_
    should be included * * *.” (_EC-439_)

In a speech delivered to the industrialists in Berlin on 20 February
1933, Hitler stated:

    “Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of
    democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound
    idea of authority and personality. * * * I recognized even while
    in the hospital that one had to search for new ideas conducive
    to reconstruction. I found them in Nationalism, in the value of
    strength and power of individual personality. * * * If one
    rejects pacifism, one must put a new idea in its place
    immediately. Everything must be pushed aside, must be replaced
    by something better. * * * We must not forget that all the
    benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron
    fist just as once upon a time the farmers were forced to plant
    potatoes.

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “With the very same courage with which we go to work to make up
    for what had been sinned during the last 14 years, we have
    withstood all attempts to move us off the right way.”

    “* * * We must first gain complete power if we want to crush the
    other side completely. While still gaining power, one should not
    start the struggle against the opponent. Only when one knows
    that one has reached the pinnacle of power, that there is no
    further possible development, shall one strike. * * *

    “* * * Now we stand before the last election. Regardless of the
    outcome there will be no retreat, even if the coming election
    does not bring about a decision. * * *

    “The question of restoration of the _Wehrmacht_ will not be
    decided at Geneva but in Germany, when we have gained internal
    strength through internal peace.” (_D-203_)

In reply to these statements Goering, who was present at that same
meeting, declared:

    “That the sacrifice asked for surely would be much easier for
    industry to bear if it realized that the election of March 5th
    will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably
    even for the next hundred years.” (_D-203_)

In a memorandum dated 22 February 1933, found in the personal files of
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Krupp briefly described this same
meeting, and recalled that he had expressed to Hitler the gratitude of
the 25 industrialists present. (_D-204_)

In April 1933, after Hitler had entrenched himself in power, Gustav
Krupp, as Chairman of the Reich Association of German Industry, which
was the largest association of German industrialists, submitted to
Hitler the plan of that association for the reorganization of German
industry. In connection therewith Krupp undertook to bring the
association into line with the aims of the conspirators, and to make it
an effective instrument for the execution of their policies. In a letter
of transmittal (_D-157_), Krupp stated that the plan of reorganization
which he submitted on behalf of the association of industrialists, was
characterized by the desire to coordinate economic measures and
political necessity, adopting the Fuehrer conception of the new German
state. In the plan of reorganization itself, Krupp stated:

    “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. In reorganizing the Reich Association of German Industry,
    I shall be guided by the idea of bringing the new organization
    into agreement with the political aims of the Reich Government.”
    (_D-157_)

The ideas of Krupp were subsequently adopted.

Under the decree introducing the leadership principle into industry,
each group of industry was required to have a leader who was to serve
without compensation. The leaders were to be appointed and could be
removed at the discretion of the Minister of Economics. The charter of
each group was to be created by the leader, who was obligated to lead
his group in accordance with the principles of the National Socialist
State (_Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1934, Part I, 1194, Sec. 11, 12, 16). The
introduction of the leadership principle into the organizations of
business centralized authority and guaranteed the efficient execution of
orders, which the government issued to business, in the effort to
promote a war economy.

The overwhelming support given by the German industrialists to the Nazi
war program is described in a speech prepared by Gustav Krupp in January
1944, for delivery at the University of Berlin:

    “War material is life-saving for one’s own people, and whoever
    works and performs in those spheres can be proud of it. Here,
    enterprise as a whole, finds its highest justification of
    existence. This justification, I may inject this here,
    crystallized especially during the time of interregnum between
    1919 and 1933, when Germany was lying down disarmed. * * *

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “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 production of
    peacetime goods, was it possible, after 1933, to fall into step
    with the new tasks arrived at, restoring Germany’s military
    power. Only through all that could the entirely new and various
    problems, brought up by the Fuehrer’s Four-Year Plan for German
    enterprise, be mastered. It was necessary to supply the new raw
    materials, to explore and experiment, to invest capital in order
    to make German economy independent and strong—in short, to make
    it war-worthy.

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “I think I may state here that the German enterprises followed
    the new ways enthusiastically, that they made the great
    intentions of the Fuehrer their own by fair competition and
    conscious gratitude, and became his faithful followers. How else
    could the tasks between 1933 and 1939, and especially those
    after 1939, have been overcome?” (_D-317_)

        3. THE USE OF ECONOMIC MEASURES TO FACILITATE REARMAMENT

It must be emphasized that the secret rearmament program was launched
immediately upon the seizure of power by the Nazi conspirators. On 4
April 1933 the Reich Cabinet passed a resolution establishing a Reich
Defense Council. The function of this council was secretly to mobilize
for war. At the second meeting of the working committee of the
Councillors for Reich Defense, the predecessor of the Reich Defense
Council, which was held on 22 May 1933, the chairman was Keitel. Keitel
stated that the Reich Defense Council would immediately undertake to
prepare for war emergency. He stressed the urgency of the task of
organizing a war economy, and announced that the council stood ready to
brush aside all obstacles. Fully aware of the fact that their action was
in flagrant violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Keitel emphasized the
extreme importance of absolute secrecy:

    “No document ought to be lost, since otherwise it may fall into
    the hands of the enemies’ intelligence service. Orally
    transmitted, matters are not provable; they can be denied by us
    in Geneva.” (_EC-177_)

The singleness of purpose with which the Nazi conspirators geared the
German economy to the forging of a war machine is further shown by the
secret minutes of the second meeting of the working committee of the
Reich Defense Council, held on 7 February 1934. At this meeting at which
Capt. Schmundt, Col. Guerian, Maj. Gen. von Reichenau, Maj. Warlimont,
and Jodl—then a Lt. Col.—were present, Lieutenant-General Beck pointed
out that:

    “The actual state of preparation is the purpose of this
    session.” (_EC-404_)

Detailed measures of financing a future war were discussed and it was
pointed out that the financial aspects of the war economy would be
regulated by the Reich Finance Ministry and the Reichsbank, which was
headed by Schacht. (_EC-404_)

Under his secret appointment as Plenipotentiary-General of the War
Economy, Schacht had the express function of placing all economic forces
of the nation in the services of the Nazi war machine. The secret
defense law of 21 May 1935 in effect gave Schacht charge of the entire
war economy. In case of war he was to be virtual economic dictator of
Germany. His task was to place all economic forces into service for the
conduct of war and to secure economically the life of the German people.
The Ministers of Economics, Food, Agriculture, Labor, and Forestry, as
well as all Reich agencies directly under the Fuehrer, were subordinated
to him. He was to be responsible for the financing as well as for the
conduct of the war; and he was further authorized to issue ordinances
within his sphere of responsibility, even if these deviated from
existing laws. (_2261-PS_)

The rearmament of Germany proceeded at a rapid pace. By summer of 1935
the Nazi conspirators were emboldened to make plans for the reoccupation
of the Rhineland, and at the tenth meeting of the working committee of
the council the question of measures to be taken in connection with the
proposed reoccupation of the Rhineland was discussed.

At that meeting, on 26 June 1935, it was said that the Rhineland
required special treatment because of the assurances given by Hitler to
the French that no military action was being undertaken in the
demilitarized zone. Among the matters requiring special treatment was
the preparation of economic mobilization, a task specifically entrusted
to Schacht as secret Plenipotentiary for the War Economy. In this
connection it was stated:

    “* * * Since political entanglements abroad must be avoided at
    present under all circumstances, only these preparatory measures
    that are urgently necessary may be carried out. The existence of
    such preparations, or the intention of them must be kept in
    strictest secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest of
    the Reich.” (_EC-405_)

Preparations of various types were thereupon discussed.

The rapid success of German rearmament is attributable to the work of
Schacht. In the fall of 1934, the Nazi conspirators announced the “New
Plan”, which aimed at the control of imports and exports in order to
obtain the raw materials needed for armaments and the foreign currency
required to sustain the armament program. The “New Plan” was the
creation of Schacht. Under the plan, Schacht controlled imports by
extending the system of supervisory boards for import control, which was
previously limited to the main groups of raw materials, to all goods
imported into Germany. The requirement of licenses for imports enabled
the Nazi conspirators to restrict imports to those commodities which
served their war aims.

Subsequently, in February 1935, the _Devisen_ Law was passed
(_Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1935, I, 105). Under it, all transactions involving
foreign exchange were subject to the approval of _Devisenstellen_
(Foreign Exchange Control Offices). By thus controlling the disposition
of foreign exchange, the conspirators were able to manipulate foreign
trade so as to serve their ends.

Every aspect of the German economy was geared to war under the guidance
of the Nazi conspirators, particularly Schacht. In a study of the
economic mobilization for war as of 30 September 1934, it was stated
that steps had already been taken to build up stock piles, to construct
new facilities for the production of scarce goods, to redeploy industry
to secure areas, and to control fiscal and trade policies. The task of
stock piling, it was announced, had been hampered by the requirement of
secrecy and camouflage. Reserves of automobile fuels and stocks of coal
were accumulated, and the production of synthetic oil was accelerated.
Civilian supply was purposely organized so that most plants would be
working for the German Armed Forces. Studies were made of the
possibility of barter trade with supposedly neutral countries in case of
war. (_EC-128_)

Financing of the armament program presented a difficult problem for the
conspirators. In 1934 and 1935, the German economy could by no
possibility have raised funds for the Nazis’ extensive rearmament
program through taxes and public loans. From the outset, the armament
program involved “the engagement of the last reserves.” Moreover, apart
from the problem of raising the huge sums required to sustain this
program, the Nazi conspirators were exceedingly anxious, in the early
stages, to conceal the extent of their armament activities.

After considering various techniques of financing the armament program,
Schacht proposed the use of “mefo” bills. One of the primary advantages
of this method was the fact that through its use figures indicating the
extent of rearmament, which would have become public through the use of
other methods, could be kept secret. “Mefo” bills were used exclusively
for armament financing. Transactions in “mefo” bills worked as follows:
“Mefo” bills were drawn by armament contractors and accepted by a
limited liability company. The spelling of the word “mefo” is taken from
the name of this company, _Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft,
m.b.h._ (_MEFO_). This company had a nominal capital of one million
Reichsmarks and was merely a dummy organization. The bills were received
by all German banks for possible rediscounting with the Reichsbank. The
bills were guaranteed by the Reich. Their secrecy was assured by the
fact that they appeared neither in the published statements of the
Reichsbank nor in the budget figures.

The “mefo” bill system continued to be used until 1 April 1938. Up to
that date 12 billion Reichsmarks of “mefo” bills for the financing of
rearmament had been issued. Since it was no longer deemed necessary to
conceal the vast progress of German rearmament, “mefo” financing was
discontinued at that time. (_EC-436_)

Further sources of funds upon which Schacht drew to finance the secret
armament program were the funds of political opponents of the Nazi
regime, and Marks of foreigners on deposit in the Reichsbank. As Schacht
boasted in a memorandum to Hitler dated 3 May 1935:

    “Our armaments are also financed partly with the credits of our
    political opponents.” (_1168-PS_)

The outstanding “mefo” bills represented at all times a threat to the
stability of the currency because they could be tendered to the
Reichsbank for discount, in which case the currency circulation would
automatically have to be increased. Thus, there was an ever-present
threat of inflation. Schacht nevertheless continued on his course,
because he stood with unswerving loyalty to the Fuehrer, because he
fully recognized the basic idea of National Socialism, and because he
felt that at the end, the disturbances, compared to the great task,
could be considered irrelevant.

High-ranking military officers paid tribute to Schacht’s contrivances on
behalf of the Nazi war machine. An article written for the “Military
Weekly Gazette” in January 1937 stated:

    “The German Defense Force commemorates Dr. Schacht today as one
    of the men who have done imperishable things for it and its
    development in accordance with directions from the Fuehrer and
    Reich Chancellor. The defense force owes it to Schacht’s skill
    and great ability that, in defiance of all currency difficulties
    it, according to plan, has been able to grow up to its present
    strength from an army of 100,000 men.”

After the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Nazi conspirators redoubled
their efforts to prepare Germany for a major war. The Four Year Plan was
proclaimed by Hitler in his address at the Nurnberg Party Convention on
9 September 1936. It was given a statutory foundation by the decree
concerning the execution of the Four Year Plan dated 18 October 1936
(_Reichsgesetzblatt_ 1936, I, 887). By this decree Goering was put in
charge of the plan. He was authorized to enact any legal and
administrative measures deemed necessary by him for the accomplishment
of his task, and to issue orders and instructions to all government
agencies, including the highest Reich authorities. The purpose of the
plan was to enable Nazi Germany to attain complete self-sufficiency in
essential raw materials, notably motor fuel, rubber, textile fiber, and
non-ferrous metals, and to intensify preparations for war. The
development of synthetic products was greatly accelerated despite their
high costs.

Apart from the self-sufficiency program, however, the Nazi conspirators
required foreign exchange to finance propaganda and espionage activities
abroad. Thus, in a speech on 1 November 1937 before the
_Wehrmachtakademie_, General Thomas stated:

    “If you consider that one will need during the war considerable
    means in order to organize the necessary propaganda, in order to
    pay for the espionage service, and for similar purposes, then
    one should be clear that our internal Mark would be of no use
    therefore, and that Foreign Exchange will be needed.” (_EC-14_)

This need for foreign exchange was reduced in part by virtue of the
espionage and propaganda services rendered free of charge to the Nazi
state by leading German industrial concerns. A memorandum dated at Essen
on 12 October 1935, which was found in the files of the Krupp company,
contains the subheading: “Concerns:—distribution official propaganda
literature abroad with help of our foreign connections.” It goes on to
say that on the morning of 11 October the district representative of the
Ribbentrop Private Foreign Office, _Dienststelle Ribbentrop_, made an
appointment by telephone with Mr. Lachman to arrive at an appointed
time. The memorandum continues:

    “In answer to my question, with whom I was dealing and which
    official bureau he represented, he informed me that he was not
    himself the district representative of Ribbentrop’s Private
    Foreign Office, but that a Mr. Landrat Bollman was such and that
    he himself had come at Mr. Bollman’s order.” (_D-206_)

After discussing the confusion in the field of foreign propaganda, the
memorandum states that Ribbentrop’s Foreign Office is creating a private
organization for foreign propaganda, and that for this purpose the
support of the Krupp firm and especially an index of addresses are
needed. This request received the following response:

    “I informed Mr. Lachman that our firm has put itself years ago
    at the disposal of official bureaus for purposes of foreign
    propaganda, and that we had supported all requests addressed to
    us to the utmost.” (_D-206_)

These activities are demonstrated by another document found in the files
of the Krupp company. A memorandum prefaced by Herr Sonnenberg, on 14
October 1937, reports a meeting at Essen on 12 October 1937. The
government’s request for assistance in foreign intelligence activities
met this response:

    “On our part we undertook to supply information to the Combined
    Services Ministry (R.K.M.) as required.” (_D-167_)

Meanwhile the conspirators’ program of self-sufficiency was proceeding
with great speed. The production of steel, for example, as shown in
official German publication, rose as follows:

                                                 _Tons_
                1933                               74,000
                1934                              105,000
                1935                              145,000
                1936                              186,000
                1937                              217,000
                1938                              477,000

The production of gasoline increased at an even greater tempo: from
387,000 tons in 1934 to 1,494,000 tons in 1938 (_Statistical Yearbook of
the German Reich, 1939-1942_).

The Nazi conspirators pressed the completion of the armament program
with a sense of urgency betraying their awareness of the imminence of
war. At a meeting on 4 September 1936 Goering pointed out that “all
measures have to be taken just as if we were actually in the state of
imminent danger of war.” He pointed out that:

    “* * * if war should break out tomorrow we would be forced to
    take measures from which we might possibly still shy away at the
    present moment. They are therefore to be taken.” (_EC-416_)

The extreme urgency was manifested by Goering’s remark that

    “* * * existent reserves will have to be touched for the purpose
    of carrying us over this difficulty until the goal ordered by
    the Fuehrer has been reached; in case of war they are not a
    reliable backing in any case.” (_EC-416_)

Schacht was advised by a top secret letter dated 31 August 1936 that
Hitler ordered all formations of the air force to be ready by 1 April
1937. (_1301-PS_)

After their successes in Austria and the Sudetenland, the Nazi
conspirators redoubled their efforts to equip themselves for the war of
aggression which they planned to launch. In a conference on 14 October
1938, shortly before the Nazis made their first demands on Poland,
Goering stated:

    “* * * Everybody knows from the press what the world situation
    looks like, and therefore the Fuehrer has issued an order to him
    to carry out a gigantic program compared to which previous
    achievements are insignificant. There are difficulties in the
    way which he will overcome with the utmost energy and
    ruthlessness.” (_1301-PS_)

The supply of foreign currency had sunken because of preparations for
the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Replenishment was considered necessary.
At the same conference, on 14 October 1938, Goering declared:

    “These gains made through the export are to be used for an
    increased armament. The armament should not be curtailed by
    export activities.” (_1301-PS_)

Goering had received the order from the Fuehrer to increase armaments to
an abnormal extent, the air force having first priority, and interpreted
it as follows:

    “Within the shortest time, the air force should be increased
    five fold; also the navy should create war weapons more rapidly,
    and the army should produce large amounts of war weapons at a
    faster rate, particularly heavy artillery and heavy tanks. Along
    with this a larger production of armaments must go, especially
    fuel, rubber, powders and explosives must be moved to the
    foreground. This should be coupled with an accelerated expansion
    of highways, canals, and particularly of the railroads.”
    (_1301-PS_)

In the course of these preparations for war, a clash of wills ensued
between Goering and Schacht, as a result of which Schacht resigned his
position as head of the Ministry of Economics and Plenipotentiary for
the War Economy in November 1937. He was removed from the presidency of
the Reichsbank in January 1939. Regardless of the details of this
controversy, Schacht’s departure in no way implied any disagreement with
the major war aims of the Nazis. Schacht took particular pride in his
vast attainments in the financial and economic fields in aid of the Nazi
war machine. In a letter to General Thomas Schacht wrote:

    “I think back with much satisfaction to the work in the Ministry
    of Economics which afforded me the opportunity to assist in the
    rearmament of the German people in the most critical period, not
    only in the financial but also in the economic sphere. I have
    always considered a rearmament of the German people as condition
    _sine qua non_ of the establishment of a new German nation.”
    (_EC-257_)

In a letter written to General Von Blomberg, on 8 July 1937, Schacht
wrote:

    “The direction of the war economy by the plenipotentiary would
    in that event never take place entirely independent from the
    rest of the war mechanism but would be aimed at accomplishment
    of the political war purpose with the assistance of all economic
    forces. I am entirely willing, therefore, to participate in this
    way in the preparation of the forthcoming order giving effect to
    the Defense Act.” (_EC-252_)

In the spring of 1937, Schacht participated with representatives of the
three branches of the armed forces in “war games in war economy” at
Godesberg. A report of these exercises, entitled “War economy tasks in
Godesberg undertaken by General Staff between the 25th of May and the
2nd of June,” records the speech welcoming Dr. Schacht:

    “Before I start with the discussion of the war game in war
    economy, I have to express how grateful we all are that you,
    President Dr. Schacht, have gone to the trouble personally to
    participate in our final discussion today despite all your other
    activities. This proves to us your deep interest in war economy
    tasks shown at all times and your presence is renewed proof that
    you are willing to facilitate for us soldiers the difficult
    war-economic preparations and to strengthen the harmonious
    cooperation with your offices.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “I want to point out, however, that all matters and all
    information received has to be kept in strictest secrecy * * *.”
    (_EC-174_)

The annexation of Austria was apparently a goal which Schacht had long
sought, for in a speech to the employees of the former Austrian National
Bank he declared:

    “* * * Austria has certainly a great mission, namely, to be the
    bearer of German culture, to insure respect and regard for the
    German name, especially in the direction of the southeast. Such
    a mission can only be performed within the Great German Reich
    and based on the power of a nation of 75 millions, which,
    regardless of the wish of the opponents, forms the heart and the
    soul of Europe.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “We have read a lot in the foreign press during the last few
    days that this aim, the union of both countries, is to a certain
    degree justified, but that the methods of effecting this union
    was terrible. This method which certainly did not suit one or
    the other power was nothing but the consequence of countless
    perfidies and brutal acts and violence which foreign countries
    have practiced against us * * *.”

    *            *            *            *            *            *

    “* * * I am known for sometimes expressing thoughts which give
    offense and there I would not like to depart from this
    consideration. I know that there are even in this country a few
    people—I believe they are not too numerous—who find fault with
    the events of the last few days, but nobody, I believe, doubts
    the goal, and it should be said to all grumblers that you can’t
    satisfy everybody. One person says he would have done it maybe
    one way, but the remarkable thing is that they did not do it,
    and that it was only done by our Adolf Hitler; and if there is
    still something left to be improved, then those grumblers should
    try to bring about these improvements from the German Reich, and
    within the German community, but not to disturb us from
    without.” (_EC-297-A_)

A memorandum of 7 January 1939, written by Schacht and other directors
of the Reichsbank to Hitler, urged a balancing of the budget in view of
the threatening danger of inflation. The memorandum continued:

    “* * * From the beginning the Reichsbank has been aware of the
    fact that a successful foreign policy can be attained only by
    the reconstruction of the German armed forces. It [the
    Reichsbank] therefore assumed to a very great extent the
    responsibility to finance the rearmament in spite of the
    inherent dangers to the currency. The justification thereof was
    the necessity, which pushed all other considerations into the
    background, to carry through the armament at once, out of
    nothing, and furthermore under camouflage, which made a
    respect-commanding foreign policy possible.” (_EC-369_)

The Reichsbank directors, as experts on money, believed that a point had
been reached where greater production of armaments was no longer
possible. That was merely a judgment on the situation and not a moral
stand, for there was no opposition to Hitler’s policy of aggression.
Doubts were merely entertained as to whether that policy could be
financed. Hitler’s letter to Schacht on the occasion of Schacht’s
departure from the Reichsbank paid high tribute to Schacht’s great
efforts in furthering the program of the Nazi conspirators. The armed
forces by now had enabled Hitler to take Austria and the Sudetenland.
Hitler, in his letter to Schacht declared:

    “Your name, above all, will always be connected with the first
    epoch of national rearmament.” (_EC-397_)

Even though dismissed from the presidency of the Reichsbank, Schacht was
retained as a minister without portfolio and special confidential
adviser to Hitler. Funk stepped into Schacht’s position as president of
the Reichsbank (_Voelkisher Beobachter_ of 21 January 1939). Funk was
uninhibited by fears of inflation, and like Goering, under whom he had
served in the Four Year Plan, he recognized no obstacles to the plan to
attack Poland. In a letter written on 25 August 1939, only a few days
before the attack on Poland, Funk reported to Hitler that the Reichsbank
was prepared to withstand any disturbances of the international currency
and credit system occasioned by a large-scale war. He said that he had
secretly transferred all available funds of the Reichsbank abroad into
gold, and that Germany stood ready to meet the financial and economic
tasks which lay ahead. (_699-PS_)

It seems clear that the Nazi conspirators directed the whole of the
German economy toward preparation for aggressive war. To paraphrase the
words of Goering, the conspirators gave the German people “guns instead
of butter.” They also gave history its most striking example of a nation
gearing itself in time of peace to the single purpose of aggressive war.
Their economic preparations, formulated and applied with the energy of
Goering, the financial wizardry of Schacht, and the willing complicity
of Funk, among others, were the indispensable prerequisites for their
subsequent campaign of aggression.

                 *        *        *        *        *

 LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF
                             THE CONSPIRACY

    Document    │              Description               │ Vol. │  Page
                │                                        │      │
                │Charter of the International Military   │      │
                │  Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (a).│  I   │       5
                │                                        │      │
                │International Military Tribunal,        │      │
                │  Indictment Number 1, Section IV (E).  │  I   │      21
                │                 —————                  │      │
                │Note: A single asterisk (*) before a    │      │
                │document indicates that the document was│      │
                │received in evidence at the Nurnberg    │      │
                │trial. A double asterisk (**) before a  │      │
                │document number indicates that the      │      │
                │document was referred to during the     │      │
                │trial but was not formally received in  │      │
                │evidence, for the reason given in       │      │
                │parentheses following the description of│      │
                │the document. The USA series number,    │      │
                │given in parentheses following the      │      │
                │description of the document, is the     │      │
                │official exhibit number assigned by the │      │
                │court.                                  │      │
                │                 —————                  │      │
 *699-PS        │Letter from Funk to Hitler, 25 August   │      │
                │1939, reporting on economic affairs. (GB│      │
                │49)                                     │ III  │     509
                │                                        │      │
*1168-PS        │Unsigned Schacht memorandum to Hitler, 3│      │
                │May 1935, concerning the financing of   │      │
                │the armament program. (USA 37)          │ III  │     827
                │                                        │      │
*1301-PS        │File relating to financing of armament  │      │
                │including minutes of conference with    │      │
                │Goering at the Air Ministry, 14 October │      │
                │1938, concerning acceleration of        │      │
                │rearmament. (USA 123)                   │ III  │     868
                │                                        │      │
*2261-PS        │Directive from Blomberg to Supreme      │      │
                │Commanders of Army, Navy and Air Forces,│      │
                │24 June 1935; accompanied by copy of    │      │
                │Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935 and    │      │
                │copy of Decision of Reich Cabinet of 12 │      │
                │May 1935 on the Council for defense of  │      │
                │the Reich. (USA 24)                     │  IV  │     934
                │                                        │      │
*2353-PS        │Extracts from General Thomas’ Basic     │      │
                │Facts for History of German War and     │      │
                │Armament Economy. (USA 35)              │  IV  │    1071
                │                                        │      │
*3787-PS        │Report of the Second Meeting of the     │      │
                │Reich Defense Council, 25 June 1939.    │      │
                │(USA 782)                               │  VI  │     718
                │                                        │      │
*3901-PS        │Letter written November 1932 by Schacht,│      │
                │Krupp and others to the Reich President.│      │
                │(USA 851)                               │  VI  │     796
                │                                        │      │
*D-157          │Letter from Krupp to Hitler, 25 April   │      │
                │1933, with enclosure. (USA 765)         │  VI  │    1063
                │                                        │      │
*D-167          │Memoranda by Sonnenberg and Dr. Conn    │      │
                │concerning exchange of intelligence     │      │
                │involving Krupp works. (USA 766)        │  VI  │    1069
                │                                        │      │
*D-203          │Speech of Hitler to leading members of  │      │
                │industry before the election of March   │      │
                │1933. (USA 767)                         │  VI  │    1080
                │                                        │      │
*D-204          │Statement of Krupp concerning political │      │
                │organization of state and economy, 22   │      │
                │February 1933 (USA 768)                 │  VI  │    1085
                │                                        │      │
*D-206          │Memorandum, 12 October 1939, on         │      │
                │distribution of propaganda abroad       │      │
                │through foreign connections of Krupp    │      │
                │firm. (USA 769)                         │  VI  │    1085
                │                                        │      │
*D-317          │Krupp speech, “Thoughts about the       │      │
                │Industrial Enterpriser”, January 1944.  │      │
                │(USA 770)                               │ VII  │      21
                │                                        │      │
*EC-14          │Speech before the Wehrmacht War College,│      │
                │1 November 1937, by Major-General       │      │
                │Thomas. (USA 758)                       │ VII  │     246
                │                                        │      │
*EC-27          │Address of Major-General Thomas before  │      │
                │the Staff Instructors’ Course, on 28    │      │
                │February 1939 in Saarow-Pieskow. (USA   │      │
                │759)                                    │ VII  │     250
                │                                        │      │
*EC-28          │Lecture of Major-General Thomas         │      │
                │delivered, 24 May 1939, at the Foreign  │      │
                │Office. (USA 760)                       │ VII  │     250
                │                                        │      │
*EC-128         │Report on state of preparations for     │      │
                │war-economic mobilization as of 30      │      │
                │September 1934. (USA 623)               │ VII  │     306
                │                                        │      │
*EC-174         │Summary “war economy” trip to Godesberg │      │
                │undertaken by General Staff between 25  │      │
                │May and 2 June 1937. (USA 761)          │ VII  │     326
                │                                        │      │
*EC-177         │Minutes of second session of Working    │      │
                │Committee of the Reich Defense held on  │      │
                │26 April 1933. (USA 390)                │ VII  │     328
                │                                        │      │
*EC-252         │Letter from Schacht to Blomberg, 8 July │      │
                │1937. (USA 762)                         │ VII  │     346
                │                                        │      │
*EC-257         │Personal letter from Schacht to Thomas, │      │
                │29 December 1937. (USA 763)             │ VII  │     347
                │                                        │      │
*EC-286         │Correspondence between Schacht and      │      │
                │Goering, March-April 1937, concerning   │      │
                │price control. (USA 833)                │ VII  │     380
                │                                        │      │
*EC-293         │Letter from Schacht to Reich and        │      │
                │Prussian Economics Minister, 24 December│      │
                │1935, concerning army demands for raw   │      │
                │material. (USA 834)                     │ VII  │     391
                │                                        │      │
*EC-297-A       │Address in Vienna of the Reichsbank     │      │
                │President, Dr. Schacht, 21 March 1938.  │      │
                │(USA 632)                               │ VII  │     394
                │                                        │      │
*EC-369         │Correspondence between Schacht and      │      │
                │Hitler, January 1939. (USA 631)         │ VII  │     426
                │                                        │      │
*EC-383         │Letter 16 January 1937 with             │      │
                │enclosure—article about Schacht         │      │
                │appearing in the Military weekly        │      │
                │Gazette. (USA 640)                      │ VII  │     436
                │                                        │      │
*EC-397         │Letter from Hitler to Schacht, 19       │      │
                │January 1939. (USA 650)                 │ VII  │     438
                │                                        │      │
*EC-404         │Minutes of conference of Sixth Session  │      │
                │of Working Committee of Reichs Defense  │      │
                │Council, held on 23 and 24 January 1934.│      │
                │(USA 764)                               │ VII  │     443
                │                                        │      │
*EC-405         │Minutes of Tenth Meeting of Working     │      │
                │Committee of Reichs Defense Council, 26 │      │
                │June 1935. (GB 160)                     │ VII  │     450
                │                                        │      │
*EC-408         │Memorandum report about the Four Year   │      │
                │Plan and preparation of the war economy,│      │
                │30 December 1936. (USA 579)             │ VII  │     465
                │                                        │      │
*EC-416         │Minutes of Cabinet Meeting, September   │      │
                │1936. (USA 635)                         │ VII  │     471
                │                                        │      │
*EC-436         │Affidavit of Puhl, 2 November 4 1945.   │      │
                │(USA 620)                               │ VII  │     494
                │                                        │      │
*EC-439         │Affidavit of Schnitzler, 10 November    │      │
                │1945. (USA 618)                         │ VII  │     501
                │                                        │      │
*EC-461         │Extracts from Ambassador Dodd’s Diary,  │      │
                │1933-38. (USA 58)                       │ VII  │     515
                │                                        │      │
 Affidavit J    │Affidavit of Erhard Milch, 23 January   │      │
                │1946.                                   │ VIII │     653
                │                                        │      │
 Chart No. 9    │The Organization of German Business.    │ VIII │     778



                               Chapter IX
                     LAUNCHING OF WARS OF AGGRESSION


                   I. THE PLOTTING OF AGGRESSIVE WAR

The aggressive war phase of the case against the Nazi conspirators is,
in the view of the American prosecution, the heart of the case.
Everything else in this case, however dramatic, however sordid, however
shocking and revolting to the common instinct of civilized peoples, is
incidental or subordinate to, the fact of aggressive war.

All the dramatic story of what went on in Germany in the early phases of
the conspiracy—the ideologies used, the techniques of terror used, the
suppressions of human freedom employed in the seizure of power, and even
the concentration camps and the crimes against humanity, the
persecutions, tortures and murders committed—all these things would
have had little international juridical significance except for the fact
that they were the preparation for the commission of aggressions against
peaceful neighboring peoples. Even the aspects of the case involving
“war crimes” in the strict sense are merely the inevitable, proximate
result of the wars of aggression launched and waged by these
conspirators, and of the kind of warfare they waged. It was total war,
the natural result of the totalitarian party-dominated state that waged
it; it was atrocious war, the natural result of the doctrines, designs
and purposes of the Nazi conspirators.

The substantive rule of law which is controlling on this part of the
case is stated in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military
Tribunal, which, so far as is pertinent here, reads 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, either 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 * * *”

    “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.”

Five important principles are contained in these portions of the
Charter:

(1)  The Charter imposes “individual responsibility” for acts
constituting “crimes against peace”;

(2)  The term “Crimes against peace” embraces planning, preparation,
initiation, or waging of illegal war;

(3)  The term “Crimes against peace” also embraces participation in a
common plan or conspiracy to commit illegal war;

(4)  An illegal war consists of either a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances; (these
two kinds of illegal war might not necessarily be the same; it will be
sufficient for the prosecution to show either that the war was
aggressive irrespective of breach of international treaties, agreements
or assurances, or that the war was in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances irrespective of whether or not it was
a war of aggression; but the American prosecution will undertake to
establish that the wars planned, prepared, initiated, and waged by the
Nazi conspirators were illegal for both reasons);

(5)  Individual criminal responsibility of a defendant is imposed by the
Charter not merely by reasons of direct, immediate participation in the
crime. It is sufficient to show that a defendant was a leader, an
organizer, instigator, or accomplice who participated either in the
formulation or in the execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit
crimes against peace. In this connection, the Charter declares that the
responsibility of conspirators extends not only to their own acts but
also to all acts performed by any persons in execution of the
conspiracy.

It is familiar law in the United States that if two or more persons set
out to rob a bank in accordance with a criminal scheme to that end, and
in the course of carrying out their scheme one of the conspirators
commits the crime of murder, all the participants in the planning and
execution of the bank robbery are guilty of murder, whether or not they
had any other personal participation in the killing. This is a simple
rule of law declared in the Charter. All the parties to a common plan or
conspiracy are the agents of each other and each is responsible as
principal for the acts of all the others as his agents.

The documentary evidence assembled on this aggressive war aspect of the
case will show the following: (1) the conspiratorial nature of the
planning and preparation which underlay the Nazi aggressions already
known to history; (2) the deliberate premeditation which preceded those
acts of aggression; (3) the evil motives which led to the attacks; (4)
the individual participation of named persons in the Nazi conspiracy for
aggression; (5) the deliberate falsification of the pretexts claimed by
the Nazi aggressors as they arose for their criminal activities.

The critical period between the Nazi seizure of power and the initiation
of the first war of aggression was very short. This critical period of
illegal preparation and scheming, which ultimately set the whole world
aflame, covered 6 years, from 1933 to 1939. Crowded into these 6 short
years is the making of tragedy for mankind.

A full understanding of these 6 years, and the 6 years of war that
followed, requires that this period be divided into phases that reflect
the development and execution of the Nazi master plan. These phases may
be said to be six. The first was primarily preparatory, although it did
involve overt acts. That phase covers roughly the period from 1933 to
1936. In that period the Nazi conspirators, having acquired government
control of Germany by the middle of 1933, turned their attention toward
utilization of that control for foreign aggression. Their plan at this
stage was to acquire military strength and political bargaining power to
be used against other nations. In this they succeeded.

The second phase of their aggression was shorter. As the conspiracy
gained strength it gained speed. During each phase the conspirators
succeeded in accomplishing more and more in less and less time until
toward the end of the period, the rate of acceleration of their
conspiratorial movement was enormous. The second phase of their
utilization of control for foreign aggression involved the actual
seizure and absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia, in that order. By
March 1939 they had succeeded in this phase.

The third phase may be measured in months rather than years, from March
to September 1939. The previous aggression being successful and having
been consummated without the necessity of resorting to actual war, the
conspirators had obtained much desired resources and bases and were
ready to undertake further aggressions by means of war, if necessary. By
September 1939 war was upon the world.

The fourth phase of the aggression consisted of expanding the war into a
general European war of aggression. By April 1941 the war which had
theretofore involved Poland, the United Kingdom, and France, had been
expanded by invasions into Scandinavia and into the Low Countries and
into the Balkans.

In the next phase the Nazi conspirators carried the war eastward by
invasion of the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The sixth phase consisted of collaboration with and instigation of their
Pacific ally, Japan, and precipitated the attack on the United States at
Pearl Harbor.

The essential elements of the crime of aggressive war can be made out by
a mere handful of captured German documents. These documents will leave
no reasonable doubt concerning the aggressive character of the Nazi war
or concerning the conspiratorial premeditation of that war. After the
corpus of the crime has been demonstrated in this way, the documentary
evidence will be discussed in subsequent sections, in a more or less
chronological and detailed presentation of the relevant activities of
the conspirators from 1933 to 1941.

Each of the ten documents which will be discussed in this section has
been selected to establish the basic facts concerning a particular phase
of the development of the Nazi conspiracy for aggression. Each document
has met three standards of selection: each is conspiratorial in nature;
each is believed to have been hitherto unknown to history; and each is
self-contained and tells its own story.

A. _1933 to 1936._

The period of 1933 to 1936 was characterized by an orderly, planned
sequence of preparation for war. The essential objective of this period
was the formulation and execution of the plan to rearm and 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 powers to be used against other nations.

A secret speech of Hitler’s delivered to all supreme commanders on 23
November 1939, at 1200 hours, is sufficient to characterize this phase
of the Nazi conspiracy (_789-PS_). The report of the speech was found in
the OKW files captured at Flensberg. Hitler spoke as follows:

    “November 23, 1939, 1200 hours. Conference with the Fuehrer, to
    which all Supreme Commanders are ordered. The Fuehrer gives the
    following speech:

    “The purpose of this conference is to give you an idea of the
    world of my thoughts, which takes charge of me, in the face of
    future events, and to tell you my decisions. The building up of
    our armed forces was only possible in connection with the
    ideological [_weltanschaulich_] education of the German people
    by the Party.

    “When I started my political task in 1919, my strong belief in
    final success was based on a thorough observation of the events
    of the day and the study of the reasons for their occurrence.
    Therefore, I never lost my belief in the midst of setbacks which
    were not spared me during my period of struggle. Providence has
    had the last word and brought me success. On top of that, I had
    a clear recognition of the probable course of historical events,
    and the firm will to make brutal decisions. The first decision
    was in 1919 when I after long internal conflict became a
    politician and took up the struggle against my enemies. That was
    the hardest of all decisions. I had, however, the firm belief
    that I would arrive at my goal. First of all, I desired a new
    system of selection. I wanted to educate a minority which would
    take over the leadership. After 15 years I arrived at my goal,
    after strenuous struggles and many setbacks. When I came to
    power in 1933, a period of the most difficult struggle lay
    behind me. Everything existing before that had collapsed. I had
    to reorganize everything beginning with the mass of the people
    and extending it to the armed forces. First reorganization of
    the interior, abolishment of appearances of decay and defeatist
    ideas, education to heroism. While reorganizing the interior, I
    undertook the second task: to release Germany from its
    international ties. Two particular characteristics are to be
    pointed out: secession from the League of Nations and
    denunciation of the disarmament conference. It was a hard
    decision. The number of prophets who predicted that it would
    lead to the occupation of the Rhineland was large, the number of
    believers was very small. I was supported by the nation, which
    stood firmly behind me, when I carried out my intentions. After
    that the order for rearmament. Here again there were numerous
    prophets who predicted misfortunes, and only a few believers. In
    1935 the introduction of compulsory armed service. After that
    militarization of the Rhineland, again a process believed to be
    impossible at that time. The number of people who put trust in
    me was very small. Then beginning of the fortification of the
    whole country especially in the west.

    “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 partial solution. The
    decision to march into Bohemia was made. Then followed the
    erection of the Protectorate, and with that 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”. (_789-PS_)

There are some curious antitheses of thought in that, speech, as in most
of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. In one sentence he combines guidance by
providence with the making of “brutal decisions.” He constantly speaks
of how very few people were with him, and yet the mass of the German
people were with him. But he does give a brief summary of this early
period: the organization of the mass of the people, the extension of
organization to the armed forces, and the various “brutal decisions”
that were made.

A top secret letter dated 24 June 1935, from General von Blomberg to the
Supreme Commanders of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces demonstrates the
preparations for war in which the Nazi conspirators were engaged during
this period. Attached to that letter is a copy of a Secret Reich Defense
law of 21 May 1935, and a copy of a decision of the Reichcabinet of 21
May 1935 on the Council for the Defense of the Reich (_2261-PS_). These
documents were captured in the OKW files at Fechenheim. Von Blomberg’s
letter reads as follows:

    “In the appendix I transmit one copy each of the law for the
    defense of the Reich of the 21 May 1935, and of a decision of
    the Reich Cabinet of 21 May 1935 concerning the Reich’s Defense
    Council. The publication of the Reich’s defense law is
    temporarily suspended by order of the Fuehrer and Reich
    Chancellor.

    “The Fuehrer and the Reichschancellor has nominated the
    President of the directorate of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht to
    be ‘Plenipotentiary-General for War economy’.

    “I request that the copies of the Reich’s defense law needed
    within the units of the armed forces be ordered before 1 July
    1935 at armed forces office (L) where it is to be established
    with the request that the law should only be distributed down to
    Corps Headquarters outside of the Reichministry of war.

    “I point out the necessity of strictest secrecy once more.”
    (_2261-PS_)

Underneath von Blomberg’s signature is an indorsement, “Berlin, 3
September 1935; No. 1820/35 L Top Secret II a. To Defense-Economic Group
G-3, copy transmitted (signed) Jodl.” (_2261-PS_)

Attached to this letter is the statute referred to as the Reich’s
Defense Law of 21 May 1935, enacted by the Reichscabinet. The law covers
in detail preparations for a state of defense, mobilization, and
appointment of the Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy (Schacht)
with plenipotentiary authority for the economic preparation of the war.
Part III provides for penalties. The law is signed, “The Fuehrer and
Reichschancellor, Adolf Hitler; the Reichsminister of War, von Blomberg;
the Reichsminister of the Interior, Frick.” At the bottom of it there is
this note:

    “Note on the law for the defense of the Reich of 21 May 1935.

    “The publication of the law for the defense of the Reich of 21
    May 1935 will be suspended. The law became effective 21 May
    1935.

    “The Fuehrer and Reichschancellor, Adolf Hitler.” (_2261-PS_)

Thus, although the publication itself stated the law was made public,
and although the law became effective immediately, publication was
suspended by Adolf Hitler.

There was also further attached to von Blomberg’s letter a copy of the
decision of the Reichscabinet of 21 May 1935 on the Council for the
Defense of the Realm. This decree deals largely with organization for
economic preparation for the war. This law of May 1935 was the
cornerstone of war preparations of the Nazi conspirators, and makes
clear the relationship of Schacht to this preparation. (_2261-PS_)

B. _Formulation and Execution of Plans to Invade Austria and
Czechoslovakia._

The next phase of aggression was the formulation and execution of plans
to attack Austria and Czechoslovakia, in that order.

One of the most striking and revealing of all the captured documents
which have come to hand is one which has come to be known as the
Hossbach notes of a conference in the Reichs Chancellery on 5 November
1937 from 1615 to 2030 hours (_386-PS_). In the course of that meeting
Hitler outlined to those present the possibilities and necessities of
expanding their foreign policy, and requested, “That his statements be
looked upon in the case of his death as his last will and testament.”
The recorder of the minutes of this meeting, Colonel Hossbach, was the
Fuehrer’s adjutant. Present at this conspiratorial meeting, among
others, were Erich Raeder, Constantin von Neurath, and Hermann Wilhelm
Goering. The minutes of this meeting reveal a crystalization towards the
end of 1937 in the policy of the Nazi regime (_386-PS_). Austria and
Czechoslovakia were to be acquired by force. They would provide
“_lebensraum_” (living space) and improve Germany’s military position
for further operations. While it is true that actual events unfolded
themselves in a somewhat different manner than that outlined at this
meeting, in essence the purposes stated at the meeting were carried out.
These notes, which destroy any possible doubt concerning the Nazi’s
premeditation of their crimes against peace, read as follows:

    “Berlin, 10 November 1937. Notes on the conference in the
    Reichskanzlei on 5 November 1937 from 1615 to 2030 hours.

    “Present: The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor;

    “The Reichsminister for War, Generalfeldmarschall v. Blomberg;

    “The C-in-C Army, Generaloberst Freiherr v. Fritsch;

    “The C-in-C Navy, Generaladmiral Dr. h.c. Raeder;

    “The C-in-C Luftwaffe, Generaloberst Goering;

    “The Reichsminister for Foreign Affairs, Freiherr v. Neurath;

    “Oberst Hossbach [the adjutant who took the minutes].

    “The Fuehrer stated initially that the subject matter of today’s
    conference was of such high importance, that its detailed
    discussion would certainly in other states take place before the
    Cabinet in full session. However, he, the Fuehrer, had decided
    not to discuss this matter in the larger circle of the Reich
    Cabinet, because of its importance. His subsequent statements
    were the result of detailed deliberations and of the experiences
    of his four and a half years in government; he desired to
    explain to those present his fundamental ideas on the
    possibilities and necessities of expanding our foreign policy
    and in the interests of a far-sighted policy he requested that
    his statements be looked upon in the case of his death as his
    last will and testament.

    “The Fuehrer then stated: The aim of German policy is the
    security and the preservation of the nation and its propagation.
    This is consequently a problem of space. The German nation
    comprises eighty-five million people, which, because of the
    number of individuals and the compactness of habitation form a
    homogeneous European racial body, the like of which can not be
    found in any other country. On the other hand it justifies the
    demand for larger living space more than for any other nation.
    If there have been no political consequences to meet the demands
    of this racial body for living space then that is the result of
    historical development spread over several centuries and should
    this political condition continue to exist, it will represent
    the greatest danger to the preservation of the German nation at
    its present high level. An arrest of the deterioration of the
    German element in Austria and in Czechoslovakia is just as
    little possible as the preservation of the present state in
    Germany itself.

    “Instead of growth, sterility will be introduced, and as a
    consequence, tensions of a social nature will appear after a
    number of years, because political and philosophical ideas are
    of a permanent nature only as long as they are able to produce
    the basis for the realization of the actual claim of existence
    of a nation. The German future is therefore dependent
    exclusively on the solution of the need for living space. Such a
    solution can be sought naturally only for a limited period,
    about one to three generations.

    “Before touching upon the question of solving the need for
    living space, it must be decided whether a solution of the
    German position with a good future can be attained, either by
    way of an autarchy or by way of an increased share in universal
    commerce and industry.

    “Autarchy: Execution will be possible only with strict
    National-Socialist State policy, which is the basis; assuming
    this can be achieved the results are as follows:

    “A. In the sphere of raw materials, only limited, but not total
    autarchy can be attained:

    “1. Wherever coal can be used for the extraction of raw
    materials autarchy is feasible.

    “2. In the case of ores the position is much more difficult.
    Requirements in iron and light metals can be covered by
    ourselves. Copper and tin, however, can not.

    “3. Cellular materials can be covered by ourselves as long as
    sufficient wood supplies exist. A permanent solution is not
    possible.

    “4. Edible fats—possible.

    “B. In the case of foods, the question of an autarchy must be
    answered with a definite NO.

    “The general increase of living standards, compared with thirty
    to forty years ago, brought about a simultaneous increase of the
    demand and an increase of personal consumption even among the
    producers, the farmers, themselves. The proceeds from the
    production increase in agriculture have been used for covering
    the increased demand, therefore they represent no absolute
    increase in production. A further increase in production by
    making greater demands on the soil is not possible because it
    already shows signs of deterioration due to the use of
    artificial fertilizers, and it is therefore certain that, even
    with the greatest possible increase in production, participation
    in the world market could not be avoided.

    “The considerable expenditure of foreign currency to secure food
    by import, even in periods when harvests are good, increases
    catastrophically when the harvest is really poor. The
    possibility of this catastrophe increases correspondingly to the
    increase in population, and the annual 560,000 excess in births
    would bring about an increased consumption in bread, because the
    child is a greater bread eater than the adult.

    “Permanently to counter the difficulties of food supplies by
    lowering the standard of living and by rationing is impossible
    in a continent which had developed an approximately equivalent
    standard of living. As the solving of the unemployment problem
    has brought into effect the complete power of consumption, some
    small corrections in our agricultural home production will be
    possible, but not a wholesale alteration of the standard of food
    consumption. Consequently autarchy becomes impossible,
    specifically in the sphere of food supplies as well as
    generally.

    “Participation in world economy. There are limits to this which
    we are unable to transgress. The market fluctuations would be an
    obstacle to a secure foundation of the German position;
    international commercial agreements do not offer any guarantee
    for practical execution. It must be considered on principle that
    since the World War (1914-18), as industrialization has taken
    place in countries which formerly exported food. We live in a
    period of economic empires, in which the tendency to colonies
    again approaches the condition which originally motivated
    colonization; in Japan and Italy economic motives are the basis
    of their will to expand, and economic need will also drive
    Germany to it. Countries outside the great economic empires have
    special difficulties in expanding economically.

    “The upward tendency, which has been caused in world economy,
    due to armament competition, can never form a permanent basis
    for an economic settlement, and this latter is also hampered by
    the economic disruption caused by Bolshevism. There is a
    pronounced military weakness in those states who base their
    existence on export. As our exports and imports are carried out
    over those sea lanes which are dominated by Britain, it is more
    a question of security of transport than one of foreign
    currency, and this explains the great weakness in our food
    situation in wartime. The only way out, and one which may appear
    imaginary, is the securing of greater living space, an endeavor
    which at all times has been the cause of the formation of states
    and of movements of nations. It is explicable that this tendency
    finds no interest in Geneva and in satisfied states. Should the
    security of our food situation be our foremost thought, then the
    space required for this can only be sought in Europe, but we
    will not copy liberal capitalist policies which rely on
    exploiting colonies. 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. What would be required at a later date over and
    above this must be left to subsequent, generations. The
    development of great worldwide national bodies is naturally a
    slow process and the German people, with its strong racial root
    [Volksstamm] has for this purpose the most favorable foundations
    in the heart of the European Continent. 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.” (_386-PS_)

After this somewhat jumbled discussion of geopolitical economic theory
and of the need for expansion and “_Lebensraum_”, Adolf Hitler, in these
Hossbach notes, posed a question and proceeded to answer it:

    “The question for Germany is where the greatest possible
    conquest could be made at lowest cost.

    “German politics must reckon with its two hateful enemies,
    England and France, to whom a strong German colossus in the
    center of Europe would be intolerable. Both these states would
    oppose a further reinforcement of Germany, both in Europe and
    overseas, and in this opposition they would have the support of
    all parties. Both countries would view the building of German
    military strong points overseas as a threat to their overseas
    communications, as a security measure for German commerce, and
    retrospectively a strengthening of the German position in
    Europe.

    “England is not in a position to cede any of her colonial
    possessions to us owing to the resistance which she experiences
    in the Dominions. After the loss of prestige which England has
    suffered owing to the transfer of Abyssinia to Italian
    ownership, a return of East Africa can no longer be expected.
    Any resistance on England’s part would at best consist in the
    readiness to satisfy our colonial claims by taking away colonies
    which at the present moment are not in British hands, for
    example, Angola. French favors would probably be of the same
    nature.

    “A serious discussion regarding the return of colonies to us
    could be considered only at a time when England is in a state of
    emergency and the German Reich is strong and well armed. The
    Fuehrer does not share the opinion that the Empire is
    unshakeable.

    “Resistance against the Empire is to be found less in conquered
    territories than amongst its competitors. The British Empire and
    the Roman Empire cannot be compared with one another in regard
    to durability; after the Punic Wars the latter did not have a
    serious political enemy. Only the dissolving effects which
    originated in Christendom, and the signs of age which creep into
    all states, made it possible for the Ancient Germans to
    subjugate Ancient Rome.

    “Alongside the British Empire today a number of States exist
    which are stronger than it. The British Mother Country is able
    to defend its colonial possession only allied with other states
    and not by its own power. How could England alone, for example,
    defend Canada against attack by America, or its Far Eastern
    interests against an attack by Japan?

    “The singling out of the British Crown as the bearer of Empire
    unity is in itself an admission that the universal empire cannot
    be maintained permanently by power politics. The following are
    significant pointers in this respect:

    “(a)  Ireland’s struggle for independence.

    “(b)  Constitutional disputes in India where England, by her
    half measures, left the door open for Indians at a later date to
    utilize the non-fulfillment of constitutional promises as a
    weapon against Britain.

    “(c)  The weakening of the British position in the Far East by
    Japan.

    “(d)  The opposition in the Mediterranean to Italy which—by
    virtue of its history, driven by necessity and led by a
    genius—expands its power position and must consequently
    infringe British interests to an increasing extent. The outcome
    of the Abyssinian War is a loss of prestige for Britain which
    Italy is endeavoring to increase by stirring up discontent in
    the Mohammedan World.

    “It must be established in conclusion that the Empire cannot be
    held permanently by power politics by 45 million Britons, in
    spite of all the solidity of her ideals. The proportion of the
    populations in the Empire, compared with that of the Motherland,
    is nine to one, and it should act as a warning to us that if we
    expand in space, we must not allow the level of our population
    to become too low.

    “France’s position is more favorable than that of England. The
    French Empire is better placed geographically, the population of
    its colonial possessions represents a potential military
    increase. But France is faced with difficulties of internal
    politics. At the present time only 10 per cent approximately of
    the nations have parliamentary governments, whereas 90 per cent
    of them have totalitarian governments. Nevertheless, we have to
    take the following into our political consideration as power
    factors:

    “Britain, France, Russia and the adjoining smaller states.

    “The German question can be solved only by way of force, and
    this is never without risk. The battles of Frederick the Great
    for Silesia, and Bismarck’s wars against Austria and France had
    been a tremendous risk and the speed of Prussian action in 1870
    had prevented Austria from participating in the war. 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.

    “Case 1. Period 1943-45: After this we can only expect a change
    for the worse. The rearming of the Army, the Navy and the Air
    Force, as well as the formation of the Officers’ Corps, are
    practically concluded.

    “Our material equipment and armaments are modern; with further
    delay the danger of their becoming out-of-date will increase. In
    particular the secrecy of ‘special weapons’ cannot always be
    safeguarded. Enlistment of reserves would be limited to the
    current recruiting age groups and an addition from older
    untrained groups would be no longer available.

    “In comparison with the rearmament, which will have been carried
    out at the time by other nations, we shall decrease in relative
    power. Should we not act until 1943-45, then, dependent on the
    absence of reserves, any year could bring about the food crisis,
    for the countering of which we do not possess the necessary
    foreign currency. This must be considered as a ‘point of
    weakness in the regime.’ Over and above that, the world will
    anticipate our action and will increase counter-measures yearly.
    Whilst other nations isolate themselves we should be forced on
    the offensive.

    “What the actual position would be in the years 1943-45 no one
    knows today. It is certain, however, that we can wait no longer.

    “On the one side the large armed forces, with the necessity for
    securing their upkeep, the aging of the Nazi movement and of its
    leaders, and on the other side the prospect of a lowering of the
    standard of living and a drop in the birth rate, leaves us no
    other choice but to act. If the Fuehrer is still living, then it
    will be his irrevocable decision to solve the German space
    problem no later than 1943-45. The necessity for action before
    1943-45 will come under consideration in cases 2 and 3.

    “Case 2. Should the social tensions in France lead to an
    internal political crisis of such dimensions that it absorbs the
    French Army and thus renders it incapable for employment in war
    against Germany, then the time for action against Czechoslovakia
    has come.

    “Case 3. It would be equally possible to act against
    Czechoslovakia if France should be so tied up by a war against
    another State that it cannot ‘proceed’ against Germany.

    “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. In the case of a conflict with France it would hardly
    be necessary to assume that Czechoslovakia would declare war on
    the same day as France. However, Czechoslovakia’s desire to
    participate in the war will increase proportionally to the
    degree to which we are being weakened. Its actual participation
    could make itself felt by an attack on Silesia, either towards
    the North or the West.

    “Once Czechoslovakia is conquered—and a mutual frontier,
    Germany-Hungary is obtained—then a neutral attitude by Poland
    in a German-French conflict could more easily be relied upon.
    Our agreements with Poland remain valid only as long as
    Germany’s strength remains unshakeable; should Germany have any
    setbacks then an attack by Poland against East Prussia, perhaps
    also against Pomerania, and Silesia, must be taken into account.

    “Assuming a development of the situation, which would lead to a
    planned attack on our part in the years 1943 to ’45, then the
    behaviour of France, England, Poland and Russia would probably
    have to be judged in the following manner.

    “The Fuehrer believes personally, that in all probability
    England and perhaps also France, have already silently written
    off Czechoslovakia, and that they have got used to the idea that
    this question would one day be cleaned up by Germany. The
    difficulties in the British Empire and the prospect of being
    entangled in another long-drawn-out European War, were decisive
    factors in the nonparticipation of England in a war against
    Germany. The British attitude would certainly not remain without
    influence on France’s attitude. An attack by France, without
    British support, is hardly probable assuming that its offensive
    would stagnate along our Western fortifications. Without
    England’s support, it would also not be necessary to take into
    consideration a march by France through Belgium and Holland, and
    this would also not have to be reckoned with by us in case of a
    conflict with France, as in every case it would have as a
    consequence, the enmity of Great Britain. Naturally we should in
    every case, have to bar our frontier during the operation of our
    attacks against Czechoslovakia and Austria. It must be taken
    into consideration here that Czechoslovakia’s defence measures
    will increase in strength from year to year, and that a
    consolidation of the inside values of the Austrian Army will
    also be effected in the course of years. Although the population
    of Czechoslovakia, in the first place is not a thin one, the
    embodiment of Czechoslovakia and Austria would nevertheless
    constitute the conquest of food for five to six million people,
    on the basis that a compulsory emigration of two million from
    Czechoslovakia, and of one million from Austria could be carried
    out. 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, representing
    a new Division per one million population.

    “No opposition to the removal of Czechoslovakia is expected on
    the part of Italy; however, it cannot be judged today what would
    be her attitude in the Austrian question, since it would depend
    largely on whether the Duce were alive at the time or not.

    “The measure and speed of our action would decide Poland’s
    attitude. Poland will have little inclination to enter the war
    against a victorious Germany, with Russia in the rear.

    “Military participation by Russia must be countered by the speed
    of our operations; it is a question whether this needs to be
    taken into consideration at all, in view of Japan’s attitude.

    “Should Case 2 occur—paralyzation of France by a Civil
    War—then the situation should be utilized _at any time_ for
    operations against Czechoslovakia, as Germany’s most dangerous
    enemy would be eliminated.

    “The Fuehrer sees Case 3 looming near; it could develop from the
    existing tensions in the Mediterranean, and should it occur, he
    has firmly decided to make use of it any time, perhaps even as
    early as 1938.

    “Following recent experiences in the course of events of the war
    in Spain, the Fuehrer does not see an early end to hostilities
    there. Taking into consideration the time required for past
    offensives by Franco, a further three years duration of war is
    within the bounds of possibility. On the other hand, from the
    German point of view, a one hundred per cent victory by Franco
    is not desirable; we are more interested in a continuation of
    the war and preservation of the tensions in the Mediterranean.
    Should Franco be in sole possession of the Spanish Peninsula, it
    would mean the end of Italian intervention and the presence of
    Italy on the Balearic Isles. As our interests are directed
    towards continuing the war in Spain, it must be the task of our
    future policy to strengthen Italy in her fight to hold on to the
    Balearic Isles. However, a solidification of Italian positions
    on the Balearic Isles can not be tolerated either by France or
    by England and could lead to a war by France and England against
    Italy, in which case Spain, if entirely in white [Franco’s]
    hands, could participate on the side of Italy’s enemies. A
    subjugation of Italy in such a war appears very unlikely.
    Additional raw materials could be brought to Italy via Germany.
    The Fuehrer believes that Italy’s military strategy would be to
    remain on the defensive against France on the Western frontier
    and carry out operations against France from Libya, against the
    North African French colonial possessions.

    “As a landing of French-British troops on the Italian coast can
    be discounted, and as a French offensive via the Alps to Upper
    Italy would be extremely difficult, and would probably stagnate
    before the strong Italian fortifications, French lines of
    communication by the Italian fleet will to a great extent
    paralyze the transport of fighting personnel from North Africa
    to France, so that at its frontiers with Italy and Germany,
    France will have, at its disposal, solely the metropolitan
    fighting forces.

    “If Germany profits from this war by disposing of the
    Czechoslovakian and the Austrian questions, the probability must
    be assumed that England—being at war with Italy—would not
    decide to commence operations against Germany. Without British
    support, a warlike action by France against Germany is not to be
    anticipated.

    “The date of our attack on Czechoslovakia and Austria must be
    made independent of the course of the Italian-French-English war
    and would not be simultaneous with the commencement of military
    operations by these three States. The Fuehrer was also not
    thinking of military agreements with Italy, but in complete
    independence and by exploiting this unique favorable
    opportunity, he wishes to begin to carry out operations against
    Czechoslovakia. The attack on Czechoslovakia would have to take