NAZI  CONSPIRACY

AND  AGGRESSION

 

VOLUME  I

 

 

Office of United States

Chief of Counsel For Prosecution

of Axis Criminality

 

 

A Collection of Documentary Evidence and Guide Materials Prepared by the American and British Prosecuting Staffs for presentation before the International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany, in the case of

—against—

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:

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

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

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND
CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL

Article 17. The Tribunal shall have the power

Article 18. The Tribunal shall

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:

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:

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

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.

(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:

3. Aggressive action against Austria and Czechoslovakia

4. Formulation of the plan to attack Poland: preparation and initiation of aggressive war: March, 1939, to September, 1939

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:—

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:

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

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:

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

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—

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

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:

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

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:

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.

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.

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

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]

16 October 1945

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

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.

2nd Ind

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

20 October 1945

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

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.”

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,

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 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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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:

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 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:

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:

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

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—

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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—

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:

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:

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

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,

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.”

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:

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:

and the late

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:

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.:

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

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

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

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:

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.

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:

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

On August 1, 1923 Hitler declared:

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

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:

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

In his Reichstag speech of 20 February 1928 Hitler said:

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

(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:

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:

A similar view was expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf:

In Mein Kampf Hitler threatened war as a means of attaining additional space:

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:

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

This same theme is expressed in the Party Organization Book:

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

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

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

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:

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

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:

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:

(2) The Fuehrerprinzip (Fuehrer Principle).

(a) Essential elements.

As stated in the Organization Book of the Nazi Party:

(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:

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

(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:

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

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:

Frick declared in a similar vein:

Goebbels declared:

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:

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

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:

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:

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:

On 30 April 1928, Goebbels wrote in his paper “Der Angriff”;

Later in the same article he continued:

In a pamphlet published in 1935, Goebbels said:

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

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.

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:

(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:

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:

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 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:

In a speech on 6 July 1933 Hitler stated:

Later in the same speech, Hitler said:

(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:

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

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:

In Mein Kampf Hitler stated the conspirators’ purpose to undermine the Reichstag:

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:

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:

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:

These views were echoed by Rosenberg:

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:

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:

The Reich was given supervision over the municipalities:

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

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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:

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:

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”:

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:

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:

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

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:

In 1934 Heinrich Himmler, the Deputy Leader of the Prussian Secret State Police, stated:

Raymond H. Geist, former American Counsel and First Secretary of the Embassy in Berlin, Germany 1929-1939, has stated:

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:

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,

The conspirators took advantage of this occasion to eliminate many opponents indiscriminately.

In discussing the Roehm purge, the defendant Frick stated:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Referring to the penal code of Nazi Germany, the defendant Frank stated in 1935:

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:

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:

(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 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:

The defendant Goering said in 1934:

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:

Commenting further on the Nazi conspirators’ use of concentration camps to destroy political opposition, Raymond H. Geist stated:

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.

(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

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):

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:

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:

(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:

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DESTRUCTION OF THE FREE TRADE UNIONS AND ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OVER THE PRODUCTIVE LABOR CAPACITY

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:

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:

Gauleiter Florian, in a letter dated 23 September 1940 to the defendant Hess, stated:

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 Party Organization Book states:

(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:

In official correspondence with the defendant Rosenberg in 1940, Bormann stated:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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):

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.

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:

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 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:

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:

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:

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:

(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:

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:

Among the reasons cited for this action were the following:

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:

(g) The Nazi conspirators suppressed religious education. In a speech on 7 March 1937, Rosenberg stated:

In a speech at Fulda, 27 November 1937 Reich Minister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl stated:

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:

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:

(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:

(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:

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.

By Article I of the Concordat,

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:

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,

The Papal Secretary of State continued:

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:

(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):

(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:

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:

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”:

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”:

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:

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SUPPRESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES